GLOBALIZATION
AND EUROPE-ASIA:
RISKS
AND OPPORTUNITIES, af Johan Galtung
ASEM4People
Conference, Copenhagen, 19 September 2002
Johan
Galtung, Director TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network
We
are meeting under the signs of globalization, in principle a process
whereby all
genders, generations (also future), races, classes, nations
and
countries and regions pull together
and
cooperate, in a participatory and equitable way, to produce a world
with better
livelihood for all. In Europe,
Asia, all over.
The
problem is that no such project exists in the world of today. We
have a
male-middleaged-white-upper class-Western project particularly
from the
OECD countries, and then even more particularly from the USA,
running the
world. A more descriptive term than
"globalization"
would be "Americanization"; a somewhat more generous
term would
be "Westernization". But
even those terms only locate the
process
nationally/geographically; they do not touch the other
dimensions,
of gender/generation/race/class. The whole process is
dominated
by a small group of people, in a small group of countries,
using the
term "globalization" as a cover-up. Uncritical use of the term
a part of
that cover-up.
Nor
is there any neo-liberalism.
Liberalism connotes liber, free,
freedom,
freedom of choice. That choice, of course, will include choice
of economic
system. But what happens in the
world is the promotion of
only one of
the many economic systems: the free, meaning unfettered,
unregulated
by anything, market system. There is no denial that this
system
offers an enormous range of choice for those with the purchasing
power to enter
the market. And never in history have so many had that
access.
But
never in history have so many been excluded in a world economy
where the
20/20 gap in purchasing power is increasing 3.10% annually,
while the
world economic growth is only 2.8%. Increasing misery at the
bottom, and
at the very bottom: death.
We
live in a world where half of humanity has less than $2 per day, 1.7
billion
people have less than $1, and 100,000 die every day because they
cannot buy
the minimum needed for survival.
And there
is no alternative. To refer to this in the rarefied air of the
academe as
"neo-liberal", mindless of how "the other half" lives,
insults not
only that half, but also the superb English philosophers
behind the
idea of liberalism. But that cynical neglect of life at the
bottom of a
killing economy is not the only reason to prefer the term
"neo-fascism"
to "neo-liberalism".
In
the real world globalization is run by an axis World Bank-IMF-WTO
these
days. But to that has to be added
a US State
Department-Pentagon-CIA
solid political and military power
axis, to
enforce that single economic system all over the world.
Supporting
"free market"-oriented parties till they win the elections
(Bulgaria);
bombing state, not private factories (Serbia);
using NATO
forces to conquer and privatize (to foreign capital) state
mines
(Trebca in Kosovo),promising enough aid to overcome the problems
of
excessive rain and land-slides if they change the system (North
Korea)--all
of this goes far beyond the presumed automatism of the free
market. And to that add the keynesian use of
the military economic
sector as
force motrice.
This
is the use of political/military force for political ends, killing
human beings
and letting them be killed by a cruel structure for
political
purposes. That is called
"fascism"; not the
fascism
that springs from faith in a superior race or a nation with a
strong
state, but a fascism that flows from the faith in an economic
system to
end all systems and run the world.
Hence "neo-fascism". like
in
neo-liberalism. Or "geo-fascism", democratic on the inside, fascist
on the
outside;like UK colonialism used to be.
There
is also much talk about "democracy" these days. Under
globalization
this means world rule, with the rulers ruling with the
consent of
the ruled, according to generally accepted rules. A world
system
against the will of the majority is undemocratic. But if the key
system
actors are World Bank/IMF/WTO backed by State
Department/Pentagon/CIA,
then the problem of their democratization
arises. Of these six actors three are major
intergovernmental
organizations
in the field of banking, financing and trade; and three
are the
fists of "the only superpower", not even controlled by US
voters, let
alone by a world electorate. On
the other hand, if the USA
is "a
global nation with global interests" (former head of the JCS John
Shilakasvhili)
then the key to democratization would be a world
electorate
participating in US elections. But that project is evidently
not on; nor
for the three global economic actors run by a
priesthood
of "economists".
A
market is an expression of zillions buyer-seller deals; in the
market, not
of, about the market. In principle
all the three could
develop NGO
fora for the governmental meetings, and inside the buildings
rather than
on the streets outside fighting the police in encounters
reminiscent
of the Bastille day. Those fora
could then gradually become
more representative,
even based on direct elections (not on selected
parliamentarians). They could learn from the UN,
and chances
are that they would need less police to protect their
secluded,
non-dialogical "politicians".
But
the USA is dead against any such development. The market forces
should not
be tampered with, as if the market is an articulation of
transhuman,
divine will, properly understood only by
neo-classical/liberal
economist priests. And only in
their language,
the modern
Latin, mathematics.
Such
arguments reveal severe deficits in the understanding of
democracy. The essence of democracy is linked to
the concept of
decision-making,
and amounts to this: anybody affected should have a
say. But decision-makers have always
jealously protected their
decision-making
monopolies, with arguments ranging from the incompetence
of common
people, to the delicate nature of the market and security
negotiations
behind their closed doors.
Few
decisions affect so many so deeply as those of the major economic
organizations. Opaque to the public eye, inaccessible
to articulations
of the
volonté générale, they are not
only
authoritarian,
but totalitarian. That they fit into what has been
referred to
as "neo-fascism" above is obvious. It does not help that
governmental
delegations may pretend to be accountable to national
assemblies
at home. The system does not work
the democratic way at the
national
level either, domestically by the logic of state more than
capital
divinity.
This
system of self-proclaimed "globalization" is too absurd to stand
the test of
time. In a Sarkar cycle with power
running
Military-Intellectuals-Merchants-People-Military
we are now in
the Age of
the Merchant. The Age of the Military was the Second world
war-Cold War
and of the Intellectuals the 1970s till Thatcher-Reagan
identified
a merchant wave on which they could ride. Widespread revolts
point to an
Age of the People, of types the two iron fists cannot
handle,
soon dwarfing the November 30 and April 15 demonstrations
against WTO
and World Bank/IMF. Nonviolently.
But
state reactions to such struggles may also easily be highly
autocratic
military state- centered regimes ushering in a new Sarkar
cycle. Revolts against autocracy do not
necessarily lead to democracy;
they could
also lead to a different autocracy.
What
we have seen so far can certainly be referred to as globalization
from above;
economically, militarily, politically, and also culturally.
The culture
of the West, and particularly
of the USA
is found all over. The flow of
counter-culture from below is
minuscule,
and mainly limited to music and food.
With that extreme
top-heaviness
small wonder there are reactions, however misguided they
may be in
the details. Almost all meetings
of the World Bank/IMF/WHO
have been
accompanied by demonstrations, in some of them violence has
evidently
gotten out of hands.
But
that demonstration violence is so triflish relative to decisions by
a small
number of non-elected government officials! For such monumental
decisions
affecting so many, more direct links to the world's population
are needed.
As mentioned, the UN, not the Washington-based caricatures,
have
managed this much better. The
three should learn, like the World
Economic
Forum, Davos may be learning something from the World Social
Forum, Porto Alegre.
In a world (UNDP) where 358
billionaires have more assets than half of
humanity,
the metaphor "market" as something all-embracing is
ridiculous. The billionaires (and others) are not
only buying
and selling. They also decide
products and factor profiles,
changing
the life of billions of people (like downsizing through
automation).
They are no only operating in the market, they have power
over the
parameters of the market.
Globalization
means global sharing of the positive and negative
externalities,
side-effects, of economic growth. Not only the wealth
generated
but also the side-effects are very unevenly
distributed,
with most positive side-effects landing high up and the
negative
side-effects low down. At the feet of the poor. The "science"
of
economics is blind to side-effects.
Unintended?
With
increasing disappearance of national markets, and more
importantly,
local markets; with increasing world-wide disparity and
above all
increasing displacement of people as ecological, economic,
political,
military and cultural refugees (1 billion on the move by the
year 2030?)
with hardened borders around rich countries and security
villages
for rich people this will all become increasingly visible .
With the
mobility (out-placing) of entire companies in search of cheap
labor, and
lower or negative taxes (incentives), state and local
revenues
will decrease in many countries. Privatization takes this even
further,
depriving the state of revenue-creating companies.
Ever-increasing
productivity leads to downsizing (unemployment) or
reduction
of working hours (contract). If 1.7 billion earn less than $1
per day and
3 billion less than $2 we get
oversupply-overproduction
relative to demand-consumption (80 million
cars
chasing 60 million buyers). Ever-increasing top-bottom disparity
then leads
to more short-term portfolio investment in search of profit
on the top,
and more basic needs in search of satisfaction at the
bottom, in
turn leading to underconsumption for basic needs, misery.
And
death.
The IMF
functions like physicians with only one medicine: increase
company
autonomy, of the state (privatization, lower taxes,
devaluation),
of the workers (labor flexibility, contract work), of
the country
(repatriation of profit), of the public (no subsidies for
basic
needs, no taxes on luxury products). Credit is made available to
such
unscrupulous companies, leading to more disparity, misery, free
speculation
capital and dependence. The net result is not a "war on
poverty",
but a war on poor people. The problem to be explained in this
sad picture
is not that people demonstrate, but that the reactions are
not even
stronger. Still.
As
a result of this the crises become self-sustaining. The system
will move
from one crisis to the other, showing up where the system is
weakest,
with attention to symptom therapy: preventing crashes on the
stock
exchanges by building in delays to prevent panics, by bailing out
foreign
firms. A major crash, with
recession and even depression is
indeed
highly likely.
So
much for globalization from above; except for a personal remark
from this
particular author. I love it, from
a purely egocentric
cost-benefit
point of view. I move like a
strong fish in
globalized
waters without any borders. I am
globalized and also
privatized
and do my thing, mediation, education, training and research
for peace
and development accountable to nobody but
to the
users of my skills. But I know that billions are not that
privileged. And I find the smithian idea, the basis
of neo-liberal
economics,
that one zillion egoisms adds up to altruism, one of the
most
poisonous lies ever invented by the human mind. In the name of
solidarity with
humans all over I extend my cost-benefit analysis to
humankind,
and the disaster becomes visible.
What,
then, would globalization from below look like?
The
1990s saw the demise of the Soviet style economic system. Localized
traditional
systems with production and consumption within the
perimeters
of the horizon, contradicting the material and mental
mobility of
the transportation/communication revolution were also badly
hit. But
maybe historians will argue that this was also the beginning of
the end of
globalized capitalism? Anyone who
can tolerate its
consequences
without feeling revolt in the heart may be
accused of
having none. The capitalist system
contradicts the basic
material
needs of the most needy like the Soviet system the spiritual
needs for
freedom and for identity.
Massive
failures call for massive innovation, and massive conflicts
call for
massive remedies. Here are some
crucial possibilities to be
included in
a globalization from below:
The
reinvention of local authorities: a major task of a local authority
would be to
coordinate production for basic needs on a local basis (or
in a
confederation of LAs), to see to it that they are met, internalize
externalities
(side-effects), and reduce pollution due to transportation
and other
factors, all of this accountable to local democracy;
The
reinvention of the state: a major task of the state is to
coordinate
the production of normal goods on a state basis (or in a
confederation
of states), to internalize externalities, to
reduce
pollution and to be a redistributive agent. But this has to be
accessible
to all, with good quality at affordable prices,
efficient/effective,
and accountable to national democracy;
The
reinvention of the company: companies have to assume ecological and
social
responsibility, and be rewarded and punished accordingly by their
customers. This presupposes accurate information
about all major
companies
to know which companies to punish through boycott. And which
companies
to prefer, probably not because the side-effects of the
production,
distribution and consumption of their goods and services are
perfect,
but because they are better than the average. In imperfect
economies.
Nobody
will force anyone not to buy from blacklisted companies. Market
behavior
should be free. But freedom will
have to based on relevant
information. Nobody in a democratic information
society can possibly
want to
withhold information relevant for informed opinion about
anything so
important as buying and selling. Company-customer dialogues
are badly
needed.
The
idea, cherished by mainstream economists, that the only relevant
information
is quality to you as an individual, and the price, also to
you as an
individual, is sickening in its egocentric limitation. Other
types of
economists are needed.
The
reinvention of civil society: consumer consciousness must lead to
collection
of data as a basis for the organized preference for, and
organized
boycott of, companies, as argued above. This means more power
to the LAs
over the country's finances, a ecentralization, devolution
downwards
with the LAs deciding over, say, at least 50% of public
budgets. They know better where the shoes
(plural) are pinching. But
the may
also engage in localist "municipocentrism" -
so don't
given them 100%! And strong NGOs,
among them the political
parties,
must be there to supervise the resource allocation from a basic
needs
angle.
But
these are mainly tasks in the field of economics. Then there is
the
political task of exercising political pressure on the national
governments,
from below - and of relating to other NGOs in other
countries--like
the LAs which also will have to internationalize and
cooperate--in
order to gradually eliminate inter-governmental
organizations
like the three suspects above.
But
they should aim higher than a life as pressure groups and lobbies.
The global
civil society, LA-rooted, NGO-rooted, is already today in a
position to
take matters in their own hand rather than waiting for slow,
lazy,
semi-conscious governments. The general experience is that where
the civil
society leads the way after thorough work and negotiation,
governments
will sooner or later follow, if for no other reason not to
be left
behind. Recent examples--land mine, debt forgiveness and
international
criminal court treaties--are numerous and compelling.
The
reinvention of the media: liberating the media from corporate and
state
interests, and direct and indirect censorship. The national and
world civil
societies would be better at running
decent
media being closer to real people and their real needs, not only
"life-styles". Media should make State, Capital and
Civil Society, and
the elites
and people in all three transparent to each
other. All of this at the local, national and
global levels. A tall
bill
indeed. A fine challenge for journalists to take on!
The
invention of global governance would include massive taxation of
speculation,
and basic needs guarantees for humankind as global human
rights for
global citizens. Two ideas dear to
the "globalization from
above"-discourse,
"globalization" itself, and "democracy", combine into
global
democracy: more than the sum of countries calling themselves
democracies
regardless of disrespect for people outside their own
borders
(and often inside, too).
To
get there takes some time. But the image will as usual precede
reality: a United
Nations immensely strengthened by having a UN Peoples
Assembly in
addition to, and gradually over and above the General
Assembly,
of course with that feudal institution of veto power for big
powers
abolished. Democracy is such a
good idea that it is worth
practicing,
at all levels! So, do it!
Like
in the European Union and the Indian Union (the Soviet Union might
even have
survived had they added democracy). And with dialogues between
companies
and consumers practicing the power of "to buy or not to buy".
And with
media living up to these tasks.
The
civil society will have to be the driving force. European and Asian
governments
meeting behind closed doors and driven by corporate
interests
will not do it. People will have
to lead the way for anything
basic. They always did. They will do so again.
But
let me add to this some non-economic themes.
The
European Union, particularly in its early phase as a six states
European
Community, and ASEAN, have a very positive achievement to their
credit: peace among the member countries. A very troubled part of the
world, the
Middle East, could learn from this.
Five neighbors
accommodated
Germany after 1945 as a member of a family; how about
Syria-Lebanon-(fully
recognized) Palestine-Jordan-Egypt doing the same
to a
peaceful Israel? EU and ASEAN have
important experience to share.
Material
support in building a Middle East Community(MEC) would also be
welcome.
Europe-Asia
stretches from the Atlantic way into the Pacific. Soon
there will
be a train running, from Japan, then on a ferry to Pusan in
South
Korea, then across the terrible divide
splitting
the Korean nation caused by Japanese colonialism and
superpower,
mainly US dictate, and through the vastness of Russia into
any part of
Western Europe. There will also be a southern link through
South and
West Asia. Make it a peace train
with thousands of youth
traveling
at affordable fares, weaving the world together.
And
let us overcome the colonial pattern of taking it for granted that
Asian youth
has to learn European languages and not vice versa. That
train could
also be a rolling language laboratory. Let command not only
of a
foreign language, but of a language from another
continent,
become a sign of culture!
Human
rights: Europeans see them as individual, in a cultural tradition
Europeans
think is universal; Asians add such collective rights as the
right of
villages not to be swallowed by expanding cities, of
traditional
crafts not to be killed by "modernization" and of extended
families to
be juridical persons. Fascinating
themes, as key topics in
an evolving
dialogue of civilizations.
1)Moderates
All Over The World, Unite!
http://www.arnehansen.net/030112Galtung-Moderate-foren-jer.htm
2) “Another
World Is Possible”, But Only If We Act Together!
http://www.arnehansen.net/030112Galtung-Another-world.htm
Please
forward these articles to individuals, friends and organisations
you believe
may be interested in receiving them.
If you would like to
re-print
these articles in your magazine or journal, please feel free to
do so,
including a reference to their source and link to the TRANSCEND
web-site at www.transcend.org
. Organisations and individuals wishing to
include the
articles on their web-sites are asked to do so by creating
links to
the
.