[Nettime-bold] (fwd) Open letter by Guy Verhofstadt, Prime Minister of Belgium and the current President of the European Union: "The Paradox of Globalisation"

[Matthias Leisi <matthias@astrum.ch>]

[The following from the Fitug-mailinglist might be interesting for 
 nettime as well - and maybe especially for nettime -- Matthias]


----- Forwarded message from Axel H Horns <horns@ipjur.com> -----

From: "Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>
Subject: [FYI] Open letter by Guy Verhofstadt, Prime Minister of Belgium and the current President of the European Union: "The Paradox
	of Globalisation"
To: debate@lists.fitug.de
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:22:40 +0200

<http://www.eu2001.be/VE_ADV_PRESS/detail.asp?cat_code=AA&item_id=919 
&sess=86365918&lang=en&reference=12-01.02-01&>  

----------------------------- CUT -------------------------------

Open letter: "The Paradox of Anti-Globalisation"  

Category: Press Releases by the Belgian EU Presidency  

Description: - Open letter -  

The Paradox of Anti-globalisation  

By Guy Verhofstadt, Prime Minister of Belgium and the current 
President of the European Union, in which capacity he attended the 
recent G7/G8 summit in Genoa. This open letter gives his view of the 
events that took place in Genoa. It includes a personal proposal for 
reviewing the way in which G8 meetings are organised. An 
international meeting to discuss the contents of this open letter 
will be held in the auditorium of the University of Ghent (Belgium) 
on 30 October 2001.  

A message to the anti-globalisation protesters,  

In Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa tens of thousands of people took to 
the streets to express their views. A real breath of fresh air in 
this post-ideological age. If only there had not been all that 
meaningless violence we could almost have applauded them. Anti-
globalisation protests are a welcome crosscurrent at a time when 
political life has become rather dull, sterile and technocratic. 
Indeed, this crosscurrent is good for democracy. But what is your 
actual message? Do you espouse the views of the 'Black Block', which 
violently opposes any form of private property? Or perhaps your views 
are better represented by the 'Slow Food' campaign, a mundane club 
that spreads chic pamphlets invariably stressing the importance of 
eating correct food in the better restaurants?  

What is suddenly so wrong with globalisation? Until recently even 
progressive intellectuals were singing the praises of a worldwide 
market, which, they said, would bring prosperity and well-being to 
countries where before there was only poverty and decline. And they 
were right. Experience has shown that the per capita income of a 
country's population rises by 1% for every 1% that it opens up its 
economy. This explains the wealth of Singapore, which contrasts so 
sharply with the poverty of a closed economy such as Myanmar. In 
short, prior to Seattle, globalisation was not a sin but a blessing 
for mankind. This was in stark contrast to the dissenting voices on 
the far right that bemoaned the loss of identity in a globalised 
world. But ever since Seattle, you have been shunning globalism as if 
it were a modern-day form of bubonic plague, sowing poverty and ruin. 
 

Of course, globalisation, as a movement that disregards national 
borders, can easily deteriorate into a form of “selfishness without 
frontiers”. For the rich West, free trade is naturally something that 
should be embraced wholeheartedly... as long as it is not in products 
that can harm Western economies. No sugar from Third World countries. 
No textiles or manufactured garments from North Africa. In this 
regard, then, your anti-globalisation protests are well founded. The 
much vaunted free world trade moves largely in one direction: from 
the rich Northern countries to the poor South.  

But I would also like to point out a number of contradictions in your 
way of thinking. You oppose American hamburger chains, reject soya 
that has been genetically modified by multinational corporations, and 
condemn worldwide brand names that influence buying habits. Many of 
you feel that everything must return to a small, local scale. We must 
go back to the local market, to the local community. And yet not when 
it comes to migration... Then, globalisation suddenly becomes an aim. 
Large numbers of homeless people drift along the borders of Europe 
and North America, staring wide-eyed into the shop window of a 
prosperous society. Millions of illegal immigrants live as homeless 
pariahs, in pitiful conditions, hoping against hope that somehow they 
can tap into Western riches. But it is precisely the absence of free 
trade and investment that drives them to the West in the first place. 
 

Another contradiction resides in the fact that, while opposing 
globalisation, you strongly urge tolerance towards lifestyle 
diversity. Surely, we owe the fact that we live in a multicultural 
and tolerant society to the process of globalisation? I thought that 
nostalgia for the narrow-minded societies of our forefathers was the 
sole domain of conservatives who glorify the past, of extreme right-
wingers who believe in the superiority of their own race, and of 
religious fanatics who live and die by the Bible or the Koran. In 
this way, anti-globalisation protests unwittingly veer dangerously 
towards extremist, 'populist' right-wing views. The only difference 
is that you oppose multinationals because of the alleged harm they 
cause to the South, whereas the extreme right, such as Le Pen in 
France, condemns multinationals because he wants to retain control 
over his own economy.  

You are asking many of the right questions. But do you have the right 
answers? Nobody now denies the existence of climate change and global 
warming. But such issues can only be dealt with through global 
commitments. Everybody recognises the importance of free world trade 
for the poorest countries. But this also requires global social and 
ecological standards. Look at the immoral speculation that preyed on 
weak currencies such as the Mexican peso and the Malaysian ringit a 
few years ago. The most effective way of combating this kind of 
speculation is through the creation of larger monetary zones (another 
form of globalisation). The prospect of coming up against the dollar 
or the euro will scare off speculators more than any tax.  

I do not think it makes any sense to be unreservedly for or against 
globalisation. The question is rather how everybody, including the 
poor, can benefit from the manifest advantages of globalisation 
without suffering from any of its disadvantages. When can we be sure 
that globalisation will benefit not only the happy few but also the 
massed ranks of the Third World's poor?  

Again, your concerns as anti-globalists are extremely valid. But to 
find the right solutions to these valid questions we need more 
globalisation, not less. That was exactly the point of James Tobin. 
That is the paradox of anti-globalisation. Globalisation can, after 
all, serve the cause of good just as much as it can serve the cause 
of evil. What we need is a global ethical approach to the 
environment, labour relations and monetary policy. In other words, 
the challenge that we are faced with today is not how to thwart 
globalisation but instead how to give it an ethical foundation. I 
would call this 'ethical globalisation', a triangle consisting free 
trade, knowledge and democracy; alternatively, trade, aid and 
conflict prevention.  


Democracy and respect for human rights are the only sustainable ways 
of avoiding violence and war and of achieving trade and prosperity. 
The international community has still not managed to impose a 
worldwide ban on small arms or to set up a permanent international 
criminal court.  

Moreover, increased aid is needed from the rich West. It is shameful 
that more than 1.2 billion people still do not have access to medical 
care or a decent education. Trade alone will not be enough to solve 
the problems of the least developed nations. Even with more trade 
there is still a need for increased development cooperation to build 
harbours and roads, schools and hospitals, and to construct a stable 
legal system.  

Finally, world trade needs to be further liberalised. If all world 
markets were fully opened up to competition then the total income of 
developing countries would be boosted by $700 billion per year, or 14 
times the total development aid that they currently receive. No more 
dumping of Western agricultural surpluses on Third World markets. No 
more exceptions for bananas, rice or sugar. The only trade ban would 
be on weapons. 'Everything but arms' must be the motto of all future 
negotiating rounds of the World Trade Organisation.  

More free trade, more democracy, greater respect for human rights and 
more development aid: is that enough to make ethical globalisation a 
reality? Certainly not! What is missing is a powerful instrument to 
enforce it. We need a global political body that is as powerful as 
the globalised market in which we already live. The G8 of the rich 
countries must be replaced by a G8 of existing regional partnerships. 
A G8 where the South is given an important and deserved place at the 
table to ensure that the globalisation of the economy is headed in 
the right direction. In other words, we need to create a forum where 
the leading continental partnerships can all speak on an equal 
footing: the European Union, the African Union, Mercosur, ASEAN, the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, etc.  

This new G8 can and must be a place where binding agreements on 
global ethical standards on working conditions, intellectual property 
and good governance can be entered into. At the same time, this 
renewed G8 could lay down the guidelines and give the necessary 
encouragement to the major international organisations and 
negotiating bodies such as the WTO, the World Bank and Kyoto. This G8 
would no longer be dominated exclusively by the big wealthy 
countries; instead, everyone in our world community would be 
represented. In this way it could provide a forceful answer to global 
problems such as international trafficking in human beings.  

We saw such a process emerge in an embryonic stage at the Kyoto 
Protocol negotiations in Bonn, where finally a breakthrough was made 
as a result of agreements between the Umbrella Group, the European 
Union and the group of less developed countries, against the wishes 
of the greatest power on earth, the United States of America.  

But of course we do not need to wait for the first meeting of the new 
G8 to begin the process of ethical globalism. We could start in our 
own European backyard. Why shouldn’t we systematically test every 
decision made in the European Union for its impact on the weakest 
societies on earth? Does it widen or narrow the gulf between the rich 
Northern countries and the poor South? What is the result of this 
decision - or of the lack of a decision - on worldwide ecological 
problems? And why shouldn’t we call for an opinion from a high-level 
non-European body? Because in this respect you are absolutely right. 
Even when we are driven by the very best intentions, it is only 
natural for us to be more concerned with the interests of a 
multinational oil company or of the European sugar beet farmers than 
with the fate of the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta or the meagre 
incomes of workers on sugar cane plantations in Costa Rica.  

Guy VERHOFSTADT globalisation@premier.fed.be 
Date: 26/09/2001  

----------------------------- CUT -------------------------------

----- End forwarded message -----


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold