arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Without any doubt one can say that the so-called "anti-globalisation movement" is the objective allie of the governments of the thirth world. They have the same principal interest: to stop the overall economic dominance of the global capitalist institutions and multinationals. This dominance, as widely accepted by the anti-globalisation movement, has as a result that thirth world industries can not compete against the big global corporations, who have the funds and possibilities to promote their products, invest in better technology, buy labels, licenses and patents, to influence world prices and escape national laws. More liberalisation, as it is called euphimistically, of world trade has as a negative consequence that thirth world countries have even fewer possibilities to resist those phenomenons. In global financial organisations, naturally, the first world states, with all thier financial ressources, have the ability to blackmail thirth world countries into submission. They do it with the "stick and carrot" method, if this countries are "good countries" and obey the international rules, liberalise (sell) their economies to foreign companies, they get rewarded by special trade- conditions and some devellopment aid. If one analyses most of these individual trade-relations however, it becomes very very clear that these are (usually) far more prosperous for the develloped trade partner. But the thirth world countries don't really have a choice, as no investment and trade at all will be even more cathastrophic for these countries, who have no funds and no internal market to build an own develloped industry in most cases. One notorious exemption is China, which has, as a giant market and with a solid government, a very strong position in its negociations with the first world powers. In can also use (or abuse) its stong geo-political position and the leaders have made clear in the past that they will only participate in the world economy on their own (lucrative) terms. No single countru, not even the US, will be foolish enough to impose trade-sanctions against China. However China is a single case as most countries haven't such a strong position, maibe with the exception of Russia and possibly Brazil . Other exceptions are Taiwan and South-Korea (and maibe Thailand and Malaysia as well), which were needed in the cold war and received trade conditions more favorable to them than to for example the US, Japan or Western Europe. In the 90's however, this countries were no longer needed and, although this is just an assumption, lost their "first world" position.
The most thirth world countries couldn't escape poverty, and the current globalisation (on the contrary to the globalisation of some years ago which was more "state"- centered, more divided along traditional influential areas of industrious nations, the so-called "post-colonialism")didn't mean much improovement, as the Worldbank and the Imf had to concede themselves in their studies some months ago.
Of course this is not the only reason, as well war, corruption, bureaucracy and inefficiency were other factors that prevented development, however these were mostly a consequence of poverty or inflicted upon them by the big world powers(for example: Cambodia, Nicaragua, AngolaMocambique,...)or a consequence of colonialism.
The industrial western nations and Japan have no reason to change this situation, as most big companies are, naturally located in their countries and this countries provide the biggest consumer-market in the world. So their leaders make the rules, together with the financial groups, and so they have the ability to protect their markets against possible thirth-world competition. They are the game-masters and the players of liberalisation at the same time. Develloment-aid is used to make the poverty in the thirth world a bit more bearable so that the situation remains under controll.
So far nothing new to you, i guess, but here comes my point: the current system is beneficial for Western Europe, the US and Japan, for the corporations and business in general, but as well, to some extent, for the population. It is true that some minor problems, like multinationals who don't pay taxes for the state, and privatisation of public services, will cause problems for the civilians
, so they will suffer too from globalisation(to some extent)
but in general will this system produce more wealth for the first worldcountries, including for their inhabitants(let's say for a majority of them at least, not all of them).
This is, according tome, a serious problem for the anti-globalisation movement. the most people who engage in this movement are enthousiastic young people or not so young people who care for the world and its inhabitants, out of anecologist, leftist, democratic, Christian or just humanistic conviction. They are not just concerned about their own fate (many come from middle class and are well educated, in most cases) but mostly about the poverty in the thirth world, and maibe as well do they fight for a better, more just and democratic world where money isn't more important than human values. This is all very noble, but the most thrith world people fight for something else: for their own survival and that of their families. This difference in goals and attitude may be the reason why, in the West, few workers and labour unions join the anti-globalisation protests and why so few labour-unions from the thirth world are engaged in the same struggle as the anti-globalisation-protesters. And still, they have common goals, and in fact the anti-globaisation-movement will not accomplish much without the support of the people for whom they are fighting!
i noticed that in the thirth world, there is often a great lack of comprehension of world affairs, and most people are not associated with labour-unions, as they are too poor, not well educated about this, or simply because it may cause them trouble (for example: in Colombia the local coca-cola company hired some people to kill all the members of the local trade-union, this is an extreme example, but such things happen regurarly in many thirth world countries).
Some people accept their own fate and look at the poorer onces and others just dream to win the lotery or to work hard to become rich one day(in most cases an illusion). Many people see the West (or Japan) as a great example and blaim in most cases their own leaders for the poverty of the country. Many others have no illusions whatsoever and save all their money to escape their country to Western Europe, the US or Japan. The very poor onces don't think at all but just work hard enough not to starve.
All communication, television and other information sources offer only "infotainment" and propaganda for the regime.
At the other hand most people in thirth world countries feel that their situation in unjust, but just don't know what to do about it. The anti-globalisation movement is for most thirth world countries something nobody has ever heard of.Only in some countries where foreign "imperialism" is very strong (Latin america for example) or where there were military interventions (the Middle east, Indochina, ...) orclear puppet regimes(South Korea, Indonesia, Philipines,
...) this feeling of unjustice is projected against the global economic world order.
I think the anti-globalisation-movement can be very usefull in assisting the local labour-unions, uniting them on a global forum, and assist as well the thirth world leaders who are ready to improove the economic situation of their countries, even if this means to break with the leading economic institutions. (one example: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela). Together with the thirth world, and with the aid of thirth world countries andstrong labour-unions in countries that are fully integrated in the global economy, the anti-globalisation movement will be able to impose real changes upon the world system. The system needs the thirth world and needs the thirth world to be divided, but if most thirth world countries in different continents join forces, the "divide and rule" strategy will no longer work. The global economy relies on the thirth world basic products(not only oil), and without that the system can not survive. But there is still a long way to go, and political and economical awareness in the third world should be enhanced. The anti-globalists can also take part in the struggle against oppressive political regimes imposed by economical or political entities from the first world and cooperate with countries who are willing to enter the global economy on their own terms. Last but not least, the labour-unions from the devellopped world should be engaged in this same struggle, as a more just world system should be a principle of all labour unions, and more just system will eventually also be beneficiant for the working population of the first world. These
suffer as well, to some extend, from globalisation, because the labour-unions lost controll over the national economy, which means that the economic certitudes are disappearing and the "Anglo-saxon economic system" will be adopted in all the first world countries. This doesn't mean massive impoverishment (as in the third world) but it means that the future is less certain and the future of each person will depend more on the company.
A last remark: i am not against globalisation and trade, i think trade is necessary for devellopment and the modern technology makes "autarcism" something from the past. However this trade should be on equal terms and the people, or at least the state, should remain controll over all economic activities. I am personally not against capitalism as well, as long as it is controlled by the state and the profits are, mostly, used for reinvestment in improoving living conditions of each person. This means a strong state-initiative and a more or less planned economy (though not as rigidly as in the forrmer Soviet-union).

"At the other hand most people in thirth world countries feel that their situation in unjust, but just don't know what to do about it" :
the problem is that the anti-globalisation-movement does not know either - ask them what they want to do with Philips-Hasselt (multinational site from abroad) : should they be closed ? or should they be forbidden to export abroad ? or should there be laws to prevent them to export to the third-world ? or only at so much higher tariffs and risking to have to put off labor ? they do not know in concrete situations what to propose. Maybe this ambiguity is why they are not trusted by "workers and labour unions" ?

"this means a strong state-initiative and a more or less planned economy" this is the core of the question :
why do you think that some burocrats, or, even worse, politicians, are able to 'plan the economy' ? What do they have to lose when they are wrong ? Why should they care ? The revenge for their failures comes either when they are gone (politicians) or else they are de facto untouchable (burocrats). In the real world, if you fail, as CEO, as a strategist, your failure is apparent more quickly, and you are out immediately.

"not as rigidly as in the forrmer Soviet-union" :
there they tried to plan by periods of 5 years; what do you mean 'not as rigidly' ? for less or for more years ? not for the whole of the economy ? how would you make your plans if you can only plan for half of the economy ? how do you make plans taking into account all the economies of the other states that you cannot control ? do you close your borders ?

nowadays, the western central states have some, limited, powers to 'steer' the economy (in contrast to 'plan' the economy); and even there, they can make a real mess of it when the occasion arises; you can be grateful that they do not have more powers.

you are right that the anti-globalists don't have an answer on every question. However they have a good knowledge (in general) of global economy and can assist labour unions in making propaganda, collect ressources and teach them how the global economy works. Than the local organisations will be in a stronger position to decide what to do in a particular situation. About Philips I don't know what would be the answer of the anti-globalists, as they are not a single organisation but a whole group of organisations with different and sometimes conflicting viewpoints. It would be a good idea that, for example, attack Belgium decides what their reaction will be to this kind of events. My personal opinion is that they should convince the company to stay in Belgium by asking the government to make new laws that will make massive firing of people more expensive (or less profitable) than investing in the local branch to make it more profitable.
i know that a planned economy has the disadvantage that the whole economy will depend upon "a bunch of bureaucrats".
However the alternative is, as it is today, total (or almost total) controll, by the market (the big corporations), and the consequences of this are particularly bad for the third world (as explained in my article), but as well for the people in first world countries who are so unfortunate to be fired, to live in an area where companies are not ready to invest, or just people who are not adaptable enough for the labour market.
Taxes collected from the companies are small and there is no much possibility for social state-initiatives(the companies themselves will only engage in this if it is profitable). So not the human devellopment is the goal, but the profit of the companies.
With a planned economy, but not as rigidly as in the Soviet-union, I mean that the government can't controll everything, including what each company should produce, prices, in fact all economic activities. This leads to a lack of personal initiative, a lack of foreign investment and is vulnerable for bureaucratic inefficiency. However, some centrally planned economies managed to do pretty well, for example the Soviet-union economy was untill the 70's one of the most succesfull in the world. Globalisation, international inter-dependance and new technology have made it impossible for such a system to survive, as is clearly shown in the case of North-Korea since the 80's.
What i mean is a mixed economy, where there is private and foreign investment, and state investment, but where the state has a clear vision of economic devellopment, where companies can work within certain "borders" set by the gorvernment and by law. For example in economic branches which doesn't need much foreign investment but are profitable the government can set up state-controlled but autonomous companies that will finance government activities and further government-sponsered investment. Other branches, which are needed as necessary for the national economy and for public use(transport, telecommunications, education, energy, ...) should remain fully state-controlled. Private businesses(foreign or national) should be encouraged(tax-cuts, additional government investment...) or forced to invest(if they don't they can loose their license to sell in that certain country or loose their properties), in some regions or branches to promote jobopportunities in certain regions or economic branches. Some foreign companies which are necessary to bring new ressources(technological, financial) should pay less taxes than companies of low quality-production who come primarely for the low wages...
and of course their should be full government-controll of all financial movements and banks.
Special trade-agreements should be concluded with foreign companies and states which result in new opportunities for the economy of that particular state.
All this mesures will put the government in the ability to promote, plan and regulate the national economy in the interest of the population. Especially in third world countries will this prevent further economic exploitation, without the disadvantages of a totally controlled economy. This is more or less the system adopted in China and Vietnam, which resulted in massive economic growth without too much dependance on the international economy (for example this were the only countries that were not affected by the Asian crisis in 1998). It also made them possible to limit the gap between rich and poor in their own country.
It is also related to the Scandinavian economic model untill the 80's, which resulted in the highest living standards in the world.