“Globalization”
and Its Malcontents
by
Norman Solomon
Dissident Voice
February 20, 2003
One
of the big media buzzwords to emerge in recent years is
"globalization." By now, we're likely to know what it means. That's
unfortunate -- because at this point the word is so ambiguous that it doesn't
really mean much of anything.
News outlets have reported
that key international pacts like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization gained
U.S. approval during the 1990s because most politicians in Washington favor
"globalization." According to conventional media wisdom, those
globalizers want to promote unfettered communication and joint endeavors across
national boundaries.
Well, not quite. These days,
at the White House and on Capitol Hill, the same boosters of
"globalization" are upset about certain types of global action --
such as the current grassroots movement against a war on Iraq.
For the most part, the same
elected officials and media commentators who have applauded money-driven
globalization are now appalled by the sight of anti-war globalization. The
recent spectacle of millions of people demonstrating against war on the same
day around the world was enough to cause apoplexy at the White House.
That's consistent with a
recurring pattern: "Pro-globalization" forces are unhappy to see the
globalizing of solidarity for labor rights, economic justice, the environment
and alternatives to war.
A similar contradiction
belies the media image of "anti-globalization" activists as foes of
internationalism who want to rigidify national boundaries, reinforce isolation
and prevent worldwide interactions. On the contrary, advocates for human
rights, environmental protection and peace -- while largely opposing global
superstructures like NAFTA and the WTO -- have been busily creating ways to
work with like-minded people all over the planet.
The form of
"globalization" deemed worthy of the name by media is corporate
globalization, which gives massive capital even more momentum to flatten
borders and run roughshod over national laws. Deluging every country with
Nikes, Burger Kings and ATMs is presumptively indicative of progress, no matter
how bad the working conditions, how unhealthy the products or how unjust the
economic consequences. Meanwhile, fans of "globalization" routinely
contend that protection of labor rights or the
environment amounts to
unfair restraint of trade, retrograde protectionism and antiquated resistance
to "reforms."
By itself, "globalization"
is much too simplistic a word to tell us anything. The term is so murky that we
may need to discard it, or at least develop some new phrases to bring realities
into focus.
Today, the war-crazed Bush
administration and the bipartisan majority of enablers in Congress are fervent
proponents of what might be called "isolationist intervention." Sure,
the present-day American leaders proclaim their global vision and declare that
they want to engage with the world, but on their own terms -- with the U.S. government
reserving the right to
determine its policies in isolation from any nation that fails to offer
subservient support. With hefty corporate backing, they insist that the United
States has the right to intervene militarily overseas. Why? Because they say
so.
The gist of this approach to
"globalization" was well expressed by the glib pundit Thomas
Friedman, whose 1999 book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" lauded the
tandem roles of corporate capitalism and American militarism. "The hidden
hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist," he wrote.
"McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the
U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon
Valley's technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and
Marine Corps."
This veiled hand-and-fist
stance is being actively rejected by millions of people marching through cities
in many parts of the world. And the leaders of numerous countries are giving
voice to that rejection. Speaking to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 18,
Malaysia's prime minister Mahathir Mohamed -- the incoming chair of the
Non-Aligned Movement -- combined realism with idealism. "We have no
military or financial strength," he said, "but we can join the world
movement to oppose war on moral grounds."
The globalization of that
movement is something to behold. And nurture.
Norman
Solomon is Executive Director
of the Institute for Public Accuracy (www.accuracy.org)
and a syndicated columnist. His latest book is Target Iraq: What the News Media
Didn’t Tell You (Context Books, 2003) with Reese Erlich. Email: mediabeat@igc.org
*
Video of the recent C-SPAN "Washington Journal" one-hour interview
with
Norman
Solomon will remain online until about Feb. 22 at:
http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/jdrive/wj020703_solomon.rm
"Target
Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You," by Norman Solomon and Reese
Erlich, has just been published as a paperback original by Context Books. The
introduction is by Howard Zinn and the afterword is by Sean Penn. For the
prologue to the book and other information, go to:
http://www.contextbooks.com/newF.html