Interview Susan George with an Estonian newspaper on "The Lugano Report", July 2000
|
Interview Susan George with an Estonian newspaper on "The Lugano Report", July 2000
How do You perceive the role of a small nation-state in the globalization era? What are the choices of such a society and is it at least possible to make one's opinion matter? SG: Given that "globalisation" in fact means "corporate-led, corporate-driven globalisation", a small nation-state should participate in this process in a highly selective way and on its own terms since it will not be much of a match for the transnational corporations and the organisations they use, like the WTO, to impose their rules. I would recommend concentrating on supplying locally as many needs of the population as possible, particularly helping small farmers to produce healthy food at reasonable prices, plus high investments in health, education and technology infrastructure [internet, communications]. This is not the same as "protectionism" or abstaining from trade-it does mean trading selectively and not orientating one's economy towards exports to the detriment of local needs. What do You think are the major possibilities and threats for this kind of society? SG: I think a world based entirely on the principle of competitivity is insane. "Competititivity" really means supplying goods at the lowest cost, which can only be done by reducing standards for workers and for the environment. Globalisation-once more corporate-led-organises the world for a "race to the bottom". Countries fortunate enough to have developed high social and environmental protection mechanisms find them under threat; countries which hav not yet developed them will be largely unable to do so. Dozens of empirical studies show that inequalities are increasing everywhere; that globalisation cannot include everyone and indeed has no intention of doing so. This is the whole point of The Lugano Report. By all means, let us "globalise" friendship, art, cooking, culture-let's share what we do best but not fall into the trap of allowing the market to make all the decisions. If allowed, the market will do so, and will tear society apart in the process. How would You describe the actions of a government which sees as its current ideals the theories of thatcherism and friedmanism? SG: I would say that such a government is in the grip of a dangerous illusion although its policies will definitely enrich the top 10 percent, especially the top 1 percent, of the society. I can understand that a country subjected to the dictates of so-called "state socialism" [not "socialism" at all in my view] should want to escape such a system for ever, but the answer is not to go to the opposite extreme and endow the market with divine powers. Such a government should also study closely what has happened over the past 20 years in Britain and the United States-neither place has much to recommend it for easily 60 percent of the population. The future-predicting scientists can usually be divided into two groups: serious pessimists and fanatic optimists. Where do You place The Lugano Report on this axis? SG: The Lugano Report is a serious description of what the present ruling class of the world is condemned to want and put into practice if the present system is not changed. What this false "Report" does is to examine the existing premises and push them relentlessly to their conclusions. I think many people have simply refused to recognise the full implications of neo-liberalism and that is all I've tried to do-be absolutely and coldly logical. Nothing in the book is invented except for the basic scenario. Neo-liberals, of course, have to be "fanatic optimists" as you call them-and I take "fanatic" in its religious sense. Their optimism is entirely based on faith: there is no empirical evidence whatsoever, quite the contrary, that the system they champion can protect the environment or society. It isn't even economicially efficient, since much of what passes for "growth" is in fact just repairing past mistakes. But even if you want to assume economic efficiency, which is the central value of neo-liberalism, the system is still ecologically devastating, socially polarising, culturally homogenising and democratically unacceptable. The Third Way has been a subject of talk for dozens of years. What do You think, is it just a market trick or a real effort to change the course of development? SG: The Third Way is a dead end. Beware of anything labeled as X or Y [capitalism, socialism, fascism, whatever] "with a human face". The Third Way is just Thatcherism "with a human face". Do You think the Third Way politicians who are in power in Europe can uphold their election promises? SG: Third Way politicians in Europe listen first and foremost to the industrial and financial transnational corporations. Citizens are beginning to have some small successes in forcing them to listen but it is a constant fight. The effort is to erase the results of decades of social struggles. In a few words, how would You characterize the following visionaries of the world future: Francis Fukuyama - Samuel P. Huntington - David C. Korten - Pierre Bourdieu - Lester R. Brown - Rolf Jensen - Ulrich Beck - Manuel Castells - Hans-Peter Martin - Paul Virilio. SG: I would rather not comment in detail on living, contemporary colleagues except to say that I have deep political differences with Fukuyama and Huntington; David Korten is a friend and has done excellent empirical work on the corporate global order; Pierre Bourdieu, whom I also know a little, has become more radical and courageous as he has grown older and there is nothing I admire more, since most people, intellectuals included, grow more timid and conservative with age. His work is, of course, first rate. Paul Virilio, whom I've only met once, is a brilliant and original thinker-his basic concept of speed is extremely rich; Lester Brown is excellent at sounding the alarm on a variety of ecological subjects but refuses to examine power considerations and therefore can only offer technical solutions and recommendations along the lines of "we must" or "we should" while never identifying the obstacles to putting his recommendations in place; Manuel Castells is out in front Whom do You consider to be the authors / works, that have influenced You the most? SG: Karl Polanyi is without any doubt at the top of the list. Earlier on, Franz Fanon and Sartre. Marx less, though no one can hope to understand contemporary history without at least some knowledge of Marx. Also some Christian "personalist" thinkers that nobody reads any longer. Do You think that in the euphoria of Internet-age, people tend to forget that a very large part of the world still suffers from very primitive problems? SG: Absolutely. This is obvious. Why, otherwise, are we allowing millions of Africans to die of AIDS? Why has the number of people living in absolu te poverty increased in the last 5 years as the most recent UN conference ["Copenhagen + 5] was forced to admit? The people in charge-like the commissioners of the Lugano Report-care nothing about people who don't contribute to the global economy either as producers or consumers. How much could this shift actually help the Third World - or make it even more miserable? SG: What shift? We are going in the direction of more inequality, more poverty. I don't understand the question. How could a citizen of a society like Estonia, struggling to better its standard of living, also keep up with the problems of the Third World, environment protection etc..? SG: If Estonia concentrates on protecting its own environment and develops intelligent and cost-effective ways of doing this; on proving that all citizens can be healthy, educated and have a dignified standard of living in a country which isn't particularly rich, then it can be an example to other countries. The main thing to avoid is the single model, "la pensee unique", and to remember that society has to dictate the rules to the economy, not the opposite. In your mind, what are the major differences between the globalization theories of US and Europe? SG: None, except that European governments are still obliged to pay some attention to social protection because their citizens are more aware than those of the US which has been able to cut welfare, put 2 million people in prison, leave 45 million without medical insurance, etc. Europe has not yet reached that point, thank God, and many of us are working so that it never does. Do you think that fiction with political content is closing up the gap with literary fiction? SG: I don't know. But it seems to me that "literary fiction" always has a political content, no? It all depends on how you read it. When I think of the last five or six novels I've read [Rushdie, Barnes, Frayn, Davies, Ondaatje] they are all political in different ways. Did You write the book in this form in order to differ from other books on the subject or are You also interested in writing ordinary literature? SG: I take a lot of care with my writing so I hope, perhaps, to be writing "ordinary literature" myself-though by this you mean perhaps just fiction. But I wrote the Lugano Report differently from my previous books, all of which were essays of analysis and criticism concerning problems like world hunger, poverty, debt, etc. because the format of the false Report allowed me to go further in the description of what I see as reality, or at least virtual reality. When readers tell me, as many do, "Your book gave me cold chills", or "made my hair stand on end", I'm delighted! How would You comment on the next two books in the series where we publish the Lugano Report : David C. Korten s "When Corporations Rule The World" and Francis Fukuyama s "The Great Disruption"? SG: David's is excellent, it has lots of examples. SG: I don't know Fukuyama's but as noted above my views are deeply different from his. Have any of Your readers taken the Lugano Working Group and their Report for real? SG: Yes, in spite of all precautions. But fortunately not very many. I refused publication of the Report by itself, without the afterword because I thought it was too dangerous. I want the reader to be destabilised, to reflect and if possible to act, but not be plunged into despair. In Your mind, are any of the members of the Working Group women? If so, which ones? SG: No, they're all men. I think I say that at the end. But some women could have been just as ruthless [I think in particular of Ms. Kirkpatrick, a close advisor of President Nixon, who called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "a letter to Santa Clause". What has been the response to your proposals from the public? SG: In France, where I live, there have been a lot of changes since the defeat of the MAI, since Seattle, Washington and the huge demonstration last weekend in Millau for the trial of Jose Bove and his 9 comrades [farmers whose living comes from making Roquefort cheese: their product was sanctioned by the WTO ruling allowing the US to tax European agricultural products because of the European refusal to import hormone-raised beef. Bove and his comrades dismantled a MacDonalds construction site in protest]. Both the media and the government are obliged to take us a lot more seriously. But we are very far still from winning. Public approval, however, is growing daily and not just in France-there seems to be a general "prise de conscience", a refusal to accept corporate-led globalisation and the rules it tries to impose on us all. People no longer think it's inevitable. And perhaps most important, young people arecoming back. When people find out that the author was a woman, how do they react? SG: ??? As far as I know, all my readers know I'm a woman. I don't see what difference it makes. Are You scared of the future? SG: This is a very exciting time to be alive. I think we're at a turning point. It all depends which way the struggle goes, but right now I'm full of hope. |
For the first time in my life, I've had a book published in Estonian, something of a feat because the country, so recently emerged from Soviet rule, is still gung-ho over the joys of the market system. A brave publisher nonetheless decided to take on The Lugano Report and asked me to respond to some questions in writing - said interview to be published in the major paper. Some of the questions are at least as interesting as the answers, doubtless more so. This dates from early July.Tags
