A prosperous global village or a world deeply split between dominant haves and subaltern have-nots? The mixed bag of capitalist globalisation was in sharp focus last week, as Cairo hosted two prominent experts on the subject. Al-Ahram Weekly sounded them out on their views Promises unmet Wael Gamal interviews Walden Bello, an anti-globalisation activist and scholar who has won an alternative Nobel Prize in economics On the cover of Walden Bello's latest book, Deglobalisation: Ideas for New World Economy, there is a photo of an Egyptian peasant woman next to a pile of bread. As a link between the eminent economist and activist and the movement he represents, the photo provides an appropriate symbol of the economics of a country he visited for the first time last week. The visit involved a debate on neo- liberalism, and a lecture on how the agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) might affect the Egyptian pharmaceuticals industry. Its main aim, however, was to establish ties with the nucleus of Egypt's anti- globalisation movement. An academic and an activist, Bello is the director of Focus on the Global South in Bangkok, a project affiliated to Chulalongkorn University's Social Research Institute. He is also a professor of Public Administration and Sociology at the University of the Philippines. The 2003 jury of the Right Livelihood Award, known as the Alternative Nobel Prize, has declared him one of the "stars in our human cosmos". At the same time, he is one of the leaders of the anti- globalisation movement, which includes Chomsky, Susan George, Naomi Klein and others. That movement, born in Seattle in 1999 to protest against a meeting of the World Trade Organisation, is now crystallising in both developing and developed countries. "What is happening now in developing countries is the appearance of versions of what I call a political, economic and intellectual resistance. In Latin America for instance, a different agenda and policies were born from Brazil to Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia. Governments are moving away from the neo-liberal agenda. The electoral factor plays a role in that. Governments found that they have to respond to peoples' refusal of the neo-liberal policies. This produced the Chavez government in Venezuela for instance," Bello told Al-Ahram Weekly. This shift has been catalysed by crises borne of the transnational corporate-driven globalisation project. Bello describes the project as "promoting certain policies: liberalising trade, deregulating the domestic economy, and moving away from state ownership to private ownership. This whole process is in crisis, and presents itself in many dimensions." Sustaining growth, eliminating poverty, and reducing inequality were among the promises made to developing countries by this project. According to Bello, their expectations were not met. "After 25 years of this project, exactly the opposite has happened. Now there are more poor people and more inequality than the 1960s, and it is deepening year after year. What is clear is, whether you talk about the South or the United States, globalisation has favoured a very small strata, between five and 10 per cent of the population. Except for rare examples like Chile, promise of sustained growth in developing countries has not been met, even when taking the rhetoric of growth rate as the criteria. Growth rates in the 1950s and 1960s were double the growth rates of the 1980s and the 1990s." Argentina, Mexico and the collapse of the Asian miracle all provide examples of major deficiencies in the system as whole. "The crisis is evident in the fact that the main proponents of globalisation no longer believe in free market economics. In fact, what you see is that the governing principle of the EU and the US is liberalisation for developing countries, and protectionism for us." The double standard referred to by Bello remains a major criticism made by developing countries within the WTO. Free trade agreements in agriculture, for instance, allow for high-level subsidies for agricultural products in the EU and the US, while efforts are made to press for their dismantling in developing countries. And where is Egypt in all this? Here, the movement barely exists. While the new Egyptian government is moving forward with the liberalisation agenda, the Anti- Globalisation Egyptian Group (AGEG) is very small. The reason, says Bello, is multi-dimensional. "This is due to Egypt's position in the world economy. Unlike Latin American and Asian countries, which were among the first countries in adopting the neo-liberal agenda and were hurt badly, Egypt had been insulated from the globalisation crisis happening elsewhere. The experience of collapse for example is still academic for the Egyptians, so the essence of the crisis is not yet absorbed. Egypt is maybe a decade or 15 years late in terms of experience in international economic trends." There is also an ideological factor. "Theories create their own way of neglecting facts, especially when the people who apply them are the kind of technocrats who are educated and trained within the boundaries of neo- liberal agenda, as is the situation in many developing countries, including the Philippines," he says. At the same time, Bello places great stock in Egypt's potential. He came to Egypt from Beirut, where he was attending the International Assembly of Anti-War and Anti- Globalisation Movements. "We aimed at pushing dialogue in the Arab world on the impacts of globalisation, and to move against the corporate driven globalisation. Beirut is one of the linkages between the Arab world and the international movement, as I consider the Arab world the strategic battleground. But Egypt is the one looked to by the region, and even all the developing countries," Bello says. He is also optimistic about international efforts. "What happened in Cancun was that the resistance of the developing countries, led by the G20, resulted in a stalemate in the negotiations and collapse in the talks. I consider this a triumph because we could stop this process of forcibly opening up our markets." But that momentum has not been kept up. Last July, the WTO was able to get back on its feet, mainly because the leaders of the G20, India and Brazil, were brought back into the centre of negotiations, with their main specific demands being granted by the US and the EU, in order to detach them from the rest of the developing countries. The July framework is basically allowing the US to maintain its high level of subsidies in what is called the blue box, which is the list of exceptions. They were able to push to bring down tariffs on industrial goods to zero. According to Bello, this is a big setback for developing countries because it makes industrialisation very difficult, not to say impossible. Moreover, developing countries were forced to speed up opening their services markets. Despite all this, however, he is still optimistic. "It is a temporary setback because we saw in Cancun that on the one hand, the monopoly of negotiation between the US and the EU was shattered, and on the other, because new versions of developing countries, adopting new approaches, have caucused around the G90 and the G33, building greater consciousness of developing countries' interests and the need for a unified negotiating strategy." The renowned activist said the movement has huge tasks ahead of it, including "dismantling and reforming the international financial institutions, controlling the activities of the transnational corporations, and developing blocs of developing countries". The essence of the struggle is even harder: confronting the dynamics of global capitalism. But Bello is confident of his formula. "A combination of civil society and progressive governments would be the agent of this kind of change. The role of civil society will be crucial." The extent to which this formula can work here remains to be seen. Look at the bright side Pierre Loza attended a pro-globalisation seminar given by Ulrich Wurzel at the German Arab Chamber of Commerce and Industry The question of lowering tariffs and opening borders has dominated the international arena recently, instigating sentiments that range from hopeful optimism to sceptical apprehension. While the potential gains from lowering tariff rates and achieving higher trade levels can mean a great deal for a severely unequal world, the controversy lies in the idea that not everyone will win in this game. Many are suspicious about developing nations' ability to compete with rich industrial economies; many argue that globalisation will widen the gap between rich and poor countries. In an effort to shed some light on this enigmatic topic, a seminar was organised by the German Arab Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which invited Ulrich Wurzel -- an acclaimed authority on the subject and member of the faculty of economics of the University of Applied Science for Technology and Management in Berlin -- to speak. The empirical data on globalisation has given support to both sides; there are equal amounts of success and failure stories that have been documented by international research bodies. "People are confused, people don't know what they should believe. Concerning the perception of globalisation, there is much more fear than there is hope," Wurzel said. But even with all this fear in the air, it is hard to ignore Asian success stories like India and China that have utilised the forces of free trade to increase economic growth, reach developmental targets and raise standards of living. Negative views of the globalisation phenomenon are sometimes not based on a clear knowledge of what it essentially entails. "A general definition of globalisation is that it is a deepening extension of trans- border and cross-border interaction and communication, in whatever sphere of social or economic life," he said. Wurzel also argued that greater global interdependence, through economic, political and cultural cooperation and integration, would mean a lesser chance of conflict. "With closer relations between peoples and nations, at the end we will find ourselves in a more peaceful world." Wurzel also discussed globalisation from a political perspective. Political globalisation can be seen as an agreement by all nations on a set of standards, such as human rights, democracy or environmental protection. Standards like these can work to protect the fundamental dignity of human life and foster prospects of development. Contrary to the views of globalisation critics, Wurzel sees foreign direct investment as a tool for income growth and poverty eradication. A more liberalised world will also provide these nations with greater access to financing, capital and technological know-how. And as barriers to trade are uniformly lowered, they will gain greater access to the affluent markets of industrial nations. As less developed nations continue to develop their export industries, income gains will create a more powerful local demand that is more capable of fuelling economic growth. Foreign direct investors who will ask for a "levelled playing field can push governments to conduct themselves according to international standards, with greater transparency and less cronyism". This happy scenario, however, depends on how governments can develop intelligent policies that use globalisation as an impetus to promote its national interests. Alaa Ezz of the Confederation of European Egyptian Chambers was somewhat critical of Wurzel's positive perspective on globalisation's benefits. "Let's be realistic, for all these things to happen, there must be a more flexible movement of labour. This is something that Europe is very reluctant to do," he said. Wurzel believes it is logical for European nations to try to protect their labour markets. "Why are so many people from Africa and Eastern Europe trying to get into fortress Europe -- because they no longer want to live at home? You cannot blame Europeans for protecting their labour markets. We should blame the governments of [lesser developed countries] for not providing these people with better chances at home," he said. When asked about the legitimacy of European agricultural subsidies, Wurzel advised lesser-developed nations to use the tools of globalisation to further their interests. They "should bring the European Union to an international court of arbitration about the matter of agricultural subsidies. You can use the instruments that are there." Wurzel also observed that Western countries' concerns are more focussed on globalisation from an economic standpoint. Western societies are quite concerned about losing their jobs to cheaper labour from abroad, for instance. Less developed countries, meanwhile, have displayed a greater concern about globalisation's cultural and political aspects. There is a fear of losing one's cultural identity, and being dominated culturally as well as politically by a strong foreign power. Wurzel suggests that cultural globalisation can make people more strongly rooted in their own cultural identity. "It means that people can be fully aware of where they come from, while also being engaged in global activities," he said. He also sees that the abundance of communication between cultures will increase transparency, and make it "harder to suppress the truth". Distrust of globalisation also stems from fears that local producers cannot deal with "the pressures of international competition. The role of government as a stable employment provider will also be transformed," as the private sector takes on the reins of employment creation. Government officials who have grown too comfortable in bureaucratic positions will also be replaced through structural changes that attract investment and promote efficiency. Downsizing government may mean greater efficiency, but it will also mean a whole class of jobless civil servants. This is especially true for nations like Egypt, where government has been the most dominant economic player in recent years. Another component of globalisation is the swift movement of capital through international markets. While it can provide numerous investment opportunities for developing nations, it also means that capital investors can pull their money out of the market nearly instantly. This more liquid capital movement can be a source of either booming growth or severe market instability.
