Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 09/13/2002

THE EARTH SUMMIT in Johannesburg ended on a hopeful note last week as Premier Zhu Rongji ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, Mr Zhu announced that China would halt the current rate of ecological degradation within three years, and reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent by 2010, based on the 1eve1 in 2000, while doubling its gross domestic product.

Meanwhile, he called on the international community to address global terrorism and anti-globalisation by closing the wealth gap between developed and developing nations.

Mr Zhu's stirring words were in sharp contrast to the non-performance of the United States. President George W. Bush did not show up, and has tried to block enactment of the Kyoto Protocol by withholding support.

While Mr Zhu supported sustainable development as the common goal of all nations, it is important to recognize that China has formed its own model of sustainable development - one that does not kowtow to the Western models that are preached by the International Monetary Fund, the Wor1d Bank and Washington think-tanks.

In 1986 there were 125 million rural people living below the poverty 1evel in China. By 1996 the figure had dropped to 70 million. China has attempted to lift an average of 12 million people out of poverty each year, a programme that has required high growth rates and low inflation, through carefully “managed marketisation”.

Still, many do not seem to get the point. US think-tank theories become gospel, and are thrust upon developing countries with aid packages attached. But the theories do not necessarily work, especially when “solutions” have not been thought through within the context of the values of the people to whom they are being applied.

The doctors of development fly in and fly out, and it all seems so easy from the business centre of a five-star hotel.

Meanwhile, anti-globalisatíon protesters have emerged from a1most nowhere. They were in Seattle, Davos, Genoa, and again in Johannesburg. A year ago in Genoa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Western press that they should not cover the actions of such protesters as they were not the legitimate voices which the democratically elected leaders of the world represented.

Maybe he had a point. These anti-globalisation protesters have instead come to represent the voice of the voiceless.

“Anti-globalisation” is a misnomer. Is this movement really against globalisation? It is composed of various non-governmental organizations and individual interest groups focusing on environmental, development, cultural and poverty-relief issues.

First we must ask ourselves what is meant by globalisatíon, a term which seems to be used positively in a mainstream context. If the growing worldwide Internet and telecommunications network is the epitome of globalisation, then it would seem anti-globalisation as a grassroots movement is the cutting edge of globalisation.

The protesters who have immobilised IMF, Wor1d Bank, Wor1d Economic Forum and other meetings from Seattle to Genoa have organized and communicated their ideas through the very tools which are held aloft as symbols of globalisation.

In fact, “anti-globalisation” is a convenient cliché used to dismiss the agendas of these groups as inconsistent with an overall system of American values and standards. The question is whether there is any pattern of consistency between the agendas of these disparate groups, and if so ís there a better way to view their aims than to dismiss them as símply being against globalisation?

World Trade Organization director-general Supachai Panitchpakdi once suggested “global governance” as a more appropriate term to articulate the goals of such movements.

Arguably, the anti-globalisation activists are not against globalisation of technology, or a rule of law applied equally among nations. They are against a pattern of global Americanisation with one set of standards for environmental protection, trade, monetary policy, market management, development and morality applied to the world - while seemingly different standards are applied to the US.

A clear example of this point was the recent imposition of steel import barriers to protect US industry, in c1ear defiance of WTO standards.

“Developed countries, in particular, should make their markets more accessible by dismantling trade barriers,” Mr Zhu said at the Earth Summit.

While the issue of eliminating grain subsidies for mainland farmers was a major obstacle in the lengthy negotiations between Beijing and Washington over the terms of China’s WTO accession, the US government purchases large amounts of wheat every year from farmers at subsidised prices, and burns it to sustain market prices.

“We call for a proper handling of the relationship between trade and environment, for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations to ensure the two will promote each other,” Mr Zhu said.

“As economic globalization presses on, the gap between the North and South, as well as the digital divide, keeps on widening. In particular, terrorist activities…remain quite serious.”

To combat this problem, he encouraged the United Nations to support aid programmes, technology-sharing and training for developing nations. That is to attack the problem at its root.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top