Globalizing Resistance: the 50 Years Network
Few issues today spark a controversy comparable to the one being generated by the international phenomena of globalization. As with any other major issue groups can be found both in support and opposition, with each faction having its own “legitimate” logic. Globalization’s proponents include such entities as international corporations and the world’s “economic class,” the group of individuals closely concerned with markets, economies, and their interactions, all carefully studied in order to reach the absolute goal of turning a profit. Supporters’ reasons are simple: liberalization of trade can more easily equate into larger profits for these cash machines of the economic class, both mass conglomerates and individual entrepreneurs. As a direct response to this optimistic view of globalization, critics fear that globalization will lead only to the further concentration of the world’s wealth into the hands of a few fortunate people, the world’s economic moguls who control the international trends towards globalization. Each group, supporters or dissenters, has motivation for its position, but it is the position of the antiglobalizationists upon which this paper will focus. As a case study, I will detail the activities of one antiglobalization group, the 50 Years is Enough Network and discuss the group’s activities regarding this year’s international meeting of the World Bank at Prague. In so doing, I intend to provide a general basis of understanding of activist groups opposed to globalization.
As suggested by the organization’s name, 50 Years Is Enough Network is, according to the group’s website (www.50years.org), “a coalition of 205 grassroots…organizations dedicated to the profound transformation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (or IMF).” The role of the organization is to coordinate the activities of these many groups in a collective effort of protest against the globalization movement. All actions governed by 50 Years move toward the ultimate goal of achieving global economic justice. Goals of the Network include increasing accountability in corporate action and developing accountability and democratically fair international financial institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank. In order to make progress towards these goals and reverse the perceived harm being caused by these organizations as tools of the rich nations, the Network intends to inform the public at large of the need to reform these financial institutions. Means by which the Network has carried out this campaign, thus far, have included demonstrations, like the current protests at Prague, as well as others, such as in Seattle last November and Washington D.C. in April.
As a network, 50 Years is able to coordinate the activities of many local activist groups. One example of such coordination is the “International Day of Action” staged September 26, 2000, through which the network organized people and organizations worldwide and in United States cities to support and supplement corresponding demonstrations in Prague. One city involved on the local level is Atlanta, Georgia, which engaged in a teach-in at Georgia State College on the 26th. Around America and other parts of the world, activists involved in the “International Day of Action” supported the protests by other means, as listed on the organization’s website. In addition to protests in localized areas, the Network planned workshops, marches, rallies, and non-violent direct actions to protest damage done by the IMF and World Bank. Thousands of activists were to attend these events, to protest the roles of these two financial institutions as rule makers for corporate globalization. Feeling the rules levied by these institutions to be unfair to the smaller economic groups, i.e., a non-economic elite, 50 Years Network’s efforts to help coordinate and support opposition of the Prague meeting is the Network’s means of communicating their dissatisfaction with the agendas of the IMF and World Bank.
To date, gains accrued in the antiglobalization campaign have been limited or non-existent. As is often the case, the actions of a few irresponsible antiglobalization groups massively overshadow the actions of peaceably protesting groups. The most recent example available is the current meetings in Prague; while most organized demonstrations were peaceful, certain groups took to the streets in order to wield violence as their voice of protest. This is generally the case in the ongoing arena of globalization protest. During the UN Millennia Summit, on September 6th the New York Times reported on a peaceful protest of globalization. Only ten months earlier the same newspaper had to publish a report about the violence erupting during the Seattle conferences. During what might otherwise be peaceful protests, anarchists and rival protest groups now seemingly routinely clash with police, causing riots and a black eye to the antiglobalization movement. This negative publicity tends to undo what good manages to derive from the peaceful protests, leaving the crusaders for world “economic justice” no reform in spite of their best efforts. The violent protests span the globe from Melbourne to Washington D.C., each riot pushing the gains of the antiglobalizationists back to a minimum.
As one of the many peacefully protesting groups, the 50 Years Network, since its formation in 1996, has experienced both the successes and defeats common to similar protest groups intent upon creating more accountable and fair international financial institutions. Whether through coordinating activities at the local level or the global level, the 50 Years Network shares its role in the ongoing epic of protest with countless other organizations, each organization determined to improve the quality of economics for whomever their group represents. The 50 Years Network’s activities at Prague, though on a somewhat small scale compared to all the activities undertaken by all protest groups collectively, presents antiglobalizationists’ position to the entire world, that they will not be satisfied until what they see as being right and fair is accomplished. Prague serves as an important symbol to the world: even amid continued violence exist many groups and organizations willing to stand in and fight for what they believe to be right, unafraid of what might happen, knowing only that they are doing what is right. As antiglobalizationists continue to fight for their perceived “economic justice,” so too will liberals and rich economic moguls continue to fight to preserve their positions of dominance. This struggle is the modern day incarnation of the ageless battle between the Proletariat and the Bourgeois, a struggle not easy to limit or conclude. Although a complete resolution may, in reality, be impossible to conclude, the two enemy camps might come closer to a consensus if they would base their long term objectives and theories upon one simple principle: increasing and expanding their economic estates only by methods allowed by justice, not exploitation or corruption. Most plainly put, if the groups for and against globalization would base their methods upon what is right and wrong, neither group would fall so far from the proverbial economic tree that either would be forced to revolt against the established (or establishing, as it is) mechanisms of economy. As the state of the globalizing international world currently stands, globalization is good for the corporate world, competition, and consumers, but it is inversely destructive to the financial well being of small producers who are increasingly unable to compete with the larger producers. Therefore, in order for globalization to be allowed to persist in such a way that it is a benefit to both groups, whether to the wealthy economic classes or to the numerous groups whose economic livelihood is currently hanging in the balance, both groups must agree upon a basic, reciprocal principle. Globalizationists must agree that the rights of small business must be protected and small business must agree that corporations have the right to exist and compete fairly. In order for this idea to work, the necessary foundation must be constructed, the framework for which exists within the spheres of the very global governance bodies antiglobalizationists are currently trying to reform, such as the World Trade Organization, United Nations, World Bank, and the IMF. Upon the completion of the necessary “legal” framework, implementation of the means leading to corporate accountability and fair competition could be undertaken. Once complete, existent should be a fair economic structure suitable to both ends of the economic “class spectrum,” ending the controversy about globalization that so ignites the world today.
Work Cited
50 Years Is Enough. U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice. 2000. Updated 01 Oct. 2000.
Barbara Crossette. Globalization to top world leaders’ agenda. New York Times. 3 Sep. 2000.
Edward Wong. A Quiet Forum at Town Hall Opposes the East River Forum. New York Times. 6 Sep. 2000.
(Author Unknown). Mobilization for Global Justice. 2000. Updated 28 Sep. 2000.