Counter-Attack

An article written for the Big Picture

- by Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law at Auckland University, and author of several books.

These are sobering times. As we face the prospect of another imperial world war, it is time for sound analysis, calm reflection and carefully considered strategic action. While we sympathise with the families and communities who grieve for those who died in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, we must also remember the centuries of terrorism and genocide inflicted on indigenous nations throughout the world, and the victims of military and economic warfare which the US and its allies have pursued for many decades, but which Western governments and CNN have chosen to redefine or ignore.

People are also invited to forget about the pain which economic globalization inflicts on peoples and nations every day and to embrace the jingoism of the ‘war against terrorism’. There is no more poignant example than the Washington Post report of 20 September 2001 on workers in a Chinese sweatshop that makes American flags. Not long ago the US had cancelled orders for Army berets that were “Made in China” because the Chinese government shot down a US spy plane. Now the Shanghai factory was working overtime to meet an order for half a million US flags. The Post quotes woman worker Fei Xiaohua: “This is my 50^th so far today. Sometimes I don’t like this job. But this time, what I’m doing seems worth it’. It goes on to report how the flag business is expected to expand once China joins the WTO and the factory owner’s explanation: ‘Right now, no one around the world can really compete with us flag makers. We have good machines and rock-bottom labour costs.’ So the Americans get their cheap flags to wave as patriots; the factory owner gets a windfall profit; and the worker is made to feel good about being exploited.

The opportunists are everywhere. Mega-industries have seized on the prospect of a war-induced recession to press for new concessions and approval of controversial programmes. The US National Taxpayers Union, a bastion of Fortune 500 transnationals, has revived calls for cuts to the capital gains tax ‘to revitalize the sagging economy and bring new revenues to Washington – decidedly aiding our war against terrorism’. The oil industry has urged the passage of legislation opening up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge to reduce the ‘dangerous dependence on unstable foreign sources of energy’. The opportunistic defence industry has promoted its missile defence system as the key to security, without explaining quite how that would stop terrorism. Around the world, share markets and financiers have been constantly readjusting to new threats and opportunities with booms in defence, resources and gold and falls in the airline, insurance and retail industries.

Within a week of the attack US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick had appealed to Congress to defend America’s role as ‘the economic engine for freedom, opportunity and development’ by signing off on a menu of trade deals and giving President Bush the fast track authority, drawing parallels to Roosevelt in the Great Depression. Showing leadership in the international markets would be essential to help restore the ‘might and light’ of America, build a coalition of countries that cherish liberty in all its aspects and defend those ‘fragile democracies that rely on the international economy to overcome poverty and create opportunity’ (Washington Post 20 September 2001).

At the same time, the US government was approving unprecedented government rescue packages for US industry and agriculture. This new round of corporate welfare included a multi-billion dollar bailout for its major airlines. The House of Representatives voted a farm support package worth $170 billion for the next ten years, including a 64% increase in subsidies. The US steel industry and steel workers union argued that the ‘national security’ of the shipbuilding industry requires emergency safeguards on steel imports, which they have been seeking since 1998.

On the international level, any pretence that the IMF and World Bank were independent of its major shareholders, or genuinely concerned about democracy and human rights, evaporated as the US pushed through loans to reward, and create new ways to coerce, its most important allies.

The free traders were amongst the most cynical in exploiting the opportunity. Having enjoyed an almost uncontested arena during the later 1980s and early 1990s, they had spent the last three years literally under siege. At the international level, their meetings were engulfed by mass protests and embarrassing revelations about who had actually made the gains from the Uruguay Round. At the national level, the backlash against globalization was gaining force, both against the free market model and the erosion of democracy and sovereignty. In the months leading up to the fourth WTO ministerial meeting, the failure of the Seattle meeting still hung in the air. Poorer countries remained resolute that they wanted their concerns given priority, while the major powers and WTO leadership manipulated and threatened them, pushing forward their extensive new agenda. After September 11, the US and EU seized on the prospect of a war-induced global recession and the temptation of protectionism and introversion to insist that a new round of trade negotiations was the only solution. The location of the meeting in Doha, Qatar, an Islamic Middle Eastern state and home base for the Al-Jazeera satellite news station which regularly broadcasts statements from Osama bin Laden, made this all the more bizarre.

But despite the rhetoric and rationale, the object of the Qatar ministerial was not to counter protectionism and trade barriers within the US and EU. Their sights, along with the other international financial institutions and private sector cheer leaders, remained firmly fixed on expanding global capitalism and the improving market access and profitability of transnational enterprises allied to those major powers. As the post-September bailouts had confirmed, these were no footloose corporations. They remained firmly linked to parent states which they expected to promote their interests and protect them in times of difficulties, and they would be lobbying hard as part of both government delegations and accredited ‘civil society’ representatives at Doha. Together they will insist that success in staving off a global recession - and defending the civilization of the free world - depends on poorer countries opening their markets. Any countries that failed to heed that call would be providing succour to the enemy.

Critics of globalization are another manifestation of this ‘enemy who is everywhere’. Zoellick has drawn the connection quite explicitly. ‘Terrorists hate the ideas America has championed around the world. It is inevitable that people will wonder if there are intellectual connections with others who have turned to violence to attack international finance, globalization and the United States’ (Observer, 14 October 2001). The military war against ‘terrorism’ opens anyone to unproven accusations, detention and even assassination. Anti-terrorism legislation being pushed through without public scrutiny by the Civilised Western Allies, including New Zealand, is worded so broadly that it criminalizes people who provide direct or indirect support or funding for people and groups who continue these challenges in ways that are not ‘wholly lawful’. A terrorist act includes advocating civil disobedience, breaching the peace in protests against the IMF or national governments, or supporting an unlawful strike if those acts might cause serious economic loss, disrupt infrastructure or damage property of great importance, among many other possibilities. People who support liberation struggles against repressive governments, such as South Africa, East Timor or Bougainville, will be even more exposed.

All this suggests that, having captured significant ground in recent years, opponents of globalization can expect to face a concerted counter-attack. Similar developments are apparent in Aotearoa New Zealand. It has been clear from the government’s behaviour, media comments and the reactions of free trade lobbyists over the past year that anti-globalization arguments have been gaining traction. The international protests undoubtedly heightened public and political awareness. At home, the Labour-led government has faced constant pressure to open a public debate on its pro-globalization policy. It refuses to do so. It also refuses to disclose its negotiating position and draft texts and open them to genuine debate.

Despite this reticence and the often-farcical nature of consultations and select committee hearings, the government and officials have been confronted with a steady flow of careful analysis and documentation. Submissions have been heard on a Member’s Bill that proposed to make treaties subject to parliamentary approval. Maori, including some MPs, have continued to challenge their exclusion from the policy process and the impacts of globalization on their economic wellbeing and on the Treaty. They, environmental activists and other campaigners against genetic engineering have attacked the linkages between transnational corporations, patents and the international agreements. Local governments have challenged the right of the Executive to bind them through agreements they had no role in negotiating. Diverse stakeholders in the clothing sector have joined ranks to defend the remaining tariffs. Some farmers have even begun openly to doubt the prospects for free trade. The CTU conference in 2001 passed resolutions demanding the removal of education from free trade agreements and challenging the proposed Hong Kong agreement. Even Labour Party branches and officers have challenged the Government’s mandate publicly.

The supporters of globalization in government, business, agriculture and the media regrouped in late 2001 in a campaign to promote APEC, the WTO and the proposed bilateral agreements with Hong Kong and the US. Their explicit aim was to recapture the ascendancy. The Independent on 24 October 2001 reported the call from APEC meeting at Shanghai for ‘tough talk on terrorism and trade’. It linked this with the launching in October 2001 of the Trade Liberalization Network. Modelled on the New Zealand Life Sciences Network, a highly effective industry lobby on genetic engineering, its mission is to ‘promote informed public debate by commissioning research and undertaking education work’ and ‘champion the benefits to New Zealand from trade liberalization’. This is a high-powered, well-funded lobby group with strong support in both major parties and the export and corporate sectors. Indeed, its first Executive Director was Trade Minister Jim Sutton’s former private secretary.

This suggests a contest of David and Goliath proportions. But it is also a microcosm of a world wide struggle between a future driven by unfettered global markets and one where the interests and demands of capital are genuinely constrained by commitments to social justice, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, environmental sustainability and participatory democracy.