As demonstrations begin to wind down in Washington from this weekend's IMF (International Monetary Fund) meetings, we are certain to hear all about it, or at least we'll be told what certain folks want us to know (see A Controlled Media?). The Daily Commentary from April 13th provided a few thoughts penned by Lester C. Thurow, from his story, "U.S. Protesters Don't Want Global Democracy," which appeared in the April 12th USA Today. In today's commentary, let us consider what Globalization is and what it is not.

First, why are so many folks across the world objecting to "globalization." You may or may not know this, but tremendous demonstrations are taking place across the world in reference to this issue. Everywhere these "global" folks go, they are hounded by common people who object to what they stand for, what they do, and the implications of globalization on their way of life in the future.

Have you personally considered what "globalization" means, or what it may mean to your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren at some point in the future? Let's begin by looking at the word itself, which does not seem to appear in the dictionary (I consulted three different dictionaries as well as a recent CD-Rom-based encyclopedia). The closest word that the author found was that of "Globalism."

GLOBALISM: a policy, outlook, etc., that is worldwide in scope.[1]

A similar word that appears in a popular software-based encyclopedia is "Global Government," which is quite applicable to the issue we are discussing.

As follows:

GLOBAL GOVERNMENT: concept of a centralized global political organization and a common rule of law that would create international order and promote peace.[2]

Consider for a moment before we proceed that by the above definition, "globalization" means a one-size-fits-all way of governing the world. In the not so distant past we commonly knew this as communism, isn't this so? Under communism the people of the USSR had limited choices, such as the type of vehicle they drove. Is an international one-size-fits-all way of governing what you want for your small world on the local level? Remember, this country was founded on the premise of local control. This is why we have a 10th amendment.

Democracy?

Thurow, in his story head, uses the word Democracy in relation to Globalism. Certainly this is an oxymoron. True Democracy enbraces government by the people and for the people, at least here in the United States it does, or is suppose to. Is this not correct? True Democracy means a choice; a choice in the kind of car we drive, the market value of the home we live in, the job we work, the method by which we pay our bills (cash vs. cashless), etc. Globalization promises to make many of these choices for us.

On an even bigger level, take a big look at the global pie and ask yourself this one, simple question:

"When did you and this author have an opportunity to vote on a global economy; a global, one-world government; the creation of the WTO (World Trade Organization); WHO (World Health Organization); and others?"

Plenty of folks are now asking this question. Many of them were in Washington this last weekend to demostrate their disagreement with the global push. Many of them were also in Seattle during the WTO meetings to voice their displeasure. Are these people really the mean-spirited hillbillies that the insiders would like us to believe they are? It's been said that these folks fear change and that this is the reason they are reacting this way. The author of this commentary can not agree.

For example, in response to Thurow's article, Parrish Jones, Ph.D., Windber, Pennsylvania, wrote:

"The globalized economy is here to stay. However, it makes no sense not to protest the pernicious and anti-democratic character of the global economy."[3]

No Vote in a Globalized World

The common man is not afforded a vote in a globalized world. You can verify this for yourself if you dare. For instance, the concept of peacekeeping by force, as practiced throughout the world today, uses military from the various nations, including the United States. When did this President ask if you wanted your children sent in harm's way for a cause that is somebody elses' business?

Kosovo is a good example where NATO attacked a sovereign nation without just cause. Did you realize that NATO failed to gain U.N. (United Nations) approval for their aggression against Yugoslavia? In fact, the Council on Global Governace (CGG), which is part of the United Nations, went on record calling NATO's actions illegal, breaking international law. As follows:

"NATO air-strikes against Yugoslavia have not been authorised by the United Nations. That authority was not even sought. They are therefore acts of aggression against a sovereign country; and as such they strike at the heart of the rule of international law and the authority of the United Nations. Because they are acts undertaken by the world's most militarily powerful countries, that damage is incalculable," Co-Chairmen Carlsson and Ramphal, CGG said. (more background: The Media: Honesty and Accuracy In Reporting)

The global powers on the NATO side tried very hard to turn 2,000 deaths over two years into a mass killing situation to gain public support, but that simply did not hold water. All those mass graves have yet to be uncovered. Frankly, the Kosovo conflict was centuries old and the fighting factions did not need an international force to make the decision to which side would win. This is not at all what self determination is all about. Why should this concern you? Because when self determination is removed from the local folks who live in a region of the world, any region, and global control put in its place, then we have anything but Democracy. What we have is socialism and communism by another name.

Why Demonstrations?

Demonstrations are now taking place against globalization across the world because people object to the fact that in a world ruled by a single governmental power there will be no self determination, no vote, no hope. Decisions will be made for them at a central point in another country.

Under the rule of a one-world government, you will have no vote where it comes to global policies that impact your neighborhood or state. Someone else in another country will eventually decide local policies and laws. Oh, there are those who will argue that this is simply not true, but they are either mistaken or the truth is not in them.

If you take a long, hard look at U.N.E.S.C.O.'s (United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization) involvement with our national parks and other landmarks, you will find that they routinely wrangle control from local folks by nominating the surrounding pristine federal land without their knowledge. Typically, by the time these local folks find out about it, it's a done deal.

Of course, the powers that be have dressed this programme up in its Sunday Suit in order to give local folks the feeling that such a nomination is good for the environment, but many folks have discovered the hard way that it only means the loss of local control. What it actually means is that those who live in the buffer zone surrounding this federal land are forced to farm and conduct their business according to U.N. environmental mandates, despite the fact that they already meet state and federal regulations! Congress tired to eliminate this practice, but the bill failed (Congress Works To Restore Control of Federal lands).

Also, because those who hold the reins essentially represent big business and banking, these common folks' jobs, and their childrens' future jobs, are at risk. As Thurow pointed out, "This is not occuring because governments or citizens want it to happen. It is happening because business firms can make a lot of money by searching the world for the cheapest places to make their products and the most profitable places to sell their products."

So, these companies enjoy the freedom that a global economy affords because they can target the cheapest source of labor, excluding all others. What will this eventually do? It will widen the gap between those who have and those who have not.

Again, "Globalization" is a one-size-fits-all concept that will eventually subject you and the rest of the world to a common set of rules and standards, without ragard to individual needs and regional differences.

Efforts have been long underway here in the United States, for example, to "harmonize" our laws with those of Europe. The herbal and health food market is a good example where international concerns are trying to prompt the Congress to legislate the regulation of these substances by the FDA, just as is done in Europe. Why? Not for our protection, that's for sure. Simply because these international drug companies have much to gain by increasing the cost of operation so only they can remain in business. Of course, that means that these same substances will cost you and I many times more than they do at present. Is this to our advantage?

Tune in tomorrow for additional information on the Global push.

Al Colombo
Copyright©2000

Bibliography:

[1] Webster's New World Dictionary; Simon and Schuster; David B. Guralnik, general editor; New York.
[2] Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, Microsoft Corporation.
[3] Against Globalizataion, Parrish W. Jones, Ph.D., Windber, Pennsylvania, USA Today, April 14, 2000, pg. 14a.