Global Backlash Against Globalization?

By: Patrick Wood, The August Review

For decades, global elitists have claimed special knowledge that they alone could solve the world’s problems if only we (the ignorant masses) would leave them alone to get on with it. It would create jobs and economic prosperity, they said. They promised peace and security. Truly, what’s not to like about their New World Order?

Imagine how shocked they were when Financial Times published the results of an FT/Harris poll (July 22, 2007) which showed almost universal disdain for the very policies that were supposed to save us. According to the FT article,

The depth of anti-globalization feeling in the FT/Harris poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people online in each of the six countries, will dismay policy-makers and corporate executives. Their view that opening economies to freer trade is beneficial to poor and rich countries alike is not shared by the citizens of rich countries, regardless of how liberal their economic traditions.

Yet, their clever defense is already built into the FT title: “Globalization backlash in rich nations”.

That’s right, it’s only the selfish rich nations who are resisting globalization. And, we should slap more taxes on ourselves to teach ourselves a lesson.

But wait, does this mean that poor nations are embracing globalization?

Apparently, anti-globalization riots and protests in 3rd world countries aren’t taken into account. Nor does it seem to matter that communist and other brutal dictatorships don’t even allow dissent; remember that there are plenty of dictatorships involved with the global elite, including countries like communist China.

In the FT/Harris poll, the question was posed: “Do you think globalization is having a positive or negative effect in your country?”

Less than 20 percent of citizen respondents in the UK, France, Spain and the U.S. viewed it as having a positive effect. Germany and Italy were a bit higher.

Still, well over 50 percent of all respondents voted “No” to globalization.

Another shock to the pro-globalization elite is the overwhelming passage (362-63 on July 24, 2007) of the Duncan Hunter Amendment (H.R. 3074) to the Transportation Appropriations Act, “prohibiting the use of federal funds for participation in working groups under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, including the creation of the NAFTA Super Highway.”

“The proposed NAFTA Super Highway presents significant challenges to our nation’s security, the safety of vehicle motorists, and will likely drive down wages for American workers,” said Congressman Hunter. “Much like NAFTA, the super highway is designed to serve the interests of our trading partners and will lead to neither security nor prosperity.”

Congressman Duncan Hunter, also a presidential candidate, told his fellow congressional colleagues,

“This 12 lane highway, which is already under construction in Texas, will fast-track thousands of cargo containers across the U.S. without adequate security. These containers will move from Mexico, a country with a record of corruption and involvement in the drug trade, across a border that is already porous and insufficiently protected.

“Unfortunately, very little is known about the NAFTA Super Highway. This amendment will provide Congress the opportunity to exercise oversight of the highway, which remains a subject of question and uncertainty, and ensure that our safety and security will not be comprised in order to promote the business interests of our neighbors.”

Obviously, criticism of globalization in the U.S. is certainly not limited to citizens only.

What end-run will the global elite devise to counter these negative sentiments? Will they simply stiffen their necks even more and barge ahead in defiance of citizens and Congress alike?

If history is a guide, they will most likely dismiss all such criticisms as coming from ignorant people who don’t know any better in the first place.

Related video:

Call for more tax on rich


Hey! Security and Prosperity for WHO ..? The landlord is stealing YOUR apartment.

<<:>> <<:>> <<:>>