>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > No to the WTO. We’re against the whole capitalist system > > > The WB, IMF and WTO are beyond reform > > > >From: "jaggi singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], >Subject: India, the WTO and capitalist globalization >Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:15:41 EST > >[A slightly different version of this article was to appear in the >Alternatives supplement of HOUR magazine, a weekly newspaper published in >Montreal.] > >India, the WTO and capitalist globalization >by Jaggi Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >BHOPAL, INDIA, January 13, 2000 – Mike Moore, the shell-shocked >Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), is visiting India >this week to meet with "top officials and business leaders". It’s all part >of a concerted attempt at damage control after the victory of diverse >peoples’ movements at the Battle of Seattle. According to a WTO envoy in >Geneva, "Moore clearly sees India as a key to kick-starting the negotiation >process." [Reuters, January 7, 2000]. > >[In an interview with India Today Magazine [January 24, 2000], Moore spoke >of the "liberating force of globalisation" and declared it "a reality, not a >policy." In Moore’s words, "The era of "isms" is over." He didn’t mention >"capitalISM."] > >The official Indian government delegation to the Seattle WTO Ministerial >meetings took a hard-line stance, at least publicly, against linking trade >to labour and environmental standards. It was a position supported by all >the major parliamentary factions, including the so-called left parties. >Indeed, the government’s view not only echoes that of other governments in >the "Third World", but is critically supported by the majority of >progressive opponents of globalization in India and the rest of South Asia. > >It’s not that activists here are "soft" or relativistic about labour >standards, the environment or human rights; nor are they naïve about whom >the Indian government really represents. Rather, they see Western >governments’ apparent discovery of universal human values and standards as a >ploy to ensure a competitive advantage for their own multinational >companies. This view is widespread in countries like India, with its own >historical context of colonialism, and contemporary context of >neo-colonialism (with which the "holy trinity" of the WTO, International >Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) are considered synonymous). > >According to Sanjay Mangala Gopal, the co-coordinator of the National >Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM, representing some 125 grassroots >organizations): "We will define our own way of development and we are >capable of doing it. Who are you to teach us about child labour or anything >else?" > >Gopal insists that voices from the South -- where the majority of the >world’s marginalized peoples live and survive – should provide the >leadership to the international resistance to globalization (by definition, >this includes those pockets of the Third World in the North, such as many >indigenous and minority communities in North America). The analysis >emanating from diverse sources in the Third World – not just the communists >– revolves around the "Three Aunties." > >They’re not talking about a kindly trio of female relatives who pamper their >nephews and nieces, but an analysis of the WTO and related institutions that >is "anti-imperialist", "anti-colonial" and "anti-capitalist," phrases which >are seemingly alien to most mainstream anti-globalization movements in the >North. As Gopal puts it, "If you want real change, you have to abolish the >capitalistic mode of development." > >In the forceful words of R. Geetha, a union and women’s rights activist >based in Madras, "Who are they [the West] to impose conditions on >third-world countries? People are starving here! Why the hell should they >tell us what kind of economy we should have?" > >Meanwhile, Medha Patkar, a leading organizer of the Narmada Bachao Andolan >(NBA, a more-than-decade long mass movement against destructive development >and displacement in the Narmada River Valley of India) is not shy in saying: >"The ultimate goal is to say no to the WTO. We’re against the whole >capitalist system." > >As for the clear emphasis by major Western labour, environmental and >consumer organizations that the WTO needs to be reformed -- the "fair trade" >crowd -- activists here respond with varying degrees of diplomacy. In the >carefully chosen words of Patkar, "The context of developed and developing >countries is different. Those who are for reforms [will] realize over a >period of time that these institutions [WB, IMF and WTO] are beyond reform." > >In Geetha’s view, "I think the organized American working class is worried >about American capital going to the Third World to exploit conditions >there." She adds, "That’s an indirect fight." > >Meanwhile, one small independent Bombay monthly (which describes itself as >"a monthly that challenges the ideas of the ruling classes") writes that >"[t]he big labour unions and environmental groups" were those "whose demands >almost mirrored that of the US government." [The Voice of People Awakening, >December 1999.] > >Geetha insists on having a "direct fight" against globalization, while Gopal >feels that many opponents of globalization "are looking at this issue with >one eye," by ignoring, or downplaying, the voices of the South. > >While there is a strong basis of analytical unity by India’s numerous >activist groups and movements, their tactics in action are diverse, >reflective of the complex -- cliched but true -- diversity of the >subcontinent itself. The actions range from Gandhian-style non-violence to >more militant forms of direct action (including property destruction) to >armed struggle in certain rural pockets of the country. To a large extent >the tactics are complementary, but it would be too idealistic to assert >they’re not also at times at odds with each other. However, there is often a >strong sense of solidarity expressed between movements. It’s what Patkar >describes as "different strategies, but same goals" which is to be preferred >to "same strategies, but different goals" (after all, right-wing fanatics >also employ non-violence, property destruction or armed struggle as >tactics). > >One group directly connected to the international anti-globalization >movement is the KRRS, the Karnataka State Farmer’s Movement, representing >thousands of peasant farmers in the southern state of Karnataka. In recent >years, the KRRS has physically dismantled -- with iron bars -- a Cargill >seed unit, trashed another office of the same multinational agribusiness, >burned Monsanto’s field trials of biotech cotton, and trashed a Kentucky >Fried Chicken outlet in Bangalore. [Their actions put in some perspective >the recent debate about so-called "violence against property" in Seattle.] > >The KRRS has also been a major component of the People’s Global Action >against "Free" Trade (PGA) movement, which unites peoples’ movements on five >continents (including the Zapatistas of southern Mexico and the Landless >Peasants’ Movement (MST) of Brazil). The PGA’s "hallmarks" are a clear >rejection of the WTO and similar institutions and agreements, a >confrontational attitude, a call to non-violent disobedience, and >decentralization and autonomy as organizing principles. The PGA also added a >fifth hallmark at their recent meeting in Bangalore which "rejects all forms >and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, >patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds." > >According to the recent PGA bulletin, "The "denunciation of "free" trade >without an analysis of patriarchy, racism and processes of homogenization is >a basic element of the discourse of the right, and perfectly compatible with >simplistic explanations of complex realities, and with the personification >of the effects of capitalism (such as conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, >etc.) that inevitably lead to fascism, witch-hunting and oppressive >chauvinist traditionalism." In the Indian context, the new hallmark serves >to distinguish progressive internationalist opponents of globalization, like >the KRRS, NAPM and NBA, from the Hindu Right who also employ much of the >same rhetoric of the anti-globalization movement. > >And so, on November 30, while a state of emergency was declared in Seattle, >and various militarized police forces proceeded to brutalize thousands of >anti-WTO demonstrators, the KRRS organized it’s own demonstration in >Bangalore. Several thousand farmers, along with their allies, issued a "Quit >India" notice to multinational food and biotech conglomerate, Monsanto. > >In the spirited words of one speaker at the rally: "We don't want to grow >and feed poisonous food by using the genetically modified seeds of Monsanto. >It is our responsibility to protect our natural resources. I would like to >tell the police to be prepared! We will attack Monsanto unless it quits >India." > >The KRRS action on N30 is just one example of the spate of recent >anti-globalization oriented protests on the subcontinent (although >mobilizations against the WB and IMF started in earnest in the mid-1980s). >For example, also on N30, activists of the NBA organized a 1000-strong >non-violent procession in the Narmada Valley "protesting against the >anti-human agreements and institutions that are pushing India and the rest >of the world into the destructive process of capitalist globalisation." > >One week earlier, 300 adivasis (indigenous peoples) from the state of Madhya >Pradesh stormed the World Bank offices in Delhi. They proceeded to block the >building and cover it with posters, graffiti, cow shit and mud (yet again, >more violence to property!). The protesters left a letter, which reads in >part, "We fought against the British and we will fight against the new form >of colonialism that you represent with all our might." > >Other adivasi activists are also currently engaged in a six-month long >procession ("padyatra") from one end of Madhya Pradesh to the other in order >to highlight the ever-hastening process of land displacement in the name of >globalization. > >Meanwhile, just two days ago, the non-violent protesters of the NBA >converged on the Maheshwar dam (one part of the Narmada dam system) and >proceeded to illegally occupy the dam site. About 4000 took over the site, >while 1500 were eventually arrested by the police who responded by attacking >some demonstrators. > >The protests show no sign of ending, with the NAPM promising to disrupt Bill >Clinton’s anticipated visit to India in March. Their chosen slogans include, >"Go bank foreign exploiter Clinton!" The NAPM will stress "opposition to >exploiting US rulers but friendship with all those Americans who support >us." > >These examples don’t even account for other ongoing movements of indigenous >persons, fisherfolk, farmers, labour activists, low caste and Dalit (former >"untouchables") organizations, youth and individuals in all parts of India. >More information on those resistance struggles, and India’s rush towards >adopting free-market globalization, will be appearing in these pages in the >upcoming months. > >[Jaggi Singh is a writer, independent journalist and political activist >based in Montreal. He is currently writing and traveling in India. For more >information, or a longer, in-depth version of this article, contact him by >e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or by phone at 514-526-8946.] > > > > > > ............................................. > Bob Olsen, Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ............................................. > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________