|You are in: Talking Point|
Wednesday, 25 July, 2001, 09:38 GMT 10:38 UK
Globalisation: Good or bad?
Select the link below to watch Talking Point On Air:
The leaders of the world's most industrialised countries are meeting in Genoa to debate global economic, political and social issues.
The G8 leaders are discussing global poverty and new efforts to liberalise world trade, which they say is the best way to overcome poverty.
But the tens of thousands of protesters who are in Genoa disagree. They argue that globalisation just serves the interests of multinational corporations and the wealthy to the detriment of poorer nations.
What do you understand by globalisation? Is it a good or a bad thing? Or is it simply inevitable?
Robin Lustig was joined by David Henderson, formerly chief economist at the OECD and Barry Coates, director of the World Development Movement, for our Talking Point phone-in programme broadcast on BBC World Service Radio and BBC News Online.
This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.
Tell me, how much it is possible and fair for a small country or poor country like India or Pakistan to compete with a rich and resourceful country like USA? The fruits of globalisation will only be eaten by no more than 50,000 people in the world (who are multinational companies and of course politicians).
Globalisation is a modern method of slaveholding and colonisation of third world countries.
The number of poor countries in Africa increased from 27 to 34 in just five years. Also, what happened to the industrialised countries' promise in 1996 to reduce hunger and poverty in Africa in 2015 by half?
Globalisation is bad? OK. But there is one thing much worse than multinationals coming and exploiting the local labour force - multinationals NOT coming and NOT exploiting that force, which has to join the swelling ranks of the unemployed.
Suzann Dodd, Kingston, Jamaica
The Earth is an amazing place because of its diversity - culture, history, arts etc etc. These will all be lost when we have a Global Empire in place. Surely this is what we are working towards. Totalitarianism on a global scale!
Gavin, London, UK
Globalisation is bringing changes we see around the world in economics, politics and government. It has an impact everywhere. If the superpower's economy is good, the weaker country might be affected for good. For example, a stock market that goes up in a strong country makes others fluctuate, too. Governments are different; if they don't change there may be more wars. What is happening? Most countries are affected for the worse. Products are expensive but those of us living in less developed countries are encouraged to buy them. It's not all good for us.
Capitalism is the best means of improving aggregate quality of life. It may be likened to a game, the only problem being that many developing countries didn't have a very firm grasp of the rules before they starting playing and were taken advantage of. Whilst this may seem a little unfair, you should recognise that these countries are substantially better off than they would have been had they not traded with the west. Without globalisation the world could not support its vast population. India would be more like Ethiopia if the west had never traded with it. The logical conclusion of globalisation will see the whole world having a western quality of life and shame on you for trying to block it. The main downside of globalisation is that Bangkok will look like Delhi, will look like London, etc.
Leery, NY, USA
Globalisation can be very good. Peaceful global protests against globalised injustice are the best globalisation one can imagine.
Jo, Leatherhead, UK
Free Trade is as deeply flawed an ideal as communism. It is dependent on the idea that our governments will not be corrupted. The problem is that they are easily corrupted by money and lobbying.
BS McIntosh, Sweden (ex-UK)
How happy many of you who advocate globalisation will be, if someone comes into your house or into your family and dictates to you what you should and shouldn't do for the well being of your family? How happy many of you people who advocate for globalisation will be if you will be treated as homogeneous? How happy many of these countries behind globalisation will be if the price of their products will be governed by the countries which have no idea how difficult it is to produce that product? This is why I strongly disagree with globalisation. If the game of globalisation will be a fair game to both producers and consumers, then globalisation is good. If not then it is an evil game done in order to eliminate poor people.
Amazing how intense people can get about 'globalisation'. I've never seen the word defined but it seems to be a creation of the media and
people on a guilt trip. Capitalists buy labour at the price people are prepared to sell it at. Shareholders risk their hard earned cash and expect good returns. Governments oil the wheels. Sounds OK to me.
I can see people are not well informed about this issue. Europeans are now against Americans. Too bad to hate a country for such reason. I am not American, I am European and I think each country has to inform its own people about the winners or losers. I don't think European countries will just follow USA because they have to. They know there will be winners and losers but the fact is people don't have to hate each other. I know Americans and Europeans very well and I they have to be very well informed. Europeans always think that Americans get the decisions. Wrong, they all agreed on something which can profit all. Please, to all who don't understand what globalisation means, please read about.
Franz Bleeker, Emden, Germany
Globalisation per se cannot be good or bad - it all depends on how it is implemented in a particular country.
Unfortunately, in developing countries, some wealthy industrialists will always exploit their poorer countrymen as well as the resources of their country, purely to satisfy the demand for cheap trainers and other necessities of western life.
The truly awful thing is that people in developing countries actually come to believe that the western way of life (which seems to centre around advertising and consumption) is actually better than their old way of life. Developing countries need to take charge of globalisation so that consumers in developed nations can no longer passively exploit them (it is just so easy to blame the large multinationals for this, when, in fact, it is consumer demand for these products that drives such exploitation).
You cannot have a debate on globalisation because the people who control the media, especially in the US, stand to gain most from globalisation. How many news reports have presented the views of the G8 protestors? How much airtime has been devoted to presenting the case against globalisation? NONE! It's not just about fast food outlets everywhere, which would be bad enough, it's about an end to democracy - CEOs, CFOs and VPs of marketing instead of Prime Ministers and Presidents.
It's obvious just by looking at which countries are more "western": quality of life, liberty, globalisation, and good government amplify one another. Corruption, lack of rule-of-law, and coercive socialism keep people poor in "the Third World" - not free trade, which always seems to get the blame.
Globalisation has done nothing but widen the differences between the haves and have nots. The US used to be first in manufacturing in the free world. Now we are first in fast food and discount stores with products that are made in other countries. How can we say that workers in Third World countries are better off working for US/European companies when they still live in shanty towns and have no running water and electricity? Look at the packaging of some products that you buy. Assembled in Mexico from products made in goodness knows where! How does this save money? Bring back the unions.
Doug Stevenson says "Who says the protesters are a minority? Nobody has asked my views".
Sorry Doug, but you, along with everyone else in the UK, were asked your views only a few weeks ago.
It's a shame so few bothered to reply.
Globalisation will only work when the biggest economies in the developed world, the USA and EU, allow inward free trade of everything, including agricultural products, and stop the subsidies.
The gap between rich and poor has existed since the dawn of time. Globalisation will not be the beginning or end for that hard truth.
We must remember that although 'globalisation' is a current buzzword, it is not in fact a recent phenomenon. Capital has been globalising since the beginning of capitalist society. One can find a very good description of this in the first part of The Communist Manifesto, written in the 1840's. What is a recent phenomenon is the 'victory' of the US-led neo-liberal agenda which seeks to justify the unchecked exploitation of developing countries and the destruction of those social gains that workers in the developed world have fought so hard for.
I think globalisation is not
good for developing countries like India. This is mainly because foreign companies exploit the people and also local industries and local people suffer a lot. For example in Bangalore, the local people (Kannadigas) are not getting jobs due to the influx of foreign
companies. It is really disheartening.
A good example of the good effects of globalisation that you never hear about (since it's such an evil thing, apparently) is how, for example, K-Mart
checks where all the clothing and shoes they sell are made at personally before selling them, to avoid slander on the news when it turns out slave labour was involved. K-Mart
has set guidelines and makes sure these people live relatively well. It is policies like these that help the globalisation cause, not devastating the 1st and 3rd World economies by stopping or overregulating it.
Earl Engelhardt, kingman az USA
Globalisation will only benefit the capitalist, the ex- imperialist and ex-colonizers of the world. It will only aid the few against the many; it will only solidify the power of the global white supremacist against the world's people of colour.
Globalisation has both positive and negative ramifications.
Japan is one of many countries to have benefited from globalisation in economic terms.
But even in Japan, the negative side of globalisation is being felt.
We may not be able to stop the orientation toward globalisation, and if such is the case,
we need to create a sort of global safety net to minimize the negative effects of globalisation on countries, businesses and individuals.
To this end, the rich countries, the rich corporations and the rich individuals must be ready to sacrtifice a portion of their affluence.
Otherwise, we are destined to see a further expansion of inequity in the distribution of wealth on a global scale.
Andy Cook, Paris, France
Mark McHarry San Francisco U.S.A.
From an earlier posting, A. Mason of Manchester is curious to know if there are any Americans with an alternative view of globalization...indeed there are but to take a position such as this or pro-environment, etc. is to invite social disapproval, potential job dismissal, and a number of other recriminations including violence (See D. Helvarg's The War Against the Greens). I don't see much hope for the US unless it is made a total pariah in the World.
It is a well known phenomenon since time immemorial that the haves thrive on the exploitation of the have-nots. What I find very distressing is its indirect forced legalisation by the world's richest "individuals". Multinational conglomerates are involved in everything. Even menial jobs that unskilled people used to perform are being taken over by them. You name it they are involved. You will them in garbage collection, fruit picking, farming, butchery and even the washing of clothes. As far as I am concerned, economic globalisation is just another form of the haves perpetuating the enslavement of the have-nots.
A very important aspect of globalization is free trade. As long as the developed countries do not allow free trade in, for instance, the agricultural products of developing countries, free trade does not really exist. Getting rid of the American and EU agricultural subsidies will result in a substantial improvement in developing countries economic development. It will also bring the EU and American farmers out on the streets in such protests as to make Genoa look tame.
Let's hope for great success for the current Zanzibar meeting. They are not out to stop liberalization - they want liberalization for their own products.
Luis Amorim, Brussels, Belgium
Globalization is not something we can avoid, but I think
globalization can work if local industries are given
'protection', and joint ventures (of MNCs) with local
industries are made compulsary. For example, in India, MNCs are required to have a local partner in order to participate in certain
The "success" stories from globalization as stated by your panelist does not include any country in Africa. Are the richer nations selective in their focus, which countries they choose to help and at what level they choose to help them? Any feedbacks from Africa on globalization?
There should be Fair Trade, not Free Trade. Fair trade means protecting
local developing economies, local standards of living, environment, health, etc; Free trade usually means allowing big corporations from the "first world" to exploit cheap labour, the environment, and weak government to make even bigger profits.
The great advantage of globalisation is that countries that
have a deficiency in a specific resource or skill can make
use of foreign skills or resources to resolve their needs.
Conversely the practice of commercial dumping of consumer goods and the poaching of intellect kills local industries that are uncompetitive or which are not able to pay global market based salaries. In a globalised market, 1st world countries only trade with poorer countries because of their raw minerals or agricultural produce being impractical or unavailable for production in 1st world countries.
One has to be particularly naive and ignorant of what the poorer of the worlds citizens have to tolerate and live with. Those 'for' the concept have no idea. Let the supporters themselves live the life of unfair competition and loss of family businesses. Oh, and tell that chap with you it IS a one way street, with very few going the wrong way.
It is well to say that globalisation creates jobs, however it was globalisation that has changed the landscape to where so many people need jobs. At the turn of the century approximately 95% of people ran their own cottage industry of one kind or another. I see the biggest problem with globalisation is that most people now are not in control of their own lives. They are dependent on decisions made in ivory towers to determine how many jobs are available where and when. I see this as the root cause of many of the world's social ills which are being illucidated by the trouble wherever the G7/8 or World Ecomomic Forum meet.
Many posts here seem to miss the point of what globalisation actually means. It's not about world travel or intercontinental communication becoming easier or anything like that, as some people have suggested. It simply means that poor countries run by already corrupt goverments are being bribed and blackmailed into giving their resources away to the USA for free, or next to nothing.
In Australia, we like to buy cheap sandshoes, but if the people who made them try to come here, we lock them up in detention camps.
I believe we must give up passports as we give up tariffs.
As an American, I am very concerned about the globalization of the world economies. The one aspect of the globalization that our politicians either don't realize or don't want to talk about; is that truly the standard of living for the majority of the population is going down. As major corporations seek lower labor costs, our middle class jobs are being lost. The American economy is slowly becoming an economy of elistists.
Globalisation - it's
"best", but only for the "few" running it.
How do we achieve a modest "good" - but for the "many" across the world ?
I'm just curious to know if there are any Americans with an alternative view? Almost every posted message reads the same, ie pro globalisation. It is unsurprising then to note that America will be one of the main beneficiaries of globalisation, will it not?
Simon, London, UK
The question is not whether globalisation is good, bad or inevitable, since it is all three. The question is what kind of globalisation we want, one motivated by competition, greed and the further enrichment and empowerment of a minority of the rich, powerful and greedy, or one based on human cooperation and solidarity, empowering working people and peoples, women, discriminated ethnic, religious and sexual minorities (or even majorities).
If one checks out not the dominant radio and tv coverage of Genoa but the programme and participants in the alternative forum and non-violent demonstrations, one can see the meaning of the slogan from the Porto Alegre Forum, earlier this year, that 'Another World is Possible'.
Who says the protesters are a minority? Nobody has asked my views and I imagine not one person in Europe or the rest of the G8 countries has been asked their views. There is a violent minority. But I would guess that asking the right question would find a majority broadly supporting the views of the protestors in Genoa. I'm getting more and more unhappy about the undemocratic views of business overiding my views as a democratic voter. Has any government gone through the process of finding out what the majority want ?
True globalisation would mean that people working for multinational companies would receive the same level of wages whether working in Indonesia or America. Instead what we see is free trade leading to corporations making products wherever the workers are the cheapest and most compliant, and where health and safety standards are the weakest. This is merely a new economic imperialism to replace the military imperialism of old.
Globalization is a mere reflection of the developed countries trying to unjustly embezzle the natural resources of the underdeveloped countries.
Maria Adelia Endres, Porto Alegre Brazil
I was lucky to grow up in two countries Zambia and Jamaica, I watched the effect of globalization where a country which had a currency value of 1 kwacha to a pound devalue to 20 Kwach in a span of 7 years because of the IMF stepping into the economy. I am yet to see one country where IMF, the key instrument of globalization, has had a positive impact. They are nothing but loan sharks. They have no vested interest in developing a country.
Globalisation per se is not the issue. The problem is that we have not yet developed the political infrastructure to rein in the worst excesses of exploitation by corporations.
Sasha Hayes-Rusnov Maine, U.S.
Personal politics aside, I think the stereotyping of protesters as unemployable thugs is deplorable. They are merely expressing loudly many of the doubts some of are quietly thinking. No reason to be shot to death.
The European countries plundered lands and destroyed cultures centuries ago. Globalisation is just the modern way of carrying this on, sponsored by US and its allies. I have seen the effects in Hungary. All its local customs and goods are bought up cheap by the west, stripped and closed. It's an evil system. Unfortunately it benefits the rich corporations and they have power and they just don't care.
Globalisation is not an entity in itself which can be cured
by demonstrations. It is automatic spinoff. When I first went to sea
in 1950 it was a major production calling my mother from Liverpool.I
can now take a small device out of my back pocket, whilst walking
down the street and call my aunt Aggie in Australia without missing
a stride. Cargo is transported in a container made in Japan, lifted
out of the ship in Rotterdam, by a device manufactured in South
Africa, on to a truck manufactured in Brazil, and transported to the
end user in Lapland. I can watch it on television as it happens, an
earthquake in Peru, floods in Orissa, or the current president
parting his beard on the White House lawn. The demonstraters are as
misguided as the 'ban the bombers' of 40 years ago. They are
advocating uninventing something, and nothing can be uninvented.
It can be proven mathematically that unfettered free trade raises world output more so than "managed trade" between "trading blocks", such as of the kind sponsored by the G7. Thus, in a perverse way, the "anti-capitalists" are correct in their ends. Of course, the ends do NOT justify their means. And it goes without saying that 99% of them would not understand or appreciate the above point.
Globalisation itself is neither good or bad.
Some things need to be globalised like labour rights/conditions. We need to globalise healthcare and education. Ultimately it is WEALTH that must be globalised - and that means it must be redistributed from the rich to the poor.
Globalising wealth cannot be done through globalising Free Trade - as that merely globalises poverty, exploitation, financial dependence and debt.
Craig, Adelaide, Australia
Although I'm not able to bring figures it is a fact that life expectancy has improved over the world for the last 20 years. Even though there is only profit in the mind of the pharmacutical company as for any multinational companies. The number of illiterate people has been shrinking as well.
Let us not only take into account this ludicrous and over inflated litany of "clichés" listed on this issue. On a personal level the summit in Genoa bothers me, yes! It keeps me from delivering an order there this weekend because everything is closed.
There is both good and bad in globalisation. Free trade is a good thing, but it needs to be monitored and its abuses must be denounced.
Even a cursory glance at contemporary history teaches us that free trade and the profit motive of corporations are not a threat to democracy, the rights of of the comman man or the ecology. Only intrusive, evil or incompetent governments can do these things.
The people of Vietnam aren't suffering because Nike built some factories. They are afflicted with bad government. Free trade can fix that, if given time. Capitalism played a part in bringing down the Soviet Union, unless I am mistaken. You should see, as I have, how good the ecology of Russia is thanks to years without capitalism and free trade. It isn't pretty.
Pol Pot wasn't a regional director for Coca Cola. Idi Amin wasn't a spokesman for the beef industry. Joseph Stalin didn't sell Amway.
The anger of the G8 protesters is misdirected, either by mistake... or for some other motivation.
A philosophy that honestly puts human beings first will benefit all of us, not just those who value numbers or profits over us all.
Stop globalisation, now!! Before it destroys all natural resources and local communities by standardised Western/American pseudo-culture of mad consumption. The sooner we stop the beast the bigger chance for survival we have in an impoverished and polluted world. Make your choice now!! Think globally, act locally!!
Globalisation is good - it gives the chance to the poorer nations to prosper through trade. I can't help but think that the hidden agenda of those protesters is to keep their jobs from leaving for the developing countries. Hence you see all these labour unions participating in the protests.
I have a theory that most local cultures are based in part on a belief that the rest of the world is evil. As we now come to see that the whole world is just like us, cultural paranoia is making its last stand.
How do you think the 100,000+ protesters got to Genoa? They flew in planes owned by multinational corporations and drove cars that were manufactured by multinationals and those black sneakers they wear, while hurling rocks at the Genoa police, were manufactured by a multinational. Imagine a world where we did not have access to products and competition. We the citizens and customers would lose.
I find it interesting how so many people from Europe and especially the UK see the US as the root of all evil in globalisation.
How many European firms own and operate companies in the US? Do the names BP, Shell, DaimlerChrysler mean anything to you? We'll stop selling you burgers if you stop selling us oil and automobiles. Oh, that's right, only the US is responsible for global warming, right.
In my opinion globalisation is the latest fantasy for rich countries and will be a nightmare for underworld countries. The only purpose which should be fetched from globalisation is to secure business interests of developed nations, as all the capital pipelines will have only route to source. On the contrary all the mess will be for the receiver end of commodities. So this in my opinion yet another net of conspiracies.
I served for two years in the Peace Corps. I lived with and worked with the poorest of the poor in the the country of Moldova. Those who say that the big companies are exploting the poor have very little knowledge of the situation. Most of these poor nations are led by leaders who care nothing for thier own people. Where I was, McDonalds was paying taxes - it was the locals who were skipping out. After reading all these e-mails from Europeans fearful of globalisation, I feel better about the American education system.
Long Live Free-Enterprise and to to those who are against it, go get a real-life education.
'Globalisation' is perhaps the greatest upsurge of nationalism (American) in human history. Let's make it a genuine international collaboration between equals to eliminate inequality and poverty and democratise the world.
I believe that globalisation is good. We have a chance to improve our lives by competing with peoples from other countries. It's this competition with peoples from other counties which will encourages us to be the best we can be. We can discover what we can do best and let the production of goods, which we cannot efficiently produce, be carried out by those who can do it better. Thus we can ensure the highest quality at the lower cost.
But I think that the most important benefits of globalisation are not the financial ones. It's the chance we get to meet people from other countries to learn from other people's experiences, to stop fearing what we did not know and/or understand before.
I believe that people who oppose globalisation are misinformed by those who realise that in a worldwide economy will lose their monopolistic or oligopolistic privileges which enable them to profit at people's expense. At the same time people who were deprived from such privileges have a
chance now to prove themselves and get a "piece of the pie".
T J Won, Seoul, Korea
Here in Africa people are wondering whether these violence-prone
protesters are really interested in the plight of the underdeveloped countries. I think they are people venting their own frustrations. It's NOT the best way to get equity for the so-called 3rd World.
I work in the marine industry, an industry which has been "globalised" for at least 15 years. Globalisation is only about companies driving down their cost base by picking the cheapest most under regulated source of resources and manpower available.
This results in falling standards for both consumers and employees. This results in more reputable quality operators, having to cut costs by lowering standards. This affects safety,and results in governments corrupting themselves to "attract" investment, often at the cost of the wellbeing of their people.
In short globalisation is about benefits for large multinationals who are increasingly running Goverments for their own profit.
So next time you see a large oil Tanker on a beach with oil leaking everywhere,and it is discovered the ship is owned by a Brass Plate company in one part of the world, registered in another that has no marine infrastructure or expertise and manned by unqualified, untrained cheap labour, you can blame the poor men or the ship or stop and think about whether globalisation played its part.
After all would you board an aircraft owned by a globalised company which was unaccountable and operated in the cheapest most deregulated country possible?
That will be the legacy of globalisation as it has been in my industry.
A controversy about "globalisation" is an obvious waste of time. You might as well argue about whether civilisation should be permitted to proceed or not. Those who indulge in the debate do so as an idle pastime, or perhaps suffer from mental deficiencies - for example, a lack of intelligence. I'm writing this as an idle pastime, how about you?
Globalisation is a process which has been happening for quite a long time, and there is no end to it. As a process it should have ideology. The ideology of globalisation is to exploit "legally" the natural resources, capital and manpower of the developing countries.
There seem to me to be two sorts of protesters:
(1) Those who want any excuse for a riot. The G8 summit merely provides that excuse. They couldn´t give a tuppeny damn about the poor. If they did, they would be going to the Congo, or Bolivia, or wherever, to help, instead of carrying out actions that they know are futile.
(2) The hypocrites: those who like to wear their 'holier than thou' hearts on their sleeves, by complaining about globalisation, while living with the comfortable feeling that it will continue to exist and support them. They are easily recognisable, being those who chart special trains, use mobile phones, and eat in McDonalds.
I believe that most of the world views nearly all of them with considerable despondency, not to say contempt.
Globalisation is the handmaid of capitalist, multinational corporations. Thus, by definition, it is antithetical to the interest and needs of "the wretched of the earth."
The inherent irrationality of capitalism predicated on greed and acquisitiveness, the profit motive, can only sustain gross inequality.
As Eugene V Debs once remarked: "While there is a lower class, I am in it." Globalisation be damned!
Globalisation means interdependence, but unfortunately developing countries are forced to depend on developed countries and the latter use it as an opportunity to exploit the former.
If globalisation can help reduce poverty, free people from fatal diseases, give voice to the voiceless, and the less privileged ones have access to vaccination and global wealth then globalisation is good
The world economy needs more humanism. It's too simplistic to see in each action only cash flow and profits.
What are we searching for ? Wellbeing! Living a long and good life with our friends and family, in a larger view, with other people.
Being richer, make more profit, is not ever in accordance with this project. That's why I think that's globalisation should be not only done in the ecomic way, but also in a social way.
President Chirac says on 07/20/2001. "If 150,000 people are coming to Genova to demonstrate, there is a problem".
The problem is that people want more humanism in global politics. You can't let thousands of Africans die from Aids because they're poor... That means that someday you could die cause you're not making enough money.
This is not about free trade or anything similar, it is about bowing to the demands of a spoilt Texan who has no respect for the habitants of this planet and only wants to strike a few good weapon-selling deals.
Dear Mr Bush (and other members of the G8 movement), you have to realise that in the "land of the free", people think through their heads and not through their pockets. To us, globalisation means one united and equal world. To you, it's just a chic expression of slavery.
Few emphasise the democratic aspect. International corporations are getting that powerful that they are dictating politics. Politicians get elected. The bosses of those companies don't. Politicians should normally take democracy and common interest at heart. Thoses bosses are not in the least concerned with that.
The push toward globalisation has been going on for years, yet more and more people worldwide are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty. Globalisation has so far been a bad thing.
Mikko L, Helsinki, Finland
If we don't have globalisation, how are third world countries going to ever produce multinationals? The people who fear the role of multinationals have schizophrenia. On one side they think that multinationals are bad for third world countries. On the other side they talk as if producing multinationals is the sole right of western developed countries. However one only needs to look at companies like Samsung, Hyundai, LG (all Korea) and Satyam, Infosys (both India) to see that the effects of globalisation are not one sided. And in any case I hate people from the west who think that they know what's good for the less developed countries. Pray, why should the third world countries not be a beneficiary of the technological changes that are taking place elsewhere?
Stergios, Athens, Greece
I think the actions of the G8 are disgusting. The public should be allowed to demonstrate freely whether governments like it or not. The government is a publicly elected body. If the government do not trust the public, why don't they dissolve them and elect a new public? This is the philosophy being followed at the moment! Tony Blair and George W Bush should not be allowed to disrupt the public anti-capitalism demonstration as this is a flagrant disrespect of the public's right to march and demonstrate in a free society. I can only see an end to freedom and democracy if the governmental thuggery is allowed to continue!
Of course, globalisation is a 'good thing'. We are a single species sharing a single planet. Our failure is to give the real facts about globalisation so that intelligent people can understand. We must provide a social cushion for change, implement constraints that prevent the worst abuses (Bush, Kyoto, please note), have an open migration policy that allows people to move to where they might benefit, sanction anyone that uses patriotism (real name 'tribalism') to attack those weaker than themselves and recognise that governments are 'service providers' and 'estate managers' - not owners of people.
Aamir Riaz, Lahore, Pakistan
Mike V, millions of people around the world are fighting globalisation. Just because your pro-globalisation western media doesn't report it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We in the West were the last to start protesting about it not the first....
The idea that residents of the developing world do not gain from globalisation is wrong. Rather than forcing their citizens to buy 'home-spun' manufactures (through tariff or quota protections) that are more expensive and of inferior quality, countries that have liberalised their trading regimes allow home consumers to reap the benefits of owning the world's best products. By the way, what exactly is an anti-capitalist? Is that somebody who steals their Land Rover rather than paying for it?
18 Jul 01 | Europe
Genoa set for summit onslaught
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy