[CTRL] Globalisation Brigade
-Caveat Lector-
From Al-Ahram Weekly
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/1999/456/op2.htm
{{Begin}}
The globalisation brigade marches on
By Gamil Mattar *
Two warring camps: one championing globalisation (which 1ÉSnderstands to
varying degrees), the other attacking globalisation (sometimes with a
grasp of the issues, often with a refusal to comprehend). Both have their
fanatics. Thomas Friedman is one of the most zealous advocates of
globalisation. Certainly, by now he has run out of things he can say about
the subject, I thought after reading a book and several articles he had
written. I was mistaken. Last April, he came out with The Lexus and the
Olive Tree. The product of a flash of inspiration following the author's
visit to the Japanese car factory that produces the Lexus, the book may
well appear to be an endless series of trivial anecdotes posing as factual
portrayal of realities, or, worse, a compilation of determinist visions.
Such has been the frequency and influence of the teleological reasoning
characteristic of Friedman's work that it has brought some globalisation
evangelists to the brink of heresy. Several weeks ago, I read in a French
newspaper that the proponents of globalisation see world history in terms
of three phases. The first was the age of divinity, marked by a succession
of competing religious creeds. The second, the age of reason, began in the
eighteenth century, when all the bases of contemporary political thinking
evolved. Finally, the age of certainty has dawned, and with it the
unsurpassable and unrivaled religion of globalisation.
The debate over globalisation has been and, for many, is still exciting.
And so it may continue to be, if it remains confined to philosophers and
theoreticians. Intellectual debates can be stimulating as long as only
intellectuals are involved. But disaster is in store when one or both
sides of a debate begin to lure political authorities into taking part.
And when these authorities stop acting as impartial observers and begin to
adopt absolutist stands on one side or the other, as has increasingly been
the case in the debates over globalisation, we are really in trouble. The
debate over globalisation has become politicised. What was once
stimulating, sometimes amusing (given the absurdities that have often
passed as reasoning) has become nightmarish as idle drivel turns into
policy, fiction into law and fantasy into certitude.
Globalisation is on the rise. Of this there can be no doubt. I take issue,
however, with the inevitability or wisdom of capitulating resignedly to
the trend. Globalisation advocates themselves admit that it does not
necessarily promise the land of milk and honey. In fact, they say it can
often be bitter and painful. What they do not say is that the majority of
the world's population lives in hardship, that this majority is growing
and that their hardship is growing more acute. Nor do they say that most
of the evils of the process, whether we call it globalisation, unbridled
capitalism or the new age of certitude, are becoming increasingly brutal.
The critics -- the weaker of the two camps -- stress a number of
deficiencies which they believe threaten the stability of certain
societies that have plunged headlong into the process of globalisation.
These deficiencies, they argue, also jeopardise international peace and
security, as well as the very bases of globalisation: democracy,
transparency, broad-based participation in economic and political activity
and an expanding free market. Of greatest concern, they contend, is the
growing discrepancy between rich and poor, both within nations and at the
global level.
Years after the free market experiment became virtually universal and the
role of the state in steering the economy declined, one fifth of the
world's population continues to suffer abject poverty. More than 1.3
billion people in the world today live on the equivalent of one dollar a
day. How lamentable, then, is the remark of one of America's foremost
proponents of globalisation that the world's poor -- who, he confesses,
will increase in number and whose poverty will become more aggravated --
will be eating a Big Mac as their daily meal? Although poor, he says, they
will at least be taking part in the process of globalisation. I agree with
the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique that there is no difference
between this comment and Marie Antoinette's proverbial utterance of 1789.
The second shortcoming cited by the critics of globalisation is the
deteriorating -- in every sense of the word -- relationship between the
state and the symbols of statehood. For the first time in 350 years, the
state is voluntarily -- so it appears -- relinquishing the most important
constituents of its existence, not least of which its national
sovereignty. More than ever, it is beleaguered by international financial
institutions, which use loans and debt servicing liberally as the whip to
impose conditions regarding the
[CTRL] Globalisation Brigade
-Caveat Lector-
From Al-Ahram Weekly
{{Begin}}
The globalisation brigade marches on
By Gamil Mattar *
Two warring camps: one championing globalisation (which 1ÉSnderstands to
varying degrees), the other attacking globalisation (sometimes with a grasp of
the issues, often with a refusal to comprehend). Both have their fanatics.
Thomas Friedman is one of the most zealous advocates of globalisation.
Certainly, by now he has run out of things he can say about the subject, I
thought after reading a book and several articles he had written. I was
mistaken. Last April, he came out with The Lexus and the Olive Tree. The
product of a flash of inspiration following the author's visit to the Japanese
car factory that produces the Lexus, the book may well appear to be an endless
series of trivial anecdotes posing as factual portrayal of realities, or,
worse, a compilation of determinist visions. Such has been the frequency and
influence of the teleological reasoning characteristic of Friedman's work that
it has brought some globalisation evangelists to the brink of heresy. Several
weeks ago, I read in a French newspaper that the proponents of globalisation
see world history in terms of three phases. The first was the age of divinity,
marked by a succession of competing religious creeds. The second, the age of
reason, began in the eighteenth century, when all the bases of contemporary
political thinking evolved. Finally, the age of certainty has dawned, and with
it the unsurpassable and unrivaled religion of globalisation.
The debate over globalisation has been and, for many, is still exciting. And so
it may continue to be, if it remains confined to philosophers and
theoreticians. Intellectual debates can be stimulating as long as only
intellectuals are involved. But disaster is in store when one or both sides of
a debate begin to lure political authorities into taking part. And when these
authorities stop acting as impartial observers and begin to adopt absolutist
stands on one side or the other, as has increasingly been the case in the
debates over globalisation, we are really in trouble. The debate over
globalisation has become politicised. What was once stimulating, sometimes
amusing (given the absurdities that have often passed as reasoning) has become
nightmarish as idle drivel turns into policy, fiction into law and fantasy into
certitude.
Globalisation is on the rise. Of this there can be no doubt. I take issue,
however, with the inevitability or wisdom of capitulating resignedly to the
trend. Globalisation advocates themselves admit that it does not necessarily
promise the land of milk and honey. In fact, they say it can often be bitter
and painful. What they do not say is that the majority of the world's
population lives in hardship, that this majority is growing and that their
hardship is growing more acute. Nor do they say that most of the evils of the
process, whether we call it globalisation, unbridled capitalism or the new age
of certitude, are becoming increasingly brutal.
The critics -- the weaker of the two camps -- stress a number of deficiencies
which they believe threaten the stability of certain societies that have
plunged headlong into the process of globalisation. These deficiencies, they
argue, also jeopardise international peace and security, as well as the very
bases of globalisation: democracy, transparency, broad-based participation in
economic and political activity and an expanding free market. Of greatest
concern, they contend, is the growing discrepancy between rich and poor, both
within nations and at the global level.
Years after the free market experiment became virtually universal and the role
of the state in steering the economy declined, one fifth of the world's
population continues to suffer abject poverty. More than 1.3 billion people in
the world today live on the equivalent of one dollar a day. How lamentable,
then, is the remark of one of America's foremost proponents of globalisation
that the world's poor -- who, he confesses, will increase in number and whose
poverty will become more aggravated -- will be eating a Big Mac as their daily
meal? Although poor, he says, they will at least be taking part in the process
of globalisation. I agree with the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique
that there is no difference between this comment and Marie Antoinette's
proverbial utterance of 1789.
The second shortcoming cited by the critics of globalisation is the
deteriorating -- in every sense of the word -- relationship between the state
and the symbols of statehood. For the first time in 350 years, the state is
voluntarily -- so it appears -- relinquishing the most important constituents
of its existence, not least of which its national sovereignty. More than ever,
it is beleaguered by international financial institutions, which use loans and
debt servicing liberally as the whip to impose conditions regarding the
structure of government and its political philosophy.
