"Activist groups need to work together to require that all trade negotiations be conducted in public." "The secret dispute panels used in international trade organizations .... now seriously undermine our democratic parliamentary system." We need "International institutions which discipline corporations, rather than countries." National Action Committee On The Status of Women (Canada) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-932-1718 Laura Cabarrocas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GLOBALIZATION: SOME IMPLICATIONS & STRATEGIES FOR WOMEN GLOBALIZATION: SOME IMPLICATIONS & STRATEGIES FOR WOMEN GLOBALIZATION: SOME IMPLICATIONS & STRATEGIES FOR WOMEN Written by Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Laurell Ritchie, Michelle Swenarchuk, and Leah Vosko Here is 40% of the document. The complete document is at http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/womenstrat1.html THE CONTEXT: Our world is getting meaner and as we reach the new millennium, ideas about collective ways of solving social problems have lost ground to arguments that the rules of competition are inevitable in the face of globalization. The apparent inevitability of a meaner world is reinforced by the remarkable ideological convergence of political and economic institutions around the world. Where diversity in economic and political institutions was once tolerated, uniformity is now demanded by international institutions. Globalization has become a metaphor for the conditioning framework which shapes and standardizes our choices. It entrenches corporate values at the epicenter of our society, and it does this through the international and national structures which facilitate the mobility of capital and speculative finance. Globalization provides a view of the world in which the interests of the powerful are defined as necessity, while the demands of the poor appear as greed which undermines economic success. The ideology that underpins globalization focuses on trade as the vehicle for improving the conditions of people everywhere. It is an old idea which sees the increasing integration of international economies as a positive step and one which would inevitably occur, if markets are not unduly hampered by governments. The restructuring associated with globalization doesn't even attempt to promise anything to those traditionally disadvantaged in our society: the unemployed cannot expect jobs, the poor cannot expect prosperity, and women and other disadvantaged people cannot expect equality. The justification for economic change focuses solely on the competitive benefits for businesses that operate internationally. Social and economic well-being is subordinate to the well-being of the corporate sector and harmonization downward (for people) is perceived to be necessary so that the corporate sector will be in a position to compete internationally. The shift to the right at the end of the twentieth century was not inevitable because of the logic of economic forces, but was carefully planned by political elites at both the national and international level. Ideas about the moral superiority of market-based solutions to social problems based on individual self-interest have gained ascendancy through deliberate strategies of control and dissemination of ideas on behalf of the corporate elite. These ideas have, then, become the foundation for shaping international political institutions which have provided a rule book, or a conditioning framework, affecting future decision-making. Throughout this process the nation state has shifted its role from one which at least tempered the ability of the rich and powerful to dominate, to one which followed the path of least difficulty, by championing mainly the interests of the powerful. The changing nature of the state (or government) was itself made possible by the conditioning framework put in place by international political institutions. States are accepting and even actively pursuing globalization because international corporations want to create conditions for the free movement of capital, unfettered by the ability of nation states to inhibit business transactions. The world is being shaped to meet this need for predictable, market-friendly conditions wherever corporations and investors choose to operate. The main point to understand from this is that the international economy has been designed with these giant players in mind and the new rules for action accommodate their best interests. The narrow interests this free trade regime favours is startling when one considers Canada's export situation. A recent World Trade Organization report pointed out that only fifty companies in Canada account for about half of the country's total exports. Many of these are the U.S.-owned automotive companies which dominate exports in Canada. Within industrialized nations, the ability of the state to control the actions of corporations appears to have been seriously restricted by the new international context of globalization. The great advantage of the new international rules of trade to multinational corporations is their ability to escape regulation of nation states. The trade agreements work toward establishing one giant global market, while, at the same time, limiting the role of the supranational institutions to market-creating activities. Unlike the work of nation states, which over time have developed institutions either to correct the economy when the market did not function in an optimal way, such as during times of depression, or to control business, such as through labour or environmental legislation, the international replacements that are being created neither exert discipline on the market nor function as instruments of market-correction. These functions are still the responsibility of nations, but as multinational corporations become more mobile, the ability of corporations to escape the regulation of states increases. As nations compete with each other to have businesses locate in their own countries, the ability to control corporate activity comes into direct conflict with the increased mobility of these corporations. Unless nations agree to behave in the same way with regard to corporate behaviour, the corporations will not be disciplined in any serious way. Any one nation, by insisting on greater standards of corporate behaviour, will be disadvantaged and its corporations will claim that they are being made uncompetitive relative to other corporations in the international market. Since there is no mechanism for nations to act collectively, individual state action is critically weakened. The new international trade agreements have facilitated the creation of a single market, without a single state to regulate it. In this sense, the growth in power of the corporate sector places nations in about the same stage of control over capital as they had at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Our national institutions are not equipped to cope with the nature of the changes which have taken place. The important point, however, is not that these changes in the control over capital were inevitable, but that the corporate sector worked hard over the years to see that they would occur. ....... snip ......... Activist groups need to work together to require that all trade negotiations be conducted in public, especially as they affect so much more than trade and tariffs. ....... snip ......... The secret dispute panels used in international trade organizations were obviously designed to evade these democratic rights and processes. Their considerable power now seriously undermines our democratic parliamentary system. ....... snip ......... The major issue to be understood and reversed, is the ability of international institutions to insist on uniform economic policies regardless of the historical, cultural, or geographical problems of any country. While differences in economic and political institutions were tolerated internationally in the past, now uniformity through the discipline of the market, is required as a condition of international trade regulations. Uniform economic policies greatly aid the mobility of capital, but they also greatly undermine the power of people to shape societies in their own interests. Women have struggled with the necessity of recognizing distinct conditions among different groups of women: we know that women's experiences are not uniform and a single analysis reflecting women's conditions is inadequate. We know too that the notion of "one policy fits all" simply does not work, mainly because different cultural and political realities are at the heart of our experiences in the world. This idea of tolerance for unique needs is one which we, as feminists, need to advance at the international level. Women's interests cannot be met as long as we cannot be part of the governing structures of our individual societies and we have everything to lose when power shifts away from people who are accountable to us. The shift in power in favour of corporations and capital mobility distorts ideas - our ideas - like freedom and equality, which tend to get defined in limited ways to reflect narrow notions of self-interest, efficiency, and productivity. The following suggestions for the future recognize our need to be active in both the local and the international arenas as we confront globalization. Some of these ideas clearly are not short-term measures but will take long, concerted political action to achieve. The long-term nature of establishing international control of corporate behaviour does not mean that our only course of action need focus on the distant future. At the International Level At the international level five main inter-related initiatives should be the focus for action of progressive groups. First, we need to continue to be strategic in order to push back the trade regime that is now in place. To do this we need to identify the sectors in which negotiations will take place, and concentrate on them with our international allies. For the next few years, the focus will be on "non-tariff barriers" (such as environmental, public health and food regulations), trade in agriculture, and patent laws (including those covering human genes, plants and animals). Second, there is a need to initiate actions and demands that lead to the creation of international institutions that can exercise some control over hyper-mobile capital. The current unwillingness or inability of nation states to assert the kind of control over capital which is necessary to minimize unemployment, protect the environment, and defend citizens’ quality of life, reflects the unprecedented power which corporations now have to intimidate or otherwise gain the cooperation of national governments. We must find ways to deal with international corporations at both the international and national level. It is simply not enough to focus on disciplining the nation state alone. The very rationale for capital mobility is to take advantage of the economic climate in countries which are either politically corrupt or too weak to protect their people or their environments. International institutions which disciplined corporations, rather than countries, would begin to replicate some of the work of national institutions which was effective when nations exerted more power over corporate behaviour. Virtually all of our regulatory regimes work through the nation state; they assume states are responsible for the discipline of corporations. Increasingly, however, corporations are able to escape these controls. While not an exclusive response, there is a need for an additional focus on international instruments to discipline corporate behaviour. Third, in addition to designing international institutions to control capital, there is also a need to imitate the redistributive functions of the nation-state at the international level so that we can move towards a more equitable sharing of the world’s wealth. As long as the enormous disparities which exist world-wide continue, the corporate sector will be able to blackmail nations into submitting to their demands for a "favourable" climate for business. The recent interest in developing a tax on international financial speculation (the “Tobin Tax”) in order to both discourage excessive speculation and to raise money could be one starting point for the new international vehicles we need for the control and redistribution of capital. Fourth, there is an urgent need to begin what will be a long-term project to counter the very politically successful propaganda of the right with regard to the efficiency of the self-regulating market. This could begin with analyses that show the economic inefficiencies and real human misery which follows from imposing a uniform economic system around the world. The call would be for recognition of economic, social and environmental pluralism in international trade agreements. A tolerance for economic pluralism requires the recognition that different goals, conditions and cultures throughout the world require very different solutions to problems. One system, the western model based on a U.S.-style economic and social system, will not serve the needs of all people in all circumstances. The attempt to use international trade agreements to impose uniform economic and social policy world wide creates impossible positions for people in countries which have vastly different problems and resources, in addition to different values and goals. We in Canada have devised an economic and social system which is different from the U.S. because, in part, we have needed to accommodate the conditions of relatively few people living in a huge and often hostile geographical area. Canada is being forced to change many of these systems as a result of trade liberalization and, however difficult it will be for many groups in this country, the problems arising from conformity are infinitely more serious for poor countries with very different types of social and economic organizations. In the process of demanding economic uniformity, corporate capital has taken away from poor countries any innovative ways in which they might be able to find unique solutions to their problems. Poor countries will never be able to escape poverty if they are required to abide by the employment and environmental standards of wealthy countries while, at the same time, they are required to maintain a competitive, market-based economic system. The case for economic pluralism would be a natural political position for feminists. In recent years, the political activism of minority and disadvantaged groups has made more visible the different circumstances of groups of people in our society. This has led to the demand for distinct social policy to recognize these different needs. This pluralistic approach to public policy is an important starting point for an analysis which recognizes the need for pluralism in social and economic systems. Any attempt to change the international rules seems an Amazonian task, particularly because the power of the corporate sector has been so enhanced by the changes in the trading rules. However, the very real likelihood that these policies will fail to meet the needs of peoples around the world gives new approaches a chance to flourish. A project which begins to analyze the ways in which international institutions could be organized to allow for economic, social and environmental pluralism will find a welcoming audience when the promises of the existing trade regimes are not fulfilled. Fifth, it is essential for people in Canada to work with people in other countries that are negatively affected by the rule of international corporations. In this feminists, trade unionists, environmentalists and peace activists throughout the world are well-positioned to lead discussions for a future which would make a global economy socially viable. All of these groups have strong international connections which can be strengthened through attempts to control corporate power together. Fifth, it is essential for people in Canada to work with people in other countries that are negatively affected by the rule of international corporations. In this feminists, trade unionists, environmentalists and peace activists throughout the world are well-positioned to lead discussions for a future which would make a global economy socially viable. All of these groups have strong international connections which can be strengthened through attempts to control corporate power together. ....... snip ......... ............................................. Bob Olsen, Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED] The world is run by the people who show up. .............................................
