news, on corporate globalization: Cracks Are Emerging in the Corporate C

webcast news 
                    print article | email article | news wire | publish |
contact 

                    next article >>

                    Cracks Are Emerging in the Corporate Consensus (english) 
                    by Greg Guma 11:38am Thu Apr 5 '01

                              As the Bush administration flounders over
trade and foreign policy, elite opinion is splitting on
                              the FTAA and the future of corporate
globalization. Meanwhile, the grassroots opposition is
                              getting ready to rock. 

                    The Empire Stumbles toward the FTAA Summit 

                    By Greg Guma 

                    As heads of state prepare for crucial talks on a
proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in mid-April, a
                    mood of muted anxiety is spreading through corporate
and policy-making circles. It's not just the prospect of facing tens
                    of thousands of protesters in Quebec City that worries
free trade boosters, but also growing public skepticism about
                    the impacts of globalization and the mixed messages
being sent by the Bush administration. 

                    Only weeks ago, Bush was promising to introduce
legislation on so-called fast track trading authority prior to the April
                    Summit. By pushing for presidential negotiating
authority, which expired in 1994, the object was to send a strong
                    message about US resolve to shore up support for new
global trade rules. But now the word from Republican leaders in
                    the House and Senate is that they will be lucky if the
proposal even surfaces in Congress by the fall. 

                    Political insiders are increasingly concerned about the
collapse of support for globalization. According to a new NBC
                    News-Wall Street Journal poll, 48 percent of the US
public thinks foreign trade is bad for the economy. In March,
                    columnist David Broder pointed to "near-universal
concern that the hiatus (in negotiating trade deals) has gone on
                    dangerously long." 

                    The state of anxiety emerges clearly in an article by
C. Fred Bergsten in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs.
                    Assistant secretary of the Treasury for international
affairs under President Jimmy Carter, and currently director of the
                    Institute for International Economics, Bergsten bemoans
"the decline of effective US leadership in the global economic
                    system." The danger, he claims, is that failure to
restore domestic support for business-friendly globalization will lead to
                    "intensified regionalism," domestic isolationism, and
commercial clashes with Europe and Asia. 

                    While Bergsten does at least admit that globalization
causes "job and income loss in certain sectors," what worries him
                    is the prospect that other regions will go their own
way. It's a nightmare scenario in which economic conflict sparks
                    security tensions, European military autonomy, an
independent Asian economic bloc, and even a new arms race. "Like
                    a bicycle on a hill," he writes, "the global trading
system tends to slip backwards in the absence of continual progress
                    forward." 

                    In order to regain the high ground, some modest
concessions are being discussed. For example, at a recent
                    conference organized by Bergsten, Brookings Institution
economist Robert Litan proposed that the government cover a
                    portion of the income lost by workers forced into lower
paying jobs for up to two years. The idea is to buy off some of
                    globalization's victims with a temporary safety net. 

                    Another proposal focuses on East Asia, in hopes of
sidetracking the emergence of a new trading bloc, as well as an
                    Asian Monetary Fund (AMF), which could challenge the
"rescue packages" currently controlled by the International
                    Monetary Fund (IMF). The concession here would be more
voting shares for East Asia in the IMF, mostly at the
                    expense of Europe. 

                    There's a problem, however. The Bush administration is
pursuing the FTAA without simultaneously addressing the
                    growing public discontent or forcefully engaging in
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. Instead, it hopes to
                    quickly merge the most ambitious elements of every
existing or proposed global trade and investment scheme into one
                    new, hemispheric document. But this power play could
reinforce the emergence of regional blocs, lead to new disputes,
                    and ultimately undermine US influence. 

                    Lost in all these machinations, of course, are the
human and environmental impacts of corporate globalization. After
                    eight years of "free trade" under the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, Mexico has a
                    poverty rate of 70 percent. Ninety million Central and
South Americans are indigent, and even more have no access to
                    health care. At least 19 million children work in
grotesque conditions. The region's desperate rush to exploit its natural
                    resources has resulted in massive environmental
degradation. The use of pesticides and fertilizers has tripled since
                    1996. All of this can be traced to globalization's key
elements - privatization, public service cuts, and foreign corporate
                    penetration. 

                    With the FTAA, transnational mining, energy, water,
engineering, forestry, and fisheries firms would have even greater
                    access to the resources of every country -- and the
right to challenge any government that tried to limit it. The ability to
                    protect the environment or set standards for the
extraction of natural resources would be further reduced, along with the
                    ability to demand local jobs based on the activities of
foreign corporations. 

                    This week, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick got
a glimpse of the reaction as he visited Argentina for FTAA
                    talks. In response to a new IMF-inspired austerity
program and the FTAA, Argentinian unions greeted the trade
                    ministers with large protests and harsh criticisms.
Resistance is also growing in Uruguay, Bolivia, and Brazil. 

                    Meanwhile, across the US and Canada, thousands of
protesters are gearing up for a Seattle-style showdown in
                    Quebec City, which will become a virtual police state
to insulate the FTAA negotiators. Although the US administration
                    and trade policy wonks downplay the situation, they
know that another embarrassment could be fatal to their plans. The
                    strategy, as usual, is to scare the public into
submission with predictions about recession, increased unemployment,
                    even larger trade deficits, and all manner of global
chaos unless they get their way. 

                    Fortunately, most people aren't buying it. As the Bush
administration stumbles between resurgent trade nationalism and
                    corporate internationalism, a different sort of
consensus is developing. So-called free trade may be a safe bet for big
                    business, but it's also a dangerous give away,
artificially sweetened with false promises, for almost everyone else. 

                    About the Author: Greg Guma is the Editor of Toward
Freedom, a progressive world affairs magazine, author of The
                    People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution,
and co-author of Passport to Freedom: A Guide for World
                    Citizens. 

                    www.TowardFreedom.com