SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS

Organic Valley

Dr. Bronner's
Magic Soaps

Botani Organic

Aloha Bay

Eden Foods

Ode Magazine

Mountain
Rose Herbs

The Green Guide

After 9/11-Addressing the Crisis
in the Anti-GlobalizationMovement

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/grassroots/featured/2001/jk10-11.html

Where Do We Go From Here?
Pondering the Future of our Movement
By Joshua Karliner
CorpWatch
October 11, 2001

The closer you get to lower Manhattan's Ground Zero, the more powerful
the immediate reality of what has happened. I went there last week. And
despite the bombardment of TV images I had experienced before, I was
not prepared. The enormity of the still smoldering ruins and the toxic
stench that hung over the area overwhelmed me; I stared vacantly at a
mass grave of 5,000 human beings, murdered in a matter of minutes.

And now there comes another wave of nausea, accompanying the
announcement that we are bombing the hell out of Afghanistan. Thousands
more innocents will most probably die. A country already on the brink
of mass starvation will in all likelihood be pushed over into the
abyss. And most probably, the cycle of violence will only escalate,
breeding more war, terrorism, death and destruction. Another tragic
play is being acted out on the world stage and, and most of us can only
sit and helplessly watch the horror, mass media voyeurs.

On top of all this, the events of September 11th and their aftermath
have put activists addressing the ills of globalization in a terribly
difficult position. What was an increasingly dynamic and effective
international movement to place human, labor and environmental rights
above unfettered trade and corporate profit, finds itself struggling to
make its way out from under the metaphorical rubble of the World Trade
Center.

The kamikaze terrorists chose their two targets in Washington DC and
New York for their symbolic impact. Therein lies part of the problem
for those of us challenging the injustices of the global economic
system. The World Trade Center, the scene of this devastating crime
against humanity, was also emblematic of a global economic system that
has evoked massive protests by trade unionists, environmentalists,
farmers, consumers, students and just plain folks from Seattle to
Chiang Mai, Cochabamba, Prague, Quebec and Genoa.

So it is critical for our movement -- one of the most significant
international social movements to emerge in recent decades -- to
strongly differentiate itself from the homicidal religious
fundamentalists who struck at and paralyzed the nerve center of global
capitalism. At the same time we must somehow continue to build (and to
rebuild and reconfigure) our initiatives for local and global justice.

Yet we find ourselves challenged to do so at a moment, for many of us
in the US, when we find our moral, political and emotional compass
spinning. The attacks are still fresh in everyone's consciousness.

So it's in this context, that I am trying to untangle the situation
that -- at least from a US perspective -- we as activists and citizens
find ourselves in. I hope it will contribute to a productive, forward
-- looking discussion about where we go from here.

I think the movement for a different kind of globalization faces at
least three fundamental challenges in the post-9-11 world:

To assert the relevance of our issues in a sophisticated and nuanced
way that does not alienate the hard-won public support gained since
Seattle, and express solidarity with the growing list of victims, be
they commodity traders, firemen, Sikh gas station attendants, or Afghan
civilians.

To defend ourselves and others from a new trend which might be called
"terrorist-baiting."

To regain the initiative in this global debate by building a platform
for peace, justice and grassroots globalization.

If we can adequately respond to these challenges, the increasingly
broad-based, decentralized, international coalitions that have emerged
in the last several years may, in fact, become an important force in
the creation of a more just, peaceful and secure world. If we cannot,
we risk becoming marginalized -- a mere footnote to an ongoing
narrative of injustice and war.

Challenge 1: Finding a New Relevance

The immediate cause of the terrorist attacks on the United States
appears to be the evil genius of Osama bin Laden and his Al Queda
organization. Indeed, dismantling this terror network has been the
focus of much of the world in the aftermath of the horrific events in
New York and Washington.

The shock and horror of these attacks took the wind out of the sails of
the anti-corporate globalization movement. Organizers of the World
Bank/IMF protests wisely cancelled the late September street
demonstrations -- for which police were predicting a turnout of
100,000. Activist plans around the November WTO meeting in Qatar were
put on hold and then revamped. Like most everyone else, the movement
was in a collective state of shock and uncertainty -- not knowing what
would come next. In many respects -- even as bombs begin to fall over
Afghanistan -- we are still in this same place a month after the
attacks. Outrage and grief still haunt us.

Yet we cannot afford to be paralyzed. For the Bush administration is
placing globalization at center stage. Calling for a campaign to "fight
terror with trade," US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has
spearheaded an all out effort to take advantage of the post September
11th political moment and push fast track authority through Congress.
The US is also lobbying hard to open a new round of trade negotiations
at the upcoming WTO ministerial in Qatar.

Zoellick argues that free trade will lead to greater economic and
political security and stability in the world. It is the same argument
that pro-free traders have always made. But the stakes are suddenly
raised as Zoellick re-frames the fight for "free trade" as part of an
anti-terrorism campaign. Of course, we should respond with the same
argument we have always made: that free trade and corporate-driven
globalization are actually leading to greater economic and political
instability.

Globalization, we have always said, is actually creating greater
poverty and dislocation, exacerbating environmental destruction,
undermining democracy as it caters to global corporate interests. The
globalization of corporate media also flaunts our affluence while
broadcasting a narrow, distorted picture of Western culture to nearly
every corner on earth. The economic model Zoellick touts may be sowing
the seeds of terrorism in the long-run.

It is overly simplistic to pin the blame for terrorism on any one
element such as globalization. Certainly, there are other big issues
that also have bearing on the current crisis. Many of these have
surfaced as people have begun to ask what would compel any group of
people to such a horrendous undertaking as September 11th? Analysts on
the left have recounted numerous instances where the US government has
supported or engaged in the bombing or terrorizing of civilian
populations -- from Hiroshima to South East Asia to Central America.
Other more focused explanations range from the Israeli occupation of
the West Bank and Gaza; to the ongoing embargo and bombing of Iraq --
which has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1 million civilians
there; to the racist history of colonialism in the Middle East; to the
oil-driven US foreign and military policy in the region which have
propped up repressive regimes that have so restricted civil society
that many dissenters have had little alternative but to turn toward
religious fundamentalism.

When taken together these various strands make up the fabric from which
Islamic fundamentalism, Al Queda and other terrorist groups have
emerged as powerfully destructive forces on the world stage.

It is our movement's responsibility, while maintaining solidarity with
the victims of 9-11, to examine and articulate the specific
globalization-related components of this crisis as part of a bigger
picture. Indeed, in this respect, globalization is now more relevant
than ever.

Challenge 2: Terrorist-Baiting

Prior to September 11th, global organizing and well articulated
political-intellectual critiques had combined with primarily
non-violent street protests to form a burgeoning social movement. The
general public and even some government officials, such as French
President Jacques Chirac, were increasingly recognizing the validity of
the issues raised by the protestors.

Suddenly, after September 11th, the tables have turned. Our movement's
credibility is coming under question. The anti-corporate globalization
movement -- the movement for a more democratic "grassroots
globalization" -- is being either explicitly or implicitly, but
certainly falsely, linked to the terrorist attacks.

Irresponsible slings and arrows began to fly on September 11th when US
Congressman Don Young of Alaska suggested that instead of Islamist
extremists who were responsible for the acts of terror, there was a
"strong possibility" that it was the work of anti-globalization
protestors.

Young quickly shut up, but Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
followed suit about two weeks later, asserting that Islam is attacking
the West from outside and anti-globalization protestors are attacking
it from within. Then, declaring that "on September 11th, America, its
open society and its ideas came under attack by a malevolence that
craves our panic, retreat and abdication of global leadership," United
States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick dangerously began to paint
critics of free-trade as un-patriotic. "We will not be intimidated by
those who have taken to the streets to blame trade -- and America --
for the world's ills."

And, suggesting that by forcing the cancellation of the World Bank and
IMF meetings in Washington DC in late September "the terrorists have,
in fact, achieved some of the anti-globalization protestors' dearest
objectives," corporate-globalization booster Reginald Dale concludes in
an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune. "While they are not
deliberately setting out to slaughter thousands of innocent people, the
protestors who want to prevent the holding of meetings like those of
the IMF or the WTO are seeking to advance their political agenda
through intimidation, which is a classic goal of terrorism."

Not unlike red-baiting of the Cold War era, this terrorist-baiting of
what is an overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic movement, is a dangerous
trend that could have serious implications not only for the future of
dissent and democratic debate, but also for the safety of the
dissenters themselves.

By defining dissent as unpatriotic, terrorist-baiting may wind up
smearing people who may disagree with the government and the global
status quo, but by no means support the ideology or tactics of the
group defined as the "enemy."

To combat terrorist-baiting and keep it from becoming a more pervasive
and dangerous phenomenon, the movement against corporate-driven
globalization should take several steps. It is vital, for instance, to
counter irresponsible statements such as those quoted above. It is also
key to demonstrate solidarity with others who are already victims of
the racist backlash in the wake of the attacks, especially South
Asians, Arabs and black Muslims.

The movement must also now, more than ever, be unequivocal in its
commitment to non-violence, and in condemning and preventing any
violence from its own ranks -- be it window smashing, dumpster burning,
rock throwing or attacks on police.

I also believe that it is critical to clearly underscore the
ideological differences between ourselves and the religious
fundamentalists who carried out the attack on the World Trade Center.
In theory this should not be too difficult since our movement has, for
the most part, wisely kept its distance from other anti-globalization
fundamentalists.

Indeed, in some respects the Islamic fundamentalist critique of
globalization (including Osama bin Laden's and Al Queda's), may well
share some broad ideological characteristics with these other religious
fundamentalist and right-wing nationalist critics of globalization.

For instance, Islamic fundamentalists seem to want nothing to do with
western culture, corporations or values. Meanwhile, in India,
nationalist Hindu fundamentalists have opposed corporate-globalization
for the same reasons. In France, neo-fascist Jean Marie Le Pen's racist
nationalism has included a critique of globalization. Russia has
experienced a similar phenomenon in the form of Vladimir Zhirinovsky's
racist, anti-semitic, anti-globalization nationalism. And here in the
United States Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson's nationalist xenophobia
has also been anti-NAFTA, and anti-free trade.

To be clear, I am not saying that any of these fundamentalists are in
any way politically aligned with each other. In fact, most of them
would never speak to one another. Nor am I saying that people like Pat
Buchanan or India's BJP party, espouse terrorism. Rather, I am
suggesting that these diverse political forces share a certain
fundamentalist (as opposed to a post-colonial or post-modern) reaction
to globalization.

The divergences between these constituencies and our movement are
clear. We are for a different kind of globalization; the
fundamentalists are against globalization altogether. We are
internationalists; they are most often nationalists. We are for
openness, transparency, democracy, diversity and tolerance; they are
almost always characterized by secrecy, xenophobia, homogeneity, and
intolerance of the "other."

These divergent ideological approaches to globalization lead in two
different directions in terms of the political response and solutions
they generate. In many respects these differences reflect the analysis
of Palestinian scholar Edward Said and many others who have described
the new era we are entering as a battle not between the West and Islam,
but rather between modernity and fundamentalism of all sorts. In this
context the vast majority of our movement can be characterized as
engaged in a debate with the corporate globalizers as to the direction
modernity should take, rather than across the board opposition to it
and advocacy for a return to strict, traditional values.

Challenge 3: Regaining the Initiative

Clearly, the events of September 11th and the ensuing war now unfolding
in Afghanistan have stymied the movement for a different kind of
globalization and placed it in danger. What's more, in many respects,
those pushing the corporate globalization agenda have taken advantage
of the political vacuum created in the wake of the attacks on the World
Trade Center and Pentagon to attempt to move their agenda forward.

Unsettling as these times may be, we can't just react to the shifting
political terrain. Of course, we must redouble our efforts to halt fast
track, stop proposals for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, and prevent a new round of World Trade Organization
negotiations. But we also must come up with an agenda of our own that
addresses the suddenly changed times in which we are living and that
allows our movement to regain the initiative which we saw disintegrate
with the collapse of New York's Twin Towers.

The following are four key areas from which we can begin to rebuild and
redefine that agenda.

Peace and Non-Violence: Our movement for a different kind of
globalization needs to call unequivocally for peace with justice. It is
clear that the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks must be
brought to justice and their network dismantled. If this does not
happen, there will only be more terrorist incidents. It was also clear
from the moment of the attacks onward, that the US would respond with
military force which would only bring with it more suffering, terror
and injustice (and ultimately more terrorist events.) The US military
response to September 11th also runs the risk of pulling South and
Central Asia, the Middle East and much of the rest of the world into a
vicious cycle of violence that will threaten global stability and
security, affecting the lives and livelihoods of literally billions of
people. The US military response may well also sow the seeds of more
terrorism against the US in the future.

Therefore, the call for peace with justice. In this context justice
should be taken to mean both that the perpetrators of the attacks be
brought to justice, and that there be greater justice in the world
economy in order to address the deeper socio-economic conditions that
are part of the context of terrorism.

Although there are no clear answers to the current situation (For
example: How do the perpetrators get brought to justice?), what is
clear is that the cycle of violence is escalating. We must stand with
the voices of reason, and against the madness of war.

What's more, as mentioned earlier, now, more than ever, any form of
violence emanating from our own movement must end. It was already
obvious to many, especially in the aftermath of the July demonstrations
in Genoa, that the so-called "black bloc" was undermining the
movement's democratic processes, putting peaceful protestors in danger,
making street demonstrations exceedingly vulnerable to police
infiltration, and diverting the debate from one about globalization to
one about street tactics and police repression.

In the new post-September 11th climate, it is critical that the vast
majority of activists who believe in non-violent social change publicly
disassociate themselves with the violent and incendiary tactics of a
small minority of protestors who were already threatening the
legitimacy of the anti-corporate globalization movement in the public
eye. Not to make this break now endangers the future credibility of our
movement.

Human Rights: Many in the US, from grassroots activists, to the
mainstream media, to members of Congress from both parties have
expressed concern for the potential loss of civil liberties in the "War
on Terrorism." Those who are inclined to restrict our civil liberties
have just been handed a powerful new club. And while so far Congress
has resisted measures it considers extreme, it is likely that the new
era of "homeland security" will see significant attempts to curb these
liberties. Among other impacts, such limits could seriously constrict
the democratic environment in which our movement, not to mention the
myriad of other social movements, have thrived.

Therefore, it is critical that the anti-corporate globalization
movement join forces with a broad array of constituencies fighting to
protect democratic rights. Given that we may find ourselves heading
down the road toward a neo-McCarthyite era of terrorist-baiting, it is
crucial that we stand together with other potential victims of this
emerging trend.

This means not only standing up for civil liberties, but also against
racism. In this time of crisis, a variation of America's long-standing
racist history has emerged from just below the surface of our cultural
landscape to rear its ugly head once again. This time it has taken the
form of direct discrimination, murderous attacks and other forms of
physical and verbal violence against Arab-Americans, South
Asian-Americans and American Muslims, among others.

Finally, we must continue to advocate for human rights around the
world. So, as global geopolitics undergo tectonic shifts, we must not
ignore those who fall through the massive cracks that come with the new
territory. As Russia realigns itself with the United States, the people
of Chechnya are ever-more exposed to brutal violations. As China joins
the US coalition, the people of Tibet will become less of an "official"
concern for the US government. And as the US bombs Afghanistan it will
be the children and women of that country -- suffering the restrictions
of the Taliban regime -- who will be least able to flee and most
exposed to the death and destruction.

Security Through Clean Energy: Oil plays a central role in the Middle
East. And access to oil has defined US foreign policy and national
security interests in the region since the end of World War II. But our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil and therefore our seemingly
inextricable entanglement in the region is increasingly proving to be a
liability. Our economy's dependence on oil is even more of a problem
when one considers that the most significant new sources of oil
currently being developed are in the Central Asian Caspian region -- a
group of countries immediately north of Afghanistan with predominantly
Muslim populations -- nations which the Bush administration is using to
various degrees as staging grounds for military action.

While the politics of oil now threaten global security in the military
sense, the combustion of oil is also the single largest contributor to
climate change -- one of the greatest threats to global environmental
security in the coming decades. Climate change's more frequent and
extreme weather events threaten to dislocate millions of people,
triggering mass migrations of environmental refugees. Entire coastal
areas will be flooded. Diseases such as malaria will spread to areas
where before they were unheard of. Economies will be disrupted. Many
people will die.

On top of this add the local pollution and human rights impacts of oil
production, transportation and refining, and it makes absolute sense to
argue that in order to achieve local and global security in the medium
to long term the US needs to rid itself of its dependence on fossil
fuels and extract itself from the Middle East quagmire. Such a move
would go a long way toward addressing a series of other oil-related
human rights and environmental debacles in countries like Nigeria,
Ecuador and Indonesia, as well as here at home in places like Louisiana
and Los Angeles.

So, despite the fact that we've got a couple of oil men in the White
House, the time is ripe for the movement for a different kind of
globalization to join hands with environmentalists and peace activists
to step up their advocacy for clean energy.

A transition to clean energy would head off the worst effects of
climate change, reduce local pollution and diminish our country's
compulsion to be so deeply involved in the politics of the Middle East
and Central Asia. Kicking our addiction to fossil fuels through massive
public programs to promote electricity generated by solar, wind and
biomass; hydrogen powered vehicles; and more efficient public
transportation systems could together help achieve true global
security, making the world a much safer place for everyone to live in.

Grassroots Globalization: Finally, the movement against
corporate-driven globalization needs to keep doing what it's been
doing. Now more than ever, it is important to demonstrate how
institutions like the WTO, or trade agreements like NAFTA and the FTAA
are letting corporations run rampant across the earth, with little or
no regard for local communities, national governments, the environment
or human rights. It is essential to continue to show how such a system
is deepening poverty and inequality, while potentially leading to
greater cultural polarization, religious fundamentalism, and political
instability.

We must continue to work to stop these accords from being implemented,
and to stand up and call for greater transparency, democracy and equity
in the global system. We should advocate for alternatives, connecting
this call to the urgent need for peace and justice in the world today.

At the same time we've got to continue to work to hold specific
corporations accountable for their abuses at the local, national and
international levels. Part of this means exposing companies that may be
opportunistically benefiting from the current crisis. The other part
means not letting issues such as sweatshops, environmental crime, or
corporate complicity in human rights violations drop off the radar
screen.

It is also vital to support other multilateral efforts that do promote
the values we believe in. These include agreements like the treaties on
climate change, or regulating biological weapons, or banning landmines,
as well as UN meetings aimed at providing resources for development in
poor countries and those directed at promoting sustainable development.

All of these efforts will contribute to a more truly secure and healthy
globe. Richard Falk put it best in a recent article in The Nation when
he wrote:

The attack on America was the tip of an iceberg, the submerged portions
being the mass of humanity that is not sharing in the fruits of
modernity, but finds itself under the heel of US economic, military,
cultural and diplomatic power. To eliminate the visible tip of the
iceberg of discontent and resentment may bring us a momentary
catharsis, but it will at best create an illusion of victory. What must
be done is to extend a commitment to the sacredness of life to the
entire human family -- in effect, joining in collective effort to
achieve what might be called "humane globalization."
In these bleak times, with what may be even darker clouds gathering on
the horizon, above all we must continue to believe that, as the slogan
of the World Social Forum, held earlier this year in Brazil, declared
"another world is possible." And we must continue to build that world.

Joshua Karliner is Executive Director of CorpWatch.

CorpWatch
PO Box 29344
San Francisco, CA 94129 USA
Tel: 415-561-6568 Fax: 415-561-6493
URL: http://www.corpwatch.org
Email: corpwatch@corpwatch.org