Fight Against Globalization
The Fight Against Globalization
The anti-globalization movement has often appeared as a disorganized movement that has nearly no impact on globalization. Reality indicates otherwise. While some facets of the anti-globalization movement are indeed disorganized, much of the movement is becoming more organized and therefore gaining more influence. Not all of the parts of the anti-globalization movement are the same. Indeed all parts of the movement vary in its’ degree of radicalization.[1] The focus of the debate also varies as Mark Rupert discovers in his book Ideologies of Globalization: Contending visions of a New World Order. The increasing effects of globalization are now leading to more debate.[2] The debates have forced policy makers while still advocating for globalization, to look at and find solutions for the potential negative consequences.
The movement has experienced difficulty in building significant momentum due to its’ overwhelming diversity.[3] The amount of separate groups concentrating on different aspects of globalization makes it hard to construct a cohesive unit that can make immediate impacts.[4] However the increasing visibility of these groups, particularly in the anti-WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 have pushed their agendas in the public eye and onto policy makers bargaining tables. [5] Bill Clinton in the light of all the anti-globalization sentiments began to express a desire to have “globalization with a human face.”[6] By listening to the concerns of some of the anti-globalization groups he sought to address their issues and therefore making the process of globalization more humane and more beneficial to more people.
Many anti-Globalizations are characterized by the political antics of Pat Buchanan. However in the Seattle protests, Buchanan’s presence was not particularly noted.[7] There are many anti-globalization groups and their emphasis greatly varies. In the United States, many grass root groups employ conspiracy theories regarding globalization.[8] Using Sen. Joseph McCarthy as inspiration, anything that is bad that happens to the United States is due to outside forces. These outside forces wish to push the United States to become part of “international socialism.”[9] Another group, the Liberty Lobby and its’ founder William Carto, seem to utilize anti-Semitism and different interpretations of history in its battle against globalization.[10] Radical members of White Supremist groups use blatant racist rhetoric to express their concerns. They advise that globalization only diminishes the White American citizen and puts them at the same level as for instance Mexicans.[11]
While these issues by some radicalized far right groups seem out dated and irrelevant, Mark Rupert cautions that these groups are merely responding to an extreme social climate change.[12] Responses to globalization can be seen in other parts of the world. In Asia there are many groups that rebel against globalization. One of the more radical groups exists in the Philippines. The Communist party and the New People’s party were established in1968 and were successful in overthrowing President Estrada.[13] The strength of these groups ironically comes from their countries affiliation with the Unite States. The Philippine immigrants work together in groups such as the People of the Philippines to fight for and against various causes.[14] Other groups such as the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace were vocal against the United States in its attack on Iraq. The group fights against what they feel resembles modern day imperialism.[15] Other groups such as the Mumbai Resistance 2004, Against Imperialist Globalization and War or (MR) market themselves as “revolutionary Marxists” and criticized Non Governmental Organizations (NGOS) as being simply puppets of imperialistic entrepreneurs.[16]
Rupert sees the anti-globalization as not static, but rather a “transformative process.”[17] The movement while experiencing difficulties in unifying, globalization itself assists in its development. Even Thomas Freidman, a globalization enthusiasts, acknowledges that globalization will bring with it animosity.[18] Friedman suggests that for those who can keep up, globalization is a marvelous phenomenon, but for those whom cannot, globalization will simply leave behind.[19] Those who feel alienated by globalization either here in the States or overseas must be engaged so that we can develop a fairer system. Anti-Globalization movements keep those rushing up front honest, and beg for more accountability. For the system to work, the issues brought up by these movements must be addressed, or we face the possibility that the system can blow up in our faces.
Works Cited
Artner, Annamaria “Anti-globalization movements: the developments in Asia” Contemporary Politics, Vol 10 September-December 2004 243-255
Friedman, T. The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization, New York: Anchor Books. 2000
Rupert, M. Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order, London and New York: Routledge. 2000
[1] Artner 2004 pg. 243
[2] Rupert 2000 pg. 65
[3] Friedman 2000 pg. 334
[4] Ibid
[5] Rupert pg. 149
[6] Rupert pg. 143
[7] Rupert pg. 151
[8] Rupert pg. 97
[9] Ibid
[10] Rupert pg. 103
[11] Rupert pg. 106
[12] Rupert pg. 96
[13] Artner pg. 244
[14] Ibid
[15] Artner pg. 249
[16] Artner pg. 253
[17] Rupert pg. 133
[18] Friedman pg. 338
[19] Friedman pg. 343
