Anti-Globalization Case

I would have to say that I do not think that the anti-globalization movement has been a success. However, I will say I do believe that the protestors have succeeded in drawing attention to the problems of globalization. Because of all the attention drawn to globalization, people are now asking more questions in regards to the globalization process, what it stands for, how it will affect their lives, and what it will bring in the future. This is causing the global elites to have to publicly address these questions through explanations and justification. "Once these explanations are made public, they then become subject to debate and countering, so a major victory of the anti-globalization forces has been to drag the global elite, kicking and screaming, out of its board rooms and into the open," (1).

The anti-globalization movement contained a very diverse set of groups that were all fighting the government/corporate alliance and their corporate globalization agenda. Each group had their different end goals and tactics to reach these goals, but in the end they all shared the purpose of stopping the course of corporate globalization. Protesters weren't against trade, but they wanted corporation-friendly rules to include social concerns: such as the environment, labor rights, and Third World poverty. There were a few different groups that helped to make up this large protest with some of them including: environmentalists, social justice activists, and third world groups. The groups that caused the most trouble included the environmental and social justice groups. The main complaint regarding corporate globalization was that it destroys the environment and social justice. These complaints would include: the loss of species and their habitats, pollution, loss of human rights, gender and race inequality, etc. While individual groups may have been more specific in their concerns of the environment and/or social justice, they all would agree on all of the issues listed above.

This movement was very disorganized. Some would argue that the protesters lacked coherent goals and that the views from the different groups of people protesting were in opposition of one another. However, their end goal was all the same, to end corporate globalization.

Protestors were predominantly white middle-class activists who often lacked participation from people of other ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds. This caused criticism amongst the groups as they claimed to represent the people. "However, this is a strong and well organized part of the anti-globalization movement that has had some success in bringing about change," (2). Protestors were trying to change the process of globalization by educating uninformed people. Their protests caught the eyes of some people and raised attention to their anti-capitalist solutions. This is what caused people to ask questions, as these individuals were now exposed an alternative idea. The protestors brought attention to the accountability of the corporations and governments participating in globalization. While they haven't created a successful stop to the process of globalization, they have successfully raised awareness to the consequences of this economic process.

How can one fight something that has grown so large and has so many benefits??? There are many benefits to having a global economy that is based on free trade and capitalism that it is truly difficult for one to oppose it. "Governments are at a cross-roads, having to choose between mounting oppression- the choice being pursued in the US, for example- or joining the call for accountability. The latter is still rather precarious on the international scene, since the US still has a lot of bullying power in convincing governments to repress citizens movements if those movements seem to suggest any sort of alternative to American style corporate globalization, which explains the American support for some of the most repressive regimes in modern history, (1).

The truth is we can't compete with something if the benefits outweigh the consequences and they do with globalization. "Generally speaking, protesters believe that the global financial institutions and agreements undermine local decision-making methods. Corporations exercise privileges that human citizens cannot: moving freely across borders, extracting desired natural resources, and utilizing a diversity of human resources," (3). The reality of the economic process of globalization is that it is not multinational corporations that are becoming more powerful. Government holds all the power, multinational corporations don't. Therefore this is not a valid argument for protestors as these companies are only encouraging a more integrated global economy, which provides benefits