OK, this is for the sake of discussion, since I wouldn't presume to advise UFPJ. First, I think that, just by being who they are, they pose a question to groups involved in economic globalization. If, say, Public Citizen works with UFPJ, they necessarily weaken their ties to corporate protectionists. Second, UFPJ should focus on strengthening democratic, or proto-democratic, multilateralism. So the solution to subsidies and other barriers to trade in agriculture is neither simply more restriction at the national level or, even less, "free trade", but working for intenational coordination of subsidies and market controls -- basically resurrecting NIEO (New International Economic Order, a pretty good idea from the 1970s). To the maximum possible extent, this program should be based on the ideas put forward by grass roots farmer and peasant organizations around the world. Managed debt relief (in a big, Jubilee South way) would be another example of this. Strengthening international environment treaties, labor rights etc. In other words, the alternative to neoliberal globalization would not be nationalism but internationalism. That would definitely exclude the Pat Buchanans of this world.
How does this sound?
Peter
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
This is a difficult question. The global justice movement has, in general, been willing to align itself with old-fashioned protectionist interests in the US. They have more money than we do and more access to media and politicians. Activists recognize that the interests involved are fundamentally opposed, but they have taken this route anyway. We saw this around NAFTA, China/WTO, etc. I have been arguing (to those who will listen to my harangue) that this strategy is a mistake. The political costs outweigh the benefits, IMO. We alienate "soft" supporters of justice-oriented initiatives who are worried about protectionism; they think that, if liberalization is defeated, the most reactionary business interests will be the ones who pick up the pieces. My view is that every alliance risks a corresponding alienation. You have to decide who you want to reach out to, and who you are willing to write off. As a political matter, I would rather extend myself to hesitant left-liberals than cozy up to a North Carolina textile baron. (And I am very willing to piss off liberals in other contexts...)
Peter
One of the "action priorities" that came out of the United for Peace and Justice conference in Chicago (June 6-8, 2003) is as follows:
***** UFPJ Action Priorities....
2) Campaign to Unite the Peace and Global Justice Movement
This campaign calls on UFPJ to initiate a comprehensive grassroots educational campaign that makes the links between military and economic empire-building by confronting corporate globalization, the global economic agenda of the ruling elite. The campaign includes coordinated days of action during the Sept. 10-13 WTO meeting in Cancun, including a commemoration of 9/11 and a Global Day of Action Against Mobilization and War on Sept. 13. The campaign also calls for UFPJ to mobilize for the Nov. 19-21 FTAA meeting in Miami and the Nov. 22-23 School of the Americas protest.
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1755> *****
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that you are either on the UFPJ steering committee or advising them, helping UFPJ develop a campaign out of the above action priority. What actions, demands, and talking points would you recommend with regard to the Sept. 10-13 WTO meeting in Cancun and the Nov. 19-21 FTAA meeting in Miami? -- Yoshie
* Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>
