Globalization means global conflict between elites of the rich nations.
World trade is one example.
Take President Bush’s recent move to protect U.S. steel producers with
tariffs on imports of foreign steel. This vexed Pascal Lamy, the European
Union’s trade commissioner.
“We can’t let an industry that has gone through hell and high water to
become the most competitive in the world suffer the consequences of illegal
measures by the U.S.,” he said in the Mar. 10 Financial Times.
The U.S. won’t compensate the EU for the steel tariffs by reducing tariffs
on other imports, noted Grant Aldonas, the U.S. undersecretary of commerce
for international trade. And the EU’s response?
It plans to penalize US air carriers subsidized by American taxpayers.
“Under the plan, non-EU carriers deemed to have benefited from unfair
subsidies will face "equalising" tariffs or taxes and may even have their
landing rights restricted so that the benefits of any original government
subsidy is negated,” reported the Mar. 12 Financial Times.
The EU could have waited a year or so to have its legal day in the World
Trade Organization about the U.S. steel curbs. Yet whatever the EU does,
the driving force of trade conflicts will remain.
On one hand, the global economy is comprised of nations. They go their
separate ways, as the U.S. and the EU just did.
On the other, world capitalism needs a world government to manage the growth
of national economies. The WTO is not a world government.
The capitalist system needs government management. Without this we had the
Great Depression and two world wars.
Meanwhile, the internationalization of commerce is the key to economic
growth. The system faces a dilemma.
On a related note, Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan told Congress on
Mar. 7 that the U.S. economy is supposed to be emerging from its year-long
recession. But it’s hard to see how the U.S. can grow if rivals such as
Japan and the EU, hit by U.S. steel curbs, don’t.
Alongside trade tension there is brute force in global relations. In brief,
U.S. military power paves the way for its commercial domination of other
nations.
Just ask Thomas Friedman, in all his lethal arrogance. In the Mar. 28, 1999
New York Times Magazine, he wrote that military force is “the hidden fist”
that keeps the world safe for the U.S. corporate sector to rule the roost.
The president’s recent nuclear saber-rattling is a veiled reminder of U.S.
military power to unnamed rivals in the rich nations. The Cold War merely
kept a lid on this rivalry.
Turning from trade to resources, the world’s leading warrior nation gets to
exploit the resources of lesser nations first. Those with the biggest
weapons and the willingness to use them try to extract what they want on
their terms.
Crucially, the U.S. leads the way in the extraction of resources that
facilitate world trade, mainly oil. U.S. Vice President Cheney’s mission to
the Middle East to cobble together a coalition to attack oil-rich Iraq is a
case in point.
His trip comes amid much rhetoric from the president and members of his
administration such as Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding Iraq’s
threat to the security of Americans. Iraq stands in the way of peace and
freedom, claims the Bush White House.
Yet many outside the U.S. see Iraq mainly as a beaten Middle East nation.
Eleven years of cruel U.S.-backed U.N. economic sanctions against the Iraqi
population are proof of that.
Talk about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is fog to mask what’s really
going on—a struggle for the nation’s oil reserves, the world’s
second-largest. A U.S.-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, a pre-Gulf War
ally, would enlarge American corporations’ control over Iraq’s capacity to
produce oil.
Oil is the main energy source for the world economy, as no substitute now
exists. Thus controlling oil is one way for U.S. corporations to maintain
their domination of the global system partly by weakening competition from
rich nations.
Certainly, there are counter-trends. One strategically situated example is
the U.S. peace movement.
To be sure it faces challenges. A big one is being seen and heard by the
American public.
Why are messages of peace so hard to publicize in the U.S.? The masters of
war hog the stage 24/7 in the corporate news media.
Peace activists in the U.S. and worldwide are among the many who support
globalization from the grassroots. It offers humanity a civilized
alternative to national relations that are locked into global conflicts
about trade and resources.
Seth Sandronsky is an editor with Because People Matter, Sacramentos progressive newspaper ssandron@hotmail.com
###