Global exploitation must be curbed

In academic circles, the current vogue word used to describe the
world is the infuriatingly fuzzy “globalization.”

And if you’re not sure you know what this word means, you
should get to know it. According to the international studies Web
site, “Globalization has come to UCLA.”

This event, of course, describes the new global studies major
and minor program starting next quarter available to all those who
are signing up for classes on URSA over the next few weeks.

For those of you who might be unsure as to what the process of
globalization actually is, I thought writing a quick primer might
help you on your way.

Before we start, it is worth noting that globalization, as a
term, has taken over for another misused and infinitely flexible
term, “post-modernism,” as the all-encompassing word
that people can throw at any question they’re asked.

Why did Argentina have an economic collapse in 1999? Ah,
that’s all globalization, mate. Why did the United States and
United Kingdom attack Iraq in 2003? Well, you see, that’s
globalization. Why don’t they serve bagels in Hedrick Hall
anymore? Oh, that’s all to do with that globalization stuff,
stupid!

Superficially, the term describes an increasingly interconnected
world where we can talk on Finnish mobile phones and play on
Japanese computer consoles while eating French food.

But this hides the devastating economic policies that are being
pushed by Western governments and transnational corporations
against developing nations.

Referring to this, Martin Khor, director of the Third World
Network, has said, “Globalization is what we in the Third
World have for several centuries called colonization.” And
there is undoubtedly some truth to this observation.

Globalization, in its economic manifestation, revolves around
what is often called “neo-liberalism.” This is exported
by a few unaccountable and undemocratic institutions based in the
United States ““ primarily, the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank.

These institutions spread a crude form of turbo-capitalism
through what they call “structural adjustment
programs,” and a variety of other schemes under similar
euphemisms. Put simply, they give countries that are deep in
insolvency massive, multi-billion-dollar loans.

This sounds innocent enough, but attached to these loans are a
number of stipulations that must be followed if the countries are
to qualify for the money. These are ““ and this is quite
openly written about in their literature ““ privatizing their
key state-owned industries, like water purification and oil
production, and “opening up” their economies to foreign
(Western) capital.

The side effects of this program? Looser environmental
regulations and a weakening of any rudimentary protection for
working people, like unions.

It is kind of like asking your roommate if you can borrow $20,
and him or her responding, “I’ll lend it to you if you
let me wear all your clothes, use your computer whenever I want,
sleep in your bed, and you pay me 10 cents extra every week until
you pay it all back.”

The countries that are forced to follow this market
fundamentalism not surprisingly see it result in massive inequality
because progressive taxation and public tax-supported amenities are
torn apart.

Also, workers tend to labor in terrible conditions since the
multi-nationals who run the businesses look for places where they
can spend the least on labor and environmental restrictions.

These suicidal policies then become priorities for governments
of developing nations attempting to attract investment. In the cold
language of economics, this is called “the race to the
bottom.” In the language of moral human beings, it’s
called “exploitation.”

But you cannot be anti-globalization, per se. Globalization is
not a choice, it’s a reality. When you hear about the
anti-globalization movement, it’s not a group of people
chatting about uninventing the Internet or fighting against cheap
fares from Sydney to New York. These people are arguing against the
exploitative nature of the economic policies that ““ for
whatever reason ““ fall under the same title.

So take some courses in this exciting new program; hopefully
what you learn will make you join forces with those who are
fighting the worldwide exportation of
“neo-liberalism.”

Nelson Mandela said during a recent mass rally in London,
“Massive poverty and obscene inequality are such terrible
scourges of our times … that they have to rank alongside slavery
and apartheid as social evils.”

Globalization is not the problem, and our task is not to
overthrow it. Instead, we should harness it to help the poor and
helpless, rather than contribute to what Mandela correctly calls
the 21st century’s new form of slavery.

Kennard is a third-year history student. E-mail him at
mkennard@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *