:: wikimiki.org ::

Anti-Globalization Movement

Anti-Globalization Movement

. The writing reads: La croissance est une folie ("Growth is madness").]] Anti-globalization is a term most commonly used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose current global trade agreements and trade-governing bodies such as the World Trade Organization. “Anti-globalization” is considered by some to be a social movement, while others consider it to be an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements. In either case, participants are united in opposition to the current global economic and trade systems, which they say undermine the environment, labor rights, national sovereignty, the third world, and myriad other causes. People who are labelled "anti-globalization" often reject the term, however, preferring instead to describe themselves as the Global Justice Movement, the Movement of Movements or a number of other terms. Basically, two main approaches can be distinguished: one that might be described as "anti-globalist" or "regionalist", and another that embraces some aspects of globalization (like cross-cultural exchange of information or the diminishing role of the nation state) while rejecting others (like neo-liberal economics). While proponents of both approaches often cooperate and are a reaction to the same phenomena, their differences might be actually greater than the common ground. The former approach can be described as outright anti-globalist (usually including what is perceived as "Americanization" of culture), while the latter would be more appropriately called "globalization critics". In practice, however, there is no set boundary between these approaches, and the term "anti-globalization" is often indiscriminately applied.

Ideology and Causes within the Movement

The anti-globalization movement developed in the late twentieth century to combat the globalization of corporate economic activity and the free trade with developing nations that might result from such activity. Members of the anti-globalization movement generally advocate socialist or social democratic alternatives to capitalist economics, and seek to protect the world's population and ecosystem from what they believe to be the damaging effects of globalization. Support for human rights NGOs is another cornerstone of the anti-globalization movement's platform. They advocate for labor rights, environmentalism, feminism, freedom of migration, preservation of the cultures of indigenous peoples, biodiversity, cultural diversity, food safety, and ending or reforming capitalism. Many of the protesters are veterans of single-issue campaigns, including anti-logging activism, living wage, labor union organizing, and anti-sweatshop campaigns. Although most movement members see most or all of the aforementioned goals as complementary to one another, the number of different (and sometimes contradictory) issues has fueled a leading criticism that the movement lacks a consistent, coherent, or realistic cause. Although adherents of the movement often work together, the movement itself is heterogeneous. It includes diverse and sometimes opposing understandings of the globalization process, and incorporates alternative visions, strategies and tactics. Many of the groups and organizations that are considered part of the movement were not founded as antiglobalist, but have their roots in various pre-existing social and political movements (with the possible exception of ATTAC). The anti-globalization movement has its precursors in such movements as the 1968 movement in Europe and the protest against the Vietnam War in the United States. The anti-globalization movement as it is now known stems from the convergence of these different political experiences when their members began to demonstrate together at international meetings such as the Seattle WTO meeting of 1999 or Genoa G/8 summit in 2001.

Opposition to International Financial Institutions and Transnational Corporations

Generally speaking, protesters believe that the global financial institutions and agreements undermine local decision-making methods. Many governments and free trade institutions are seen as acting for the good of transnational (or multinational) corporations (e.g. Microsoft, Monsanto, etc.). These corporations are seen as having privileges that most human persons do not have: moving freely across borders, extracting desired natural resources, utilizing a diversity of human resources. They are perceived to be able to move on after doing permanent damage to the natural capital and biodiversity of a nation, in a manner impossible for that nation's citizens. Activists also claim that corporations impose a kind of "global monoculture". Some of the movements' common goals are, therefore, an end to the legal status of corporate personhood and the dissolution, or dramatic reform, of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO. As protest slogans summarize: "People and planet before profits", "The Earth is not for sale!", or "Teamsters and Turtles, Together At Last!". The activists are especially opposed to what they view as "globalization abuse" and the international institutions that are perceived to promote neoliberalism without regard to ethical standards. Common targets include World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) and "free trade" treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). In light of the economic gap between rich and poor countries, movement adherents claim “free trade” will actually result in strengthening the power of industrialized nations (often termed the "North" in opposition to the developing world's "South"). Activists often also oppose business alliances like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) and the Asia Pacific Economic Forum (APEC), as well as the governments which promote such agreements or institutions. Others argue that, if borders are opened to capital, borders should be similarly opened to allow free and legal circulation and choice of residence for migrants and refugees. These activists tend to target organizations such as the International Organization for Migration and the Schengen Information System. It is sometimes also argued that the U.S. has a special advantage in the global economy because of dollar hegemony. These claims state that dollar dominance is not just a consequence of U.S. economic superiority. History shows that dollar dominance has been achieved also by political agreements such as Bretton Woods System and OPEC dollar-only oil trade after the U.S. broke with the gold standard for the dollar.

Anti-Globalization as Anti-Neoliberalism

Some see the movement as a critical response to the development of so-called neoliberalism, which is widely seen to have commenced with Margaret Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's policies toward creating laissez-faire capitalism on a global scale by promoting the privatization of countries’ economies and the weakening of trade and business regulations. Neoliberal proponents argue the increase of free trade and the reduction of the public sector will bring benefits to poor countries and to disadvantaged people in rich countries. Most anti-globalization advocates strongly disagree, adding that neoliberal policies will bring a loss of sovereignty to democratic institutions. After the September 11 attacks the movement has typically been critical of American responses to terrorism and has opposed the invasions and subsequent occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, which is viewed by some as an extension of neoliberal policy.

"Anti-War” Development

In 2003, many parts of the movement showed wide and deep global opposition to the war in Iraq. Many participants were among those 10 million or more protesters that on the weekend of February 15 participated in global protests against Iraq war and were dubbed by the New York Times as the "world's second superpower". Other pacifist appointments were organized by the antiglobalization movement as such: see for example the big demonstration against the war (at the time only planned) that closed the first European Social Forum on November 2002 in Florence, Italy. Anti-globalization militants worried for the proper functioning of democratic institutions as the leaders of many democratic countries (Spain, Italy, Poland) were acting against the wishes of the majorities of their populations in supporting the war. Noam Chomsky pointed out that these leaders "showed their contempt for democracy". Critics of this type of argument have tended to point out that this is just a standard criticism of representative democracy — a democratically elected government will not always act in the direction of greatest current public support — and that, therefore, there is no inconsistency in the leaders' positions given that these countries are parliamentary democracies. The economic and military issues are closely linked in the eyes of many within the movement.

Appropriateness of the term

Many participants consider the term "anti-globalization" to be a misnomer, and one which has been used to make inaccurate and simplistic criticisms of the movement. They say the term, for example, implies a purely negative perspective or that it simply argues for protectionism or even nationalism. In fact, they argue, the movement is actually self-consciously internationalist, organising globally and seeing itself as in solidarity with oppressed people around the world. One element that makes up the movement is the No Border network, which argues for unrestricted migration and the abolition of all national borders. While the term "anti-globalization" arose from the movement's opposition to free-trade agreements (which have often been considered part of something called "globalization"), many participants contend they are opposed to only certain aspects of globalization and instead describe themselves as "anti-capitalist," "anti-plutocracy," or "anti-corporate," and have adopted slogans which refer to an idea of globalization which they consider positive, such as "globalize justice" or "globalize liberation." Another concern some activists have about the term "anti-globalization" is that it does not distinguish their position from a strictly nationalist opposition to globalization. Many nationalist movements, such as the French National Front, are also opposed to globalization, but argue that the alternative to globalization is a protection of the nation-state, sometimes in explicitly racist or fascist terms. Some fascist groups influenced by the Third Position have attempted to tailor their message to appeal to the anti-globalization movement. However, the far-right is overwhelmingly rejected by the anti-globalization movement, with the Peoples Global Action hallmarks explicitly rejecting racism, and many within the movement also active in anti-fascist groups such as ANTIFA.

Influences on the Anti-globalization Movement

Several influential critical works have inspired the anti-globalization movement. No Logo, the book by the Canadian journalist Naomi Klein which criticized the production practices of multinational corporations and the omnipresence of brand-driven marketing in popular culture, has become a "manifesto" of the movement, presenting in a simple way themes more accurately developed in other works. In India some intellectual references of the movement can be found in the works of Vandana Shiva, a scientist, ecologist and feminist, who in her book Biopiracy documents the way that the natural capital of indigenous peoples and ecoregions is converted into forms of intellectual capital, which are then recognized as commercial property without sharing the private utility thus derived. The writer Arundhati Roy is famous for her anti-nuclear position and her crusade against India's massive hydroelectric dam project, sponsored by the World Bank. In France the well-known monthly paper Le Monde Diplomatique has embraced the antiglobalization cause and an editorial of its director Ignacio Ramonet brought about the foundation of the association ATTAC. The works of Jean Ziegler and Immanuel Wallerstein have detailed underdevelopment and dependence in a world ruled by capitalist system. Pacifist and anti-imperialist traditions have strongly influenced the movement. Critics of American foreign policy such as Noam Chomsky, the late Susan Sontag, and anti-globalist prankers The Yes Men are widely accepted inside the movement. Although they may not recognize themselves as antiglobalists and are pro-capitalism, some economists who don't share the neoliberal approach of international economic institutions have strongly influenced the movement. Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom (winner of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences, 1999), observes that third world development must be understood as the expansion of human capability, not simply the increase in national income per capita, and thus requires policies attuned to health and education, not simply GDP. The Nobel Prize in Economics James Tobin's proposal for a Tax on financial transactions (called, after him, the Tobin Tax) has become part of the agenda of the movement. George Soros, Joseph E. Stiglitz (another Nobel prize, formerly of the World Bank, author of Globalization and Its Discontents) and David Korten have made strong arguments for drastically improving transparency, for debt relief, land reform, and restructuring corporate accountability systems. Korten and Stiglitz's contribution to the movement include involvement in direct actions and street protest. In some Roman Catholic countries such as Italy there have even been religious influences, especially from missionaries who have spent a long time in the Third World (the most famous being Alex Zanotelli). The confluence between this tradition and post-communist tradition is often perceived as odd, but not completely at odds. Internet sources and free-information websites, such as Indymedia, are a powerful means of diffusion of the movement's ideas. The vast array of material on spiritual movements, anarchism, libertarian socialism and the Green Movement that is now available on the Internet has been perhaps more influential than any printed book. The previously obscure works of Arundhati Roy, Starhawk, and John Zerzan, in particular, inspired a critique favoring feminism, consensus process and political secession.

Organization

political secession.]] Although over the past years more emphasis has been given to the construction of grassroots alternatives to (capitalist) globalization, the movement's largest and most visible mode of organizing remains mass decentralized campaigns of direct action and civil disobedience. This mode of organizing, sometimes under the banner of the Peoples' Global Action network, tries to tie the many disparate causes together into one global struggle. For each member, exposure to other causes helps create a sense of solidarity and may lay the groundwork for a consensus process and the basis of unity for the movement overall, which could eventually include any, all or none of the doctrines listed above. Peoples' movements around the world are working to demonstrate that the path to sustainable development, social and economic justice lies in alternative models for people-centred and self-reliant progress, rather than in neo-liberal globalisation. In many ways the process of organizing matters overall can be more important to activists than the avowed goals or achievements of any component of the movement. At corporate summits, the stated goal of most demonstrations is to stop the proceedings. Some demonstration slogans to this effect include: "WEF? Shut it down!", "Capitalism? No thanks! We'll shut down your banks!", and "WTO? No! WTO? No!". Although the demonstrations rarely succeed in more than delaying or inconveniencing the actual summits, this energizes the mobilizations and gives them a visible, short-term purpose (in addition to their long-term goals). Critics claim that this form of publicity is expensive in police time and the public purse. Although not supported by many in the movement, rioting has occurred in Genoa, Seattle and London and extensive damage can be done to the area, especially "capitalist" targets like McDonalds Restaurants. Despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of formal coordinating bodies, the movement manages to successfully organize large protests on a global basis, using information technology to spread information and organize. Protesters organize themselves into "affinity groups," typically non-hierarchical groups of people who live close together and share a common goal or political message. Affinity groups will then send representatives to planning meetings. However, because these groups are easily and frequently penetrated by law enforcement intelligence, important plans of the protests are often not made until the last minute. One common tactic of the protests is to split up based on willingness to break the law. This is designed, with varying success, to protect the risk-averse from the physical and legal dangers posed by confrontations with law enforcement. For example, in Prague during the anti-IMF and World Bank protests in September 2000 demonstrators split into three distinct groups, approaching the conference center from three directions: one engaging in various forms of civil disobedience (the Yellow march), one (the Pink/Silver march) advancing through "tactical frivolity" (costume, dance, theatre, music, and artwork), and one (the Blue march) engaging in violent conflicts with the baton-armed police, with the protesters throwing cobblestones lifted from the street. (See [http://www.guardian.co.uk/imf/story/0,7369,373703,00.html Guardian report]) These demonstrations come to resemble small societies in themselves. Many protesters take training in first aid and act as medics to other injured protesters. Some organizations like the National Lawyer's Guild and, to a lesser extent, the ACLU, provide legal witnesses in case of law enforcement confrontation. Protesters often claim that major media outlets do not properly report on them; therefore, some of them created the Independent Media Center, a collective of protesters reporting on the actions as they happen. Some within the movement argue that this creation of "small societies" is the most important part of the large protests, more important in fact than simply opposing the meetings and organisations which are the nominal target. This show this influence on the movement of the anarchist idea that those attempting to change the world should concentrate on "creating the new society in the shell of the old," rather than waiting until after a revolution at some point in the future. See, for example, the leaflet [http://www.nadir.org.uk/LMDGindex_files/Summits_and_Plateaus.html Summits and Plateaus] by the Leeds May Day Group. Other parts of the movement, especially Leninist groups, argue that it is impossible to create a genuinely new society until after the current ruling system has been overthrown.

Main Demonstrations and appointments

J18

One of the first international Anti-globalization protests was organized in dozens of cities around the world on June 18, 1999, especially London, U.K. and Eugene, Oregon. The protest in Eugene, Oregon, turned into a mini-riot where local anarchists drove police out of a small park. One anarchist, Robert Thaxton, was arrested and convicted of throwing a rock at a police officer. As of 2004, he is still in prison.

Seattle/N30

Main article: WTO Meeting of 1999 The second major mobilization of the movement, known as N30, occurred on November 30, 1999, when protesters blocked delegates' entrance to WTO meetings in Seattle, USA. The protests forced the cancellation of the opening ceremonies and lasted the length of the meeting until December 3. There was a large, permitted march by members of the AFL-CIO, and another large, unpermitted march by assorted affinity groups. The protesters and Seattle riot police clashed in the streets after police fired tear gas at demonstrators blocking streets. Over 600 protesters were arrested and dozens were injured. One demonstrator miscarried her baby after being exposed to CS and OC gas. Three policemen were injured by friendly fire, and one by a thrown rock. Black Bloc Anarchists destroyed the windows of storefronts of businesses owned or franchised by targeted corporations such as a large Nike shop and many Starbucks windows. The mayor put the city under the municipal equivalent of martial law and declared a curfew. As of 2002, the city of Seattle had paid over $200,000 in settlements of lawsuits filed against the Seattle Police Department for assault and wrongful arrest, with a class action lawsuit still pending.

Law enforcement reaction

Although local police were surprised by the size of N30, law enforcement agencies have since reacted worldwide to prevent the disruption of future events by a variety of tactics, including sheer weight of numbers, infiltrating the groups to determine their plans, and preparations for the use of force to remove protesters. At the 2000 protest of the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, John Sellers, a key organizer of the Ruckus Society, one of the groups organizing the protests, was arrested on for being an alleged ringleader and was held in jail on $1,000,000 bail for the duration of the protests. Of the 400+ people that were arrested at the RNC the lowest bail was $10,000. At the same protest, the police made a point of arresting anybody with a cell phone to impede the organization of the protest. Many protesters have been prevented from crossing borders for the purpose of joining a protest, either because their names matched a list of known protesters or because of their appearance. In the UK, a coach heading to a rally was turned back and escorted back to London — a police operation later found to be illegal by the courts. At the site of some of the protests, police have used tear gas and pepper spray, concussion grenades, rubber and wooden bullets, night sticks, water cannons, dogs, horses, and occasionally live ammunition to repel the protesters. After the November 2000 G-8 protest in Montreal, at which many protesters were beaten, trampled, and arrested in what was intended to be a festive protest, the tactic of dividing protests into "green" (permitted), "yellow" (not officially permitted but with little confrontation and low risk of arrest), and "red" (involving direct confrontation) zones was introduced. In Quebec City, municipal officials built a ten-foot-high wall around the portion of the city where the Summit of the Americas was being held, which only residents, delegates to the summit, and certain accredited journalists were allowed to pass through. Although police claimed that violent elements in the protesters required a firm response, they allegedly fired tear gas and rubber bullets indiscriminately, dispersing peaceful assemblies and even teams of medics assisting the wounded. It is claimed they also gassed areas not involved in the protests, firing off the mountaintop where the confrontations were taking place into the city below. The medical centre and independent media centre were evacuated by police at gunpoint.

Genoa

Main article: Genoa Group of Eight Summit protest The Genoa Group of Eight Summit protest from July 18 to July 22, 2001 was one of the bloodiest protests in Western Europe's recent history, as evidenced by the death of a young citizen of Genoa named Carlo Giuliani during the demonstration and hospitalisation of several demonstrators. Police have subsequently been accused of brutality, torture and interference with non-violent protests. Several hundred demonstrators and police were injured and hundreds were arrested during the days surrounding the G8 meeting; most of those arrested have been charged with some form of "criminal association" under Italy's anti-mafia and anti-terrorist laws. As part of the continuing investigations, police raids of social centers, media centers, union buildings, and law offices have continued across Italy since the G8 summit in Genoa. Many police officers or responsible authorities present in Genoa during the G8 summit, are currently under investigation by the Italian judges, and some of them resigned. Some have since admitted to planting Molotov cocktails in order to justify the Diaz School raids, as well as faking the stabbing of a police officer to frame activists [http://www.fair.org/activism/genoa-update.html].

International Social Forums

See main articles: World Social Forum European Social Forum, the Asian Social Forum. The main appointment of antiglobalization militants has become the World Social Forum (WSF). The first WSF was an initiative of the administration of Porto Alegre in Brazil. The slogan of the World Social Forum was "Another World Is Possible". It was here that the WSF's Charter of Principles was adopted to provide a framework for the forums. The WSF became an periodic meeting: in 2002 and 2003 it was held again in Porto Alegre and became a rallying point for worldwide protest against the American invasion of Iraq. In 2004 it was moved to Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay, in India), to make it more accessible to the populations of Asia and Africa. This last appointment saw the participation of 75,000 delegates. In the meantime, regional forums took place following the example of the WSF, adopting its Charter of Principles. The first European Social Forum (ESF) was held in November 2002 in Florence. The slogan was "Against the war, against racism and against neo-liberalism". It saw the participation of 60,000 delegates and ended with a huge demonstration against the war (1,000,000 people according to the organizers). The other two ESFs took place in Paris and London, in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Recently there has been some discussion behind the movement about the role of the social forums. Some see them as a "popular university", an occasion to make many people aware of the problems of globalization. Others would prefer that delegates concentrate their efforts on the coordination and organization of the movement and on the planning of new campaigns.

Influence on the developing world

Some people claim that the major mobilizations have taken place mainly in the developed world, where there are strong traditions of free speech, police restraint, civil rights, and the rule of law. In these countries, one of the objectives is to demonstrate that the protesters self-govern better than they could ever be controlled by violent force: on March 15 2002 in Barcelona, 250,000 people "rioted" for days with apparently no serious injury to individuals on either side: there were far fewer casualties than would be expected in a typical European soccer riot, for example. There was, however, much damage to private and public property, which is, arguably, unnecessary in public protest. In Argentina, during the 2001/2002 economic crisis, millions of ordinary citizens took to the streets for days with similar results to the Barcelona protests, forcing several changes in the federal government. On the 19th and 20th December 2001, riots in Buenos Aires and some other large cities forced the resignation of then-president Fernando de la Rúa, though over 32 demonstrators were killed. At the same time and also during 2002, thousands of middle-class people marched against financial institutions and foreign companies banging pots and pans (this was promptly termed cacerolazo), protesting against the freezing of their bank accounts in the so-called corralito. In the months that followed, Argentinians developed some alternative neighborhood-based economic systems, social structures and local systems of autonomous self-government. A popular slogan within the uprising was, ¡Que se vayan todos! ("Everybody out [of the government]!"), indicating protesters' frustration not only with corruption in government but with the entire governmental structure. In India, the views of Vandana Shiva, Amartya Sen and Arundhati Roy are very popular, effectively enjoying full celebrity status. The acceptance and interest in their ideas and in the methods of Mohandas Gandhi are forming a major and specific challenge to both Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism. The three have also had a substantial impact on views within the "anti-globalization" movement.

Criticisms

The anti-globalization movement has been heavily criticized on many fronts by politicians, members of conservative think tanks, mainstream economists, and other supporters of capitalist globalization. Participants in the movement often dismiss these criticisms as carping from a tiny minority who can express their opinions via what they call the corporate media. They claim that the criticisms themselves are self-serving and unrepresentative of informed popular opinion.

Disorganization

One of the most common criticisms of the movement, which does not necessarily come from its enemies, is simply that the anti-globalization movement lacks coherent goals, and that the views of different protesters are often in opposition to each other. Many members of the movement are also aware of this, and argue that, as long as they have a common opponent, they should march together - even if they don't share exactly the same political vision.

Addressing problems incorrectly

One argument often made by the opponents of the anti-globalization movement (especially by The Economist), is that one of the major causes of poverty amongst third-world farmers are the trade barriers put up by rich nations. The WTO is an organisation set up to work towards removing those trade barriers. Therefore, it is argued, people really concerned about the plight of the third world should actually be encouraging free trade, rather than attempting to fight it. Further in this vein, it is argued that the protesters' opposition to free trade is sometimes aimed at protecting the interests of Western labor (whose wages and conditions are protected by trade barriers) rather than the interests of the developing world. This contrasts with the stated goals of those in the movement, which are to improve the conditions of ordinary farmers and workers everywhere. Anti-globalization activists counter these claims by arguing that free trade policies create an environment for workers similar to the prisoner's dilemma, in which workers in different countries are tempted to "defect" or "betray" other workers by undercutting standards on wages and work conditions. Therefore, the anti-globalization movement supports a strategy of cooperation for mutual benefit, and argues for fair trade - which is specifically aimed to provide third-world farmers with better terms of trade. The book Globalization Unmasked claims that "the major adversaries of globalization in the dominated countries have been the peasant movements particularly in Latin America and parts of Asia." Some peasant farmers contend that free-trade policies merely aid a narrow stratum of cash-crop oriented agricultural firms in their own countries with links to multinational agribusiness, and subsidized agribusiness in developed countries. A report by Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, notes that "millions of farmers are losing their livelihoods in the developing countries, but small farmers in the northern countries are also suffering" and concludes that "the current inequities of the global trading system are being perpetuated rather than resolved under the WTO, given the unequal balance of power between member countries." [http://www.landaction.org/gallery/Zieglerpaper.pdf]. Critics respond that it is only natural that there are relatively fewer jobs for farmers as a nation becomes more industrialized and that actual statistics (see below) show sharply reduced poverty in the Third World.

Failure to propose solutions to problems

Another criticism against the movement is that, although it protests about things that are widely recognized as serious problems, such as human rights violations, genocide and global warming, it rarely proposes detailed solutions. Proponents of the movement point to the existence of web resources like the Philadelphia IMC alternatives site [http://www.phillyimc.org/alternatives] and the annual World Social Fora where numerous solutions are proposed and debated and empirical data on social experiments are exchanged.

Violence

Some have also criticized the movement for engaging in violent protest. Aside from the violent tactics used by some protesters (possibly aggravated by the police), some see an enforced blockade of events and public throughways as a violent action, in and of itself. Many protesters counter that blockades are a time-honored technique of civil disobedience, and that the organizations they are protesting against are themselves guilty of crimes. There is a debate within the movement over what is defined as violence. Many, such as anarchists who participate in the Black Bloc tactic argue that breaking windows is not necessarily a violent action unless humans beings are harmed in the process. Others, many prominent Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) among them, dispute this view, saying that physical damage to anything is inherently violent.

Motivations of movement

The motivations of the organizers of the protests are often questioned. Some claim that the key organizers are really communists or anarchists who aim to start a revolution. The counter-argument to this is that the movement has a very horizontal power structure, so that the power of any key organizers is limited, and that if violent revolution can be considered a real possibility, then it is a clear sign that something must be very wrong with the current system. Some critics have claimed there is strong anti-Americanism in the anti-globalization movement. They argue that anti-globalisation protesters in fact object to many people around the world voluntarily choosing American (or American-style) cultural products. Attempts to prevent the 'Americanization' of French culture would be an example of this. In this sense, anti-globalisation is perceived as cultural chauvinism directed against American products, corporations and individuals, whereas their close European equivalents are ignored or even celebrated. Thus, these critics contend that anti-global groups routinely favor European style economic, political and cultural systems over Anglo-American ones, belying a cultural bias and not necessarily an objection to globalization itself. Other critics claim that anti-Semitism is rife in the movement. These charges are generally related to the fact that solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of Israeli government policy are common among anti-globalization activists. Within the movement itself such charges are dismissed as nonsense since the movement is explicitly anti-racist and many of the so-called "key organizers" are Jewish. Supporters have argued that criticizing Israel is not indicative of anti-Semitism; and that attempts to equate Israel's policies towards Palestinians with the beliefs of Jewish people as a whole is itself racist. See Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism for further elaboration. There is also a small right-wing anti-globalization trend in the United States and some European nations, which exists completely independently of the much larger left-radical movement. Right-wing anti-globalization critics include Pat Buchanan, and some segments of the neo-nazi/skinhead movements. They support strong protectionist policies, an end to all immigration, and frequently employ racist and anti-semetic rhetoric. Encounters between right and left wing Anti-globalization protesters are typically hostile and sometimes violent.

Lack of evidence for claims

Finally, critics assert that members of the anti-globalization movement use anecdotal evidence to support their views, which are not supported by worldwide economic and social statistics. These critics point to statistical trends which suggest beneficial effects of globalization, capitalism, and the economic growth they encourage. One such trend is the decrease in the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 per day (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power), which has halved in only twenty years [http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp]. A second such trend is the doubling of life expectancy in the developing world since WWII. A third such trend is the decrease in child mortality in every developing region of the world [http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2429]. A fourth trend is diminishing income inequality for the world as a whole [http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/worldistribution/NYT_november_27.htm]. A fifth trend is the increase in universal suffrage, from no nations in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 [http://www.freedomhouse.org/reports/century.html]. A sixth trend is the shift in food supplies available; the proportion of the world's population living in countries where per capita food supplies are under 2,200 [calories per day] was 56 percent in the mid-1960s, compared to below 10 percent by the 1990s. A seventh trend is the rising rate of literacy; between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52 percent to 81 percent, and female literacy as a percentage of male literacy increased from 59 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000. There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita as well as the percentage of the population with access to clean water [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC6-4F02KWN-8&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=browse&_cdi=5946&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_artOutline=Y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=273c9d354f2f52b3b14606a5a3b2d69f#bfn25]. Members of the anti-globalization movement respond that "growth is good for the poor" is an uncontroversial claim, and yet it misses the main point, which is that neoliberal policies consistent with globalization and capitalism may not actually be causing growth that has beneficial effects for the poor. They take issue with the time period which is often normally associated with worldwide statistics, and they argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied [http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html]. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has noted that from 1980-2000 there has been diminished progress in terms of economic growth, life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and to a lesser extent education. [http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm] Moreover, they have disputed the claim that the statistical trends are the effects of neoliberal policies followed by the IMF and World Bank in recent years have led to growth. Directly criticizing a world bank study, CEPR economists concluded: "Economic growth over the last twenty years, the period during which the policies advocated by the authors (and their institution) have been put into place, has been dramatically reduced. It may well be true, as Dr. Dollar argues, that "to ignore the importance of growth-enhancing policies is an injustice to the poor."[5] But to assume that the World Bank and the IMF have brought "growth-enhancing policies" to their client countries goes against the overwhelming weight of the evidence over the last two decades." [http://www.cepr.net/globalization/Growth_May_Be_Good_for_the_Poor.htm] Critics of anti-globalization note that the above study gives all nations equal weight, giving China with its 1.3 billion people the same importance as Belize with its 300,000 people. If instead giving all people in the developing world the same weight, then growth and reductions in poverty have not slowed [http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://mapage.noos.fr/ecodev/Surjit%2520Bhalla/Two_Policy_Briefs.pdf]. They also point to the many peer-reviewed articles and research which demonstrate a correlation between economic freedom and well-being. There are two indices of economic freedom used in economic research. Both attempt to measure of the degree of economic freedom in countries, mostly in regard to lack of governmental intervention in the economy, free trade, and strength of private property rights. They use statistics from independent organizations like the United Nations to score countries in various categories like the size of government, degree of taxes, security of property rights, degree of free trade and size of market regulations. Many peer-reviewed papers have been published using this material on the relationship between capitalism and poverty [http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html]. The more advanced capitalist countries have much higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life-expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. The share of income in percent going to the poorest 10% is the same for both more and less capitalistic countries. [http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf]. Other studies have shown similar results [http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.html][http://www.ratioinstitutet.nu/pdf/wp/nb_efi.pdf]. Doug Henwood, author of After the New Economy, faults the methodology of such studies, arguing that the selection of indices is arbitrary, the conclusions drawn are dubious (often neglecting the elementary fact that "correlation does not prove causation"), and concluding that the report is "meaningless." [http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/FreedomIndex.html]. At a more fundamental level Henwood disputes the definition of "economic freedom" used in such indices. Supporters note that this article is not peer-reviewed in contrast to many studies which do show causation [http://www.ratioinstitutet.nu/pdf/wp/nb_efi.pdf]. Many supporters of capitalism do think that different policies than today should be pursued, although not necessarily those advocated by the anti-globalization movement. For example, some see the World Bank and the IMF as corrupt bureaucracies which have given repeated loans to dictators who never do any reforms. Some argue that free trade may be harmful in certain instances or that spending on education and basic health care may be very important. Some, like Hernando de Soto, argue that the most important thing for the developing world may be too develop the institutions of capitalism, like protecting the property rights and access to credit for the poor.

Mobilizations

Note that the start of this timeline only reflects the start of major American mobilizations; international anti-corporate globalization mobilizations occurred prior to Seattle.
- November 30, 1999 – Seattle, WTO Third Ministerial conference
- April 16, 2000 – Washington, DC, IMF
- May 1, 2000 – Global, May Day protests
- July 29, 2000 – Philadelphia, Republican National Convention
- August 11, 2000 – Los Angeles, USA, Democratic National Convention
- September 11, 2000 – Melbourne, World Economic Forum
- September 26, 2000 – Prague, Czech Republic, World Bank/IMF
- November 20, 2000 – Montreal, Quebec, G20 meeting
- January 20, 2001 – Washington, DC, Bush inauguration
- January 27, 2001 – Davos, Switzerland, World Economic Forum
- April 20, 2001 – Quebec City, Canada, Summit of the Americas (FTAA)
- June 15, 2001 – Gothenburg, Sweden EU Summit
- July 20, 2001 – Genoa, Italy G8 Summit
- September 29, 2001 – Washington, DC, Anti-capitalist anti-war protests
- February 1, 2002 – New York City, USA / Porto Alegre, Brazil World Economic Forum / World Social Forum
- March 15, 2002 – Barcelona, Spain EU Summit
- April 20, 2002 – Washington, DC (War on Terrorism)
- November 4 to November 10 – Florence, Italy, First European Social Forum
- June 26, 2002 – Calgary, Alberta, and Ottawa, Ontario, G8 summit at Kananaskis, Alberta J26 G8 Protests
- September 27, 2002 – Washington, DC, IMF/World Bank
- weekend of February 15, 2003, March, April – Global protests against Iraq war about 12 million antiwar protesters
- July 28, 2003 – Montreal, Quebec
-

Trade pact

A trade pact is a wide ranging tax, tariff and trade pact that usually also includes investment guarantees. It is necessarily a very politically contentious agreement, as it affects many prior economic customs and status relations and increases trade bloc interdependence. It usually seeks efficiency by "free trade". The anti-globalization movement opposes such agreements almost by definition, but some groups normally allied within that movement, e.g. Green Parties, seek fair trade or safe trade provisions that moderate what they see as ill effects of globalization. Examples of trade pacts past and proposed:
- Multilateral Ageement on Investment (defunct)
- Free Trade Area of the Americas
- See also: List of Trade_blocks

World Trade Organization

:For other uses of the initials WTO, see WTO (disambiguation). WTO (disambiguation) The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international rules-based and member driven organization which oversees a large number of agreements defining the "rules of trade" between its member states (WTO, 2004a). The WTO is the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that was set up in 1947, and operates with the broad goal of reducing or abolishing international trade barriers. It ensures trade among nations operates smoothly, freely and orderly. WTO headquarters are located in Geneva, Switzerland. On May 13 2005, Pascal Lamy was elected the Director-General. He took over from Supachai Panitchpakdi on September 1, 2005. As of August 19, 2005, there are 148 members in which most of them are developing countries in the organization (WTO, 2004a). All WTO members are required to grant one another most favoured nation status, such that (with some exceptions) trade concessions granted by a WTO member to another country must be granted to all WTO members (WTO, 2004c). In the late 1990s, the WTO became a major target of protests by the anti-globalization movement. See critique.

Origin

The WTO was established on January 1 1995 to replace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a series of post-war trade treaties intended to facilitate free trade. The GATT principles and agreements were adopted by the WTO, which was charged with administering and extending them. Unlike the GATT, the WTO has a substantial institutional structure. The WTO is effectively the long-delayed successor to the expected International Trade Organization, which was originally intended to follow the GATT. The International Trade Organization charter was agreed at the UN Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana in March 1948, but was blocked by the U.S. Senate (WTO, 2004b). Some historians have argued that the failure may have resulted from fears within the American business community that the International Trade Organization could be used to regulate, rather than liberate, big business (Lisa Wilkins, 1997).

Structure

All WTO members may participate in all councils, committees, etc., except Appellate Body, Dispute Settlement panels, and plurilateral committees. Highest level: Ministerial Conference The topmost decision-making body of the WTO is the Ministerial Conference, which has to meet at least every two years. It brings together all members of the WTO, all of which are countries or customs unions. The Ministerial Conference can take decisions on all matters under any of the multilateral trade agreements. Second level: General Council The daily work of the ministerial conference is handled by three groups The General Council, The Dispute Settlement Body and The Trade Policy Review Body. 1. The General Council- is the WTO’s highest-level decision-making body in Geneva, meeting regularly to carry out the functions of the WTO. It has representatives (usually ambassadors or equivalent) from all member governments and has the authority to act on behalf of the ministerial conference which only meets about every two years. The council acts on behalf on the Ministerial Council on all of the WTO affairs. The current chairman is H.E. Ms. Amina Chawahir MOHAMED (Kenya). 2. The Dispute Settlement Body - Made up of all member governments, usually represented by ambassadors or equivalent.The current chairperson is H.E. Mr. Eirik GLENNE (Norway). 3. The Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) - the WTO General Council meets as the Trade Policy Review Body to undertake trade policy reviews of Members under the TRPM. The TPRB is thus open to all WTO Members. The current chairperson is H.E. Mr. Don STEPHENSON (Canada). Third level: Council for Trade in Goods The Council for Trade in Good works under the General Council. It is made up of three councils - Council for Trade in Goods, Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and Council for Trade in Services - in which the councils work in different fields. Apart from these three councils, six other bodies report to the General Council reporting issues such as trade and development, the environment, regional trading arrangements and administrative issues. 1. Council for Trade in Goods- The workings of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)which covers international trade in goods, are the responsibility of the Council for Trade in Goods. It is made up of representatives from all WTO member countries. The current chairperson is H.E. Mr. Vesa Tapani HIMANEN (Finland). 2. Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights- Information on intellectual property in the WTO, news and official records of the activities of the TRIPS Council, and details of the WTO’s work with other international organizations in the field 3. Council for Trade in Services- The Council for Trade in Services operates under the guidance of the General Council and is responsible for overseeing the functioning of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). It’s open to all WTO members, and can create subsidiary bodies as required. The current chairperson is H.E. Ms. Claudia URIBE (Colombia). Fourth level: Subsidiary Bodies Under each of the three councils, there are subsidiary bodies under each one. 1. The Goods Council- subsidiary under the Council for Trade in Goods. It has 11 committees dealing with specific subjects (such as agriculture, market access, subsidies, anti-dumping measures and so on), which include the following. Again, these committees consist of all member countries.
- Information Technology Agreement (ITA) Committee
- State Trading Enterprises
- Textiles Monitoring Body- which has a chairman and 10 members acting under it.
- Groups dealing with notifications- which has the governments inform the WTO about new policies and measures in their countries. 2. The Services Council- subsidiary under the Council for Trade in Services which deals with financial services, domestic regulations and other specific commitments. 3. Dispute Settlement panels and Appellate Body- subsidiary under the Dispute Settlement Body to resolve disputes and the Appellate Body to deal with appeals. Other committees
- Committees on
- Trade and Environment
- Trade and Development (Subcommittee on Least-Developed Countries)
- Regional Trade Agreements
- Balance of Payments Restrictions
- Budget, Finance and Administration
- Working parties on
- Accession
- Working groups on
- Trade, debt and finance
- Trade and technology transfer

Mission

The WTO aims to encourage smooth and free trade by promoting lower trade barriers and providing a platform for the negotiation of trade and to resolve disputes between member nations, when they arise. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business. Principles of the trading system The WTO discussions should follow these fundamental principles of trading. 1. A trading system should be discrimination-free in a sense that a country cannot favour another country or discriminate against foreign products or services. 2. A trading system should be freer where there should be little trade barriers(tariffs and non-tariff barriers). 3. A trading system should be predictable where foreign companies and governments can be sure that trade barriers would not be raised and markets will remain open. 4. A trading system should be more competitive. 5. A trading system should be more accommodating for less developed countries, giving them more time to adjust, greater flexibility, and more privileges.

Functions

The WTO has two basic functions: as a negotiating forum for discussions of new and existing trade rules, and as a trade dispute settlement body.

Negotiations

While most international organisations operate on a one country, one vote or even a weighted voting basis, many WTO decisions, such as adopting agreements (and revisions to them) are determined by consensus. This does not necessarily mean that unanimity is found: only that no Member finds a decision so unacceptable that they must insist on their objection. Voting is only employed as a fall-back mechanism or in special cases. The advantage of consensus is that it encourages efforts to find the most widely acceptable decision. Main disadvantages include large time requirements and many rounds of negotiation to develop a consensus decision, and the tendency for final agreements to use ambiguous language on contentious points that makes future interpretation of treaties difficult. Richard Steinberg (2002) argues that although the WTO's consensus governance model provides law-based initial bargaining, trading rounds close through power-based bargaining favouring Europe and the United States, and may not lead to Pareto improvement. The most notable recent failures of consensus, at the Ministerial meetings at Seattle (1999) and Cancún (2003), were due to the refusal of some developing countries to accept proposals. The WTO began the current round of negotiations, the Doha round, at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar in November 2001 (WTO, 2004d). The talks have been highly contentious and agreement has not been reached, despite continuing talks in Cancún, Geneva, and Paris. The Sixth Ministerial Conference will be held in Hong Kong on December 13 - December 18, 2005.

Dispute resolution

Like most other international organizations, the WTO has no significant power to enforce the decisions it makes when a member brings a complaint against another. If decisions of its Dispute Settlement Body are not complied with, it may authorise "retaliatory measures" on the part of the complaining member, but no other enforcement action is available. This means that economically powerful states like the United States can essentially ignore rulings against them from complaints brought by the economically weak, as the latter states simply do not have the power to hurt US trade enough to force the US to change its position. This has been the case, for example, with the [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/267abr_e.pdf March 2005 Appellate Body ruling] in case DS 267 declaring US cotton subsidies illegal.

Membership

United States The WTO had 76 members at its foundation. A further 73 members joined over the following ten years, the latest (as of 11 December 2005) admitted being Saudi Arabia on 11 December 2005 during the ministerial conference. A current list of members can be found [http://www.wto.int/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm here]. A number of non-members have been observers (31) at the WTO: Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bahamas (process freezed in 2001), Belarus, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Equatorial Guinea (expected to start membership negotiations in 2007 or earlier), Ethiopia, Holy See (Vatican; special exception from the rules allows it to remain observer without starting negotiations), Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanese Republic, Libya, Russian Federation, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia and Montenegro (each republic is applying for separate membership), Seychelles (negotiations freezed since 1998), Sudan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu (accession agreed in 2001, but not ratified by Vanuatu itself), Vietnam and Yemen. Many of these countries are seeking membership. Tonga is set become a member in early January 2006. Iran first applied to join the WTO in 1996, but the United States, accusing Tehran of supporting international terrorism, blocked its application 22 times. The U.S. said in March it would drop its veto on a start to Iran's accession negotiations. The U.S. has chosen not to block Iran's latest application for membership as part of a nuclear related deal. Russia, having first applied to join GATT in 1993, is not yet a member either. The following states (16) and territories (2) so far have no official interaction with the WTO: Eritrea, Somalia, Liberia, Syria, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Monaco, San Marino, East Timor, Comoros, Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau, Kiribati, Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Western Sahara, Palestine.

Agreements

The WTO includes more than 20 agreements which have the status of international legal texts. Member countries must sign and ratify all agreements. A list of WTO agreements can be found [http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm here] A discussion of some of the most important agreements follows.

Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)

The AoA came into effect with the establishment of the WTO at the beginning of 1995. Its effect has been to reduce tariff protections for small farmers – a key source of income for developing countries – while allowing rich countries to pay their farmers massive subsidies which developing countries could never afford. The AoA has three central concepts, or "pillars": domestic support, market access and export subsidies. Domestic Support The AoA structures domestic support (subsidies) into three categories or "boxes": a Green Box, an Amber Box and a Blue Box. The Green Box contains fixed payments to producers for environmental programs, so long as the payments are "decoupled" from current production levels. The Amber Box contains domestic subsidies that governments have agreed to reduce but not eliminate. The Blue Box contains subsidies which can be increased without limit, so long as payments are linked to production-limiting programs. [http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?accountID=451&refID=25939] The AoA's domestic support system currently allows Europe and the US to spend $380 billion every year on agricultural subsidies alone. These subsidies go not to small farmers, but almost exclusively to big agribusiness – more than 70% of US agriculture subsidies go to 10% of producers, while in the EU half of all support goes to just 1% of producers [http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1642768,00.html]. The effect of these subsidies is to flood global markets with below-cost commodities, depressing prices and undercutting producers in poor countries – a practice known as “dumping”.

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)

(See General Agreement on Trade in Services

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement

(See Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)

Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Agreement

The WTO’s agreement on “sanitary and phytosanitary standards” (SPS) came into effect in 1995, and aims to restrict the use of quarantine measures to allow a “free” flow of international trade. Under the SPS agreement the WTO sets constraints on government policies relating to food safety (bacterial contaminants, pesticides, inspection and labelling) as well as animal and plant health (imported pests and diseases). Quarantine policies plays a vitally important role in ensuring the protection of human, animal and plant health. But in the eyes of the WTO's SPS agreement, quarantine barriers can be a ‘technical trade barrier’ used to keep out foreign competitors. The SPS agreement gives the WTO the power to override a country's use of the "precautionary principle" – a principle which allows them to act on the side of caution if there is no scientific certainty about potential threats to human health and the environment. Under SPS rules, the burden of proof is on countries to demonstrate scientifically that something is dangerous before it can be regulated, even though scientists agree that it is impossible to predict all forms of damage posed by insects or pest plants. SPS & Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) The US – which grows as much as 80% of the world’s GM crops – has used the SPS agreement to challenge the EU’s laws restricting the import of Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs), arguing they are “unjustifiable” and illegal under WTO rules. The WTO is due to decide the case in 2006. If it decides that the EU laws are illegal, the decision will also put in jeopardy the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol – the first legally binding global agreement giving countries the right to reject GM organisms on the basis of the precautionary principle.

Chronology

- 1986-1994 - Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations culminating in the Marrakech Agreement that established the WTO.
- January 1, 1995 - The WTO came into existence.
- May 1, 1995 - Renato Ruggiero became director-general for a 4-year term.
- December 9 - December 13, 1996 - The inaugural ministerial conference in Singapore. Disagreements between largely developed and developing economies emerged during this conference over four issues initiated by this conference, which led to them being collectively referred to as the "Singapore issues".
- May 18 - May 20, 1998 - 2nd ministerial conference in Geneva, Switzerland.
- September 1, 1999 - Mike Moore became director-general. The post had been fiercely contested; eventually a compromise was reached with Mike Moore and Supachai Panitchpakdi taking half each of a six-year term.
- November 30 - December 3, 1999 - 3rd ministerial conference in Seattle, Washington, USA. The conference itself ended in failure, with massive demonstrations and riots drawing worldwide attention.
- November 9 - November 13, 2001 - 4th ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar begins the Doha round. Issuance of the Doha Declaration.
- December 11, 2001 - The People's Republic of China joined the WTO after 15 years of negotiations (the longest in GATT history).
- January 1, 2002 - The Republic of China (Taiwan) joined under the name "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu."
- September 1, 2002 - Supachai Panitchpakdi became director-general.
- September 10 - September 14, 2003 - 5th ministerial conference in Cancún, Mexico aims at forging agreement on the Doha round. An alliance of 22 southern states, the G20 (led by India, China and Brazil), resisted demands from the North for agreements on the so-called "Singapore issues" and called for an end to agricultural subsidies within the EU and the US. The talks broke down without progress.
- August 2004 - Geneva talks achieve a framework agreement on the Doha round. Developed countries will lower agricultural subsidies, and in exchange the developing countries will lower tariff barriers to manufactured goods.
- October 2004 - Cambodia becomes last nation so far to join the WTO
- May 2005 - Paris talks aimed at finalising issues for agreement before the December 2005 ministerial conference in Hong Kong are hung over technical issues. The group of five (U.S., Australia, the EU, Brazil and India) fail to agree over chicken, beef and rice. France continues to protest restrictions on subsidies to farmers. Oxfam accuses the EU of delaying tactics which threaten to scupper the Doha round.
- November 11 - WTO General Council successfully adopts Saudi Arabia’s terms of Accession
- December 13 - December 18, 2005 - 6th ministerial conference will be held in Hong Kong.

Critique

The stated aim of the WTO is to promote free trade, stimulate economic growth and hence make people's lives more prosperous. As with any economic development, if growth proceeds in a fast or unbalanced way, it will cause structural unemployment and thus worsen poverty. The WTO also promotes economic globalization and free trade, which anti-globalization activists consider problematic. WTO treaties have been accused of a partial and unfair bias toward multinational corporations and wealthy nations. While the WTO provides equal opportunities for nations to speak, shields governments from lobbying, and encourages good governance, small countries in the WTO are capable of wielding little influence. The WTO itself is criticized as being the tool of powerful lobbies. And while membership is voluntary, critics say that not joining places the non-participating nation under a de facto embargo, creating an international system of forced economic rules discouraging change and experimentation. Despite the WTO aim of helping the developing countries, the influential states in the WTO do focus on their own commercial interests. The needs of the developing countries are often perceived to be ignored. In addition, the issues of health, safety and environment are not principle concerns. Jagdish Bhagwati, although pro-free trade and pro-globalization, has strongly criticised the introduction of TRIPs (forum shifting) into the WTO/GATT framework. His fear is that other non-trade agendas might overwhelm the organization's function. Many nongovernmental organizations, such as the World Federalist Movement, are calling for the creation of a WTO parliamentary assembly to allow for more democratic participation in WTO decisionmaking[http://www.wfm.org/index.php/articles/12]. Dr. Caroline Lucas recommended that such an assembly "have a more prominent role to play in the form of parliamentary scrutiny, and also in the wider efforts to reform the WTO processes, and its rules"[http://www.revistainterforum.com/english/articles/050602artprin_en3.html]. However, Dr. Raoul Marc Jennar argues that a consultative parliamentary assembly would be ineffective for the following reasons[http://www.urfig.org/ana-eng-wto-cpa-pt.htm]:
- It does not resolve the problem of “informal meetings” whereby industrialised countries negotiate the most important decisions;
- It does not reduce the de facto inequality which exists between countries with regards to an effective and efficient participation to all activities within all WTO bodies;
- It does not rectify the multiple violations of the general principles of law which affect the dispute settlement mechanism.

The WTO in fiction

The computer game Deus Ex: Invisible War features a fictional WTO with seemingly more of a military function, providing technology and military support to cities caught in the "Collapse".

WTO meeting in Hong Kong

The next WTO Conference Ministerial will be held in Hong Kong on December 13 - 18, 2005. In general, ministerial conferences are the WTO’s highest decision-making body, which meets at least once every two years to decide the future political direction for the organization. This is the sixth conference and is vital for enabling the four-year-old Doha Development Agenda negotiations forward sufficiently to conclude the round in 2006. An estimated 10,000 protesters are likely to arrive for the WTO meeting; if that turns out to be true, then it will be one of the largest and tightest security campaigns Hong Kong has ever seen. The protesters' main agenda is to stop the WTO talks by staging roadblocks to prevent delegates from getting to the conference. The government has already started to glue down bricks used to pave the pavement, so as to prevent the use of bricks as weapons. Businesses around the Wan Chai area, where the conferences are taking place have been informed to tighten up their security, such as metal gates and boarded-up windows. The areas around the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, where the meetings will take place will be barricaded from 6pm on December 12.

External links

- [http://www.wto.int/ Official WTO homepage]
- [http://www.wto.int/english/docs_e/legal_e/final_e.htm Agreements administered by the WTO]
- [http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep05_e.pdf WTO 10th Anniversary] — Highlights of the first decade, Annual Report 2005 pages 116-166
- [http://www.wto.int/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/min05_e.htm 6th Ministerial Conference - WTO information]
- [http://www.wtomc6.gov.hk 6th Ministerial Conference - Hong Kong host government information]
- [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/2429503.stm BBC News — Profile: WTO]
- [http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/wto/ CNN - Special: WTO Hong Kong] ongoing coverage
- [http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/ Guardian Unlimited - Special Report: The World Trade Organisation] ongoing coverage
- [http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/newround/index_en.htm EUROPA - The EU and the WTO]
- [http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/economic_issues/WTO.html USInfo - USA and the WTO]
- [http://hesa.etui-rehs.org/uk/dossiers/dossier.asp#rub37 European Trade Union Institute - WTO and Asbestos]
- [http://www.ictsd.org/ International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development]
- [http://www.3dthree.org/en/pages.php?IDcat=12 www.3dthree.org] — Jargon Explained, Glossaries of Trade terms compiled by 3D (Trade, Human Rights, Equitable Economy)
- [http://slate.msn.com/id/56497/ Slate — Enemies of the WTO: Bogus Arguments against the World Trade Organization] by Paul Krugman
- [http://www.guardian.co.uk/fairtrade/story/0,12458,1034971,00.html Guardian Unlimited - Time for Tranformation] — by George Monbiot, September 8, 2003
- [http://www.monthlyreview.org/100tabb.htm Monthly Review - WTO stops world taking over?!]
- [http://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/tyranny.pdf The Tyranny of Free Trade] Friends of the Earth International, Dec 2005.
- [http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=77538 Sailing Close to the Wind: Navigating the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial] Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Dec 2005.
- [http://www.tradewatchoz.org/guide/New_WTO_Guide.pdf The World Trade Organisation: An Australian Guide], Global Trade Watch, Dec 2005.

Anti-WTO links

- [http://www.gatt.org/ Parody of official WTO page]
- [http://www.wtoaction.org WTOaction.org]
- [http://www.tradeobservatory.org TradeObservatory.org]
- [http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/OpposeWTO.html www.globalexchange.org] — Top Reasons to Oppose the WTO
- [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/11/29/ED36269.DTL www.sfgate.com] — Is the World Trade Organization a blessing or a curse? by Kevin Phillips
- [http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1172 www.foodfirst.org] — International Day of Protest Against the WTO
- [http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/wto.htm Just Say No to the WTO] — graphic art by Seattle's James Koehnline
- [http://www.oxfam.org/en/programs/campaigns/maketradefair/index.htm/ Oxfam: Make trade fair]
- [http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/wto.html GegenStandpunkt - The Nations’ Struggle for the Wealth of the World and its Latest Battlefields]
- [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0730-05.htm The news showing people fight against World-trade despite arrest]
- [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/doc/articulos/chossudovskye.html WTO infringes human rights]
- [http://www.globalmon.org.hk/ Globalization Monitor]

References and further readings

- Martin Khor et al (2005), WTO and the Global Trading System: Development Impacts and Reform Proposals, Zed Books
- Fatoumata Jawara and Aileen Kwa (2004), Behind the Scenes at the WTO: The Real World of International Trade Negotiations/Lessons of Cancun, Zed Books
- Braithwaite, John & Peter Drahos (2000), Global Business Regulation, Cambridge University Press.
- Dunkley, Graham (2000)The Free Trade Adventure, Zed Books.
- Steinberg, Richard H. (2002). In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization 56 (2), 339–374.
- World Trade Organization. (2004b). [http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm Understanding the WTO - The GATT years: From Havana to Marrakesh]. Retrieved Dec. 11, 2004
- World Trade Organization. (2004c). [http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm Understanding the WTO - Principles of the trading system]. Retrieved Dec. 11, 2004.
- World Trade Organization. (2004d). [http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/doha1_e.htm Understanding the WTO - The Doha agenda]. Retrieved Dec 11, 2004.
- World Trade Organization. (2004e). [http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm Understanding the WTO - members]. Retrieved Dec 12, 2004.
- Wilkins, Mira (1997, Nov. 20) [http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0046.shtml Review of Susan Ariel Aaronson, "Trade and the American Dream: A Social History of Postwar Trade Policy"] Economic History Services.
- Chen Lanyan (Institute of International Studies, China), Gendered impact of China's entry into WTO: A conceptual scheme to understand vulnerability, conference paper. [http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Gender_Trade/august23am/Chen%20Lanyan_revised.pdf Gendered impact of China's entry into WTO: A conceptual scheme to understand vulnerability]
- Gigi Franciso (IGTN,Philippines), MODE 4:What we need to know, conference paper. [http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Gender_Trade/publicforum/Gigi%20Francisco_revised.pdf MODE 4:What we need to know] More references at the [http://www.worldtradelaw.net/books4.htm WorldTradeLawnet Bibliography].
- Maria Riley (IGTN, North America, US) Gender, economics, and advocacy: Issues in Agreement on Agriculture, conference paper. [http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Gender_Trade/august22am/Maria%20Riley_revised.pdf Gender, economics, and advocacy: Issues in Agreement on Agriculture]
- Rokeya Kabir (Director, Bangladesh Nari Proghati Sangha Dahka, Bangladesh), conference paper [http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Gender_Trade/august22pm/Rokeya%20Kabir_revised.pdf Experiences and concerns on trade liberalisation and women in Bangladish]
- The WTO and beyond: building on Hong Kong's strengths, Hong Kong : Public Affairs Section, 2005
- Klein, Naomi (1999) No space, no choice, no jobs, no logo : taking aim at the brand bullies New York : Picador USA
- Callinicos, Alex (2003) An anti-capitalist manifesto Cambridge : Polity Press ; Malden, MA : Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Publishers Category:International organizations
- Category:International trade ko:세계무역기구 ja:世界貿易機関

Social movement

. Here, Martin Luther King is giving his "I Have a Dream" speech, in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom]] Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out a social change. Modern social movements became possible through education (the wider dissemination of literature), and increased mobility of labour due to the industrialisation and urbanisation of 19th century societies. The freedom of expression, education and relative economic independence prevalent in the modern Western culture is responsible for the unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary social movements. Political science and sociology have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the relation between popular movements and the formation of new political parties as well as discussing the function of social movements in relation to agenda setting and influence on politics.

History

Political movements that evolved in late 18th century, like those connected to the French Revolution and Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 are among the first documented social movements. The labor movement and socialist movement of the late 19th century are seen as the prototypical social movements, leading to the formation of communist and social democratic parties and organisations. From 1815, Britain after victory in the Napoleonic Wars entered a period of social upheaval aformed from 1905 as pressure for reform continued, resulting in the collapse of the Russian State at the end of the First World War. In 1945, Britain after victory in the Second World War entered a period of radical reform and change. In the 1970s, women's rights, peace, civil rights and environmental movements emerged, often dubbed New Social Movements.They led inter alia to the formation of green parties. Some find in the end of the 1990s the emergence of a new global social movement, the anti-globalization movement.

Key processes

Several key processes lie behind the history of social movements. The process of urbanisation, which created large cities, facilitated social interaction between scores of people. It was in cities, where people of similar goals could find each other, gather and organise, that those early social movements first appeared. Similarly, the process of industrialisation which gathered large masses of workers in the same region was responsible for the fact that many of those early social movements addressed matters important to that social class. Many other social movements were created at universities, where the process of mass education brought many people together. With the development of communication technologies, creation and activities of social movements became easier - from printed pamphlets circulating in the 18th century coffeehouses to newspapers and Internet, all those tools became important factors in the growth of the social movements. Finally, the spread of democracy and political rights like the freedom of speech made the creation and functioning of social movements much easier.

Types of social movements

Sociologists distinguish between several types of social movements:
- scope
- reform movements - movements dedicated to changing some norms, usually legal ones. Examples of such a movement would include a trade union with a goal of increasing workers rights, a green movement advocating a set of ecological laws, or a movement supporting introduction of a capital punishment or right to abortion. Some reform movements may advocate a change in custom and moral norms, for example, condemnation of pornography or proliferation of some religion.
- religion was an important factor in the fall of the Soviet Union]] radical movement - movements dedicated to changing some value systems. Those are usually much larger in scope than the reform movements, Examples would include the American Civil Rights Movement which demanded full civil rights and equality under the law to all Americans, regardless of race, or the Polish Solidarity (Solidarność) movement which demanded the transformation of communist political and economy system into democracy and capitalism.
- type of change
- innovation movement - movements which want to introduce new norms, values, etc. The singularitarianism movement advocating deliberate action to effect and ensure the safety of the technological singularity is an example of an innovation movement.
- conservative movement - movements which want to preserve existing norms, values, etc. The anti-machines 19th century Luddites movement or the modern movement opposing the spread of the genetically modified food are examples of conservative movements.
- target audience
- group-focus movements - focused on affecting groups or society in general, for example, advocating the change of the political system. Most of such groups eventually transform into or join a political party.
- individual-focused movements - focused on affecting individuals. Most religious movements would fall under this category. Those movements rarely transform into political parties.
- methods of work
- religious movement independence]] peaceful movements - opposed to using violent means. Mentioned American Civil Rights movement, Polish Solidarity movement or Mahatma Gandhi civil disobedience movements would fall into this category
- violent movements - various armed resistance movements up to and including terrorist organisations. Examples would include the Palestinian Hezbollah, Basque Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) or Ireland Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) movements.
- old and new
- old movements - most of the 19th century movements which recruited their followers from a specific social class (only workers, only peasants, only whites, only aristocrats, only protestants, etc.). They were usually centered around some materialistic goals like improving the standard of living of the given social class.
- new movements - movements which became dominant from the second half of the 20th century - like the feminist movement, civil rights movement, environmental movement, gay rights movement, peace movement, anti-nuclear movement, anti-globalization movement, etc. Sometimes they are known as postmodernism movements. They are usually centered around a non-materialistic goal.

Dynamics of social movements

Social movements are not eternal. They have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve successes or failures and eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist. They are more likely to evolve in the time and place which is friendly to the social movements: hence their evident symbiosis with the 19th century proliferation of ideas like individual rights, freedom of speech and civil disobedience. They are more likely to form in the societies and cultures allowing expression of ideas by individuals - like most of the Western culture, which explains why most social movements exist in United States and Europe, and fewer in more autocratic places like Russia or China. Such friendly context and environment is only a background facilitating the creation of the social movement. There must also be polarizing differences between groups of people: in case of 'old movements', they were the poverty and wealth gaps. In case of the 'new movements', they are more likely to be the differences in customs, ethics and values. Finally, the birth of a social movement needs what sociologist Neil Smelser calls an initiating event: a particular, individual event that will begin a chain reaction of events in the given society leading to the creation of a social movement. For example, American Civil Rights movement grew on the reaction to black women, Rosa Parks, riding in the whites-only section of the bus (although it is important to note that Rosa Parks was not acting alone or spontaneously -- typically activist leaders lay the groundwork behind the scenes of interventions designed to spark a movement). Polish Solidarity movement, which eventually toppled the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, developed after trade union activist Anna Walentynowicz was fired from work. Such an event is also described as a volcanic model - a social movement is often created after a large number of people realise that there are others sharing the same value and desire for a particular social change. Thus, one of the main difficulties facing the emerging social movement is spreading the very knowledge that it exists. Second is overcoming the free rider problem - convincing people to join it, instead of following the mentality 'why should I trouble myself when others can do it and I can just reap the benefits after their hard work'. free rider problem Many social movements are created around some charismatic leader, i.e. one possessing charismatic authority. After the social movement is created, there are two likely phases of recruitment. The first phase will gather the people deeply interested in the primary goal and ideal of the movement. The second phase, which will usually come after the given movement had some successes and its fs trendy; it would look good on a résumé. People who join in this second phase will likely be the first to leave when the movement suffers any setbacks and failures. Eventually, the socia crisis can be encouraged by outside elements, like opposition from government or other movements. However, many movements had survived a failure crisis, being revived by some hardcore activists even after several decades.
References

- Encyclopedia of American Social Movements, Edited by Immanuel Ness, 2004, ISBN 0-7656-8045-9
List of social movements
See list of social movements for a more complete list of social movements. The below list contains only very few selected movements not mentioned in the main article above:
- Afrisecal movement
- Animal rights movement
- Conservation movement
- Cultural movement
-