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

[jbor]

on 7/27/01 11:48 AM, Otto at o.sell at telda.net wrote:

> In the case of Mr. Bush and some rich Arabian nations this is at least a
> little questionable.

What Arabian nations were present at the G8 summit in Genoa? The Bush
administration is both democratic and constitutional, no question about it.

> The idea that the anti-globalization movement
> is really for globalization in a more true sense of the word is very
> appealing to me.

But it's not, obviously not, except in its rhetoric. The protesters are for
"self-determination", and the abandonment of global treaties. In real terms
this means that, for example, the Kyoto Protocol which is being ratified in
Bonn (but which has struck a hitch over the word "shall" in the phrase
"shall be legally-binding", apparently: the US, Japan and Australia, I
believe, want that word changed to "should"), would be out the window and
individual nations would be able to "self-determine" their own annual toxic
carbon emission levels, as they have been doing up until now.

> Sorry, I don't see it as that. The "self-determination" of the money isn't
> on schedule of the G8-conferences. This protectionist debate is going on for
> decades now and I see big differences on this between the developed
> nation-states. What would it help the Third World if opening up the
> protected European agrarean market would only make our farmers so poor that
> they would have to ask for social benefits.

What you're advocating is the protecting of *national* interests. Of course
it would help Third World countries if they could sell their agricultural
produce at a reasonable price.

> The Third World countries have
> to be protected.

I'm sorry, but you misunderstand the situation. It's the developed nations
who set the protectionist tariffs, not vice versa. The EU sets its tariffs
on imported agricultural products at about 40%, Japan at about 70%, the US
in the range 10-15%. It's *national* policies such as these which cripple
the primary producer economies of the Third World and which keep millions of
people in abject poverty.

> It will be the poor people, the unemployed, old and sick, the children in
> the developed nations and the Third World that will have to pay in the end.
> It has always been this way.

How many voices from the Third World have you heard joining in with the
protests? 

best