Globalisation: for and against

Some don't want a bar of it. Others want to call it a new name that sounds a softer note. EEUGENE BINGHAM on the arguments surrounding global free trade.

Waves of cleaners swept in behind waves of protesters on the streets of the world yesterday in the aftermath of May Day protests.

From Auckland to Oslo, Havana to Berlin, millions of people flocked to capitals and major cities to decry capitalism. The worldwide nature of the demonstrations left the undeniable impression that protest has become the most high-profile product of globalisation.

The protests marking the traditional workers' day took on new meaning this year, linked as they were with movements that have grown since the so-called Battle of Seattle in December 1999.

The example of Seattle, when thousands of people disrupted a World Trade Organisation meeting, has spawned similar demonstrations and inspired millions to take to the streets.

Their common enemy is globalisation, but their backgrounds are as varied as the languages they speak.

The scene on the streets, however, is only the most visible end of an insurrection that has made business and world leaders sit back and take stock, if only of their own tactics.

Even the term globalisation is being reconsidered, with politicians admitting that it now conjures up negative images.

"We're going to have to find a new term because that word globalisation has become too sullified right across the world," said Australia's Trade Minister Mark Vaile at last year's World Economic Forum - another trigger for violent protests.

What is globalisation?


The most basic definition is the international integration of markets for goods, services and capital.

But globalisation is a process that cannot be undertaken without parallel social and cultural changes - and that is where the battle is being fought.

Globalisation is a product of trade and international business, a function of organisations like the World Trade Organisation and multinational corporations.

Yet it is nothing new. Niall Ferguson, a professor of political and financial history at Oxford University, wrote in Britain's Daily Telegraph yesterday that world trade figures now are comparable to those just before the First World War. In 1913, merchandise exports accounted for about 9 per cent of the world's gross domestic product. In the 1990s, it was 13 per cent.

Professor Ferguson said the globalisation pattern of the early 1900s was brought about by the technological advances of the day - railroads, steamships and the telegraph. Wars and economic retraction put a halt to it.

The recent rapid advances in computer technology, telecommunications and travel have helped this latest round, stirred along by political will to break down national trade barriers.

What do the believers in globalisation say the benefits are?


The WTO, watchdog and champion of a global world market, says trade liberalisation has come a long way thanks to the 1986-94 Uruguay Round of negotiations between countries.

Tariff cuts resulting from those talks have reduced customs duty collected on imports between 1994 and 1999 by 10 per cent for the United States, the European Union and Japan. These account for nearly half of the world's imports.

The organisation's director, former New Zealand Prime Minister Mike Moore, says the only way people and countries can achieve their full potential is by tackling the remaining trade barriers.

Supporters such as the Business Roundtable see the free and open markets of globalisation as a prerequisite for economic growth.

Minister for Trade Negotiations Jim Sutton says New Zealand's economic well-being relies upon further international trade liberalisation. In a recent speech, he said a 50 per cent reduction in global tariffs would add about 4 per cent to the country's GDP.

With the progress towards future worldwide trade deals only a wish at the moment, the Government has taken up the approach of securing further regional deals such as the proposed closer economic partnership with Hong Kong.

During a visit to Hong Kong last week, Prime Minister Helen Clark told a business audience that New Zealand was seeking "new, open trade relationships."

"At the regional level, New Zealand supports linkages between our CER agreement with Australia and the Asean free trade area."

So what are the protesters campaigning against?


A study published by the non-government organisation Arena last month damned the Hong Kong deal as "globalisation by stealth."

The paper, by researcher Bill Rosenberg, said the agreement contained hidden dangers for New Zealand, including the destruction of the remaining textiles, clothing and footwear industries.

Mr Rosenberg said the agreement would facilitate further pressure to commercialise social services and diminish control over foreign investment, reducing New Zealand ownership of land and fishing quotas.

In short, the Hong Kong agreement would lead to the results feared from all advances in globalisation.

Those on the streets say the inevitable results of globalisation are a reduction in basic worker's rights, the advancement of the economy at the expense of the environment, a growing gap between the First World and the Third, and the transfer of power from governments to multinational corporations.

Auckland University's Professor Jane Kelsey says globalisation attacks our democratic system. She has argued that the WTO fundamentally affects the capacity of New Zealand Governments to determine and implement domestic economic and social policy.

Giving fuel to the anti-free trade campaigners are figures showing globalisation has taken place in parallel with widening income disparity around the world.

Professor Ferguson said the gaps had increased dramatically in the past 40 years.

"In 1963, the richest fifth of the [world's] population earned 71 per cent of the world GDP; the poorest fifth, 2.3 per cent. Today the top fifth get 89 per cent of the total output; the poorest, 1.2 per cent."

Who are the protesters?


There is no simple way of describing those who took to the streets this week. They come from non-Government organisations, unions, political parties, churches and universities.

They come from across the political spectrum. In Germany, far-left marchers were unnerved when skinheads of the far right joined in.

Around the world, greenies and farmers are marching for the cause.

Before the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, unions, churches and non-Government organisations formed beneath the umbrella of an organisation calling itself S11, a coalition of largely left-wing activists.

Within the New Zealand Parliament, members of the Green Party campaign for fair trade, not free trade. MPs Sue Bradford and Nandor Tanczos marched on the Melbourne streets outside the forum.

But the protesters are not all what might be called radical.

In February, the leaders of the Pacific's small nations condemned the effects of globalisation. Niue's Prime Minister, Sani Lakatani, told the Pacific Leaders Conference: "The uneven distribution of wealth and power points to the potential loss of sovereignty by Governments as the control of their respective economies becomes more subject to global forces such as multinational companies and the pressures of the select global brotherhood."

Cook Islands Prime Minister Terepai Maoata said: "I don't know where this globalisation came from and from who - it's time to get together and fight."

What methods are used to halt globalisation?


The protests that have unfolded since December 1999 have been described as the re-emergence of civil unrest on a scale not seen since the 1960s. Certainly, the numbers who have taken to the streets around the world are staggering.

But the violence that has captured the attention of the television networks is not the aim of most who have joined the protest lines. Many, in fact, believe the shattering of glass and the sound of pitched battles have drowned out the message.

Organisers favour civil disobedience, but not violence. Cyclists in London on May Day, for instance, went on a slow ride to make their point.

Multinational companies such as McDonald's and Nike are targeted for protest, and slogans are painted on their buildings.

Internet communications are used to inform and debate about the issues.

An activist newsletter posted on the internet yesterday called for more calm in future protests.

"We need to train and prepare as many people as possible," said the newsletter, Organising in the Face of Increased Repression.

"We also need ever-more flexible and creative tactics ... We need to clarify our vision of the world we want to create so we can mobilise people's hopes and desires as well as their outrage. And we need to be creative, visionary, wild, sexy, colourful, humorous, and fun in the face of the violence directed against us."

Will the forces for or against globalisation win the fight?


It depends whom you ask.

It is not too late to stop globalisation, but there are powerful forces behind it. In New Zealand, the Labour-Alliance Coalition has put a five-year freeze on tariff reduction and introduced labour issues into discussions about its trade agreements.

Internationally, there are fears among pro-trade campaigners that countries have lost their nerve.