Standing At A Crossroads
by Anne Ruimy
|
When there is a massive increase in population and old institutions are unable to cope, and families can no longer provide work, and children have to go off to fend for themselves in cities where there is no security or moral support, and where the rich and powerful are corrupt, flaunting their pleasures before those who cannot afford them, then some kind of consolation or religion has to come to the rescue.
- Theodore Zeldin: An intimate history of Humanity
|
THE message emanating from the New World Order is that relative peace and prosperity, and the apparent strength of our democracies, assure that the period we live in is "the end of history". Few critical thinkers however doubt that western societies, and by extension all our societies, are in crisis.
At least five events of historical significance took place within the twelve month period between the summers of 2001 and 2002: the rejection of the Nice Treaty by Irish voters in June 2001; the death of a protester during the G8 summit in Genoa (Italy) in July 2001; the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11; the economic collapse of Argentina in December 2001; and the electoral success of the French National Front in April 2002. The year was otherwise marked by chronic anti-globalisation protests and a worsening global economy.
The September 11 attacks kick-started a multi-faceted US-led "war against terrorism". But there are alternatives to the Bush doctrine that this is a war against "those who hate freedom". Steve Booth argues convincingly that it a Great Crusade against radical Islam. (See Great Crusade, and BLUE Book #1, forthcoming.) Some would say that it is one of these resource wars - over dwindling supplies of oil - that will become commonplace this century. For George Caffentzis, what is at stake is not only oil but planetary industrial development. (See In the US, Dreaming of Iraq in the BLUE web archive, or Midnight Notes, and BLUE Book #1.) I believe that it is a war waged by global capitalism to re-establish its ideological supremacy. In fact it is probably all these, and more.
The recent historical events result from conflict between the established world order and the great social movements evolving within the shell of our societies. These movements - using simplified definitions that many will disagree with - are fundamentalism, nationalism, and anti-globalisation. Each have the potential to overthrow the established world order or - again to use a simplistic definition - globalisation. These three social movements share common themes in their rejection of globalisation, though the solutions they propose differ. And globalisation is reacting to the threats these movements pose with similar and disproportionate force, giving the impression that the system is waging a desperate war to save the doomed institutions that sustain its power.
Save European Construction!
Ireland was propelled on the global political map on June 7, 2001, voting a surprising 54% No in the referendum to ratify the Nice Treaty. The aim of the treaty was to overhaul the institutions of the European Union in preparation for a union of 27 member states rather than the current 15. Being the only country which is constitutionally obliged to call a referendum to ratify the treaty, Ireland's rejection cast doubts on the future of the enlargement process.
Political analysts scrambled to give their opinions on what motivated this vote on a complex piece of legislation. There were almost as many explanations as commentators, and paradoxes were not seen as fatal flaws. But as no systematic survey was conducted, the No voters and campaigners were denigrated as a "motley crew".
Ten days later, another motley crew of anti-globalisation protesters descended on the streets of Gothenburg (Sweden). Was it an unfortunate coincidence, or had the referendum been timed to give a boost to European construction, as the Irish Prime Minister expected to bring a Yes to Nice trophy to the summit of EU leaders in Gothenburg? In any case, the planned debates during the sessions in Gothenburg were instead dominated by discussions on the Irish referendum results, with parliamentarians calling for the salvation or destruction of the treaty.
Some commentators were suggesting that, would other countries have held a referendum, the results would have been similar. And, while Irish politicians were apologising for their citizens' misbehaviour, out on the streets anti-globalisation protesters were thanking Irish people.
If there was a confusion over the motivations of No voters, this confusion has been apparently resolved by the center-right coalition brought back triumphantly into government for another five-year term in April 2002. Having decided that it is sufficient to address the attachment of Irish people to neutrality, the government has re-submitted the same treaty for approval by Irish people, with a "declaration on neutrality" as an appendix.
Will those who expressed their dislike of the neo-liberal direction taken by the EU get to love it next time they have a chance to comment on it? (See BLUE Book #1.)
Save Parliamentary Democracy!
On April 21, 2002, after a string of elections showing a rise in support for far-right parties across Europe, it was France's turn to make the news. The French media scrambled to find strong enough words to describe the shock caused by a vote that would pit the National Front's Jean-Marie Le Pen against outgoing president Jacques Chirac in the final round of the presidential elections.
Political commentators gave prominence to the "protest vote" theory rather than to rising support for the traditional anti-immigrant themes of the National Front. Adding protest votes and abstentions, Le Monde newspaper gave a figure of three out of five who voted against candidates likely to be in government.
The protest was aimed at corruption among the political class, and at the European and global processes at the root of factory closures and delocalisations, violence and insecurity. Political parties outside the system - the National Front but also radical Trotskyists - proved more in tune with a disempowered electorate that sees important decisions affecting their lives made undemocratically, in secret, than the governmental parties.
In the ensuing two-week period that will probably be remembered as "l'entre-deux tours", the streets of France's major cities saw continuous protests, in complete contrast to the voter apathy that produced a 28 percent turn out - the lowest in French presidential electoral history.
If the protesters who descended en masse onto the streets of major French cities after the first round were saying "Non" to Le Pen, most of them did not mean "Oui" to Chirac. Yet, if the mainstream media and the political establishment understood - a bit late - what the vote signified, they were unanimous in urging the French to vote during the second round, often without even stating the obvious: who the temporarily misguided populace was to vote for.
Voters, faced with a choice more meaningless than ever, elected Chirac on May 5, 2002 with a majority of 82% more characteristic of dictatorships than of evolved western democracies. This reluctant vote, in the best interest of democracy, was understood to put Chirac back in power on the condition that he would finally heed popular demands. This democratic mandate was reiterated in June when the French people gave Chirac's party the means to govern unimpeded with a majority in the National Assembly. Unfortunately, the lesson has not been heard, and in France it's back to business as usual.
Will the popular discontent that is starting brew again save parliamentary democracy next time around? (See BLUE Book #1.)
Save the Summits!
Prior to the G8 summit on July 20-22, 2001, Italian Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi reassured the world that Genoa wasn’t going to be another Gothenburg, where three were wounded by gunshot. But 18,000 police, a military presence not seen in western Europe since World War II, arbitrary imprisonments, even alleged torture didn’t succeed in curbing protesters’ determination.
Genoa was a turning point in the summit protests of recent years. On the receiving end since the Seattle battle of 1999, the Empire suddenly struck back and did so in a brutal manner. After gunning him down, the Italian military drove their vehicle over the body of Carlo Giuliani, killing him.
As the hard line in police handling of demonstrations proved a failure, an alternative suggestion put forward was to hold future meetings in remote places. But because these responses to the law and order problems did not address the protesters’ demands, they were losing ground in the face of growing public support for the anti-globalisation movement. And the change in mindsets was beginning to reach the mainstream press and the political class.
With September 11 came the backlash. Revised anti-terrorist legislation in the EU proposed to define "terrorism" to cover groups with the aim of "seriously altering... the political, economic or social structure" of one or more countries and their institutions and includes "urban violence", a quite obvious reference to anti-globalisation protesters. In the following months, human rights group denounced the process of criminalisation of civil dissent including the proposed ID cards in the United Kingdom, the inclusion of an non-government organisation (NGO) on an American list of banned "terrorist" groups, the proposed retention of all telecommunications data for general use by law enforcement agencies under the EU terrorism plan, and so on.
What the events of September 11 also significantly achieved was to reposition global capitalism on the moral high ground. This thwarted, albeit temporarily, the most serious threat to the ideology of globalisation since the implosion of communism - namely anti-globalisation.
Washington police were preparing for 100,000 possible demonstrators whose rallying cry was to be "Surround the White House" at the end of September. When the meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank - the intended focus of the demonstrations - were cancelled in the wake of September 11, the occasion turned into a peace rally attended by 8,000. Globalisation was largely off the agenda.
But the reprieve was to be short-lived. The 500,000 who turned up in Barcelona (Spain) in March 2002 to challenge yet another EU economic summit meeting had a message to deliver. Despite heavy police and military presence, the constant cry of ‘another world is possible’ was heard.
If the summit of EU leaders in Seville (Spain) in June 2002 didn’t make screaming headlines, the subdued nature of the protests were the result of a change of strategy within the movement, which focused on a Social Forum of seminars, debates and a peaceful march through the city. (See A World of Possibilities by Rachel Guevera and Marcel Idles, BLUE contents page, and BLUE Book #1.)
How long will the pacifists within the movement keep the counter-summits from degenerating into riots, when only violent protest gets them noticed? (See BLUE Book #1.)
Save the Dow Jones!
While early in the summer economic analysts still speculated that the crisis may have "bottomed out", the early days of September 2001 brought the certainty that worse was to come. The only uncertainties remaining were whether the economy would be in stagnation or recession, and when it would start to recover. The deepening global economic crisis was starting to make made a mockery of the claims that the communication technologies-led boom of the past decade was going to last forever and - finally - trickle down to the poorest.
In the aftermath of September 11, economic analysts affected to forget that the various stock market indices had been on a slippery slope for at least a year, with an almost uninterrupted slide since June. Historically, September is the worst month of the year for Wall Street. Thus the attacks have merely accelerated a pre-existing tendency. In addition, events such as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of President J.F. Kennedy, events to which September 11 has been compared, do not have long-lasting effects on the financial markets.
Yet America and its allies took the concerted decision to dedicate massive resources to help the economy, as if the attacks had caused the economic collapse and it was of paramount importance not to let the terrorists enjoy this victory.
President George W. Bush and the Congress came up with a stream of financial support, injecting billions of dollars to boost the economy and bail out various sectors in difficulty. The US Federal Reserve cut its interest rates several times to reach the lowest in 40 years, resulting in actual rates after inflation of zero. European Central Banks cut their own rates in an almost synchronized fashion, despite having held on to an independent approach so far that balanced economic growth and inflation control.
This sustained economic effort brought a short-term reprieve to the global economy, but the situation started to worsen again in the spring of 2002 as evidenced by an almost continuous freefall in the various stock market indices. With the string of accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other U.S. companies, even shareholders are starting to lose confidence in big corporations.
Now that globalisation has spent its most precious bullet - the destruction of the World Trade Center which caused thousands of victims amongst the footsoldiers of global finance - what is left to boost the Dow Jones?
Save Free Trade!
The past decade has seen a succession of major international economic crises. These crises have usually been the result of high levels of government and corporate borrowing combined with the implementation of IMF-prescribed neoliberal policies.
One could argue that the cycles of boom and bust, rather than being an undesirable side-effect of global capitalism, are essential to its Phoenix-like regeneration. After all, competition requires inequalities, both internal and external. The newly impoverished country - today’s pariah - will soon become the ideal place to invest again with its low labour costs and standards.
What makes the Argentinean case stand out is that the policies of the IMF and the World Bank that destroyed the economy, brought down successive governments, and led to violently repressed riots and looting in December 2001 also sparked community activity in the form of assemblies based on co-operation, mutual aid and barter. Was Argentina heading towards involuntary autarchy?
One would however be surprised if globalisation was letting history run its course and adopt a wait and see attitude towards such experiments. In the summer of 2002, Argentina was being pressured to "restructure" its banking system as a pre-requisite to entering negotiations over yet another World Bank loan - the only approved way out its misery.
Washington was also incidentally linked to the coup that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power in Venezuela in April 2002. In May, former President Jimmy Carter toured Cuba to appeal for more democracy - and less communism - in exchange for ending the 40-year long US embargo. As Cuba’s health and education standards were starting to look embarrassingly healthier than those of most ‘Tiger’ economies, despite or perhaps thanks to the embargo, America’s humanitarian motives need to be questioned.
Meanwhile, in the background, globalisation is taking care of business. September 11 has expectedly served as a pretext to fast-track legal frameworks such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) that will increasingly make democratically adopted environmental or worker protection laws redundant, if these hinder competition, anywhere in the world.
But which country will be next to go bust? ‘Celtic Tiger’ Ireland perhaps, which now heads the World Index of Globalisation?
Standing at a crossroads
The three great movements - fundamentalism, nationalism, and anti-globalisation - ask pertinent and similar questions of our societies. One common way of dismissing these questions is to point to the fact that the movements have been unlikely bedfellows, in street protests, polling booths and newspaper columns.
As an example, the political parties who had campaigned for a "No to Nice" in Ireland constitute a microcosm of the three great movements world-wide: Independent Dana Rosemary Scanlon, who represents a breed of catholicism verging on fundamentalism, Sinn Fein, the Irish republican party, who have no qualms calling itself a nationalist party, and the Green Party, who would probably recognise itself in most of the ideals of the anti-globalisation movement.
Apart from the fact that they were widely unexpected, and had major political repercussions, the recent historical events also have in common the reactions they generated in the establishment.
The human beings behind these events are looked upon with a mixture of fascination, fear and loathing. The Irish No to Nice voters were in turn or all at once: uninformed, ignorant, selfish, greedy, racist, brainwashed, manipulated, intimidated, nihilist. The French Le Pen voters, but also those who voted for anti-establishment left-wing parties and those who abstained or didn’t bother voting, shared many of these characteristics, as well as being lazy, apathetic, populist. The anti-globalisation protesters are variously dreamers, idealists, anarchists, but in Genoa they were treated like terrorists. The Palestinians who cheered when the Twin Towers collapsed were obviously guilty of murder by association.
Significantly, the three movements also have many values in common. To summarize, they question or out rightly reject modernity, and look to a sometimes mythical past for inspiration.
Modernity has its roots in 17th century European philosophy, advanced in the Enlightenment, and climaxed with the 1990’s triumph of globalised capitalism. If modernity overthrew the ancient world order and humankind’s place within it, it failed to replace religious certainties with scientific certainties. The logic of modernity has led to the current crisis in identity, institutions, culture, morals, reason and so on. The three movements are the religions and consolations Theodore Zeldin refers to.
These similarities between the three movements indicate that they are different symptoms, in different socio-economic-cultural contexts, of the same malady: societies in crisis. In this sense, September 11 was not "the day that changed the world". The world had already changed, and some are trying to use this event as a pretext to bring back a world a majority doesn’t want anymore.
If we are indeed witnessing the beginning of the end of globalisation, the path our societies will take is not yet determined. It will depend on what emerges from the conflicts between the alternative movements and the current world order, as well as from the competition between the alternative ideologies themselves. We are in an exciting but dangerous period in history. We are standing at a crossroads.
Arguably, fundamentalism and nationalism only offer mirages of a better life, because they do not challenge the most obvious causes of human misery and ecosystem destruction: the extension of the monoculture of global capitalism to all parts of the world, the extension of social and cultural systems whereby vast classes of people must be subjugated, and the extension of scientific and technological approaches to managing life. In short, they propose to keep capitalism but fix some of its side-effects: migrations of people and declining moral values.
There is no map for the other road the world might possibly take. It is being created, discussed and argued in the many forums of ‘the movement’ as it sometimes simply calls itself - from fear of categorisation. Meanwhile, countries like Argentina that have experienced severe political and economical crises are putting the first steps on that road. (See The Invisibility of Struggle by Robert Allen, BLUE archive, and BLUE Book #1.)
Will those in power finally understand that ‘enough is enough’ - another slogan of the movement? Or will the system perpetuate itself until it collapses? Or will the conflict come down to a full scale battle between those who control the world and those who want to change it?
And what happens next? [See below.]
- – Anne Ruimy
PGA CALL
Several global mobilisations that will take place from September 16 to the end of the year call on all people and movements to confront capitalism, militarism, racism, sexism, religious fundamentalism, environmental degradation and all controls and limitations on the freedom of communication and movement of human beings.
Global days of action against capitalism have successfully challenged the legitimacy of many centralised power structures. Anti-capitalist networks have damaged the reputation and exposed the violence inflicted by despotic institutions and agreements. However, we need more than just actions against specific institutions in order to undermine all forms of domination and oppression. Fear is the main weapon that the global elites use to legitimise themselves and strengthen their stranglehold on the necks of all people who are poor, non-white or working for social change. If we fail to confront and offset that fear, especially in the wake of September 11, we will face an accelerated transformation towards outright fascism fuelled by powerful economic interests.
Autonomous, decentralised global actions combine our strengths and creativity around the world, but now is the time to connect protests and actions against specific dimensions of the web of oppression and show their interdependence. We therefore call on all people who value life and freedom to participate in a season of global decentralised actions against oppression.
For this to happen, we ask you to:
- Connect any actions you have planned in this period to all other actions through http://www.emancipate.info, or organise actions if you haven't planned any already in this period.
- Show active solidarity with each other in the face of repression.
- Report and reflect on other actions through independent media in your community and in this way strengthen our communication and our opposition to corporate and state media.
- Take this opportunity to learn, understand and take advantage of each others' visions, methods and tactics; both in our opposition to structures of domination and in the direct realisation of our ideals.
- Discuss ways to strengthen the connections between regions and fields of struggle through global long-term initiatives of co-operation.
– Anne Ruimy is the editor and publisher of rocky road – a new Irish environmental magazine
|
|
|
