< < <
Date Index > > > |
FW: Anti-Globalists - Legitimacy by Sabri Oncu 09 February 2002 01:21 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
I pay for lots of junk I receive from Stratfor but every now and then one comes across a few interesting ones. I thought this one may be of interest to my sociologist friends. Moreover, it is legally forwardable. As far as I know, or was told, these people are some former/retired American intelligent agents. Below is what they think about the so-called anti-globalization movement, or so they pretend. Sabri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anti-Globalists Make a Play for Legitimacy Summary The latest World Social Forum indicates that the anti- globalization movement is attempting to address two fundamental weaknesses -- a lack of legitimacy and a lack of organization. Though the disparate groups are unlikely to ever forge a unified coalition that can challenge the global power brokers, pushing their agenda through established, mainstream organizations like the United Nations could allow them to affect policy on local and national levels. Analysis An anti-globalization group known as the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) released several recommendations for restructuring the global economy Feb. 2 at the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre, Brazil. The recommendations range from limiting corporate power to folding a wide range of new responsibilities and regulatory powers into the United Nations. The substance of this and other proposals coming out of Porto Alegre is less significant than the fact that the anti- globalization movement is clearly seeking to move beyond its radical, protest-driven roots to develop a concrete agenda. WSF organizers and many of its participants are focused on bringing the anti-globalization agenda into the mainstream. Part of this strategy will include using more mainstream groups and organizations, like the U.N., as a platform for their agenda. The WSF -- which brings together a number of activist groups, including the IFG -- will never operate from a position of global power and therefore will not bring about major changes in global policies and organizations. However, by working its agenda through established organizations, the diverse members of the anti-globalization movement may be able to gain more leverage at the local and national level. At the same time, groups could find themselves in unusual partnerships against a common enemy: the United States. The history of the anti-globalization movement -- which comprises non-governmental organizations, leftist politicians, advocates and protesters -- has actually worked against it. The movement is still saddled with images of anarchists trashing Starbucks at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and agro- protestors burning genetically modified corn in a Brazilian field owned by Mansanto last year at the first WSF summit. The prevailing view in many circles is that WSF participants are largely angry contrarians and malcontents who lack serious alternatives to the status quo, so they are disregarded. WSF organizers and participants are now attempting to address two fundamental weaknesses: a lack of legitimacy -- which is closely tied to its public image problems -- and a lack of organization. While media coverage of the 1999 WTO meeting and last year's WSF summit focused primarily on the protests, most reports from Porto Alegre this year point to a more substantive agenda, one full of serious debate on issues and viable alternatives to the status quo. Headlines like "More Focus on Policy than Protest" from the Associated Press and "Serious Ideas Behind the Theatrics" in the Financial Times represent serious victories for the WSF. The message now being delivered is that anti-globalists are not all completely against "globalization" per se, but rather against what they term "unfettered globalization" or "unrestrained corporate power." Rather than dwelling on the unadulterated evils of globalization, they talk of "progressive social reform." "We say 'yes' to globalization, but with some limits," WSF delegate Louise Beaudouin, the foreign minister of Quebec province, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press. Some of those limits were outlined in the IFG report as well as in a closing document adopted by the summit. Broadly, proposed reforms centered around increasing aid to the developing world, improving global governance, reining in corporate power and the movement of capital and placing more protections on labor and the environment. The United States and large multi-national corporations remain the main antagonists. In another bow to legitimacy, WSF organizers sought to diminish the presence and influence of more radical elements. They shunned anarchist groups and kept other figures at a distance -- such as radical French farmer Jose Bove, who made his name by burning down a McDonald's in France and led the burning of the Mansanto field last year. Certain attendees also added to the legitimacy of the WSF. Several World Bank and U.N. officials attended, including U.N. Human Rights High Commissioner Mary Robinson. The speaking schedule was replete with Nobel Prize winners. Liberal politicians were also out in force, including six junior ministers and three presidential candidates from France and Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva, the leading leftist candidate in Brazil's presidential race. Da Silva made several strong statements condemning U.S. dominance in the Americas and opposing plans for a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Heavy-hitting attendees not only add credence to the forum but also point toward future alliances that anti-globalists will use to forward their agenda. Organizing the hundreds of disparate groups into one umbrella organization is a nearly impossible task. An alternative strategy -- which simultaneously addresses issues of legitimacy and organization -- is to dovetail with larger and more established organizations that share similar views on specific issues. The IFG report puts a good deal of emphasis on the United Nations. Anti-globalists may look to the U.N., especially its bureaucratic arm, as a platform to push issues ranging from capital controls to environmental and labor protection. The U.N. will probably never have greater authority than it currently possesses over such issues, since that would require Security Council approval and charter reform. But existing U.N. commissions could press for greater recognition of the anti- globalist agenda. Working through the U.N. has another advantage. The anti- globalist agenda is broadly opposed to excessive U.S. power. Countries looking to irritate the United States or curtail its influence can use WSF issues within the structure of the U.N. to indirectly challenge Washington. Other organizations that the WSF participants could look to are the International Labor Organization and the World Health Organization. There also is an overlap between many WSF participants and a relatively new Commission on Globalization. Several NGO leaders including Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch and a leading movement figure, are co-chairs in the commission along with such mainstream figures as Mary Robinson, George Soros, Mikhail Gorbachev, former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz and International Labor Organization Director-General Juan Somavia. The more closely WSF participants can associate themselves and their causes with organizations like the Commission for Globalization -- and with politicians who share their views on specific issues -- the more legitimacy they gain and the more buzz their issues receive. And in the end, this is all about buzz. Anti-globalists are unlikely to effect change on a global level. Rather, the groups attending gatherings like the WSF seek to co-opt power and create leverage they can use on local, regional and, at most, national levels. The more their issues are talked about globally, the more pressure they can put on the local centers of power and the more effective they will be at altering the status quo in small and incremental ways. The most effective anti-globalists will recognize both the strengths and limitations of this strategy. _________________________________________________________________ __ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SEND THIS TO A FRIEND! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you like this analysis? Then forward it to a friend! Got this from a friend? Get your own by becoming a member! http://www.stratfor.com/COMPANY/info.htm <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |