The globalization of a movement

Humanist, Nov-Dec, 2001 by Andrew Hartman

To terrorists and their sympathizers worldwide, the World Trade Center symbolized the global nature of corporate money and power--a seemingly neverending expansion of capitalism, siphoning funds and resources from people everywhere and fostering gaps in wealth the likes of which the world has never before seen. The Pentagon symbolizes the U.S. military's protection and enforcement of this global system. Because much of the resulting poverty and suffering exist in the Muslim world, Osama bin Laden has had less difficulty recruiting his minions. The resultant widespread discontent fuels terrorism--a reality brought home to the developed world on September 11, 2001.

Fortunately, there is another movement growing alongside those of global capitalism and terrorism. This movement--the anti-global-capitalism movement that awakened in Seattle in November 1999--unlike violent terrorism, shouldn't be viewed as a threat to the majority of the global village. Rather, this rapid mobilization should be welcomed and encouraged. For the ultimate threat to humanity is economic globalism.

Today's globalism and its core manifestation--the multinational corporation--don't think and act in terms of human consequences. This globalism has bullied and seeped its way into every nook of humanity, and the results are scary: loss of democracy, human rights violations, rapid environmental degradation, expanding inequality. The anti-global-capitalism movement isn't afraid of globalization (it is itself a global phenomenon); rather, it fears globalization as designated according to the imperialistic goals of a few rich people. The aim of the growing unrest--from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to Quebec City to Genoa and beyond--is to shift the focus of globalization to benefit all of humanity.

New World Order = Old World Order

The brand of globalization being pursued by the financial and trade institutions (Inter national Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization) that has become the target of mass protest continues a centuries-old trend of colonialism in the developing world that supposedly ended in the twentieth century. When oppressed natives forced European countries, depleted by the devastation of two world wars, out of their colonies across the globe, it signaled the end of outdated human rights abuses such as slavery, theft of resources, and genocide. The Old World Order gave way to the New World Order.

Unfortunately, the greed that was the impetus of brutal imperialism never left us. Thanks to decisions made by the financial elite behind closed doors, the New World Order mirrors the cycle of the Old World Order. Forced labor has given way to sweatshop labor. Military uniforms have been replaced (usually) by fancy Italian suits and cell phones. Resource extraction has expanded, as the conquistadors' search for gold today includes oil, timber, rubber, and even fresh water. Instead of the churches of yesterday's brand of imperialism, now McDonald's and Starbucks assimilate the savages. Genocide persists as indigenous peoples across the globe fight to survive. In an even more troubling trend, inequality is reaching heights never achieved during the Old World Order.

Don't Believe the Elite

In order to understand the movement, it's necessary to decode "elite speak." The so-called experts in the mainstream media, representing the ultra-elite five corporations that own the national media in the United States, have yet to generate critical analysis of the movement surrounding these huge protests. The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, in typical fashion, dismissed an issue, which sparked fire in the bellies of millions, when he wrote, "To be against globalization is to be against so many things--from cell phones to trade to Big Macs--that it connotes nothing." What he was really saying is: "Don't mess with a good thing. Myself, my friends, my coworkers, and especially my bosses profit tremendously from the current system."

We must also ignore the "wisdom" of our so-called elected leaders. During every meeting of world leaders, behind huge police barricades, George W. Bush (or Bill Clinton) addressed the media with these words, "To be against free trade is to be against poor people." The elite British publication the Economist continually echoes these sentiments. In an issue last year dedicated to globalization, it concluded that the worst scenario for the world's poor would be if the protesters had their way and the process of corporate-controlled globalization was stopped. Due to the United States' lack of access to independent voices in this prolonged era of media consolidation, it is no wonder most Americans don't understand the movement. And yet it continues to grow.

The Washington Consensus

The United States is the sole superpower in the world and thus enjoys undue influence on the global village's economic and political aspirations. This influence has a name: the Washington Consensus. Washington, D.C., has the necessary tools at its disposal to ensure that policies will be in place worldwide to benefit the interests of its constituents. Anyone familiar with the role of money in U.S. politics understands that the constituents of our political system aren't average, ordinary citizens. The United States government primarily works for corporate interests. Primary shareholders and CEOs have the ear of almost all national politicians and the economists of the international financial institutions.