At the Edge (11-13 November 1999)

AT THE EDGE
Towards 21st Century Internationalism

TNI 25th Anniversary (1974-1999)

Globalisation and  Its Contradictions

The globalisation of market relations and the collapse of the communist system are associated with not less, but more, social inequality. The fact that the world is not only more unequal than ever before but is vividly perceived by much of the world's population as being so, can have explosive consequences for states and elites in the next century. How will the historical tables turn in the new century?

Chairperson: Susan George
Speaker: Fred Halliday

Fred Halliday recalled some of the key people, principles and contexts, which have guided the development of the TNI. He then turned to the nature of globalisation, particularly the changing roles of the state, of social movements, and individuals. He warned against both complacency and pessimism, advising us to remember Gramsci's formula of 'pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will', and stressing the vital need for greater democratization at all levels. Much of the discussion that followed focused on the nature of the state and the implications for democracy and a political challenge to the elites that are driving globalisation.

Fred Halliday was a Fellow of TNI for twenty five years from its inception and currently serves on its Advisory Board, is an expert on the Middle East and Professor of International Relations at London School of Economics.

From the mid-1970s, TNI has been one of the most important places for debating world events. When the idea was raised among rather staid elements of the British left, it was thought a crazy idea. How could one institute span so many continents and countries, trying to marry the radical culture of America to that of Europe, let alone that of the Third World? It was and is mad, but it works. There is no institution in the world that has combined in such an imaginative, creative, non-sectarian way so many different radical traditions.

The vision lay with Samuel Rubin who had a conception, shared by all in TNI, of solidarity and internationalism. It is an institute, which sees its mission not as international, in the sense of relations between states, but transnational, in the sense of relations between peoples, ideas, and cultures. Within that transnationalism is a commitment to shared values. There has been, and hopefully will be over the next 25 years, three contexts or 'centres of influence' for the internationalism of TNI.

One is the Third World. TNI has brought together people from Indonesia, Philippines, the former Soviet Union, Middle East, Southern Africa and so on. Among these people was the remarkable Eqbal Ahmad who spanned the radical movements of South Asia, was a close associate with the FLN in Algeria and with movements in the USA, and who used his elite South Asian culture to create a broader culture within this institute.

Orlando Letelier came to institute in September 1976. Here was a man with a distinguished past as Chile's Minister of Defence, Foreign Minister, Ambassador to the USA, Director of the Inter-American Bank, and yet, he treated everyone the same. Secondly, although he had been tortured, imprisoned, and witnessed the killing of his friends and colleagues, he had a 'joie de vivre' and an eternal optimism. He was also keenly aware of the conflicts between world liberation movements. When he was Minister of Defence in Chile, three days before coup, the Chinese Ambassador to Santiago warned him of an impending coup, but by the Russians rather than the USA. None of us at TNI will forget the night when he and Ronnie Moffitt were assassinated in Washington. The recent arrest of Pinochet in Britain was a sweet moment. At a meeting in the LSE it gave me great pleasure to read the last
words of Salvador Allende when he said, "It was a moment of shame and betrayal, but that a moment would come, sooner than you think, for justice." That time has come, because people never, ever forgot. It is an example of what transnationalism is capable of.

Secondly, there is no other institute that I know of combining the radical culture and approaches of the US and the European movements. We in the European left have a huge debt of gratitude to the radical democratic forces in America throughout the last 30-40 years. Virtually every radical idea and movement that has developed in Europe since the 1960s has come not from the Soviet bloc, nor the red bases, nor the Third World, but the USA. Think of the anti-war movement over Vietnam and the civil rights movement, which had an enormous impact in Ireland. What did people sing in Germany when the Berlin Wall came down? 'We Shall Overcome'. Think of the feminist movement in Europe. It is 50 years since Simone de Beauvoir wrote 'The Second Sex' but the radical edge and the mobilization of the 1960s in Europe owes much to what was coming out of the USA. Think of the movement for gay rights and the movement for freedom of information. The development of 'radical Atlanticism' in debating the Cold War, or Iraq, or China, is the second important part of the radicalism of this Institute. This, in contrast with 99% of what is generally discussed (namely that the USA is the centre of modern imperialism) is rarely acknowledged. This is an unhealthy attitude and can coincide with right-wing, conservative anti-Americanism. An important part of TNI's work is to bring people to the USA, not to give them the State Department's view of the USA, but to teach them how Washington works, to show them the high level of trade unionism in the USA, and so on. Too few people study the country that is the dominant power.

Thirdly, our appreciation is extended to Holland the country where TNI chose to be based. We are not in a city of major hegemonic aspirations, such as Paris, London, Rome, Madrid, or Bonn/Berlin, but rather we are in Amsterdam. The Netherlands is a country with distinctive radical traditions of its own. The 'opstand' against Hapsburg rule was the first great modern revolution. This city was the home of Spinoza, one of the greatest modern political philosophers who addressed two of the most central questions. One is the tension between being a member of a community while at the same time having universal values. This moral issue is central as it relates to migration, human rights, gender rights, the rights of children, the clash of civilizations. The other, one that people often prefer not to face, is the conflict between a liberal elite and a not-so liberal mass, in the Dutch case a broadly republican elite and a monarchist mass. This hit us in the face in the Iranian revolution of 1979. Not all the things done by the people with whom you are proclaiming solidarity are ones that you would want to defend. This issue can be too easily swept over in discussions of solidarity.

This is also the city of Nazi occupation, of Anne Frank and the city, which has a monument to the women of Rebensburg and to the Resistance. It also has a museum to the greatest anti-colonial novelist produced by a colonial power, Multatuli, the 19th century Dutch writer. We have hopefully also absorbed other elements of our Dutch milieu. The solidarity committees of Holland do not proclaim the great goals of the solidarity movements of the UK, but have a calm and modest approach and a collective way of working.

This Institute and this conference is a coming together of a critical culture, and a solidarity culture. The institute is critical of those who have power, of imperialism, oppression, patriarchy, of domination on racial, gender and class lines, but it is also critical of the movements themselves. We are not a culture, which says that the oppressed are always wonderful. This coming together of Third World, North American and European cultures gives us space in which to do explore these issues.

This is also the tenth anniversary of the Berlin Wall. We can use this event to examine two great dangers when discussing both the past, the end of the Cold War, and the globalisation of immediate and of the future we would like to create. The most important danger, especially in newspaper columns and among politicians and academics is complacency, the belief that they have found a solution, that with the end of the Cold War all people must do is privatize and everything will be fine. The other danger is pessimism and that we are heading for a disaster, for a new world war, a clash of civilizations, etc. We must challenge the complacency and avoid the pessimism. We should remind ourselves at these moments of the famous remark of Antonio Gramsci, "We have pessimism of the intellect but optimism of the will."

Everyone claims the end of the Cold War as a result of their own contribution. The Reaganites say it was the arms race while analysis from Soviet Union says it was changes in the Party. But we have to remember the role of social movements and the role of ideas. There were always social movements during the Cold War. Although often forgotten now, the resistance movements in Europe, the Third World radical movements in China, Vietnam, South Africa, and Latin America, and also the movements which brought down the Eastern European regimes were vibrant experiences. We must also include the social movements in developed countries of which the civil rights movement in the USA was among the most dramatic. We should never let go of the argument that the end of the Cold War came about in part because of social movements. There were movements for the abolition of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. These, along with environmental and feminist issues, were ideas promoted by alternative thinkers in both the East and West.

We can discuss the illusions of communism, the crimes against humanity committed in the name of a secular ideology, but one has to ask 'Why did it happen?' It was not because a group of bureaucrats or Leninists made it happen. Millions of people tried to build a new society, in response to the oppression, starvation, chauvinism and wars which capitalist society generated. The alternative failed. But why did it happen? It was not that people were misled. If people had illusions, it was because they were driven to have such thoughts. If that was the case in the past, it will be so in the future.

It is too easy to say there is no great radical alternative in the world at the moment. If we add up all the trade unions and other organizations of the present, we do not have a worldwide, emancipatory movement. But we do have a system that is creating greater and greater inequalities. A milieu exists in which all sorts of ideas, some with their own kinds of oppression for example, like Islamic fundamentalism, are mobilizing people against oppression. History, if inequality is not addressed, will repeat itself and then there will be more revolts, more revolutions, more terrible and costly failed experiments in the name of emancipation. This is why complacency is so dangerous. The idea that 'they' have come up with a solution is ridiculous, given what is happening in the former Soviet Union and the Third World, and what may happen in China. There must be no romanticisation of what communism involved, but there has to be a realistic assessment of why people made revolution and rejected capitalism, why in Latin America, Southern Africa and elsewhere they believe(d) in an alternative.

What is the situation now? Let us look first at the enduring and increasing inequality. Figures released by the UNDP show that the top 20% of the world now controls 86% of the goods and services for the world, up from 60% thirty years ago, and 83% in 1990. The average income among the top 20% was 31 times higher than the bottom 20% in 1965. In 1990, it was 60 times, and it is now 74 times. Three-fifths of the people in developing countries lack basic sanitation./

The only former Communist country where there has been a rise in GDP over the past decade is Poland, and perhaps Hungary. They are down to a third of GDP in some of the Central Asian republics. Where is the floor? As the British historian Eric Hobsbawm has pointed out, this is a level of collapse of social and economic well being greater than that of a war, with the difference that after a war there is rebuilding. But where is the rebuilding?

All these conditions are leading to increased desire to migrate out of poor countries to richer ones and this is being discussed in terms of a 'solution.'

There are three important issues. One is the instability of markets, as we saw in South East Asia. Markets are not able, on their own, to sustain a balance between low levels of prices and increased growth in output, between markets and states, and above all, between different sorts of social groups. The more markets are electronically interlinked and money flows around the world, the greater the instability.

Secondly, the state continues to have a vital role. One of the ridiculous myths of today is that the state is in retreat. It is not. It is retreating in some ways, and intruding more in others. It has never been as difficult for a person who has less than US$100,000 to move from the less rich to the rich world. States are operating in a massive way to prevent the movement of peoples, in order to prevent the equalization of wealth and opportunity.

States retain enormous power. Education is entirely within the state's domain and is crucial to economic development. But inequality in education is growing. States can promote equality between men and women or the most long-standing and challenging form of inequality in the world. If you had a global and sustained campaign to achieve equality among men and women, it would be revolutionary. The participation of women in the labor force and the level of education among women correlate very closely with the level of economic development in any country. Also, states play a strong role in the quality of leadership, in generating confidence among the population that solutions will be found. When you have a President who is drunk and absent, all kinds of consequences follow. Where are the leaders, the people with the vision, guts and determination?

Let us not forget above all that states should reflect the wishes of the people. One of the core programmes of this Institute focuses on democratisation. We all need to think more about agency and about optimism of the will. If we do not fight to make states more democratic and defend the democratic gains which we do have accumulated over hundreds of years including the French, English and American revolutions, complacency will set in and democracy will erode. We need to make multi-state agencies, the European Union, the United Nations, and so on, more democratic and responsive. Most of the proposals launched in 1995 on the 50th Anniversary of the UN have come to nothing. One of the important lessons I have gained from the TNI is that our alternatives are from below, relating to social movements, but it is also essential to engage with those who are powerful in global governance and states.

These issues can only be solved through more democracy. But we need a democracy that is more educated and attentive. The only way that many citizens can be educated, however, is being eroded by the garbage and insularity of the press. In Britain, the globalisation of Murdoch and Berlusconi, is not just vulgar and disgusting, it is also profoundly corrosive of democracy and transnational responsibility. How can people have a responsible discussion if the press reports in the most irresponsible way?

Thirdly, we have civil society, the world of NGOs and social movements. Social movements brought down the authoritarian regimes, gained civil rights in the USA and the vote for both men and women in Europe. These things were not given by nice elites but were won in the struggle of trade unions, suffragettes, and so on. Women in France did not get the vote until 1948 and in Switzerland in 1971. In Northern Ireland, many people were disenfranchised until the early 1970s. To those social movements have been added the women's movement, the anti-racist movement, migrants' movements, environmental movements, and there will be others.

That world of social movements and NGOs, however, is not a solution in itself. Not all social movements and NGOs are nice. Most countries of Europe have radical social movements of the right that are anti-immigrant or anti-semitic. We may see in Europe mass movements of the right on the march again. Some NGOs are RINGOs (Reactionary NGOs), or BINGOs (Business-controlled NGOs), or GINGOs (Government-controlled NGOs). We have to have criteria to distinguish between NGOs. Social movements and NGOs have to be democratic themselves. They cannot be movements of the self-appointed and righteous, just as they have to be financially accountable. Let us not think that they are the sole solution, not least because they have to relate to states.

Finally, beyond all this, we are here as individuals. It is also individuals who make the difference in history; join armies, form NGOs, write books and make mistakes. We have responsibilities and have to make choices. The issues of migration, security, North-South aid, are not simple. There are many issues where there is a clear difference between left and right, but on an issue like Kosovo or Bosnia you find people on the left with totally different views, and some on the left who share the same view with people on the right. There has to be room for legitimate debate.

We welcome the spread of new music, languages and symbols around the world, and our cosmopolitanism is not of one culture but a celebration of diversity. I am glad that there is now a world language, but I am sorry that it is English. We face a globalised culture yet we must work to maintain diversity within it. Let us celebrate and defend that diversity. Let us also remember the words of Marx, "Everything that is solid melts into air." Any definition of a national culture or value will change. Change is as important as diversity. The Millennium is a fraud. Whenever Jesus Christ was born it was not in the year zero, nor in the winter. It is a state myth. The emperor Constantine used it to suppress a pagan festival. It may be a millennium for some, but it is not the millennium for all, such as those living under the Muslim, Jewish, and other calendars. So, let us not allow this globalised state myth to lead us to delude ourselves as to the diversity of other cultures.

What I hope is the consensual value of this Institute and our response to globalisation is neither complacency nor pessimism, but that we have choices, and that this is the agenda of the next twenty-five years.

Discussion

Susan George felt that TNCs seemed absent in an otherwise comprehensive talk. She wondered why the word 'business' only occurred once. She said that states still do a lot, for example in their police and judicial functions, but most appear led by people in suits who merely want to read the corporate script. Globalisation is responsible for many anti-democratic developments. It is pushing power upwards, from the bottom to the top, to totally unresponsive and unaccountable institutions like the WTO, IMF and so on.

Many others raised questions about the role of the state, whether, to what extent and which parts might be waning. Carlos Vilas of Argentina noted that we need to distinguish between the state as the institutional format of power relations and the state as a site for public policies. There is no retreat in general in terms of political power, only in certain policies. We also need to differentiate between different types of state. In the Third World, there have never been strong, powerful states. They have always been like feathers in the wind. Our chances to build national, progressive policies have always been a matter of power bargaining in an international setting that we did not control. So, the discussion about waning or not seems like a First World discussion.

Fred Halliday replied that the ability of states to control movement of capital, investment and their own exchange rates is declining worldwide. However, their ability to control the movement of peoples has not. Their ability and need to provide security remains essential, for example against armed gangs or the trade in hard drugs. The European Union is not a substitute for the state, but a coalition of states, which, for example, protects European farmers against foreign agricultural competition. The WTO is similarly run by states, and is not an alternative to them. The share of the state in GDP in OECD countries is on average 45%, still very high. Revenue from tax is still rising. So the state is not disappearing.

One participant mentioned how local movements are challenging the state, but Fred Halliday thought they were aiming to set up their own states. He does not, as others do, predict the fragmentation of federal states such as in the USA, Brazil, Argentina and the UK, but if it happens it will result in new states. More important, in his opinion, is the fusion of states, e.g. the reunification of Germany, the possible reuniting of the three bits of China, and also Korea.

Others questioned Fred Halliday's analysis of the state and leadership. In his reply, he said that the quality of political leadership, their credibility, honesty, vision and drive, is not affected by transnational forces or by globalisation. Global power structures are not the reason we get the quality of leaders that we do, with the proviso that one set of leaders will socialize another, help select them, etc. and the case he gave was within one country, Mexico.

Saul Landau asked whether the use of the term 'imperialism' was still valid. Fred Halliday recognized that it is not so much used today and that there are problems with the term. However, when we look at the inflexibility of global power structures, it seems to still have validity. Comparing a list of the most powerful countries in the 1840s with one today, there would be movement within it, but the only addition would be Japan.

Peter Waterman queried whether a defense against globalisation will come from a 19th century state or rather from a 21st century internationalism, as on the conference brochure. The state as the embodiment of an imagined national community seems to be an obstacle to internationalism. Rather we need to reinvent the state in the light of democracy and a policy, ethic and function of global solidarity.

Basker Vashee wondered if Fred Halliday had underplayed the contribution that social movements of the South make worldwide? For example, the US civil rights movement learned much from Gandhian values of non-violence. Others in Europe and America had been inspired by Chipco, an early environmental movement in India.

Fred Halliday replied that he was against searching for origins. One could also ask what Gandhi had learned in South Africa or from Tolstoy. The concept of rights that we have, for example, comes from the three great Middle Eastern religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They have identified for us the two aspects of rights: the right to resist tyranny, and the moral worth of individuals. Despite what many think, these concepts of rights are not European in origin.

Fred Halliday argued that globalisation is being driven from above by a capitalist elite and that this is has happened before. The first experiment in globalisation was in the four or five decades prior to 1914, but was destroyed by the elites themselves leading to the first and second world wars. This could be happening again. The IMF and transnational banks are making a mess of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the real challenge to globalisation is coming not from below, but from the idiocies of the elite themselves - their complacency. The destruction of these countries seems to be taking place in the absence of countervailing forces. There is no evidence of a mass movement, even one diverted by the demon of nationalism. Russian 'nationalism' is not a particularly powerful force.

However, Roger Burbach from the USA thought that democracy has to be reconsidered in non-traditional terms. There is certainly the globalisation of the elites, but it has also precipitated a massive change in mass consciousness and culture. It is not a 'democratization' in the way we traditionally conceive it, i.e. participation in political systems. However, free markets are contradictory. They are premised on the movement of goods but also people, and this leads to the free movement of ideas. We need a new framework for understanding democratization and its relationship to globalisation.

Dot Keet felt that Fred Halliday could have brought out more clearly the contradiction between the theory of the neo-liberal paradigm and the actual practice of the globalists, whether they are governmental institutions or private corporations.