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

[jbor]

on 7/27/01 11:08 PM, Otto at o.sell at telda.net wrote:

snip

> you know too that I'm not talking
> about keeping the present, truly injustice structures. But the friends of
> Mr. Bush aren't the ones I trust.

I don't think that that's a valid reason to stop the peaceful processes of
negotiation between world leaders and their delegates from continuing. And
that's regardless of whether those discussions are about carbon emission
levels, whale reserves, or trade protocols.

As far as Bush and those still bleating about him go -- The U.S. is a
constitutional democracy. They had an election. It was close. The loser
conceded. The winner was sworn in. They (and the rest of us) are stuck with
him for another four and a half years. It's time to get over it.
> 
> What are "voices from the Third World"? Which of them can I take serious?

Kofi Annan speaks quite eloquently on their behalf in favour of
globalisation and the trade talks. I trust him.

> Do
> you claim that the majority of Third World-nations has human rights, the
> freedom of speech and free media?

No, of course I don't. Some do, some don't, the same as in the First and
Second Worlds. But what the majority of Third World nations do have is
poverty, disease and death as a daily occurrence. They are not the ones
setting the anti-globalisation agenda is my point.

> How many have of them have you heard supporting the undemocratic and illegal
> George Bush, the unbearable Schröder and all the others.

They are the elected representatives. It's how democracy works. To continue
to claim that Bush's presidency is "undemocratic and illegal" is inaccurate.
Or else it's an admission that the Constitution and the democratic system in
the U.S. are seriously flawed.
 
> This is the power
> cartell that makes the rules and they're not gonna change it to better.

It's the combined pressure being brought to bear by *global* organisations
such as the U.N. and the WTO, and by global summits such as the ones at
Kyoto and Genoa, which will ensure that self-interested cartels such as the
E.U. and the U.S. don't continue to exploit the global economy and global
culture to their own selfish ends.

> How can you take Kyoto, which is strongly opposed by the US, as an argument
> against the Genoa-protestors?

Kyoto was and is a component of the globalisation process as much as Genoa.

> The way you present globalization it has been going on since 1602. Then
> colonialism is globalization too.

No, not at all. I tend to think of something like the international trade
and sport embargoes against South Africa during the years before Nelson
Mandela was freed as an instance of how globalisation might work to bring
pressure to bear on oppressive national regimes, given half a chance.
 
> I'm not talking for nationalism, but for globalization that deserves the
> name. The borders won't open for the people and democratic ideas.

The thing that I wonder about is this idea of "self-determination". What
does that mean? Taking the U.S. as an example, but it applies more
generally, in what ways are the Nth Amerindian nations to be allowed their
part in this "self-determination" process? African Americans? Hispanics?
Mormons? The Ku Klux Klan? Nations are corporate entities as well, with
balance of payments schedules and budgets and trade surpluses and massive
bureaucracies, and they act competitively with one another just like
corporations do. Global collaboration and agreement is the only chance for
the inequities and exploitation which currently exist to be curbed.
 
> So why are no Arabian nations involved if the next meeting will be in
> Quatar? First, of course the Opec is involved because of the oil-power.
> Second, no demos there, no democratic structures, no open political
> opposition. Choosing such a meeting place is a message I have understood.

I think I'd rather have them meeting and talking than going to war with one
another, which is pretty much what it's been like for the last few (dozen)
centuries.

> Luckily our courts are (still) independent and the Italian government will
> have to pay (in money) for beating up innocent people in that nightly
> assault.

I agree, but that still doesn't condone the destructive violence of the
rioters.

best