Supporters of democratic, open economies should not worry too much about the green eco-warriors who plan to turn the World Trade Organization’s conference in Seattle into the biggest political demonstrations seen since 1968. Rather, they should be concerned about the backlash against globalization that is being integrated into national politics and taking new and dangerous forms. The most obvious expression of this phenomenon is the rise of the nation, of religion and of ethnicity as causes that have to be protected against outside influence.
The world is seeing a rash of nation-first–or region-first– politics. It can be seen in the success of politicians like Jorg Haider in Austria, in the Northern League of Italy, the neo-communist PDS party in eastern Germany, and in the turn to isolationist anti-European politics by Britain’s Conservative Party. All of these are expressions of the fear of the other, the outsider and the foreign which lies at the heart of antiglobalization. The BJP rides the same tiger in India; so do fundamentalists who adopt a politics that elevates religion over all. The same fear of the unknown is at work among those who dislike new sciences like biogenetics, as it is in the U.S. Senate’s refusal to ratify a global nuclear test ban. It can even be seen in those–like the mayor of New York–who treat foreign art with contempt, or among those French politicians determined to block the free flow of mass entertainment originating outside France’s borders.
Historically, the antiglobalization backlash represents the revenge of the 19th century–nationalist, protectionist, racist, credulous and gothic–over the values of the 18th century–rational, universalist, modernizing, humanist and classical. We are witnessing, if you like, a fight between Voltaire and Nietzche; between Adam Smith’s commitment to free trade and Otto von Bismarck’s preference for tariff barriers. There is a political contest too. On the one hand are those who welcome the international economy and understand the need for postnational rules set by imperfect but necessary international bodies. On the other hand are those, of left and right, who want national or ethnic vetoes on any interference from outside.
Those who stand for open economies and liberal democracies need to face the new threat. After a decade of denying the linkage, there is now belated acknowledgment that global trade does need to take into consideration environmental and social issues. Bill Clinton stressed the connection when he became the first American president ever to address the annual conference of the International Labor Organization earlier this year. World trade bureaucrats have finally begun to understand the real political threat posed by their arrogant dismissals of the claim that nature nor human beings should not be penalized by global trade.
In truth, the removal of barriers to trade has not caused world poverty, but revealed it. Compared to the 1960s there are hundreds of millions of people who have a better life because of world trade. In 1960, South Korea had a per-capita annual income of $250. Now the country exports whole auto plants to provide new jobs and an entry into the world market for workers in East Europe and Latin America. Life expectancy has shot up everywhere; decent health care is no longer the preserve of the rich north. A liberalized world economy has allowed millions more people to reach adulthood and have children.
Unfortunately, those who have a stake in world trade have been its worst advocates. Too many banks and multinational businesses still refuse to heed calls for ethical trading and social responsibility. Too often, organizations like Transparency International and the International Labor Organization are ignored. Governments from poorer countries in Asia and Latin America–often ones that waste money on weapons, security police and the trappings of power–have demanded protection from global rules which would permit their civil society, consumer, labor and environmental groups to organize freely. Fundamentalist free traders reinforce antiglobalization by arrogantly asserting that society and the environment can look after themselves provided the bottom line is secured–this does nothing but fuel the backlash against globalization. The WTO has wasted the 10 years since the end of communism refusing to discuss the links between trade and democracy.
It is not too late to win the fight for open markets. But sup- porters of free trade must widen their base of support beyond the multinational business community. The forces of antiglobalization and the new protectionists can and must be pushed back into their box. But to achieve that necessary victory will require new language and new leadership. Seattle would be a good place to start.
