Globalization And Its Discontents

The present, increasingly raw and visible conflict is not a new thing. Rather it is the culmination of a struggle that began at least with the Enclosure Movement in England. Fields, meadows, and pasture lands held in common were “enclosed” (in that centuries-long Movement) on behalf of private use and enrichment. The process began before the Industrial Revolution and was completed in the nineteenth century. Building (with the U.S.A. especially) on the Slave Trade and the erasure or subjugation of native peoples, the British class that arose out of “privatization” of lands moved on to gain control of the world markets that the concentration of wealth made possible. Britannia “ruled the waves”- the trade lanes of the globe. Slowly, the U.S. edged Britain over. The U.S. is now “policeman of the world”, using its billy-stick on any country that defies “the U.S. Way of Life” – neo-liberal, free market, military-assisted control of global trade and raw materials. That’s why Tony Blair goes proudly to Washington to consult with George Bush on the division of global spoils: the old and the new empires consult. The forces of globalization are among the most powerful in the world. They must not be underestimated. Almost all large corporations, U.S. imperial might, governments serving U.S. and corporate interests, and most so-called “international” military and trade organizations are partners in Globalization. They try to mystify its real meaning. Increasingly, though, the truth is becoming known. Globalization won’t go away, however, despite what optimists – people like John Ralston Saul and labour economist Jim Stanford – have to say about its demise. The power and the iron grip of globalizationist forces may mean, in fact, that only war and revolution will be able to break those forces and to free the world from their curse Characteristically, the move to globalization is said by many commentators to have begun with the fall (heralding the rapid disintegration of the Soviet empire) of the Berlin wall in the late 1980s. That series of events was said – to put the matter briefly – to clear away former major global differences of political philosophy and to open the world to a set of values that would allow peace, harmony, and constructive use of global wealth and the world’s populations. Even, however, as the theory was being uttered, it was based upon illusion and fantasy. As we know now, the U.S. sent in Harvard University economists to advise “shock therapy” for the Russian economy. Shock therapy proved to mean wresting economic wealth and expertise from the Russian state and people and passing them – by every unsavoury means – to private entrepreneurs who were so greedy Russian tax revenues stagnated, white collar and other crime became the way of life, ordinary Russians struggled to find food and shelter, and a class of the newly-minted super rich cornered excessive privilege and power. Rather than being a contradiction in the movement to Globalization, the Russian experience was, in fact, Globalization moving in on a Command Economy – however inefficient – in which ordinary people were an integral part of national definition and national wealth. For Globalization to take firm hold, the Russian people had to be separated from the economy except as contributors to the wealth of the super rich. That is what Globalization is: the cornering of economic power by self-appointed elite groups who cooperate internationally, create various kinds of tribunals to serve their own ends, declare those tribunals “international”, undermine the power of all other groups, and impose upon a larger and larger portion of the globe a system which is declared to have been created for the general good but which, demonstrably, is not. There are, at present, cracks in the solid front of the Globalizers. Time alone will tell what those cracks mean. Leaping to conclusions, John Ralston Saul – first in a long article in the U.S. Harper’s Magazine, and more recently in a new book, The Collapse of Globalization, argues we are witnessing (to quote Jim Stanford) “the end of globalization”. (Globe and Mail, June 6 05 A13). John Ralston Saul is the husband of Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. One can imagine him working on the book in Government House in Ottawa, a uniformed servant quietly bringing him sherry on a small silver tray. Saul, we imagine, looks out the window onto the spacious vice-regal grounds. Earlier, his wife had travelled to Halifax to cheer on the Canadian soldiers leaving for Afghanistan. They were going to help keep order in that distant country so the U.S. could solidify its area of market, trade, military, and political control: Globalization. Now Saul sees, we imagine, his wife leaving again for Afghanistan, probably to remind the troops they are defending “our way of life”. Over drinks that evening, at a public reception where he is standing in for the GG, we imagine he will hear John Manley – to snorts of approval from the Stephen Harper conservatives and a number of Liberal cabinet ministers – speak of the need (corporations have) for Canada’s “deep integration” with the U.S.A. Saul, we imagine, returns to Government house, sits down for a short time at his word processor, confirmed in his certainty that he is witnessing “the end of globalization”. Cracks there are in the smooth façade of Globalization, and they arise from the huge contradictions present in it. That much is true. To begin, Globalization, in its present form, is U.S. led and U.S. shaped. Since it means, in short, U.S. control and supervision of market economy governments wherever possible, it not only relates to U.S. individualism, U.S. militarism, and U.S. chauvinism, but it also fundamentally is intended to serve U.S. corporate and political interests before all others. For that reason, the cracks are opening. If the U.S. genuinely wanted the free flow of goods and ideas, a relative equalization of living standards and opportunity as well as global concern for the needs and aspirations of peoples, there would be glitches certainly. But a feeling of good faith and possibility would be felt in the world. There is no such feeling. Instead, fear and suspicion of the U.S.A. grow while its so-called “international” front organizations: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and others, lose credibility daily. NATO is recognized as a simple military instrument of U.S. policy. No longer a “North Atlantic” organization, NATO has broadened its scope to be a fighting force wherever “western” (read U.S.) interests are interpreted to be threatened. The most widely publicized cracks, as already stated, have been caused by the French and Dutch rejection of the proposed new (neo-liberal) constitution for the European Union and the Tony Blair cancellation of the U.K. referendum on the issue. Less noticeably perhaps, but equally as important is the strength of the Venezuelan (Hugo Chavez) rejection of U.S. domination and the insistence that oil revenues there must be shared by the people. In Venezuela U.S. representatives were caught celebrating the four-day Rightest coup that began by dissolving the Venezuelan Parliament and the Supreme court before Chavez returned, carried by the overwhelming support of Venezuelans. If the U.S. had arguing power with the Venezuelan masses before the four-day coup, it lost all credibility by endorsing the brief rape of Venezuelan democracy and fundamental rights. Perhaps catching the Venezuelan hope, Bolivians have occupied seven foreign-owned oil fields in Bolivia. They demand nationalization of oil and a greater share of power for Bolivia’s native people. Nationalization would mean the U.S. and corporate globalizers would be unable to determine the quality of life for Bolivians. Though the road is bumpy, South American countries, moreover, are forging an internal free trade area, against the wishes of the U.S.A. Cracks are appearing. China has decided to sue the U.S. in the World Trade Organization because of U.S. restrictions on Chinese textile imports. That could be a joke. But it’s a very serious statement about the apparent breakdown of governmental and corporate solidarity as Globalization expands. The general move since the end of Second World War to erasure of tariffs and non-tariff barriers and to the opening of countries to foreign investment has, up to now, overwhelmingly benefitted the U.S.A. At the same time, the U.S.A. has persistently broken the rules of trade agreements, treaties, and contracts, using its naked power. As a result, Europe broke ranks recently and began retaliating because of U.S protection of its steel industry. Canada – persistently cheated on a number of fronts, especially on softwood lumber, has forced – through a free Trade panel – the U.S. to provide justification for its phony high tariff regime on Canadian wheat. What those moves against the U.S. mean is that the plainly U.S.-centred, imperialist intention of Globalization structure is becoming evident – and intolerable – to more and more countries. “Optimists” like Lawrence Martin, see a Canada that is beginning to wriggle away from the U.S. embrace. (Globe and Mail, June 9 05 A17). Martin cites China as one cause. Not only is it challenging the U.S. on the large front. It is also providing a market for Canadian exports. Martin cites also the dangerous state of U.S. finances, suggesting Canada should steer clear. He believes as well that North American market integration is becoming less and less popular in Canada. Perhaps. Martin becomes positively lyrical about the chances for Canada as the Discontents of Globalization grow. He is worth quoting: “So we could be entering a watershed period, when Canada’s overwhelming dependency on American trade begins to recede and greater degrees of separation characterize other areas of the bilateral relationship. This would mark a new chapter in our development, one in which we could shed remaining vestiges of the client state mentality, become a more independent actor and, out of economic necessity, pursue new markets and a northern vision.” In such a world Canada has new chances of independence. Martin observes that “signs of a return to nationalism elsewhere” outside of the U.S., “will have an impact on Canada”. In Canada, “nationalism” is always present, often underground because usually repressed by corporations, U.S. propaganda, a toadying media, and governments fearful Canadians might begin acting like Venezuelans or Bolivians. But the largely submerged sense –among a large portion of Canadians – that we should throw off our role as “hewers of wood and drawers of oil” for the U.S., may, indeed, break through again. It did in the 1960s after the Centennial celebration and it took more than fifteen years of work by the continentalists to stifle the push for Canadian independence. Next time, the discontents arising from Globalization may give Canadian demands for self-respect and sovereignty a more lasting life. Those demands are beginning to be heard already. But all must be seen in terms of the power of empires. Even though history has been speeding up, the likelihood of the U.S.A. collapsing its imperial role and adopting a balanced and wise policy in the world anytime soon is hard to imagine. That’s why I wrote near the beginning that maybe only war and revolution can break the grip of Globalization on the world. Let us pray I am wrong. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 22, 2005]