Globalized glitches.

Why trench-style warfare is clouding the debate on issues of the global agenda

Seattle in 1999, Davos in February of this year, Cancun a month later, and Quebec the following month--all of these cities hosts to major financial and trade events--but few of us are likely to remember much about who said what on each occasion. What we won't forget, however, are the spectacular news images of urban protestors clashing with riot police on the streets. In fact, we already take such harrowing scenes for granted: As one illustrious senior Bush administration official was reported to have said: "You can't have a trade summit these days without tear gas; it would be like having a cheeseburger without cheese."

The demonstrators in question belong to what is commonly known as the anti-globalization movement--a leaderless, worldwide hodgepodge of loosely related and well-organized protest groups (or "globaphobes" as they were tenderly dubbed by former President Emesto Zedillo), which have rapidly proliferated in the last two years. Today, the movement is already a major social and political force to be reckoned with.

Among these activists, we can typically find socialists, environmentalists, anarchists, students, labor unions, indigenous groups, intellectuals, academics, religious groups, and yes, even a handful of leftwing dictators are in on the action. In Mexico, the anti-globalization movement finds its breeding ground in many of the nation's traditional leftleaning organizations. These include the UNAM's own notorious General Strike Council (CGH), the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), several labor unions--many of them linked to the old PRI regime, such as the electricians' union and the National Confederation of Farmers--artistic communities, or even el Barzon, the local debtor's association. The issue of global trade is also a favorite topic of the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). While most of these have a broader political agenda, there are local groups dedicated exclusively to the anti free-trade cause, such as the Mexican Action NetworkAgainst Free Trade (RMALC).

Depending on who you ask, the claims and demands of the antiglobalization movement can range from highly legitimate to utterly absurd. While the more radical elements may advocate violence and the destruction of capitalism or even of government itself, the vast majority are essentially nonviolent, focused on specific policy issues and may even enjoy strong mainstream backing, as is the case of Greenpeace.

And they are not amateurs: Their logistical capacity has proven extremely effective, and they make good use of the Internet and the mass media. Although much of their funding comes from member's donations, there is widespread evidence of larger-scale funding from unions and other organizations with vested interests against free trade. In the recent case of Quebec, sizable six-digit contributions reportedly came from the local government itself, in an effort to promote dialogue and diffuse tensions.

Even so, the vast range of pressing social and environmental concerns surrounding the globalization issue have not been addressed in a rational and constructive manner. For example, the movement still has no common policy agenda. Instead, its spontaneous and eclectic nature has tended to overshadow those groups with realistic concerns and policy aims. The minority presence of vandals and looters has stolen the headlines and killed the debate.

In short, the movement has neglected to use the democratic means available to it. It has shown itself incapable of translating its causes into viable proposals or taking the struggle off the streets and into the chambers and courts where it could make a difference. Unfortunately, this prevailing "us vs. them" mentality is often shared by the opposing camp: the world of corporate and financial interests.

The pro-trade bandwagon has been disconcerted by the unexpected post-Cold War surge in hostility toward big business, and has not reacted fast enough to the changing times. Its interests would be better served by reaching out to address the claims of the movement's more moderate elements, thus isolating the more radical factions.

By applying their highly effective organizational skills into creating a coherent political agenda, globaphobes could strategically push their issues. But of course, first they'll have to decide which ones are most important.

Matthew Gower is BUSINESS MEXICO'S associate editor.