Naomi Kleins So-Called Anti-Globalisation Standpoint - Coursework Example

Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 2 Evaluating Naomi Klein’s So-Called ‘Anti-Globalisation’ Standpoint................. 3 Naomi Klein’s Assumptions in the Current Globalisation Process..................... 5 Conclusions........................................................................................................ 8 References......................................................................................................... 9 Debating Globalisation: The Arguments of Naomi Klein Introduction Naomi Klein is a prominent and respected author and journalist. Her critiques have been shown in many publications such as Globe & Mail, New York Times, Village Voice, Newsweek International, New Statesman, and the Nation (Collins 2005). After a few years of study, she wrote a book in 2008 entitled No Logo that condemns the business practices of major global corporations as well as the guidelines and strategies of international organisations (Decarlo 2011). No Logo communicates strongly the fury that anti-globalisation activists think about what is happening in humanity and the world. As a result, Naomi Klein has become an academic pioneer of the anti-globalisation movement. Globalisation is applied as a general description of the growing interdependence among the world’s nations in the cultural, social, and economic arenas (Collins 2005). It can denote the media practice of airing throughout the world events from one particular country, as well as the operations of a multinational corporation creating a reputation in a new market (Madeley 2004). Globalisation is not confined to the movement of products and/or services; what it can also denote is the movement of information and knowledge all over the world (Madeley 2004). This essay will discuss Naomi Klein’s arguments on globalisation. A brief but substantial overview of her assumptions will be presented here. Her arguments will be situated in the larger domain of the globalisation debate. Evaluating Naomi Klein’s So-Called ‘Anti-Globalisation’ Standpoint To claim that Naomi Klein is opposed to globalisation, nevertheless, is a reckless conclusion. It is much more precise to argue that she is in opposition to components of globalisation rather than everything that the concept of ‘globalisation’ stands for. Her main emphases are the economic regulations implemented for the benefit of globalisation—regulations under the subtle deceit of ‘free trade’. She, in fact, opposes the gap among the rich and poor which is created by these policies. As she argues against the economic actions connected to what is called the global market, numerous of her works cite the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as her adversaries. She thinks that the policies of these two organisations are rooted in a double standard, an outlook which she summarises very clearly in her address in Ghent, Belgium in 2001 entitled ‘International Conference on Globalisation’: “when it comes to rich countries, rules are for other people” (Klein 2002, 82) as she purposely talks about the WTO precluding the efforts of South Africa to produce patented drugs for AIDS whilst permitting Canada to reverse a patent for anthrax antibiotic, even with the fact that “Canada still hasn’t had a single diagnosed case of anthrax” (Klein 2002, 82). Furthermore, Klein mentions the state of affairs in Argentina as a case in point of the weaknesses of the IMF. She remarks on the struggle of Argentina to become eligible for a loan to support its country (Klein 2002). Argentina has to lay bare its market to more foreign investors, even with the fact that precisely doing so is precisely what situates the country in its present condition (Klein 2002). The poor nation is one of Klein’s most prominent arguments against globalisation; it was a nation which conformed to the principles of globalisation as a symbol of the IMF, and those principles led to economic and political disorder (Klein 2009). According to Klein (2009), globalisation is not merely the removal of borders for a global order. She envisions the possible implications of such decisions as being unfavourable. The movement towards ‘free trade’ which makes up the bulk of the economic component of the globalisation campaigns abandon a vast number of miserable people, manipulated as it is by what Klein (2009) argues is the aim of the corporations who desire nothing but profit. She is not in opposition to globalisation altogether, just the globalisation which is similar to free trade. Instead, she describes herself and the campaign with which she is associated with as genuine globalisation, and she thinks of the term ‘anti-globalisation’ as paradoxical (Kline 2002), since she thinks that people “in this movement have been turning globalisation into a lived reality, perhaps more so than even the most multinational of corporate executives or the most restless of jet-setters” (Klein 2002, xv). In trying to combat corporate participation, she witnesses individuals extending for assistance and information across territories as pure globalisation, a genuine global community made a state of affairs which secluded CEO’s cannot attain (Kline 2009). The world economy’s drastic globalisation kindles passions. There are those who view globalisation as the way to progress and progress as the solution to political problems, while there are those to view globalisation as an unavoidable but not essentially positive development of global markets (Madeley 2004). Yet others aggressively resist globalisation as a naturally vicious force. Naomi Klein’s Assumptions in the Current Globalisation Process As the process of globalisation progresses, the boundaries between camps solidify and the debate becomes louder. Recently, anti-globalisation demonstrations became aggressive, and police responded promptly, gaining a great deal of media coverage (Collins 2005). The Swiss government, in 2001, formally prohibited all demonstrations at the current World Economic Forum (Collins 2005). The prohibition hindered major conventions in Davos, however the forces of anti-globalisation voiced themselves in counter-convention in Davos, Brazil and Porte Alegre (Decarlo 2011). As stated above, businesses across borders, regardless if between nation-states, geographic areas, or neighbours is a human process more ancient than money (Madeley 2004). It has been the cause and the effect of technological development. Its implications have been constructive and unconstructive. Although global trade has constantly had its supporters and critics, the tempo and scale of globalisation adds importance to current debates. This brings back the issue of attaining economic progress in spite of globalisation. At times, attaining a successful outcome necessitates the champions of free trade to pay off the losers. The issue that Naomi Klein is trying to address is how best to accomplish it. Since numerous public decision makers and practitioners apparently relate growing inequality with the process of globalisation, a number of economists, like Naomi Klein, claim that extra steps are required to preclude a further weakening in the support of the public for global trade (Decarlo 2011). Usual reactions to economic disorder brought about by global trade are wage insurance, job retraining, or short-term income support. On the other hand, in a longer term, majority of economists have emphasised the advantages provided by improved education, which appears to be a needed component for the formation of new ideas (Genugten et al. 2006). As the introductory section indicates, the components of protection appear to be growing—or are much more expressive than recently. Eventually, decision makers should choose whether the cost of enforcing trade barriers, of developing public initiatives to pay off the failures of free trade or people who view themselves as failures, or of executing other steps is an insignificant price to pay for sustaining an international economic structure that has generated massive gains for a vast percentage of the world. Supporters of globalisation unrestrained by governmental policies involve the WTO. The WTO, as stated in its web site, “is the only international organisation dealing with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible” (DeCarlo 2011, 94). The IMF “promotes international monetary cooperation, exchange stability, and orderly exchange arrangements...” (Kenen, Shafer, Wicks & Wyplosz 2004, 81). The World Economic Forum was formed in order that “stakeholders of society could be brought together to consider and advance the key issues on the global agenda” (Genugten, Homan & Schrijver 2006). One may think that these organisations are not formed to eliminate already weak culture, destroy the environment or take advantage of labour, yet, these are the results that detractors of globalisation fear. They cite the absence of organisational democracy and operational transparency as bases of fear (Kenen et al. 2004). The underlying profit interest of the stakeholders in attendance in Davos (Klein 2009) also unsettles. The International Forum on Globalisation was formed in 1994 to disclose the various impacts of economic globalisation so as to encourage debate, and aim to overturn the process of globalisation by introducing insights and actions which stimulate local communities and economies, and guarantee the long stability of the environment (Decarlo 2011). The decentralised character of the movement goes perfectly with political developments that ignite dissents, what she views as the general variables connecting these smaller movements such as strong attachments between corporations and governments, corporate focus, the insensitivity of the government to local needs and demands, and conventional party politics. Although the movement commonly advocates the principles of democratisation, policy making at local levels, accountability, and autonomy, and transparency, opposition remains in relation to how these objectives should be achieved. However, Klein does not mourn the absence of a connecting schema, rather claiming that part of the issue confronting humanity has been observance of established principles, like neoliberalism, and that possibly from the present type of weakly mobilised dissension something new will surface that will value local culture while staying global. Conclusions In evaluating the arguments of Naomi Klein, it is important to start with the basic concern: Are impoverished nations gaining from adopting globalisation and free trade? Can it be proven that trade liberalisation is a potential route to economic progress? Or are the governments of impoverished nations ‘trading their people’ by permitting free trade zones? Economists have investigated these concerns in great scale in the literature on the connection between economic development and trade liberalisation. Since the tempo of the liberalisation of trade can be assessed in numerous countries, it is theoretically direct to raise the question: do nations tend to encounter slower or faster economic development after the liberalisation of trade? Naomi Kline argues outspokenly that confronted with the unstructured but overpowering sweep of globalisation, the only means to cope with it is to cling on something strong, tangible, and obtainable. The greatest contribution of the arguments of Klein on globalisation rests in her capacity to convey the aim and organisation of the movement, a task at which protesters themselves have been quite unsuccessful. She defines it as a non-hierarchical, unstructured system of smaller movements that in numerous ways mirrors the organisation of the Internet: a remarkable technology on which protesters depend greatly to mobilise. References Collins, S.M., (2005). Globalisation, Poverty, and Inequality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Decarlo, J., (2011). Fair Trade and How it Works. UK: Rosen Classroom. Kenen, P.B., Shafer, J.R., Wicks, N.L. & Wyplosz, C., (2004). International Economic and Financial Cooperation: New Issues, New Actors, New Responses. UK: Centre for Economic Policy Research. Klein, N., (2002). Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalisation Debate. Knopf Canada. Klein, N., (2009). No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs. Canada: Picador. Genugten, W., Homan, K. & Schrijver, N., (2006). The United Nations of the future: globalization with a human face. California: KIT-Publishers. Madeley, J., (2004). A People’s World: Alternatives to Economic Globalisation. UK: Zed Books. Read More