The globalization of a movement.

To terrorists and their sympathizers worldwide, the World Trade Center symbolized the global nature of corporate money and power--a seemingly neverending expansion of capitalism, siphoning funds and resources from people everywhere and fostering gaps in wealth the likes of which the world has never before seen. The Pentagon symbolizes the U.S. military's protection and enforcement of this global system. Because much of the resulting poverty and suffering exist in the Muslim world, Osama bin Laden has had less difficulty recruiting his minions. The resultant widespread discontent fuels terrorism--a reality brought home to the developed world on September 11, 2001.

Fortunately, there is another movement growing alongside those of global capitalism and terrorism. This movement--the anti-global-capitalism movement that awakened in Seattle in November 1999--unlike violent terrorism, shouldn't be viewed as a threat to the majority of the global village. Rather, this rapid mobilization should be welcomed and encouraged. For the ultimate threat to humanity is economic globalism.

Today's globalism and its core manifestation--the multinational corporation--don't think and act in terms of human consequences. This globalism has bullied and seeped its way into every nook of humanity, and the results are scary: loss of democracy, human rights violations, rapid environmental degradation, expanding inequality. The anti-global-capitalism movement isn't afraid of globalization (it is itself a global phenomenon); rather, it fears globalization as designated according to the imperialistic goals of a few rich people. The aim of the growing unrest--from Seattle to Washington, D.C., to Quebec City to Genoa and beyond--is to shift the focus of globalization to benefit all of humanity.

New World Order = Old World Order

The brand of globalization being pursued by the financial and trade institutions (Inter national Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization) that has become the target of mass protest continues a centuries-old trend of colonialism in the developing world that supposedly ended in the twentieth century. When oppressed natives forced European countries, depleted by the devastation of two world wars, out of their colonies across the globe, it signaled the end of outdated human rights abuses such as slavery, theft of resources, and genocide. The Old World Order gave way to the New World Order.

Unfortunately, the greed that was the impetus of brutal imperialism never left us. Thanks to decisions made by the financial elite behind closed doors, the New World Order mirrors the cycle of the Old World Order. Forced labor has given way to sweatshop labor. Military uniforms have been replaced (usually) by fancy Italian suits and cell phones. Resource extraction has expanded, as the conquistadors' search for gold today includes oil, timber, rubber, and even fresh water. Instead of the churches of yesterday's brand of imperialism, now McDonald's and Starbucks assimilate the savages. Genocide persists as indigenous peoples across the globe fight to survive. In an even more troubling trend, inequality is reaching heights never achieved during the Old World Order.

Don't Believe the Elite

In order to understand the movement, it's necessary to decode "elite speak." The so-called experts in the mainstream media, representing the ultra-elite five corporations that own the national media in the United States, have yet to generate critical analysis of the movement surrounding these huge protests. The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, in typical fashion, dismissed an issue, which sparked fire in the bellies of millions, when he wrote, "To be against globalization is to be against so many things--from cell phones to trade to Big Macs--that it connotes nothing." What he was really saying is: "Don't mess with a good thing. Myself, my friends, my coworkers, and especially my bosses profit tremendously from the current system."

We must also ignore the "wisdom" of our so-called elected leaders. During every meeting of world leaders, behind huge police barricades, George W. Bush (or Bill Clinton) addressed the media with these words, "To be against free trade is to be against poor people." The elite British publication the Economist continually echoes these sentiments. In an issue last year dedicated to globalization, it concluded that the worst scenario for the world's poor would be if the protesters had their way and the process of corporate-controlled globalization was stopped. Due to the United States' lack of access to independent voices in this prolonged era of media consolidation, it is no wonder most Americans don't understand the movement. And yet it continues to grow.

The Washington Consensus 

The United States is the sole superpower in the world and thus enjoys undue influence on the global village's economic and political aspirations. This influence has a name: the Washington Consensus. Washington, D.C., has the necessary tools at its disposal to ensure that policies will be in place worldwide to benefit the interests of its constituents. Anyone familiar with the role of money in U.S. politics understands that the constituents of our political system aren't average, ordinary citizens. The United States government primarily works for corporate interests. Primary shareholders and CEOs have the ear of almost all national politicians and the economists of the international financial institutions.

WTO: Democracy's Nightmare

The World Trade Organization is an ultranational tribunal of three men, appointed by the richest countries in the world. It's the arm of the Washington Consensus that controls trade in the world. While its stated aim is to allow trade to exist sans artificial barriers, the WTO ensures that "free trade" will benefit corporate interests. A casual examination of its record will horrify anyone who believes in the advantages of democracy.

A country that joins the WTO must abide by the rulings of the tribunal or face severe economic punishment. This allows the Washington Consensus to breach the sanctity of another nation's domestic policy. For example, a vast majority of Europeans are against genetically modified (GM) foods. They are primarily worried about the health and safety implications, as genetically altered products are introduced to the market without proper testing. The effects of a large number of GM foods are unknown. Also, European small farmers are anti-GM because U.S. corporations (Monsanto being the largest and most ominous) are establishing a monopoly on the product and driving many small European farmers out of business. Small farmers in the United States have already suffered the effects of these monopoly conditions, as the small American farm is almost nonexistent.

The European Union, unable to ignore the clamor of the people, created laws making it exceedingly difficult for GM foods to find a successful niche in the marketplace. In Europe, GM foods must be labeled as such--a measure that has been fought tooth and nail in the United States. The United States took its case to the WTO on behalf of its constituents (like Monsanto), and the WTO ruled that Europe had created a barrier to free trade: Europe either had to capitulate or pay exorbitant fines. European countries, being less financially strapped than most, agreed to pay the fines rather than outrage the masses. Less fortunate countries don't enjoy that luxury.

Within South Africa lives the largest population of AIDS victims in the world. In a country as poor as South Africa, AIDS medicine is far too expensive. While U.S. AIDS patients (those lucky enough to be insured) are overcoming the symptoms of AIDS and living longer lives thanks to a combination of expensive drugs now available, South Africans continue to be ravaged by the epidemic. These drugs, trademarked by U.S. pharmaceutical companies but developed thanks to public subsidies, cost more than the average South African is able to earn in a week. For years, the pharmaceutical companies didn't lower prices due to concerns that the drugs would be illegally imported via the black market back to the United States, rupturing their hold on the U.S. market. In the meantime, millions died of the disease throughout Africa.

In 1995, then-president of South Africa Nelson Mandela legalized the generic reproduction of these drugs. Al Gore, the U.S. vice-president at the time and a recipient of huge campaign contributions from pharmaceutical interests, took the matter to the WTO, which predictably ruled in favor of the United States and the pharmaceutical corporations. It wasn't until 1999, thanks to worldwide public outcry, that the WTO overturned its decision. Who knows how many lives could have been saved in those four years?

U.S. democracy has been the victim of WTO rulings, as well. The state of Massachusetts, following the lead of many towns and counties nationwide, voted to stop doing business with the brutal military dictatorship of Myanmar (Burma). Any corporation using Burmese labor or resources wasn't allowed to sell its goods in the state of Massachusetts. This is an example of voter activism that has gained momentum in the last few years.

Japan, however, on behalf of Mitsubishi, Toyota, and other corporations, threatened to take the issue to the WTO. The European Union, conveniently forgetting its sovereignty issues with GM foods, followed the Japanese lead. U.S. state and local governments are unable to defend themselves against WTO policy, so Massachusetts was forced to rely on the Clinton administration. Since Clinton was the quintessential big business president, the Massachusetts law was doomed. The National Foreign Trade Council (fronting a group of major corporations) has taken Massachusetts to federal court, making it an issue of state versus federal powers. If the law remains on the books, it is obvious it will be hollow. Clinton or Bush (or Gore, for that matter) is not an issue here--all of them side with the WTO and its corporate interests.

The quality of the environment is also at risk. The United States' Clean Air Act--intended to ban the use of gasoline that releases too many pollutants into the air--is no longer valid. Venezuela, a major oil and gas producing country, took the United States to the WTO. It seems the Clean Air Act was a trade barrier, unfairly discriminating against Venezuelan gas that didn't meet U.S. standards. The WTO ruled in favor of Venezuela and against clean air. Gas that is less safe and more toxic is now allowed to be pumped into our millions of cars.

Species of the world must also be aware of economic globalism and its tools. The Endangered Species Act prohibits the sale in the United States of fish which have been caught in nets that don't allow for the release of endangered species--the sea turtle being one such creature. Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines--homes to many fishing companies that have yet to invest in the more expensive, safe nets--took the case to the WTO, which ruled in favor of fishing interests. Keeping sea turtles alive is a barrier to free trade. At the WTO Seattle protests, many of the environmental activists dressed in sea turtle costumes--they were the only sea turtles with a voice.

IMF and World Bank: Financing Destruction

If the WTO is economic globalism's tool to ensure that trade goes according to plan, then the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are the strong arms of finance that benefit the global elite. These two institutions have two major functions: create a risk-free environment for predatory, speculative financing and open world markets to investors. The IMF and World Bank are part of the Bretton Woods system established in 1944 to devise rules of investment in the postwar era. One priority was to limit and control the movement of capital, understanding that unregulated flow of money across borders would undermine democracy and economic self-empowerment. This aspect of Bretton Woods was dismantled by the Nixon administration in the early 1970s. Before this, most capital flowed in order to benefit economic growth and development. Now it is estimated that 95 percent of capital is speculative, which results in quick returns for the investors and dangerous instability for markets worldwide. This instability led to the Asian crisis of the late 1990s, the near collapse of the Mexican economy, and market volatility in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

The huge amounts of money that are lost by lending institutions when an economy crashes are then subsidized. The private banks that lent billions in unwise speculative loans to Asian countries prior to the collapse were operating risk free. The IMF and World Bank loaned the crisis-stricken countries huge amounts of money (generated from the taxes of the rich countries) at very high interest rates, insisting private bank repayment be their first priority. The poor people of the poor countries must then bear the brunt of repaying these loans. Taxes are raised and austerity measures are enforced. This is the perfect example of money being extracted from poor country to rich country.

Your Domestic Is Our Policy

Austerity measures are how the Washington Consensus ensures that the domestic policy of other countries measures up to the needs of foreign investors. Social programs, such as health care and public education, are dismantled so taxes can be funneled into repaying the debt. The indebted countries are then forced to privatize their public resources. Energy is deregulated at a cost that makes the California crisis laughable. Communal property, including farmland, is sold to corporations. Exporting agriculture then becomes the number one priority.

In Brazil, for example, almost the entire country's fertile soil was sold to corporate agribusiness. Now much of the land is used to raise cattle that are exported to the North American fast food culture. The Brazilian people, deprived of their land, either wind up in huge, overcrowded slums in cities like Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro or they penetrate further and further into the rainforest, destroying the delicate natural ecosystem. It is a dangerous cycle that persists.

Other austerity measures include forcing indebted countries to rid themselves of pesky labor laws. This is how horrible conditions in modern-day sweatshops are allowed to exist. In the neverending race to the bottom, companies such as Nike and the Gap search for factory locations where they can pay the least possible wages and where unions aren't allowed to exist. In the process, the manufacturing base in the United States is destroyed. As reported in the Washington Post, most of the record one million people added to the ranks of the unemployed in the United States during August 2001 were from the manufacturing industry. This race to the bottom is increasing rates of inequality like never before. Even the Economist, which ironically touted the course of globalization, recently admitted that inequality has skyrocketed in the past decade. Of course, it also attempted to argue that inequality doesn't matter.

For those of us who believe issues of economic equality do matter, the lending policies of the World Bank and IMF are immoral, not to mention illegal. For that reason alone, this odious debt should be cancelled--a major argument of many in the anti-global-capitalism movement. One could argue that, beyond debt cancellation, those who profit due to this immoral system should pay reparations. The theft of land and labor should be a punishable offense.

Awareness and Responsibility

While the anti-global-capitalism movement continues to grow, most U.S. citizens remain tragically unaware. The story is different in many of the poorer countries. Despite a general lack of power, citizens groups throughout the developing world are standing up to the dangerous effects of economic globalism. In India, indigenous communities have successfully denied IMF dam projects that threatened to displace thousands. In Bolivia, there have been huge citywide strikes; earlier this year, the capital, La Paz, was shut down by a general strike protesting the high cost of living and the displacement of indigenous communities due to IMF projects.

Water has also become a huge issue. On April 8, 2000, citywide protests shut down Bolivia's third largest city, Cochabamba. People were protesting the privatization of the Bolivian water supply, an austerity measure, and the increase of the cost of water beyond what the typical Bolivian could afford.

U.S. groups, such as San Francisco's Global Exchange, are getting people from developing world countries together with concerned Americans, creating what they call "people-to-people ties." The awareness created is beneficial. Those involved in the movement in the developing world, when asked how people in the United States can help their cause, repeatedly reply, "Change your country." Change in the United States--something its citizens can control--would be the greatest benefit to those feeling the consequences of economic globalism; after all, it is the United States that is leading the charge of the all-consuming corporate globalization. This is something Americans could previously ignore. In light of September 11, this doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

The more people become aware of the issues, the more progress is made toward the eventual goal of eliminating the dehumanizing and wasteful reign of global capitalism. In this regard, the greatest accomplishment of the movement thus far is generating ever-increasing global awareness.

People who search for a single solution to the challenges of economic globalism will be disappointed with the overall anti-global-capitalism movement. The most zing aspect of it is the diversity of ideas it stimulates. But there are some common goals. Real, participatory democracy is an aim of everyone involved. It is assumed within the movement that people know best how to shape their own economic and political institutions--not the capitalists whose priorities are to increase profit at any cost. Localism is a huge facet of the movement (explaining the reemerging success of farmers' markets). The microbrewery mission statement sums up this intent: "Think globally, drink locally."

While decentralization of the global financial institutions is one goal of the anti-global-capitalism movement, globalization of ideas can be extremely beneficial. The movement's most significant victory was undermining the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a multinational agreement that would have given investors even more power over government. This success is owed to a huge, worldwide mobilization, much of it done via the Internet.

Most in the anti-global-capitalism movement believe that to measure economies solely according to resource and monetary accumulation is anti-human. Quality-of-life indicators are becoming a part of the global discussion--another success credited to the movement. Rather than measure the success of an economy according to gross domestic product (which includes, among other anti-human measurements, the cost of weapons building and pollution cleanup expenses), quality-of-life indicators measure an economy by how well the people are doing. These take into account infant mortality rates, hunger rates, literacy rates, and the like. Redefining the world according to people, not profit, is the ultimate objective.

As the United States scrambles to punish the perpetrators of terrorism within its borders, the anti-global-capitalism movement will need to up the ante. It can't let violence define a worldwide mobilization to end the brutality of the current economic system. It also can't let governments mistake protesters for terrorists in the almost certain crackdown on civil liberties. There is a huge difference between terrorism and civil disobedience. Both target global capitalism and its main perpetrator, the United States. However, the anti-global-capitalism movement seeks to create a world that doesn't feel so powerless that it resorts to terror--neither the terror witnessed in New York City and Washington this past September nor the state-sponsored terror the United States uses to promote global capitalism.

Andrew Hartman is a gradute student of history at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. A freelance writer, his articles have appeared in the Humanist and Clamor magazine.