[I wrote this in response to the William Greider piece which appeared in the
Nation and was also widely distributed on the Internet. The Nation refuses
to run it, so I'm "self-publishing" it. Feel free to pass along.]
----
Saving Ourselves - And Others - From The Global Economy
We appreciated William Greider's latest intervention in the `globalization'
debate ["Saving the Global Economy," The Nation, December 15, 1997.] Here
and elsewhere Greider has done a great deal not only to educate us to the
dangers of present global economic trends and policies but also to challenge
the dogma that nothing can be done about it. We agree that the November
withdrawal of fast track legislation - it's not quite buried yet - opens up
new opportunities to challenge the fundamental premises that guide current
policy. We agree wholeheartedly with his vigorous attack on bailouts - IMF
or otherwise - of corrupt regimes that abuse workers and corrupt investors
that privatize wealth and socialize risk while they impose austerity for
workers, slow growth, and further concentration of economic power.
But it appears to us that Greider confuses things by adding some of the
shibboleths of the liberal interventionist crowd to what is otherwise a
straightforward call for progressive action. On the one hand, Greider
suggests that we break open the fissure that exists between "free market
reformers" and "working-class cultural conservatives" (presumably by allying
with the latter on a populist economic program,) support capital controls,
support trade-balancing tariffs, and generally challenge economic orthodoxy.
On the other hand, he cautions us that "globalization of markets means
there's no place to hide" and warns of us the "natural impulse to withdraw
from the world" which will intensify and be encouraged by "right-wing
protectionists."
As Greider says, we must clearly understand the principles we are defending.
And likewise we should be clear in our analysis of the world. Globalization
as we know it is neither inevitable, nor irreversible, nor desirable --
neither for the U.S., nor for any other country. In the case of the U.S.,
Greider does not seem to contest that workers in the U.S. would be better
off if the U.S. economy were more closed. As Greider himself points out,
much of the economic integration that exists now is artificially supported
by public subsidies of transportation, tax abatements, loans, and so on. And
as countries go, the U.S. is not yet that integrated into the global economy
- we consume 88% of what we produce.
As for the rest of the world, one expects Madeleine Albright and Bob Rubin
to warn of the dangers of isolation, but can anyone on the left argue with a
straight face that the rest of the world would be worse off if the U.S.
government -- or transnational corporations "based" in the U.S. -- left them
alone? It is only as a result of unremitting economic and military pressure
that the U.S. government has succeeded in toppling the government of almost
every developing country which had the temerity to think that their chief
responsibility was to tend to the economic welfare of their own people,
rather than exporting resources and capital to the First World. There is no
reason to doubt that, if such pressure were ended, popular governments would
again direct the economic policies of these countries. The benefits to human
welfare of this transformation will far outweigh any alleged loss from
reduced ability to export low-wage products to the United States.
The greatest gift we could give to the rest of the world is to dismantle
here on their home base the institutions that are currently imposing
neoliberal globalization on the world at such terrible human cost: the IMF,
the World Bank, the WTO, USAID, and the CIA. To collaborate with the
apologists of that model and those institutions in labeling such opposition
with their bogey words of "isolationism" and "protectionism" is to betray
our progressive vision of more democratic and locally accountable economic
and political structures.
Greider and The Nation have done a great deal to call our attention to
these issues - we should examine them - and act on them - without
ideological blinders.
Robert Naiman, Research Director, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
