The dark and light side of globalization

Globalization has a light and a dark side, according to former South African President and Nobel Laureate F.W. de Klerk, who spoke Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2005 at Northwest Missouri State University. One aspect of the dark side of globalization is that the wealthy nations are getting richer while poor nations are getting poorer.

Isolation is no longer an option, so nations must work together minimize the bad effects of globalization, he said. Giving up some national sovereignty is necessary if the inequities in the world are to be resolved.

de Klerk claimed that multilateralism will help solve the inequities in the world. No nation can do it alone. Resolving the world's problems requires the co-operative efforts of nations through organizations like the United Nations and the world trade organizations.

However, the UN should not become a military power. Regional forces should be called upon to settle wars, internal conflicts, and regional disputes, not the United Nations. For example, the conflicts in the Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa should be resolved by forces of the African Union. The United Nations should step in only after the peace has been won.

The U.S. and its partners were wrong to invade Iraq. Overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime should have been left to a multi-national force led by Arab nations.

Trade sanctions do not work. For example, trade sanctions against Zimbabwe would only make half the population that is destitute worse off. If trade sabctions are not working within six months, they should be called off.

Disparity per capita is increasing. In 1960 the ratio of those living in the bottom 20% compared to those in the high 20% was 30:1, in 1994 78:1 and in 2003 92:1. de Klerk said the "playing fields" must be made even if poverty is to be erradicated. The best way to do this is to open the world's markets to 3rd world exports.

34 of the 41 most indebted countries are in Africa. Africa carries on 1/50th of the world's trade. Only 6 of 1000 people in Nigeria have Internet access.

Fairer access to the world markets is better than aid, he said. In the US $300 billion a year is paid to subsidize farmers, which is six times the amount spent in foreign aid. These agricultural subsidies (which are common in developed countries) make it impossible for farmers in developing countries to compete.

Getting rid of subsidies would make the markets more competitive. First world farmers with their advantages of technology and knowledge would be able to develop other agricultural products to offset any loss of subsidies, de Klerk claimed.

Cultural alienation is at the root of wars, according to de Klerk. Wars based on ideologies ended with the fall of the USSR. Now wars are based on religious, ethnic and cultural differences. For example, in Georgia, a minority faction supported by Russia is fighting the Georgian government that is being supported by the U.S. and U.K.

Only through accepting cultural diversity will the world be made safe. A quarter of the population of half the countries in the world are minorities. 59% of people in Miami are foreign born, 44% in Toronto, and 30% in New York.

Ignoring and suppressing sub-cultures leads to conflict. The world is in danger of losing its national identities. By the end of the century half of the world's 6000 languages will disappear. The perceived threat is led by Hollywood and the English language. English is the language of the Internet. 73% of web-sites are in English. Without the encouragement and acceptance of of multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism a negative reaction will occur.

de Klerk offers some good ideas (like doing away with farmer subsidies) but many of his ideas are impractical, partly because his faith in global organizations like the UN and WTO is misplaced. Both the UN and its trade organizations have proven ineffective and unfair in their dealings with nation states. Better for countries like the US and the UK to develop their own loose trade confederations and alliances outside of the auspices of the UN. Although the US pays the lion's share of UN bills, its members states vote over 90% of the time against US interests.