These days, any official organization with the word"International," "World," or "Global" in its title has to worry about where itmeets, check in with the riot police, and pray for rain. Washington is alreadygirding itself for the International Monetary Fund's next gathering.
Global protesters haven't communicated clearly to the rest of the worldexactly what they're against. As a result, the protests are seen by many as partof a growing revulsion toward globalization in general.
George W. Bush, meanwhile, is mounting his own protest againstglobalization--trashing the Kyoto treaty on climate change, junking theAnti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, indefinitely deferring Senate ratification of the1996 nuclear test-ban treaty and the 1993 nuclear weapons-reduction treaty,diluting a United Nations agreement to reduce illegal trafficking of small arms,and taking a decidedly low profile in Israel and other settings of ethnicviolence.
Since the United States is the biggest and strongest country, Bush figures, whyshould we be constrained in any way? He tells Russian President Vladimir Putinthat he's happy to negotiate an end to the ABM treaty as long as the Russiansagree with us. The State Department dubs this sort of America-first unilateralism"à la carte multilateralism"--we choose, and other nations agree.
Superficially, there's an eerie overlapping of the antiglobal forces inside andoutside the White House. Some of the troops on the street appear to share Bush'sdisdain for international entanglements and institutions of whatever kind. Sodoes the Republican Party's small-town Main Street wing--which doesn't trust WallStreet, doesn't particularly like global corporations, and doesn't want to mixwith too many foreigners.
After World War II, U.S. foreign policy was shaped by a coalition of bigcorporations and fierce anticommunists that wanted America to play an assertiverole in the world. These folks were behind the creation of the World Bank,International Monetary Fund, United Nations, General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They fought global communism, madethe world safe for U.S. companies, propped up right-wing dictatorships, andenhanced living standards in many parts of the world. Even the AFL-CIO of thatera spent more energy berating communism and encouraging free-trade unions abroadthan it did organizing here at home.
But global communism is no longer a threat, and the large corporations thatspread American capitalism have morphed into global behemoths that have nospecial affiliation with the United States other than their mailing address. Oneof America's "big three" automakers is German, and the fourth-largest isJapanese. Global capital sloshes wherever the return is highest. In economicterms, it's harder than ever to tell who "us" is.
So no one should be surprised that the Republican isolationists are back onthe ascent and the White House is preaching America-first unilateralism. But theleft mustn't side with them--or even appear to do so. Instead of being opposed toglobalization, progressives should pressure the world's wealthiest nations intosharing the benefits. While the global economy has grown at an average rate of 2.3percent a year during the past three decades, the gap between the best-off andworst-off countries (as measured in per capita gross national product) is 10times wider now than it was 30 years ago. And with poverty comes disease--AIDSalready has claimed the lives of 10 million Africans and is projected to kill 25million more over the next decade--as well as the continued destruction of theglobal environment.
Rather than advocate for less trade, progressives should seek toremove barriers that make it difficult for poorer countries to export to richerones. That means fewer subsidies to farmers in advanced nations, combined withlower tariffs on farm products from the third world and fewer barriers (including"voluntary restraint agreements") to textile and steel imports from poor nations.
Instead of seeking less global investment, we should demand that moreof it--especially in manufacturing plants and equipment--be directed towardcountries that need help. And by international agreement, capital flight should beprevented or slowed by means of a small transaction tax.
Rather than try to weaken international institutions, we should push them in adifferent direction. We need a World Bank that coordinates real debt relief forthird-world nations; an IMF that conditions loans on investments in education andstrong social safety nets rather than on fiscal austerity; a global patent officethat forces drug manufacturers to slash prices on pharmaceuticals needed by poornations; a global health institution capable of attacking AIDS and cracking downon the trafficking of women and children for prostitution; a world environmentalagency that imposes strict emissions rules; and an international peacekeepingforce that responds immediately to tribal genocide.
This is no time to retreat from globalization. The left should visibly andvocally engage in the world on behalf of a more vigorous and humane system ofinternational governance.
