Institutions Of Anti Globalization Protests example essay topic

Antiglobalization After the break-up of Soviet Union, globalization accelerated through the world. It includes the increasing integration of countries' individual economies, the rise in the world trade and multinational companies and the effect of large sums of money moving in and out of economies. People around the globe are more connected to each other then ever before. Information and money flow more quickly than ever. Goods and services produced in one part of the world are increasingly available in all parts of the world. International travel is more frequent.

International communication is commonplace. This phenomenon has been titled "globalization". Not only the term of globalization has increased since last years, but also anti-globalization has appeared and is still increasing. Anti-globalization is the umbrella term for a group of different protest causes, including: environmentalism, third world debt, animal rights, child labor, anarchism, and anti-capitalism and opposition to multinationals. The most attacked institutions of anti-globalization protests have been especially World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank. As the big businesses are growing all around the world, anti-global activities and protests also increasing their level of intensity and violence.

Together with the collapse of communism raised the companies that expanded their sphere of business all over the world. Since the meetings of international monetary, trade and environmental organizations incited little or no interest in the past, at the present times; they are drawing the attention of thousands of anti-globalization activists. Large corporations with international undertakings stand accused of social injustice, unfair working conditions (including slave labor wages, living and working conditions), as well as lack of concern for environment, mismanagement of natural resources, and ecological damage. However, protest objectives extend beyond the claimed corporate impropriety.

Multinational economic institutions, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, are seen as establishing, monitoring, and rendering judgments on global trade practices, and are viewed as the spearheads of economic globalization. These institutions, considering being the servants of corporate interests, exercising more power than elected governments and interested only in the profit motive, have increasingly become principal demonstrating targets. Although multinational corporations and international trade institutions are the subject of criticism, not all observers share a negative perspective. Many commentaries are published which speak in favor of beneficial and positive accomplishments, especially in relation to the international institutions. For instance, free trade positively contributes to overall development of the world. Global free trade promotes global economic growth, it creates jobs, makes companies more competitive, and lowers prices for consumers.

It also provides poor countries, through infusions of foreign capital and technology, with the chance to develop economically and by spreading prosperity creates the conditions in which democracy and respect for human rights may flourish. Unfortunately, anti-globalists do not see the good sides of globalization and they argue that economic growth does not necessary make people happier, and often makes them miserable; that institutions like World Bank have made the rich richer while making the non rich poorer; that conventional idea of free trade are wonderful for managers and stockholders, but hell on workers and nature; and that a turn away the accumulation of things and toward more humane pursuits would be highly welcome (K orden, 2001). New tactics and technologies have radically changed the face of protest activity and generated renewed life in the reality of demonstrations. Gone are old-style gatherings confined to waving placards and banners, declaiming speakers, and moderate controlled matches in specific locations. Today's demonstrations resurrecting the anarchist theme of 'direct action' employ a host of novel methodologies that have given a whole new complexion to the nature of the protests. The development of implementation of new tactics is a result of the impact of new technology and the ability of organizers to use it to their best advantage.

The Internet has the greatest impact on these changes because it enables to organizers quickly and easily arrange demonstrations and protests. Individuals and groups are now able to establish dates, share experience, accept responsibilities, arrange logistics, and initiate myriad of other tasking that would have been impossible to manage readily and rapidly in the past. International protests and demonstrations can be organized for the same date and time, so that a series of protests take place in concern. Furthermore, it is a very cheap way of communication.

Opponents of globalization say it leads to exploitation of the world's poor, workers, and environment. They say it makes it easier for rich companies to act with less accountability. They also claim that countries individual cultures are becoming overpowered by Americanization. One of the examples how to explain what anti-globalists are fighting against is WTO, the target of anti-globalization protests. According to anti-globalists there are several reasons why to oppose the World Trade Organization. This institution covers all negative features which anti-global activists groups protest.

1. The WTO only serves the interests of multinational corporation. According to anti-global activists, the WTO is not a democratic institution, because their rules are written by and for corporations with inside access to the negotiations. The US Trade Representative relies on its 17 "Industry Sector Advisory Committees" to provide input into trade negotiations. Citizen input by consumer, environmental, human rights and labor organizations is consistently ignored. 2.

The WTO tramples over labor and human rights Potential solutions to labor and human rights abuses are blocked by the WTO, which has ruled that is: 1) illegal for a government to ban a product based on the way it is produced (i.e. with child labor); and 2) governments cannot take into account the behavior of companies that do business with vicious dictatorship such as Burma. 3. The WTO is the enemy for environment The WTO calls hard-won environmental protections "barriers to trade", and uses corporations to dismantle them. The WTO is currently negotiating an agreement that would eliminate tariffs on wood product, which would increase the demand for timber escalates deforestation. 4. The WTO is killing people The WTO's fierce defense of intellectual property rights-patents, copyrights and trademarks-comes at the expense of health and human lives.

The organization's support for pharmaceutical companies against governments seeking to protect their people's health has had serious implications for places like sub-Saharan Africa, where 80 per cent of the world's new AIDS cases are found. The US government, on behalf of US drug companies, is trying to block developing countries access to less expensive, generic, life-saving drugs. For example, the South African government has been threatened with a WTO challenge over proposed national health laws that would encourage the use of generic drugs, ban the practice of manufacturers offering economic incentives to doctors who prescribe their products and institute "parallel importing", which allows companies to import drugs from other countries where the drugs are cheaper. 5. The WTO is increasing inequality Free trade is not working for the majority of the world.

During the most recent period of rapid growth in global trade and investment, 1960 to 1998, inequality worsened both internationally and within countries. The UN Development Program reports that the richest 20 per cent of the world's population consume 86 percent of the world's resources while the poorest 80 per cent consume just 14 per cent. 6. The WTO undermines national sovereignty WTO has supranational court system with the power to economically sanction countries to comply with its rulings.

For the past nine years, the European Union has banned beef raised with artificial growth hormones. The WTO recently ruled that this public health law is a barrier to trade and should be abolished. The EU has to rollback its ban or pay stiff penalties. McDonald's is one of the most criticized companies by antiglobalists who reproach corporation's low wages, advertising practices, involvement in deforestation, harvesting of animals, and promotion of junk food and an unhealthy diet. There were several trials between McDonald's and activists and it did not matter whether activist had won or not, because both cases negatively influenced the good name of the corporation. Activists claim that McDonald's is selling junk food that is overly saturated with salt, sugar, and fats, producing high cholesterol (Kellner, 2001).

Moreover, this food is over priced and it destroys traditions like home cooking, individualized family restaurants, and a balanced and healthy diet. McDonald's is multinational corporation that does not customize its products and because of its enormous growth all around the worth, McDonald's is the paradigm of mass homogeneity, sameness, and standardization which erases individuality, specificity and difference. Big protests against McDonald's caused its Happy Meals that includes small toys based on characters from Disney films. First, Disney toys from Happy Meals were used as effective advertising that is targeted at children. Activists suppose this as very unethical way of how to gain because children are easy to influence and they do not understand to ads; they just see a nice toy they want. Because Disney toy cannot be bought separately, it has to be bought together with hamburger, French fries and cola, so a child is force to eat unhealthy food if's / he wants a toy.

Second, Disney toys for McDonald's are produced in Asiatic countries with cheap labor. For example, in Vietnamese factory young women (between 17-20 years) are working shifts of nine to ten hours a day, seven days a week. Wage rates average between six and eight cents an hour what is less than she needs for food per one day. Wages do not even cover 20 percent of the daily food and travel costs for a single worker. Nike is another company that is getting globalize and is also often the target of antiglobalists' demonstrations.

According to human rights activists, Nike factory workers in Indonesia are paid $1.25 a day while working eight to fifteen hours a day. Human rights activists argue, "Nike is undermining human dignity for a profit. You may survive on $1.25 a day, but you cannot live and maintain your dignity". (Polansek, 2000) The problem of Indonesian workers is not that they are uneducated and they do not know what rights they should have but the problem is fear. Nike's Indonesian workers are afraid to unite because those who tried to organize a union and to fight for better working conditions and higher salary were tortured and killed by hired agents as an example to other workers. In contrary, Nike's web side is saying that workers in all their factories all around the world are well paid and working conditions are same as those in western countries.

Nike also claims that human rights activists who spent a few weeks in Indonesia cannot understand the vast and complex issues facing the more than 200 million Indonesian citizens. Anti-globalists express their ideas through protests that were usually peaceful in the past but nowadays their activities are getting more violent. The reason for violence is that the peaceful, soft way of communication did not have any effect, so they were forced to be harder. The example of so aggressive protest happened in September 2000 in Prague. The protest was organized by the Initiative against Economic Globalization in Prague (IN PEG) and the target was the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund - the two international lending institutions which were holding their 55th annual meetings in Prague. About 10,000 protesters from practically every major city in Europe and North America came to Prague.

Interesting is that this protest was not violent from the side of protesters but Czech police was brutal in trying to abolish the protest. The protesters wanted to continue the protest in the spirit of Seattle and the atmosphere was positive and peaceful. Thousand of people all over the world shared their views on anti-globalization. However, on the second day of protest, about 11,000-member force rounded up activists for no apparent reason and about 900 protesters were put in jail and were denied food, water and phone calls (Klein, 2000). After this incident, many started to mistrust the Czech democratic system and Prague activists spent the latter part of their stay in Prague protesting not the IMB and the World Bank but the Czech police system. They no more compare the Prague protest with Seattle because American protests have usually different traditions.

What activists would like to control is their media presentation. They were deeply frustrated the press describes them as ignorant and rebellious simply because of their youth. Also among activist frustrations is the way the term anti-globalization is used against them. Activists argue they are not against the benefits of globalization (like speedy travel, mass communications and quick dissemination of information through Internet). Rather activists say they seek to get out a complex message that multinational corporations and the institutions that support them (WTO, the World Bank, IMF) are causing vast economic imbalances between rich and poor and horrible Third World debt (Straus, 2000). Even more violent protests of antiglobalists are those happening in Genoa, Italy.

Almost 100,000 activists protesting against multinational companies like CitiGroup Inc., Boise Cascade and Exxon have met in Genoa and about 15,000 policemen were trying to stop them (Cooper & Trofimov, 2001). Violence erupted on both sides: from a fringe of anarchists who threw Molotov cocktails into bank offices and set cars on fire to the police who beat protesters and even the journalists. Moreover, the police arrested about 100 protesters in near school where they were beaten. The fee was the highest yet for a globalization protest: one dead, 450 injured, tens of millions of dollars in damage and a large part of the city devastated by riots (Cooper & Trofimov, 2001). In addition, the problem of some activists is that their ideas and also acts are becoming fanatic and thus they cause many problems even to companies that do not contribute (or at least do not contribute too much) to globalization, as is the case of CitiGroup Inc. Last year CitiGroup Inc. refused to support Rainforest Action, activists fighting for saving the rain forests, and now all antiglobalists consider CitiGroup Inc. as the company that is aiding in the destruction of rain forests.

The fact that CitiGroup Inc. is financial-service company that has nothing to do with rain forests destruction is probably not important for activists. Anti-global members spread their activities probably on every major international economic meetings in the world. From the most known protests are: WTO's minister meeting in Seattle, protests against Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in Paris or negotiations with Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). "Anti-global activists have certainly made their voices heard in Paris, Seattle, and other cities. Their message was uncompromising: global economic integration fostered by expanding international trade and, perhaps even more, by investment activities by multinational enterprises, impoverishes the world's workers, in developed and developing countries alike, and despoils the environment". (Graham, 2001).

In his analysis, Mr. Edward M. Graham, is trying to examine whether the anti-globalists protests are correct or not. He admits that "there are cases where foreign investment in developing nations involves sweatshops where pay is unacceptably low, working conditions are inhumane, and child-workers are chained to the machines they operate" (Graham, 2001). According to Mr. Edward M Graham, these operations are atypical. There are strong evidences that "foreign-controlled activities in developing nations normally pay wages above local levels and create jobs that are desired by local residents" (Graham, 2001). Indeed, in factories like those run by US automotive firms in Mexico, workers are skilled and paid well even by US standards. According to anti-global activists FDI in developing countries adversely affect workers in more developed nations where the investing firms are based.

Mr. Edward M. Graham opposed that "the effect of direct investment in poorer nations are felt by workers in richer nations largely via trade". He pointed out example which shows that " direct investment by US firms in developing nations stimulates US exports and works to the benefit of workers in import-competing industries. Thus the effect of such investment on US workers appears to be mixed, with some workers benefiting but others being adversely affected". The net effect, however, on the United States is positive. "Consumers gain from wider choice of products and lower prices associated with open trade. This gain, when combined with gains to workers employed in export-generating sectors, more than offsets losses to workers employed in import-competing sectors.

This in turn reinforces a case that has long been made, notably that adjustment assistance to the latter is warranted" (Graham, 2001). Anti-global activists also claim that multinational institutions destroy the environment. Edward M. Graham, on the other hand claims, that there is no evidence that economic activities are creating "race to bottom", but there is evidence that foreign direct investment creates a "race to top", for example, by replacing dirty activities in fast-growing nations with cleaner ones or by transferring pollution abatement technologies to developing countries. Graham also notes, however, that direct investment contributes to economic growth in developing nations and, because nations are in the early stage of development do tend to witness environmental degradation as a consequence of growth, there is some connection between direct investment and this degradation. The philosophy of anti-global activists is not to destroy globalization that is bringing new technologies but to prevent inequalities which are caused by big businesses operating all over the world. The idea of anti-globalism is right but there are some extremists who are trying to stop the development of FDI in less advanced countries or in countries of Third World.

Even though the wages of workers in such countries are not comparable with the wages of workers of developed countries, mostly they are adapted to living standards of each country. Although democracies have the right and the responsibility to protect free expression and lawful assembly (this includes rights for activists and critics), they are not allowed to spread tyranny of their protests. However, while anti-globalists are fighting for their purposes, it often happens that their strikes are so violent and dangerous (for instance, the strikes in Seattle, Prague, and Genoa). The tyranny of small groups, minorities or even majorities to prevent the exercise of such rights to shut down meetings is unacceptable in a democracy.

Work cited 1. Cooper, H. & Trofimov, Y. (2001, July 23). Antiglobalization activists are shifting focus to multinational corporation. Wall Street Journal, pp. 20-23 2. Graham, E.M. (2001, October 16). Antiglobalists did not kill the multilateral agreement on investment.

News Release. [Online]. URL web 3. Kellner, D. (2001). Theorizing / resisting McDonald ization: A multiperspectivist approach. [ document]. URL web 4.

Klein, N. (2000, October 3). Press turns back on protesters in Prague. [ document]. URL web 5. Kord e, D. (2001). Antiglobalization. [ document]. URL web 6.

Polansek, T. (2000, April 26). Human rights activists speak out against Nike. [ document]. URL web 7. Straus, T. (2000, October 3). The antiglobalization movement gets global. [ document].

URL web.