Myths about globalisation
The other day, I had the opportunity to visit Gothenburg during the European Union Summit and the visit of George Bush. As has become the norm rather than the exception during such meetings, a large group of protesters was there as well. Most of them peacefully made their point waving red banners with hammers and sickles, apparently too young or too illiterate to know the political oppression and economic failure of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, everyone has the right to express their opinions, no matter how misguided they may be. As usual, a smaller group used bricks and fists to express their opinion. There?s a definition of terrorism: violence to achieve a political aim.
The list of organisations opposed to globalisation is growing. On 30 May this year, in the foreword to its Annual Report 2000, Amnesty?s Secretary General Pierre Sané now takes the view that closed borders and government regulation are needed to fight poverty and relieve debt. Both economic theory and practical experience contradict this.
For a protest that is so opposed to globalisation, it is surprising how global its operations are. Gothenburg?s protesters, like those of Seattle and Prague recently, flew in from across the world. They use the Internet and mobile phones to organise their protests. In fact, their movement would not exist without the products of the global capitalists they so despise: Boeing, Microsoft and Nokia.
Apparently, this does not make any of the protesters think. The work of Amnesty International undoubtedly has been eased by the reduced costs of travel, the improved international communication through email and cheaper phone calls and the lightning speed with which news travels around the world nowadays.
Blame Globalisation!
Globalisation has become the bogeyman of international politics. Financial crisis in Asia? Globalisation! Hunger in Sudan? Globalisation! Third world debt? Globalisation!
As if the economic policies of the governments concerned have nothing to do with anything. As if the irresponsible political meddling in the affairs of banks did not contribute to the Asian financial crisis. As if the endless civil war in Sudan is not the major cause of hunger and destitution. As if the oppression by Robert Mugabe and his 'war veterans' did not cause the imploding GDP of Zimbabwe.
What has been lacking in many third world countries is lasting, structural economic development, the sort of development that allows GDP growth and that creates sufficient wealth to build up infrastructure, education and health care. The past 50 years have proved that development aid whilst very useful is no alternative for strong, local, economic development.
Much is needed for this economic development. Good education, infrastructure and telecommunications, elements where development aid can be very useful. What is also needed are sound policies by the governments concerned: transparency and democracy, an independent judiciary, ending corruption, an end to patronage, privatisation or even closure of lossmaking state enterprises and opening up of borders and markets. Not all these changes will be easy but here, again, development aid should be refocussed to facilitate such structural change.
Globalisation can be a key factor in bringing wealth and development to the developing countries. As I have said before, this requires more free trade, not less. It requires that the Western countries and trading blocks finally open their borders for all products and particularly agricultural ones. Equally, developing countries need to be convinced to eliminate barriers to trade, both tariffs and nontarrif barriers. Hopefully, a new round of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation can play a role here.
Those organisations and individuals that are truly concerned about the quality of life at home and abroad should focus on these issues rather rather than waving red flags and demanding an end to globalisation.
No Utopia
Globalisation will not bring us utopia. In fact, no economic or political system can do that. Our Liberal ideology will tell us to go for the maximum economic and political freedom. If we allow the individual to achieve the maximum within a framework of responsibility and the rule of law, the results will be the optimum for society. This is a cornerstone of liberal thinking.
And history has proved us right. Those countries where political and economic freedom flourish, are also the countries with the best economic results. They are also the countries that can afford to be generous to the ill, the weak and the displaced, inside and outside their borders.
The challenge of globalisation is to ensure that its benefits reach all the world?s citizens, even the poor and the uneducated. Regulation and protectionism will not do that. We need to convince the governments of the world and their institutions that deregulation, free trade and reduced taxes are the way forward. Only this will bring the structural economic development that so many countries so desperately need.
This article originally appeared as a column in issue 42 of the Aerogramme, the magazine of Liberal International, July 2001.
