nationalism vs globalism (was Re: "not national but supranational powers that rule"

[jbor]

on 7/27/01 2:51 AM, Doug Millison at DMillison at ftmg.net wrote:

> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0720-01.htm
> '[...] If it is not national but supranational powers that rule today's
> globalization, however, we must recognize that this new order has no
> democratic institutional mechanisms for representation, as nation-states do:
> no elections, no public forum for debate. [...]

So, the national representatives at the G8 summit weren't elected within
their nation-states after due democratic process?

> The protesters take to the
> streets because this is the form of expression available to them. The lack
> of other venues and social mechanisms is not their creation. [...]

So, there are no open media, freedom of speech and debate legislation, or
regular public elections via which to criticise the global treaties being
discussed and the democratically-elected governments which support such
initiatives?

> The
> protests themselves have become global movements and one of their clearest
> objectives is for the democratization of globalizing processes. It should
> not be called an antiglobalization movement. It is pro-globalization, or
> rather an alternative globalization movement - one that seeks to eliminate
> inequalities between rich and poor and between the powerful and the
> powerless, and to expand the possibilities of self-determination.[...]"

Empty rhetoric. In global economic terms the last point contradicts the rest
of this passage. If the developed nation-states are allowed to continue with
"self-determination" of the levels of protectionist tariffs they impose then
the rift between rich and poor nations will continue to grow.

best