RSS

June 8, 2007

Roman Humbertus, U. Chicago, Bronze Contributor (13)

Seems to me that Dr. Temple has missed a major point of contention for protesters: the homogenization of the world's cultural landscape.

Student and protest groups are also likely to attack the G8 for postures such as the one taken in Temple's paragraph on Africa : Namely, that proponents of globalization shrug their shoulders and tell underdeveloped countries to catch up and get with the program, and that the work of the G8 will help them experience growth similar to China's if they simply ditch antiquated governing and economic practices. G8 leaders do their best to absolve themselves of responsibility for the losers of globalization by pointing fingers at countries that lag behind, never stopping to think that it might be the exposure to dominating markets that makes catching up impossible.

June 8, 2007

Robert Shawley, University of Iowa, Gold Contributor (99)

Although I certainly don't agree with some of the suggestions made in this article - such as that infrastructure is somehow this thing totally seperate from development, the lack of which can then be blamed for a lack of development - Ms. Tempel has some very valid points to make on protesters basic attitudes towards the G8. This would be the idea that the G8 is a gathering of those evil, powerful elites bent on world dominations. This is not the case. As this commenter articulated so well
http://www.atlantic-community.org/index.php/articles/view/Paul_Mart... /> China and India do not even want to join the G8, because it entails a shouldering of global responsibility and thus present nothing but a hassle. Protesters need to get a clearer grasp on the working conditions and the realistic possibilities of reform that are available to the G8. Otherwise assumptions will always win the day.

June 8, 2007

Charles Schitzki, Suny Purchase, Bronze Contributor (11)

Mr. Shawley raises an interesting point in his analysis of the 21st century culture of protest. There is no cohesion in today's protest movement in comparison with the '68ers. It seems that the majority of civil disobedience is not pinned to an idea but to the actions of a radical fringe bent on rousing security and police force instead of spreading understanding. Ive never gotten the sense that G8 and WTO protestors want anything more than to fight authority in general. Radical elements in protest groups will always exploit the mass. The question is when is the mass going to bring new ideas to the table.

June 8, 2007

Philipp Rock, Holger Haibach, MdB, Silver Contributor (34)

It seems to me that both commentators have misunderstood Ms. Tempel's paragraph on Africa. Neither did she say that G8 countries should just tell underdeveloped countries to catch up on the course of economic liberalisation nor did she say that the link between infrastructure and development is the key to solving Africa's problems. Ms. Tempel rather made the very valid point that Africa must not be viewed as a monolithic bloc. Indeed there are dozens of countries in Africa with very diverse levels of development and with specific problems and shortcoming. One can not help Africa by doling out ever more ODA indiscriminately as it is suggested by some pop singers who have recently discovered Africa as their new toy.
Development aid must be targeted very specifically and it should not go to countries where there is a considerable likelihood that the money will be sacked in by corrupt officials and warlords. Therefore I think it is a mistake to pressure G8 countries to issue a blank check for Africa, campaigners should rather advocate for the financing of specific actions such as Anti-AIDS campaigns. The campaign for a general rise in ODA also conveys to the public the image that there are simple solutions for the complex problems of the African continent and that all the developed countries have to do is writing out checks instead of for example cutting agricultural subsidies for their own farmers.

June 8, 2007

Raffaello Pantucci, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Silver Contributor (36)

I must say that overall i do not entirely grasp the point of this article, maybe this is a product of the basic agreement i have with her point that anti-globalization protestors are peddling an inherently flawed concept.

The idea that globalization is some sort of societal ill that perverts and could somehow be turned back is indeed infantile. The G8 protestors who shout about this should re-evaluate and consider exactly what they are calling for. As Sylke correctly points out, globalization is not something that anyone chose to have happen in some sort of malevolent or orchestrated way, it is in fact a natural force that is mostly the product of our rapidly advancing technological capabilities.

On the other hand, we have to recognize that not everyone has access to the same tools that we do. The internet is wonderful for those of us who have easy access to a computer and a phone line, but this is not the case around the entire world. The rich world does have both a moral imperative, but also a practical need, to make sure that the have-nots do not remain destitute. One size may not fit all, but a collective engagement is needed to ensure any effort is effective. It is here that the G8 offers itself as an interesting forum, as it can provide a place where the wealthiest powers can convene to construct coordinated strategies. However, the G8 is by no means perfect for this, omitting as it does so much of the world - frankly an ideal forum would be the UN, but unfortunately we have seen that action in that forum is stifled by the excess of voices.

One final point, but with respect, i find Roman's notion of a "homogenization of the world's cultural landscape" absurd. Just because we can all indulge in each others cultures is not a bad thing. Globalization's great boon is that us sitting in the US or Europe can sample the very best of African, Asian or anywhere else's culture with great ease. Just think about how prevalent Japanese trends are now in the West, and the massive influence that Chinese culture is increasingly having upon us all.

June 11, 2007

Robert Shawley, University of Iowa, Gold Contributor (99)

Philipp, I was not referring to her "Africa" section but her "The Rich Get Richer..." section in which she states "The gap between the richest and the poorest countries is indeed widening, but lack of economic infrastructure within countries is the culprit." You are quite right to point out that she later on makes the important point that the 'Africa Issue' deserves more than a cookie-cutter approach, however the problem that she seems to be contradicting herself within the space of 200words is probably part of the reason why Raffaello does not "entirely grasp the point of this article", which I can very much understand.

June 25, 2007

Oliver Hauss, -, Gold Contributor (110)

"One can not help Africa by doling out ever more ODA indiscriminately as it is suggested by some pop singers who have recently discovered Africa as their new toy. "

Over 20 years after Live Aid, I think it is somewhat daring to talk about pop singers having recently discovered Africa as a new "toy".

I don't see anything "specific" in fuzzily demanding "Anti-AIDS campaigns". "Campaigns" can mean everything and nothing, and currently, not the least due to opposition by the Bush administration, even campaigns advocating condom use are problematic. And campaigns usually still require money. The effect of many a campaign would be negligible as long as some of the worst-hit countries have a serious lack of medical staff. Educating people, especially to the higher education level that such staff requires, however very much requires money. The alternative would be to offer outside staff such competitive salaries that they would consider working there. Again this requires money. No, it doesn't help to simply dish out money indescriminately. But in solving the very specific problems in each country, money sure helps. And it's somewhat dishonest in my eyes to scold others for demanding more money being spent while the UN target is met by only a handful of nations.

Claiming anyone demands a blank check for Africa must be seen as frivolous without any evidence being produced to that end. I believe none of the protesters would argue that the specific use of the money would have to be well thought-out.

The thought that DA should not go "to countries where there is a considerable likelihood that the money will be sacked in by corrupt officials and warlords", sorry, is holding the citizens of those nation responsible for one's own ineptitude in distribution. If all one knows of distributing DA is dumping it into the hands of officials, then the problem is with us, not with the population of those nations. I believe this very much is an issue where we have to become more creative, not the least because precisely by NOT acting in such a fashion, we can undermine the corruption and the preying on the squalor of the people.

To address some of the points of the original article, it suffers in my eyes from treating the critics as a monolithic block and oversimplifying their points. I'd like to address some problems specifically:

"It is paradoxical to criticize the G8 summit as just another expression of the “arrogance of the powerful” while in the same breath demanding that those powerful few solve complex issues such as climate change or poverty in Africa. "

Is it? When the summit creates the image of digging in shutting out all inconvenient voices (including the press), who can blame anyone from getting the impression of arrogance? The poem "Mending Wall" by Robert Frost is very pertinent here. When you do your best to create an impression of aloofness and distance, who are you to complain about others deeming you arrogant? And how do you expect the effort to "solve complex issues such as poverty in Africa" to be seen as credible when Africa is largely fenced out?

"There would indeed be cause for concern if, as G8 opponents claim, globalization had undermined the power of the nation state and made corporate puppets out of democratically elected governments. Evidence, however, points to the contrary."

In some aspects, this is certainly true, in others, evidence is very much in support of it. If we look at tobacco advertisement, it was the German government which fought tooth and nails to prevent a ban. The tobacco industry couldn't have done it any better. This despite the fact that we have left the times of "smoking is harmless" long behind us. Likewise, cigarettes still are readily available from vending machines in Germany, all "efforts" to make them less accessible to youths nonwithstanding. Witness the difficulties introducing a ban on smoking in pubs, which readily passed in France. Why is this? Certainly NOT because of the minority of smokers among the voters. So the question of how much lobbyism and how much tobacco tax is behind this conduct is certainly justified.

If we want to talk about evidence, we shouldn't just pretend there is no evidence whatsoever for the other side.

"The claim that globalization widens the gap between rich and poor proves equally imprecise. The gap between the richest and the poorest countries is indeed widening, but lack of economic infrastructure within countries is the culprit. "

How is the claim imprecise if the author confirms herself that the claim is actually factual? Even IF the lack of economic infrastructure is the culprit, it remains to be seen why that lack persists. More, the latter only refers to the gap between richest and poorest countries. The author ignores the issue of widening gaps between rich and poor WITHIN an individual country.

"The “one-size-fits-all” approach heralded by protest groups, however, will not work among Africa’s diverse economies"

Again, it is questionable to make claims about alleged positions of the other side without any actual references. This reeks of "I put things in your mouth just to have something to refute".

"Unfortunately, most of the arguments of today’s globalization critics are but hollow echoes of the left-wing discourse of the 1970s and do not reflect the plurality of opinion. It is high time that we discuss the positive aspects of globalization in order to make our world a better place."

It is this phrase that to me rings hollow. There are plenty of groups that do not deny positive aspects of globalization, and do not fight globalization in general at all, but criticise the specifics of the current trends. Perspectives is the key issue here. A solid analysis requires the events not being seen through one's own perspective but to try to see what it looks like from the other side. This, alas, is totally lacking from the article. It is a nice opinion piece, but doesn't help the discussion in any way. What the author did not do was look at whether the concerns by others are justified. Instead, she simply presented her own personal opinion, without any analysis of specific claims.

June 26, 2007

Jon Frost, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Bronze Contributor (11)

I have some serious problems with this article's basic notions of globalization and criticism to it. They are basically twofold:

1) The claim that globalization is a "natural" or "organic" process stemming from technological advance is flat-out wrong. Although this depends somewhat on your definition of globalization (there are many out there), I take globalization to mean the increasing interconnection of the global economy, especially through higher trade and capital flows. These are patently a result of policy choices over the last 20 years (many of them peddled by, yes, a "small elite" of economic advisors and "experts" in public policy) which have eroded tariffs and capital controls. Whether these changes are desirable or not is another debate, but we should all accept that globalization is not just a natural phenomenon that we passively take part in.

2) There is a big difference in opposing "globalization" per se and the shape that globalization takes. As an example, even the notion of lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers can take very different forms. One could name regional trade agreements, universal tariff reductions, reductions with preferences for developing countries, or the kind of one-sided arrangements we currently see, in which the industrialized countries uses the WTO to force others' barriers down but keep their own agricultural subsidies in place. I think this is a clear problem, with disastrous effects for developing countries, and it is legitimate to call on the world's leaders to change this. This is only one example of how the rules of globalization are currently skewed to benefit the rich, but more could be named. Self-styled "proponents" of globalization also need to discuss this, lest they turn into uncritical cheerleaders of a problematic phenomenon.

Many commentators (with the exception of the last one) have built a straw man argument about anti-globalization protestors which is a little unfair. To claim that they are entirely without real criticisms or primarily interested in provoking the police is to ignore the real points that many are making. I am not a member of "attac" or the "schwarzer Block" and don't want to make blanket defenses, but there are many - especially in the former movement - whose primary criticism of globalization is that it is undemocratic, elitist, and deaf to criticism. Ignoring or misrepresenting these arguments is easier than debating with them, but it ironically proves these protestors right.