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

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: "Otto" <o.sell at telda.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: nationalism vs globalism (was Re: "not national
butsupranationalpowers that rule"


> 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.

Breakin' policy here for a moment for the service of the greater good, at
least I'd like to think.  First, as if it should be necessary, no there were
no Arabian nations at the G8 summit; I think Otto was probably trying to
refer to Qatar, where one of the next major meetings (is it the WTO? Can't
remember) is to take place.  We all construct sentences imperfectly over the
email, and I can only imagine how bad I'd be if I tried to post in German.

 But to bring it back to the G8.  Bush was "elected" with a minority of the
total vote, and as a result of numerous scandals over the result of the
deciding electoral college votes, scandals settled by a very poor judicial
decision that left itself open to accusations of political bias, that
supported decisions made in support of Bush by an appointee of Bush's
brother who also was working for Bush's campaign.  In addition to this,
several thousand people likely to have voted for Gore had their votes
discounted as a result of an incompetently designed ballot; it has been
shown that there were deliberate irregularities in the counting of certain
invalid overseas votes for the winning candidate; various minority voters
were purged from the Florida rolls illegally as a result of a specific
policy of the winning candidate's brother to ensnare all ex cons by also
purging people with similar names, ex cons from other states residing in
Florida who had a legal right to vote, & etc.  The probability was when the
brother of the winner put this strategy into effect that it would have the
effect of disallowing many votes of a demographic group that was likely to
and in fact did vote overwhelmingly for the eventual loser.  In addition to
this, minority voters were allegidly stopped from voting by way of tricks
and occasionally by duress, allegations that an investigation by a civil
rights watchdog found to be likely to be true.

For a critique of the Supreme Court decision, see this:

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/073001/adler073001.html

When the NEW REPUBLIC questions a major court decision in this manner, it
can be assumed that watertight defenses of the decision are not that easy to
mount.

On the facts, Bush's moral legitimacy is under question.  Mr Putin is
another who ascended to his poition by questionable means.  In this case,
the winner used his incumbant position to seriously restrict his opponents'
access to the media, and has a record of putting media outlets that
criticise him out of business.  In addition, Russia is a very dangerous
place for journalists to work: last year over 30 journos died in action, so
to speak.  Some of these were killed covering the regional war in Chechnia,
but others were assassinated in the street by unknown assailants.  I have no
reason to believe that Putin was behind any of that, but the atmosphere of
apparently arbitratry murder against journos does prove a, um, disincentive
to do your job rigourously if you are a reporter.

In addition to this, other fora such as the WTO do have dictatorships and
other non-democratic governments as members, and the jury's out, I'm afraid,
on whether membership will "reform" them.  Like to think so, but I have a
feeling that China, for instance, only wants to join now that its regime has
worked out how to have relatively open markets and retain its one-party
authoritarian system.  Meanwhile, the IMF and the World Bank are
international, non-democratic, opaque entities with enormous leverage, whose
MO seems to include forcing countries to place infrastructure of poor
nations into the hands of corporate entities from rich nations.  While it is
arguable that this way the infrastructure will get developed, on the other
hand, the direction of their development may not necessarily be in the
strategic, long term interests of the nation (eg roads and phone lines that
connect profitable areas of a country but by-pass other areas, or
infrastructure that is then charged for when the citizens of the country
haven't the means to pay).  In addition, according to that underground,
pinko leftist organisation of extremists, Amnisty International, several
thousand children die each day in the world because of debt servicing to
these organisation.  I'm pleased that Mr Bush appears to have recognised
this as a problem, but why did it needso much pressure to be applied first?

>
> > 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.

I think you'll find that a majority of them are in favour of some global
treaties (such as Kyoto, or a more extreme version) and not others.  Broadly
speaking, ones that have a shot at averting environmental catastrophies or
preventing illegal wars, yes, ones that allow for the totalisation of a
particular economic system that has throughout its history favoured some
classes at the expense of others, no.  You might be able to accuse them of
holding double standards, but that is why they might respond that since the
world is globalising, we should globalise responsibility first before
allowing non-accountable corporations carte blanche into the economies of
other countries.  You might say that only by allowing this to happen can the
very poorest nations become richer and the incomes of their citizens
improve.  This in fact may happen, even substantually.  Or it may not.  Or
it may make some people in every country very rich, and make the multitude
in those countries just wealthy enough to be "productive" for the investing
companies, but little more, and tied therefore to the job they have.  It
might, in other words, force the third world to go through the horrific
conditions of nineteenth century capitalism before people are allowed to
live affluently.  I don't know, and nor do you.  Nor do the experts, for
that matter.   I do know that the record of corporate entities in third
world nations is not a pretty story (just as unchecked business power in the
US during the Great Depression led to some appalling behaviour).  I also
believe that the perported benefits of trade liberalisation to the third
world were not essayed until public relations imperatives dictated they
should be, which is why I find myself less than compelled by arguments for
them.

>
> > 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.

While you are right about who is setting protectionist tarrifs, it is not
clear that this fact alone has "crippled" primary producer economies of the
third world.  It seems to me that for one thing, third world economies are
being asked to make several developmental leapfrogs into being commodity
trading economies when first world countries, because they developed the
system, were able to make the transition more "naturally", specifically when
the population was disciplined in the right way for the needs of the
economy.  For example, private property rights are essential for a
capitalist, trading economy to function, yet many third world nations are
only a generation or two from being communial societies.  Culture is
internalised practice and its manifestations.  Cultures have historically
taken a long time to change significantly.

In addition, once these impoverished third world countries have been lifted
out of poverty, their assets will be owned by capitalists from a handful of
rich nations who will always be aiming to take more out of the country than
they put in, over the long term.  Meanwhile, the assets of the handful of
rich countries will be owned by capitalists from that self same handful of
rich countries.
>
> > 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?

Sorry to say that the farmer who works a rice field in the shadow of a
rusting Union Carbide factory, and who has to try to fathom that the seeds
he's always used are now "owned" by someone else who makes him buy a new lot
each year, couldn't afford the ticket to Italy this month.  Of course the
Bolivians murdered by the police protesting the privatisation of their water
supply weren't part of the protests, either, because the media weren't
there.  The protesters shot dead in Papua New Guinea, of couse, can't be
counted because they made the mistake of not being shot dead in Italy.  The
only protesters anyone knows or cares about were rock throwers, some of whom
probably had no interest in anything but a bit of cheap street thuggary,
because that's all that got coverage.

>
> best
>
>
>
>
>
>