|
Globalization: Fix It or Nix It?
Many reasons account for the failure to launch a new round of trade negotiations at the WTO Seattle Ministerial. Social activists and union organizations are feeling their oats, claiming a significant victory. However, it remains unclear how the disparate organizations that appeared to unite in Seattle will follow up on those events. No matter what happens, the WTO proceedings will weigh on the FTAA and subregional or bilateral trade negotiations in the Americas. The political fall-out from the civil society show of force at Seattle must be carefully considered. Civil Society: Participation, Reform or Anti-Globalization At last year’s meeting of the World Economic Forum, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annon warned about the dangers of a “backlash” against globalization and trade liberalization. At this year’s meeting, from January 27 to February 1, the anti-WTO demonstrators were literally at the gates. Yet, the WTO’s critics are far from unanimous. The cry for reform has distinct currents evident in the past and current debates on economic integration policies. In general, the various approaches can be differentiated as “fix it or nix it.” The differences revolve around the question: Should compliance with non-trade issues, such as workers’ rights and the environment, be “entrusted” to the care of international financial and commercial institutions and be included in the commercial negotiations? The Alliance for Responsible Trade Many NGOs in the Americas continue to influence their governments and attempt to participate in the trade negotiation process. An important group of NGOs in the United States participates with the AFL-CIO in the Continental Social Alliance (see Bruce A. Jay, “FTAA and Civil Society: Did Toronto Trade Talks Advance Participation?” elsewhere on this website). The Alliance for Responsible Trade (ART) recently sent out a call to expand its membership, especially outside the Beltway, using a proactive educational campaign based on the Continental Social Alliance’s “living document,” Alternatives for the Americas. This 50-page platform was developed collaboratively by international activists and scholars and sponsored by five citizen networks from four countries. (More information about it and the ART is available through the Development Group for Alternative Policy’s website, www.igc.org/dgap). What sets these groups apart from those who would “nix” the WTO or FTAA trade negotiations is the following phrase: “The commitment to apply and respect basic workers’ rights should be included in any hemispheric agreement as an obligatory requirement for membership in the accord” (Alternatives for the Americas, p. 19). This is the “social clause,” or workers’ rights conditionality, that many of the “nixers” reject. For more on trade and the social clause see the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) website, www.icftu.org. Critics of Engagement Over the years, Ralph Nader’s Global Trade Watch (www.tradewatch.org ) group has taken the more strident, anti-globalization approach. This group’s representatives—especially its director, Lori Wallach—were at the forefront of the demonstrations in Seattle and have participated in many mainstream events analyzing the failure of the WTO meeting. (Ms. Wallach’s next appearance, at a New America Foundation Workshop in Washington, D.C., will be highlighted in future commentary on this site). The Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org), an NGO headquartered on the West Coast, holds equal or stronger views, rejecting the role of international financial institutions (IFIs) and the WTO as part of the fight against transnational corporate power. This organization is associated with the Third World Network (TWN), a group headquartered in Malaysia (see http://twnside.org.sg/). The TWN opposes cooperation with international bodies on the grounds that IFIs such as the IMF are supranational policeman for transnational capital. TWN Director Martin Khor participated in a key plenary session panel of the World Economic Forum concerning trade and the WTO (see reporting on Davos at www.weforum.org.) All of the above NGOs have been critical of the AFL-CIO and the international labor movement represented by the ICFTU, which seek continued engagement in the trade negotiations through their social clause campaigns. The “nixers” reject such involvement, arguing that it legitimizes IFIs that are undermining the nation-state and the chances for national development in the Third World. In the years proceeding Seattle, these “rejectionists” were not considered part of the mainstream of union/NGO activity. After Seattle, that assessment has changed...radically. Today the question is, how much more influence will they attain? In his remarks to the World Economics Forum, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney summed up the situation, urging participants to “understand the message of Seattle. It wasn’t an isolationist rejection of open markets; it was a call for new global rules. Workers North and South marched together. And the many different voices made one clear statement: the current course cannot be sustained; fundamental reform is needed.” |