William Rees on globaloney
< http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0422-03.htm > for the links to reports..
Published on Monday, April 22, 2002 in the Toronto Star
Squeezing the Poor
Maybe Castro's Right. Maybe That's All Globalization Really Is About.
by William E. Rees
ON APRIL 12, the Council of Canadians released a leaked copy of the G8
environment
ministers' proposed final statement on the World Summit on Sustainable
Development
(WSSD) to be held in Johannesburg in August. Not surprisingly, the environment
ministers from the eight leading industrialized countries will again support
the
corporate trade agenda of the WTO, this time by linking globalization to the
ever-elusive concept of "sustainable development."
As the leaked document proclaims, "(the WSSD) should be a point of
convergence for
the positive outcomes achieved at the Millennium Summit in New York, World
Trade
Organization negotiations in Doha and (the) Financing for Development
Conference in
Monterrey."
But the G8 Ministers can hardly view all the outcomes of these meetings as
positive.
For example, Cuban President Fidel Castro informed the U.N.'s March, 2002
conference in Monterrey, Mexico that "the existing world economic order
constitutes
a system of plundering and exploitation like no other in history" - not
exactly a
ringing endorsement of globalization-as-sustainable-development. He then
stormed
from the meeting, lingering barely long enough to enjoy a standing ovation.
It would be easy enough to dismiss Castro's antics as just another loser's
rant.
But what about that standing ovation? Castro's words must have resonated with
some
of the delegates. The fact is, there is more than a little evidence that
Castro had
a point. The real question is, why has most of the developed world ignored
that
evidence for so long?
One answer is that over the past 25 years, the governments of market
democracies,
abetted by the mainstream media, have all but programmed their citizens to
ignore
it.
Today we scarcely acknowledge disconcerting trends in international
development
until some horrific event knocks us on the head - think 9/11. So-called
"modern" or
"rational" society remains as self-delusory and myth-bound as any that has
preceded
it.
Now mass delusion is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, cultural myths are
the
necessary glue for social cohesion and national unity. But there is a darker
side
in which social delusions amount to little more than deep denial in the
service of
evil. (Remember the Holocaust?)
As writer Derrick Jensen has observed, "For us to maintain our way of living,
we
must...tell lies to each other, and especially to ourselves...The lies act as
barriers to truth. The barriers...are necessary because without them many
deplorable acts would become impossibilities."
In recent years the governing elites of the market democracies have persuaded
or
cajoled virtually the entire world to adopt a common myth of uncommon power.
All
major national governments and mainstream international agencies are united
in a
vision of global development and poverty alleviation centered on unlimited
economic
expansion fueled by open markets and more liberalized trade.
For the first time, the world seems to be converging on a common development
ideology, one that promises ever-increasing wealth for everyone, everywhere.
The downside is that constant repetition of the myth has so conditioned the
population that the majority seems incapable of applying basic rules of
evidence to
the growing cascade of data that refute it.
Instead, we deflect uncomfortable truths by telling reassuring lies to each
other;
we dismiss open-eyed globalization protesters as dangerous, uninformed rabble
"who
must be crushed." Meanwhile, living the myth is depleting the world's
ecosystems,
rending our social fabric and ultimately undermining world security.
Part of the problem is that the great ship "Globalization" has lost its
theoretical
keel. The assumed benefits of a fair and efficient global marketplace depend
on key
assumptions of the theory of "general competitive equilibrium."
However, as British economist, Prof. Paul Ormerod documents, there are "...so
many
violations of the conditions under which competitive equilibrium exists that
it is
hard to see why the concept survives, except for the vested interests of the
economics profession and the link between prevailing political ideology and
the
conclusions which the theory of general equilibrium provides."
Fellow economist James K. Galbraith of the University of Texas is similarly
disenchanted with neo-liberal theory. According to him, the empirical evidence
"flatly contradicts" the major premises and findings of economic analysis.
Galbraith takes this disconnect from reality as evidence of a "...nearly
complete
collapse of the prevailing economic theory...It is a collapse so complete, so
pervasive, that the profession can only deny it by refusing to discuss
theoretical
questions in the first place."
In these circumstances, we should hardly be surprised that the new world
economic
order is not delivering the promised goods even on its own terms.
Third World poverty reduction is ostensibly the major goal. However, the
structure
of the real-world global financial system ensures that the benefits of global
growth accrue mainly to the already wealthy, those who designed and promote
the
globalization agenda (and who mostly live in the G8 nations).
Many debtor nations are forced under World Bank-International Monetary Fund
structural adjustment programs to spend more of their income servicing debts
to the
world's richest nations than providing social services to their own
impoverished
citizens.
And to raise the money they often have no choice but to plunder their natural
resources.
Market-based development can thus do real harm to entire peoples and to the
ecosystems that support us all. Globalization protesters know this, and many
development analysts know this.
But in 1999, when Joseph Stiglitz, then Chief Economist of the World Bank
(and a
Nobel Laureate) admitted to the problem, the myth prevailed. Stiglitz was
noisily
fired for breaking with WB/IMF ideology.
The data, however, cannot be so readily dismissed.
In the 1960s "only" three dollars flowed North for every dollar flowing
South; by
the late 1990s, after 30 years of unprecedented growth and increasing
globalization, the ratio had grown to seven to one.
In 1970 the richest 10 per cent of the world's citizens earned 19 times as
much as
the poorest 10 per cent. By 1997, this ratio had increased to 27:1 and the
wealthiest 1 per cent of the world's people commanded the same income as the
poorest 57 per cent. Just 25 million rich Americans (0.4 per cent of the
world's
people) had a combined income greater than that of the poorest 2 billion of
the
world's people (43 per cent of the total population). As I said, Castro had a
point.
All of which raises a final question: Is it possible that the conventional
myth
merely serves as cover for a hidden parallel agenda?
Contemplate the counsel of U.S. presidential policy adviser, George F. Kennan,
whose views in 1948 seem coldly resonant today: "We have about 50 per cent of
the
world's wealth, but only 6 per cent of its population...In this situation, we
cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to
maintain
this position of disparity without detriment to our national security. To do
so, we
will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming.
"We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human
rights,
the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off
when
we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are
hampered
by idealistic slogans, the better...."
Kennan's words are unambiguous and provide a more revealing context for recent
world history than anything the prevailing popular myth has to offer.
Perhaps we should keep this in mind as Canada prepares to host the G8 meeting
in
Kananaskis in June. Perhaps this time, instead of merely bashing the
protesters,
the media should give equal time to what they have to say.
William E. Rees is a professor at the University of British Columbia School of
Community and Regional Planning.
"Anyone who writes...however gloomy its message may be, is necessarily an
optimist.
If the pessimists really believed what they were saying there would be no
point in
saying it."
Joan Robinson
Partial thread listing: