| | | In defence of global humanitarian standards | | by CATHERINE RYAN | Anti-globalisation protesters, according to Mr Peter Costello, are hypocritical luddites that wish to seal off Australia from the rest of the world and abolish anything with the word "world" in it, all while continuing to surf the internet and push for agreements on "global" warming. "They think 'global' and act 'global', and protest against globalisation", the Treasurer stated in his Wednesday address to the Sydney Institute, moving to illustrate the apparent hypocrisy of anyone opposing globalisation in its current state.
This terse summary fails to take into account the fact that, at least in my experience, the mainstream of anti-globalisation protest is not inherently opposed to the concept of international trade in itself. The majority is not, as the Treasurer suggests, doing the equivalent of "ranting against the telephone".
Rather, the anti-globalisation movement tends to be concerned about the way in which the world is presently being globalised - that is, chiefly through trade with no humanitarian or democratic standards.
If I were to be an employer in Australia today, there are a number of restrictions and standards with which I would have to comply. These include a minimum wage, workplace safety acts, maternity leave and a host of other restrictions which I am sure the Treasurer would not contest the necessity of. Furthermore, if aggregate conditions in industries across the nation became abhorrent through lack of governmental monitoring, the government of the day could be called to account through our democratic system.
In the world of global trade and industry, however, this is not the case. With free trade agreements, all that matters is the liquid flow of capital. It's "horses for courses", Mr Costello told us when speaking at my school on Monday the 23rd of July; the World Trade Organisation should deal with the trade stuff, the United Nations with the humanitarian stuff, and each organisation should steer well clear of the other's zone of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, multi-nationals are free to float from trade zone to trade zone, investing and employing where they choose, under workplace standards that they define.
But how do multinationals dictate the terms of business? Surely governments, be they in developing worlds or OECD countries, have the ultimate authority in these matters?
Yes they do, in theory. But increasingly in the globalised world, the role of a government is to make their respective economy the most attractive for international investment. Nations become 'flowers' that must entice the 'multi-national bees' by tax exemptions and the provision of cheap labour. Rather than representing the people, governments simply become the handmaidens of the investors, dancing to the tune played by the economy, as the reduction of workplace standards becomes a race to the bottom.
A common argument put forward by those selling globalisation goes something along the lines of, "without employment by Nike/the Gap/IBM, Third World countries would never develop." This argument is flawed, of course, as a 'developing' nation's luring in of multi-national employers, will often leave its economy stunted rather than nurtured.
Why is this so? Well, one of the most effective ways of luring investors is tax exemption. In order to stay in the intense global competition for foreign investment, many governments, such as those in the Philippines, are forced to allow corporations to invest for years at a time, with almost total tax exemption. Governments of these countries thus receive inadequate funds for the development of their infrastructure. Civic services - such as sewerage systems - fall into decay, while there is no revenue gained for reinvestment in their economy.
As their economy fails to develop, the attraction of the multi-national 'swallows' must continue, usually by the provision of cheap labour. Wages must drop, and local contractors must do all they can to crush those pesky unions that keep popping up and demanding such crazy things as a living wage and humane working conditions.
Contrary to that implied by Mr Costello, people do not dislike sweatshop labour simply because "expectations are rising".
Globalisation, like most things in the world, is not inherently wrong. What is of concern, however, is the way in which the world is presently being globalised. The majority of those who are 'anti-globalisation' are not technophobes or xenophobes, attempting to bury their heads in the sands of protectionism. Most understand that, as communication and travel become more efficient, old borders will slowly erode.
This doesn't have to mean that the enforcement of basic human rights will erode with them.
| 
Back to Index |
