George Monbiot (Guardian Unltd): The myth of localism

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Tuesday September 9

The myth of localism
It is unrealistic and misguided to believe that poor countries should be totally self-reliant
By George Monbiot

Outside the world trade talks beginning in Cancun, Mexico tomorrow, two battles will be fought. The first will be the battle between the campaigners demanding fair trade and the rich-nation delegates demanding unfair trade. The second will be the dispute now brewing within the ranks of those who claim to be helping the poor.
The problem all those who want a fairer deal face is that there has seldom, if ever, been a trade treaty struck between rich and poor which does not amount to legalised theft. The draft agreement the members of the World Trade Organisation will discuss this week is no exception. While it permits the rich nations to continue protecting their markets, it seeks to force the poor nations to open their economies to several novel forms of institutional piracy.
Yet the poorer countries desperately want an effective trade treaty. Their negotiators know that the rich world is trying to rob them, and they are loath to approve an agreement which allows its corporations to run off with everything but their kidneys (that comes later). But they are also aware that both the US and the EU appear to be doing all they can to force them to walk out. As any trade unionist knows, when the poor cannot bargain collectively, the rich can impose whatever rules they please.
The response of some of those in the rich world who are disgusted with their governments' proposals is to suggest that poor nations should withdraw from most kinds of international trade. But this introduces another problem. The poor countries need money and, in particular, hard money. They have few means of obtaining it. Piracy worked well for the nations that are rich today, but the poor are in no position to reciprocate. Aid locks its recipients into patronage and dependency. The only remaining option appears to be trade. The 3 million people from the poorer nations who have so far signed Oxfam's petition are calling not to "make trade go away", but to "make trade fair". And this is where they part company from some of those who claim to support them.

Read more.

This is the second of George Monbiot's three-part series on trade. Here is Part One. Part three runs next Tuesday.

[Martin Eden]

1. Blinded by greed

The main purpose of those who posess wealth is to gather more of it. With greater resources and access to power, the wealthy promote concepts like "free trade" in order to maintain their owm hegemony, and to manipulate the development of the international system to their advantage.

But just as the wealthy elite in the US may be sowing the seeds of their own destruction by pushing a radical domestic agenda and a costly provacative foreign policy, the wealthy nations may be fomenting backlash and revolution in the developing countries they so eagerly exploit. The developing countries have been dealt a comparitively weak hand, but their aces in the whole are their natural resources and human populations that ultimately will not submit.

If the wealthy nations had enlightened leadership, they would understand that their own best long term interests lie in seeking equitable trade agreements and a sustainable world economy. But the world economy is not guided by enlightened national leaders, it is driven by the never-ending quest for corporate profit and power. Any player in this game who forgoes short term advantage for such a long term goal will lose to their competitors.

This is the fatal flaw of a profit-driven world economy unfettered by collective oversight. Prudent strategies such as conserving natural resources, protecting the environment, and seeking economic justice for the developing world cannot be implemented in this cutthroat environment. This same flaw is painfully evident in the right-wing US domestic agenda for privatization and elimination of government regulations.

The necessary "collective oversight" is not communism or socialism, it is the "enlightened leadership" of an optimally functioning democracy. An informed electorate is the essential ingredient for citizens to make enlightened choices and elect leaders who will implement policies that will ensure prosperity, liberty, and security for their children's grandchildren.

This same principle needs to apply to relations between advanced democracies, and ultimately between all nations. Free enterprise is essential for economic health and the constructive ambition inherent in human nature, but the growing disparity of wealth and power between nations, and between citizens within our modern democracy, is not healthy by any definition of the term.

The US neoconservatives are implementing unhealthy domestic policies, and seek to impose this inequitable system on other nations through the use of brute military force. They claim to be spreading democracy, when in fact they are creating a growing plutocracy and are seizing the natural resources necessary to sustain their system.

Most hypocritically they invoke democratic and christian ideals, while their deeds would be abhorred by the founding fathers and the holy father.

Do forgive me, but I just needed to get all that off my chest. Thanks for posting the article, and I look forward to the next two parts.

[glitch]

2. Excellent post

Can't really call it a rant, it's too well thought out and written.
Monbiot is always excellent as well, so here's a kick for him.

[IrateCitizen]

3. You said all that VERY eloquently, Martin!

Your post reminds me of a quote I heard from Michael Parenti.

There is only one thing that the ruling class has ever wanted, and that is EVERYTHING.

As a fair trader, I find myself in increasing agreement with Monbiot's approach. And I also, sadly, find myself nodding my head in agreement with your assessment of our "leaders" and their lack of any sort of foresight.

Have you read The Silent Takeover by Noreena Hertz? She describes how politicians have gone from being the overseers of business to mere cheerleaders, which has effectively resulted in business being able to write almost all aspects of domestic and foreign policy. If the politicians are captive to business and unresponsive to the needs of the people and the environment, then who is left to speak up for those needs in a way that will significantly influence how things are done?

The only certainty is that it's quite a quandry we're in, and there's no clear way of getting out....

[Martin Eden]

4. The Silent Takeover

No, I haven't heard of that book by Noreena Hertz, but I will certainly add it to my reading list. I'm currently about halfway through Wealth and Democarcy by Kevin Phillips.

One thing that the Bush neocons have done for me is to instill a determination to enlighten myself as much as possible. DU has been a great source for information lacking in the mainstream press.

Thanks for the compliments!

[IrateCitizen]

6. Wealth and Democracy is another "must read"!

I read it earlier this year. Most striking are the comparisons that Phillips draws between the US right now, Victorian/Edwardian England, 17th century Holland, and 16th century Spain.

I found out about Dr. Hertz by seeing her on NOW with Bill Moyers. Her book is interesting because it is a look at the fallacies of "free trade" from an insider -- she was a former World Bank official -- and as such, it avoids any kind of black/white perspectives that you often find on both sides of this issue.

In any event, welcome to DU -- I'm certain your input will help enlighten us all!

[T_i_B]

5. Guardian did a supplement on international trade on Monday

Here is my thread on the matter. Lots of info but I do advise you to check it all out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=9955