Will Activists Attack Globalization Again In The Qatar Desert?
November 7, 2001
Washington, DC - Nearly two years ago, the world tried to open a freer-trade negotiation in Seattle. The event was blocked by thousands of environmental activists and labor union demonstrators who took over the streets, assaulted restaurants, and smashed store windows throughout the downtown. Will the activists attack globalization again in the Qatar desert?
Since Seattle, activists opposed to “globalization” have blocked several international meetings, most importantly a summit of the world’s elected leaders in Genoa, Italy last summer. (The Genoa violence produced the anti-globalization movement’s first “martyr” when a young man was killed as the mob attacked a police car.)
The Moslem extremists’ attacks on America, however, radically changed the climate for activists. First and foremost, Americans actually have real dangers to worry about: airplanes being hijacked to become massive missiles; deadly anthrax spores; and, the possibility of rubber boats attacking cruise liners as they did the U.S. destroyer Cole.
Government-approved pesticides, high-tension power lines, microwaves, computer screens and cotton bed sheets don’t stack up very high as current health threats.
Americans never did respond very strongly to the anti-globalist charge that corporations are the scourge of modern life. Today we’re looking at TV footage of Afghanistan and the Pakistani border, where we see begrimed poverty, spreading famine, total repression for women, and schools turned into academies for fanatics—with nary a corporation in sight. CNN now indirectly raises the question of whether a few more corporations (and modern jobs) might not be an important way to reduce the Moslem world’s current poverty and violence.
U.S. labor unions provided most of the disciplined troops and organization in Seattle, but the unions have now bailed out of the anti-globalization campaign. The AFL-CIO leadership wants no association with street violence, at least for the duration of the public’s concern about terrorism. Lots of union members are proudly displaying U.S. flag decals on their cars.
Biotechnology, another major target of the street violence, is also undergoing a major change in public perception. Gene researchers recently scored important public victories with: 1) a potential cure for cancer, for which human trials start next spring; 2) “golden rice,” offering a cure for severe malnutrition in more than a billion rice-culture children and women; and 3) salt-tolerant crops that will make Asia’s irrigated farming fully sustainable for the first time in history. (No one will benefit more than the subsistence farming families of the Moslem world.)
None of the biotech disasters predicted by the eco-activists have occurred. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that even Monarch butterflies are better off with biotech corn (carrying a natural insecticide inside its stalks) than with corn insecticides being sprayed in the fields.
The European Commission recently issued a report saying that its 81 biosafety research projects find biotech crop development slightly safer for people and the environment than cross-breeding because of the precision of biotech modifications.
The activists know they have a problem. They’re claiming a “new era” in anti-globalization protests without violence. But no one knows whether they can attract much attention without any violence at all. The black-hooded “anarchists” have been a major focal point for their media coverage. The “movement” is also struggling with fragmentation over tactics. (Replace street takeovers with boycotts? Attack corporate headquarters instead of cities?)
Governments have canceled some meetings (including a World Food Summit) and moved others to remote locations. It’s no accident that the WTO meeting is in a tiny, desert country on the Persian Gulf coast. One of the activist groups (Attac) claims 50,000 members, but how many of them will gather on the hot sands of Qatar to protest the WTO meeting?
Ironically, the gravelly Qatar desert will emphasize the flaw in the activists’ opposition to international farm trade. They demand that every community produce its own food, but Qatar literally can’t grow its own food. It can, however, swap oil for imported wheat and cooking oil. Much of the Third World lacks the land and water to supply the high-quality diets (enriched foods, meat, milk, and fresh produce) that most of the activists routinely enjoy.
Canada booked the next G8 summit into a remote Rocky Mountain resort named Kananaskis. The activists claim the mountain terrain is “ideal for hippies, crappy for cops.” But the day I hiked around Kananaskis, rangers posted warnings about a big male grizzly bear.
The ultimate question is whether the anti-globalization movement, which claims to represent the world’s poor, can rise above its roots among affluent suburban students in rich countries. In Washington, D.C. last year, large numbers of activists gathered on a sunny weekend before their planned demonstration against the International Monetary Fund. However, it was raining when the time came for the big takeover of the streets—so the activists went home.
This article was published by Knight Ridder Tribune
Dennis T. Avery is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis.
Posted in Commentary |