Re: ANTI-GLOBALISATION MOVEMENT A MISNOMER?

Dear Mark,

Your observations are very interesting and important.

And they support our different choice of wording:
' The new worldwide resistance movement ' :

____________________________________________________

  MOBILIZE  GLOBALLY !  (MG!)

  Reiforce, expand and coordinate the new worldwide resistance
  movement !

  Join the worldwide campaign for transfer of the economic and
  political power from the corporations, their mass media
  monopoly and their governments, to the peoples !

  To demonstrate your support of all of the various endevours
  to achieve this, simply insert a permanent (MG!) behind your
  name or organisation in the heading of your e-mails, etc.

  Add this footnote to your messages.
____________________________________________________


Kind regards, Ole

Ole Fjord Larsen
Secretary, The United Peoples
http://www.unitedpeoples.net

The endorsers of the campaign include

Centro de Comunicaci—n y Desarrollo Andino (MG!)
(CENDA)

Ecoropa (MG!)
http://www.ecoropa.org

Ecoterra Intl. (MG!)
http://www.ecoterra.net

Indian Confederation of Indigenous and
Tribal People, ICITP (MG!)

Indigenous Movement (MG!)

Indigenous People's Unification Movement (MG!)

Insaaf International (MG!)
http://www.geocities.com/insaafin

Jubilee 2000 NY (MG!)
http://www.j2000usa.org

Project Censored (MG!)
http://www.projectcensored.org

Quantum Leap 2000 (MG!)
/www.quantumleap2000.org

The Foundation for Ethics and Meaning (MG!)
http://www.meaning.org

The United Peoples (MG!)
http://www.unitedpeoples.net




beavism@wva.org.au wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A brief survey of letters to the editor in this week's Australian
> newspapers on issues around globalisation, the World Economic Forum (WEF) &
> S-11 action provide interesting insights into the (Australian) public
> psyche & the values people hold.
>
> Rather than being members of the widely assumed 'lunatic fringe', many
> people voicing their concerns about the (negative) effects of globalisation
> are pretty straight: they comprise young & retired professionals, mums with
> young children, pensioners & 'the average punter' (see the article on p.5
> in The Australian, Thursday September 7 2000, for example).
>
> These people say they are concerned about corporate behaviour, ethics &
> influence; the increasing marketisation of people & society; government
> focus on economic policy at the expense of environmental & social policy;
> the gaps between rich & poor; human rights, equity & dignity.
>
> The really interesting thing is that these people are NOT against
> globalisation at all: some say that 'many aspects of globalisation are OK'
> (such as economic growth & more liberalised trade); that they are NOT about
> 'the rollback of globalisation'.
>
> People are participating in the protest because they feel it's the only way
> of effectively expressing their concern: they feel isolated from
> government, powerless in the face of corporate interests & are cynical
> about the democratic process.  As one letter-writer states: 'Were the world
> leaders of WEF elected democratically, the people planning to protest would
> happily turn up at the ballot box to express their concern for the
> environment & social justice in an economic context'.
>
> Thus, the term 'anti-globalisation' is perhaps a misnomer.
>
> Can others on the list please respond & let me know if these observations
> 'ring true' about participants in earlier protests at Seattle, Washington,
> etc.?  I would be keen to see any similar analyses or anecdotal evidence
> along these lines.
>
> Kind Regards, Mark.
> ------------------------------
> Mark Beavis
> The IR Theory Web Site
> E-MAIL: beavism@wva.org.au
> PHONE: +613 9287 2442
> FAX: +613 9287 2315
> WEB: www.irtheory.com/markbeavis/