| Molten Ash | Although I've been here for just a couple of days, I have already seen a number of posts that contained a great deal of misunderstanding over anti-globalization and anti-globalization activists... So here's some essays that you can mull over sometime, hopefully resulting in a better understanding of anti-globalization. They are all quite long, so read them a bit at a time.
-----
Globalization and Democracy
The first conceptualization of democracy originated in Ancient Greece [Note: I've been told this is inaccurate] around the year 800 B.C. Although the more intricate details have changed significantly since that time, the very foundation of democracy has remained the same. Self-determination, or the ability to vote on how your country is ruled, has been the focal point of democracy throughout history. Nonetheless, the last century has brought massive changes to the meaning of democracy. Although the basis of modern democracy was laid by the United States after the American Revolution, it was not until the last half century that democracy entered its greatest transition period. Respect for human rights after WWII, the idea of a ‘global village’ and technological advances all made the world much smaller in the eyes of many. It was only a matter of time before the economy began to reflect these ideals. This is the origin of what we know as globalization: cross-border, free trade, privatization of services typically associated with government and increased cooperation between nation states all signal a new era in human history. As the world dealt with the shockwaves produced by the fall of the USSR in the late 1980s, these ideals gained new levels of acceptance throughout the world. Furthermore, numerous international trade agreements were signed into place, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1995, which was signed by the United States, Canada and Mexico. The last half century has also seen the rise of the World Trade Organization [WTO] into a position of huge influence on an international scale. This development is not without its share of problems, however. This essay will attempt to analyze the issues surrounding globalization, dealing specifically with how members of international trade agreements deal with dissent, as well as the power given to the institutions governing the agreements. Hopefully by the end of this essay, the reader may have a greater understanding of why and how these organizations affect not only our legal rights, but our democratic rights as well.
Directly alongside the rapid empowerment of the World Trade Organization, has been a rapid rise of public dissent. Although the majority of citizens within countries attached to the WTO are either for the WTO or have no opinion at all, there exist a great number of people who believe that globalization may be causing more problems then it is solving. Usually known as anti-globalization activists, these agents of dissent have been gradually increasing in number over the years. North Americans and Europeans alike are seeing protests against the WTO occurring on a regular basis, and more often as not, these protests end in violence. Moreover, violence at anti-globalization protests has occurred often enough to be considered ‘normal,’ which has lead to police involvement no longer being the exception to the rule, but the rule. When the leaders of the WTO meet, it is believed by most governments that there is an apparent need for a huge amount of physical security. The most significant example of this was in Seattle, where anti-globalization activists were in a literal state of war, pitted against riot police, tactical squads and the accompanying tear-gas. Although the origin of this particular conflict remains unknown, it has been acknowledged that police may have played a vital role in inflaming the situation. Reports of police brutality, indiscriminate tear-gassing (Klein "No Logo" 321) and unlawful arrest were abound after Seattle, yet neither the media, nor the American government, made any attempt to discipline those guilty of these acts. Unfortunately, this state of affairs has remained much the same since then. More often as not, protestors are made out by the media, as well as by government, to be ‘anarchist thugs,’ bent on violence and against international cooperation of any kind. This image, reinforced over and over again by the media, has allowed the rights of anti-globalization activists to be repeatedly infringed, and in some cases restricted, without consequence to the authorities. So, in a very real sense, the importance of WTO meetings seems to have quite literally overridden the rights given to citizens of democratic countries. When G8 leaders were scheduled to meet in Quebec City in 2001, the Canadian government expected protestors to be there in great numbers. So months before the meetings began, the construction of a fence – surrounding the meetings general location – was undertaken, and it represented a new tactic in the fight against democratic expression. Although the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians both expression and mobility rights, neither was upheld in Quebec City. Only citizens able to prove, using photo-identification, that they lived within the fenced off area of the city were able to enter. As the graveness of the situation became apparent to all those who showed up to protest the meetings, people became angry, even infuriated. Restricted from their legitimate right to peacefully assemble, some protestors began to not only tear down the fence, but attack police officers as well. What was originally a fairly peaceful gathering quickly transformed into an ugly clash of police and protestors. Although some protestors took a considerably less serious approach to the situation – mostly by launching pies at riot police – many protestors began to lose control. As the battle of Quebec City wore on, police became less and less discriminating, and often attacked with little to no provocation (Klein "Fences" 32). Only a glance at the Evening News can tell you that these situations are often quite normal at anti-globalization protests. The pure emotional intensity of these mass demonstrations proves to be a fertile ground for violence to breed, making it necessary for the authorities to develop strategies for preventing these happenings from occurring. If steps are not taken, the intensity and scale of the violence will continue to rise. Included in these steps could well be a plan for scaling down police involvement in protests, as well as furthering the freedom anti-globalization activists have in expressing themselves. Although some may see this as giving in, for all the wrong reasons, democratic governments must be able to accept criticism of its policies, whether the criticism is justified or not. Rights must not be seen through a veil of ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ but as something that transcends both. To quote President John F. Kennedy, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
The World Trade Organization [WTO] is the world’s foremost economic institution. With over 180 member-states, the WTO has immense influence and power on the international level. With the stated goal of promoting civil liberties and democracy through the expansion of free trade, its existence has provoked leagues of controversy. Concerned citizens have created an ‘international grass roots’ opposition to the WTO and its economic policies, yet because of the nature of the WTO, there has been no major victories against it. While WTO officials firmly believe in the righteousness of their policies, many people are becoming aware of the flaws within the WTO. Although there are numerous reasons to be in opposition of the World Trade Organization, one of the most regularly stated is that the WTO has, while simultaneously 'promoting' democracy, stripped the power from the citizens of member-states and placed it into the laps of a select few. More specifically, the WTO’s ability to strike down domestic policy has caused waves of criticism. After all, it is argued, over a quarter of the WTO’s rulings have been striking down environmental laws! (Roddick "Take" 147) In an age of increased concern over the environment, this statistic clearly shows the power the WTO holds over the world. Furthermore, the WTO places priority on trade and commercial development, often to the point of subordinating other importance causes. Social, environmental and medical laws and regulations are rarely seen as important in comparison to the economy, and laws regarding these concerns do not usually withstand pressure from the WTO. Although the WTO has the power to ‘veto’ almost any domestic law it sees fit, there is no measure of public opinion. This complete disregard for the democratic process infuriates many, and as the WTO continues to grow in strength, there have been many outbursts of dissent within member states. If domestic policy can be dramatically affected by WTO decisions, then public opinion must be able to affect those very decisions. Furthermore, if, as the WTO touts, the progression of democracy throughout the world is one of its primary goals, then surely the institution must reflect its promotions. In the words of Mohandas K. Gandhi, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
There is a second front to the WTO’s attack of globalization critics. Although police involvement in protests may or may not be justifiable, WTO officials’ constant referral to anti-globalization activists as ‘terrorists’ is most definitely not ("Terrorism"). Using its power to place pressure on member-states hesitant to crack down on those critical of globalization, the WTO has succeeded in dramatically shifting the worlds view on censorship. When Australian Police Minister, Michael Costa, announced his plans to shut down numerous anti-WTO websites, it became clear to many that the importance given to the WTO was hugely overpowering. Arguing that protestors had plans for ‘direct action’ at the WTO meeting scheduled in Sydney, Australia, Costa requested that the federal government shutdown the official website of Melbourne Indymedia, a well-known independent news agency critical of the WTO. In his press release, Costa stated that "They [Indymedia] are telling protestors to arm themselves with baseball bats, sling shots, firecrackers, gas masks and marbles." ("NSW") Although there was no real evidence of Indymedia ever advising protestors to take these actions, Costa maintained that there were definite signs of violence ahead. Thankfully, the federal government rejected these proposals. If Costa’s plans had been supported, a dangerous new precedence would have been set for the rest of the world. After all, it would have allowed police to ban future protests if there were even a hint of possible violence. Although the proposal was undertaken by a member of Australia’s national government, there is little doubt that the WTO was involved. When the integrity of an international organization begins to threaten the rights of citizens living in a democracy, there is usually a harsh reaction from many citizens. However, because Indymedia was an alternative source of news, there was no such reaction. If a large media conglomerate, such as CNN, was threatened instead, citizens would have immediately mobilized to fight this obvious attempt at censorship. If the governments of countries belonging to the World Trade Organization continue with their attempts to silence WTO critics, the violence will more likely increase than decrease. Although many anti-globalization activists already feel a strong urge to make their views heard, violently if necessary, nothing increases the human capacity to riot more then the feeling of oppression. If this proposal had been accepted, there is little doubt in my mind that the streets of Sydney would have turned into a war zone. Unless the citizens of so-called democratic countries wish to have their rights restricted further still, democratic governments belong to the WTO must take steps to decrease the restrictions surrounding the free flow of information. Censorship, or the silencing of alternative views one does not agree with, greatly endangers our democratic rights, especially when in the hands of those who are not accountable to public opinion.
Hopefully by now it is clear to the reader why globalization threatens democratic rights, as well as how. The democratic process is undoubtedly under great danger, and it is the duty of citizens to bring change to the current situation. Although anti-globalization views may be ‘wrong’ in the eyes of others, they do represent a legitimate political movement, and nothing is more dangerous to a democracy then the suppression of alternative thought. The Right to Peaceful Assembly is, and must remain to be, the most important right given to democratic citizens. Therefore, it deserves the utmost protection available. Protests, of any sort, should never be banned, and it is the act of an undemocratic government to do so. Furthermore, the World Trade Organizations grip on the rest of the world should be loosened immediately. The legitimacy of an international organization must not challenge the legitimacy of our democratic rights, and to allow this to occur is to ignore the very basis of democracy – self-determination. While the anti-globalization debate as a whole will take further investigation to completely understand, the affects that globalization has on democracy are apparent. Attempts to censor independent media, such as Melbourne Indymedia, must be dismissed immediately. One of the main premises of a dictatorship or a totalitarian government is absolute control over information. Thus, a democracy should use all means necessary to ensure that information remains free, available and accessible by all citizens. Although international economic institutions, such as the WTO, are apparently increasing the general material wealth found throughout the world, the ‘global citizen’ must recognize that material wealth cannot be thought of as more important then democratic rights. Indeed, to even place them on the same level is to endanger the democratic political system. If the protection of democracy demands that economic progress be scaled back, then so be it. As the forefather of both capitalism and globalization, democracy must be kept safe, its well-being intact and, most importantly, its future bright.
-----
TRIPS and the WTO: A Leftist Perspective
In April of 1994, leaders from over 100 nations gathered to sign the Marrakesh Agreement. Finally, after seven years of negotiations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was shut down, only to be replaced one year later by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Making use of the most GATT agreements and policies, the WTO has, in only seven years of existence, made itself the premier international trade institution. Furthermore, numerous new economic agreements have come into place under the WTO's guidance. One of these new agreements, the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS), is the most controversial international economic agreement ever conceived. Coming into effect on January 1st, 1995, the TRIPS agreement covered important economic areas such as trademarks, copyrights, industrial design, trade secrets and patents. It was also the first economic policy that covered covered intellectual property, allowing companies to place trademarks, copyrights or patents on ideas and not just property. This article will examine TRIPS-related situations, and how this agreement may be adversely impacting upon the citizens and economies of developing countries.
According to Larry Elliot, Economic Editor of The Guardian, approximately 11 million people will die from infectious diseases this year alone. The majority of these deaths will be people in developing countries. Poverty is one of the most aggravating factors in health: lack of hygiene, medical care, an imbalanced diet, along with hostile climates all weaken the bodies ability to fight off even the weakest infectious disease. Only if citizens of these developing countries have access to medicinal support can this number be decreased in any significant way. Because most of the world's drugs are produced by the 'Big Four' (Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly), there is a monopoly in the pharmecutical market, which dramatically raises the price of drugs. Unable to afford these vital drugs, third-world countries often have to turn to producing cheap, generic copies of the drugs. To protect their monopoly, the Big Four have enlisted the WTO in fighting against this technique. Although access to medicines would otherwise be restricted because of high prices, the WTO has placed pressure on numerous countries taking part in this industry to comply to the TRIPS agreement, even if it means placing citizens on the sacrificial altar of economic progress.
In Africa, the situation is much the same. While the majority of this continents citizens are slowly withering away from AiIDS, Western countries and their corporations are denying African's access to the medicine they need to improve overall health. When the gravness of the African situation became apparent, many African countries turned to producing a generic AIDS drug. Predictably, the United States challenged this proposition, even though if this drug was not produced, millions upon millions of Africans would die. Luckily, when President Clinton took office, he reversed the previous administrations policies on this matter and allowed the drug to be produced. Unfortunately, this reversal may not stand for long, especially when considering the complete dominance of conservativeness in the United States as of late.
There is a clause within the TRIPS agreement which allows governments, in the event of a national epidemic, the right to unilaterally take over all production of medicine. Although Africa, India and Brazil all qualified for this clause to be enacted, the United States was quck to threaten each country with trade sanctions and tariffs if their inquiry went any further. The rest of the WTO member-countries quickly rallied behind the United States, either to avoid sanctions themselves or out of more direct economic interests. It is in this way that the TRIPS agreement negatively effects the ability of developing countries to deal with their increasingly uneffective health-care systems. Not only does TRIPS decrease the ability developing countries have with these problems, it also inhibits economic progress, further aggravating the poverty these countries face. Unable to compete on the open market, unable to copy pharmecutical 'designs' and improve upon them, the TRIPS agreement has guaranteed that the Big Four will maintain their monopoly on the pharmecutical industry. With this guarantee comes sky-rocketing prices, making it even more difficult for countries to acquire vital medicines. Increased competition would lower the price of drugs, allow new developments to take place and increase general wealth in the third-world. Unfortunately, TRIPS does not allow for this.
The Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement endangers not only the stability third-world countries, but also their citizens well being. When business monopolies can determine life or death for third-world citizens, some things must be reconsidered. Profits before people, and the ideology attached to it, cannot uphold for long. Civil unrest may likely follow the strife that this ideology will bring. World stability will be threatened. Furthermore, globalization and free trade both assume a level playing field. Unfortuantely, on the international level, this is not always possible. Therefore, in order to level the playing field, third-world countries must be given certain advantages over first-world countries. If the West is honest in its pursuit to raise economic wealth in the Third World, then we must be prepared to take some losses. If not, then milllions more will die. And death, no matter for what reason, always leaves a stain.
-----
I am knowledgable about anti-globalization, but am by no means an expert. For those that are interested in learning more, theres alot of books you could read. No Logo by Naomi Klein is the usual first book for this subject, and Joseph Stiglitz [spelling?] (former head of IMF, I think he'd know what he's talking about) has some good books out as well. |