Globalization is more than an economic equation

enn.com

The fence has come down and the protesters have gone home. The Summit of the Americas in Quebec City is over.

Plenty was said at the summit about one aspect of globalization: international trade. But not much about other issues, including international health and the environment.

Globalization is not just a theory or a creeping concern, it is here and it is here to stay. Just consider the place of origin of your car, TV, clothes or food. World trade, travel and communication are now fixed in our lives. Huge transnational corporations wield greater economic clout than many countries. And the collective impact of all human activities are so great that we are now experiencing global environmental and social problems, from global warming to global air pollution to disease epidemics.

We have some crucial choices to make. We must decide how best to shape and guide the trend towards globalization in ways that will most benefit society and not undermine the health of the planet. Right now, that isn't happening. Instead, economics is at the helm and it's steering us in some disturbing directions.

For example, President Bush says he is an avid supporter of globalization in the form of an international free trade agreement for the Americas. Such an agreement, many argue, will lead to greater wealth and a higher standard of living for all the nations involved. Yet President Bush is a firm opponent of globalization in the form of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Although global warming is expected to cause tremendous environmental, economic and social upheaval in many nations, addressing it could hurt the US oil and coal industry and, he argues, the US economy. So Bush rejects it.

Wait, isn't that protectionism? This is a global problem and most of the world is keen on reducing greenhouse gases to prevent potential disaster. But the US has rejected the process under the guise that it must protect its own economy. This kind of behavior would never be tolerated in a genuine free-trade partnership.

We really do live in a single world. Activities such as greenhouse gas emissions from the US, or air pollution from China can have far-reaching effects all over the globe. This is the flip-side of economic globalization. Unfortunately, the powerful rules that govern the economic side don't take these other global problems into account.

For example, under NAFTA rules, when Canada decided not to use a fuel additive for health and environmental reasons, a corporation was able to sue the government for being excluded from selling its product, and win. And now the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America are looking at taking action against Brazil through the World Trade Organization because Brazil is making cheaper, generic copies of patented AIDS drugs to help reduce the deaths from that disease.

There are rules governing global health, environment and social concerns, but they lack teeth. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, developed by the United Nations in 1948, for example, begins with: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Sounds good. But then why does the United States, with one of the world's highest standards of living, continue to be the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, with apparently no plans to reduce them? This, in spite of the fact that global warming is expected to cause the greatest harm to some of world's poorest people.

The declaration also says: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family." But if that's the case, why can pharmaceutical companies sue governments for trying to save the lives of their citizens by distributing cheaper drugs?

Globalization is not just about international trade. It's about recognizing our mutual social and environmental problems and our mutual rights and duties to each other as human beings. We must have strong international rules to reflect that.

-- we will regret (the error @ of. Dumbya's ways), May 06, 2001

Answers

Bush rejected kyoto because it's a crock of shit.There is no proof that the earth is warming, just a bunch of bullshit by the liberal whiners to make us spend more money.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 06, 2001.

a million lights======OUT.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 07, 2001.