ANTI-GLOBALISATION VIOLENCE

Seattle, Washington DC, Prague, Davos, Genoa. What do these beautiful and important cities have in common? Anti-globalisation violence!

It seems that every recent important meeting of leaders of the major industrialised countries has been accompanied by large demonstrations of people blocking traffic, smashing cars and windows, over-running police barricades, throwing rocks and petrol bombs, battling police.

What does this all mean? And are all the “protesters” to be equally condemned and called naïve and foolish? I don’t think so. In fact, I believe that those who sweepingly condemn these demonstrations and dismiss the arguments being made are the ones who are naïve and foolish. I say that because the issues at stake are much more complex and the challenges much more profound.

DEMOCRATIC CONTROL

The first thing to pay attention to is that the “anti-globalisation” theme for most of us is not an outright rejection of all international mechanisms such as trade, loans, investments, technological advances, etc. Rather it is a clear and well-argued analysis that challenges the lack of democratic control over (1) the direction these mechanisms take and (2) the uneven distribution of both their benefits and damages. Who makes the decisions? Who benefits from the decisions? And who bears the burden of the decisions?

Few people would assert that the power of the G8 nations and the major institutions which they host – multinational corporations, international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank), universities and research groups – are subject to democratic control. Moreover, it would be difficult indeed to argue that the primary set of priorities guiding the actions of these nations and institutions are the best interests of the so-called developing world, the “Third World,” whose population make up the overwhelming majority of the poor of the world.

For example, if the G8 nations decide to put emphasis on technological promotions instead of debt relief, benefits in Zambia may go to the privileged few who use computers and not the many who lack books in schools or medicines in clinics. Or if the WTO decides to emphasise even greater “free market” rules, what will be the consequences for Zambia’s participation in the COMESA Free Trade Area arrangements? Or if the IMF imposes conditionalities that cause curtailment in budgetary expenditure, the Zambian government may cut back even further on environmental protection programmes.

Such practical questions can be extended to many other issues, in many other countries. They all have one thing in common: who makes decisions and in whose interests?

The industrialised nations and their institutional allies have their own interests and they do not have to consult the interests of the developing nations. In fact, they often do not even care about these interests if they feel a conflict with their own interests. Witness George W. Bush’s cavalier rejection of the Kyoto Agreements or the IMF’s and World Banks’ continued insistence on the HIPC arrangements as the best solution to debt problems.

Is it any wonder, then, that the anti-globalisation movement pulls together such a broad spectrum of people in both the rich nations and the poor nations? Workers, peasants, women, environmentalists, church people, trade unionists, persons concerned about cultures, constitutions, biological interventions, etc., etc. Academics and activists. Yes, even anarchists.

ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE

Mention of “anarchists” raises for me the second issue to be taken seriously. Violence is not the choice of action of the overwhelming majority of the anti-globalisation forces. To focus on the sporadic clashes provoked in conflicts between a few violent demonstrators and the many violent police and militia “protecting” the powerful is, to say the least, to miss the point altogether.

I don’t endorse “street violence” nor do I know of any responsible person who does. But neither do I accept the “boardroom violence” of decision-makers who ignore the plight of people who suffer daily from unjust international structures.

We need to move beyond condemning surface manifestations of discontent to dealing with the root problems of poverty and maldevelopment. What the protestors are pointing to is a system of political and economic governance that makes decisions affecting the lives of millions – indeed billions – of people that have no say in how or why the decisions are made. Too much power by uncontrolled global capital and not enough influence by participative local democracy – that is a description of injustice and a formula for demonstrations.

The next time you hear of violence at some important meeting, consider with me again the possible reasons and the plausible solutions. Who makes decisions? Who benefits from decisions? And who bears the burden of the decisions? Globalisation as it is currently experienced in Zambia and other parts of Africa gives answers that are not pleasing to those of us committed to the values of global justice and common good. And that is where the real issue of violence lies in the process of globalisation today!

Article published in TIMES OF ZAMBIA, 09 August 2001 (government newspaper)

Table of Contents