Mr Bush has betrayed hopes of a kinder and gentler globalization
"This week has seen too many examples of
how the good intentions of last year have
been dissipated. President Bush's State of
the Union address took the campaign
against terrorism in the sterile direction of
aggression towards the "axis of evil",
naming three unconnected countries, one of
which, Iran, has been moving in recent
years towards reintegration in the world
community. All they have in common is
ballistic missiles - an obsession of US
foreign policy from before the attacks of 11
September, events which should have
broadened US understanding of the nature
of the threats to its security."
independent.co.uk
02 February 2002
Remember when the worldwas never
going to be the same again?
When people across the United States
struggled to understand what had
happened to make their nation the
target of such a shocking assault? When
sales of the Koran leapt as Westerners
tried to learn more about Islam? When
George Bush surprised the world with his
restrained and considered response to the
murder of thousands of his fellow citizens?
It seemed then that President Bush might
usher in the dawn of - in his father's words
- a kinder, gentler America. This might be a
United States more willing to listen to the
causes of resentment against it around the
world. Beyond the shores of the US, Tony
Blair issued his rallying call for the rich,
"civilised" countries to turn the tragedy of
11 September into an opportunity to right
many of the wrongs of an unequal, unfair
world.
It was even predicted that anti-capitalist
demonstrators would not lay siege to
gatherings of global bigwigs again. Not just
because it seemed tasteless to express
raucous or violent anti-capitalist (for which
read anti-American) sentiments when
thousands of Americans had just died in
the most shocking act of anti-Americanism
ever, but because the message seemed to
have got through to the world's leaders that
they had to do something about the
arrogant assumption that American-style
capitalism was the answer to all the
problems of the developing world.
It was not to be. Despite the World
Economic Forum moving its annual talking
shop of business and political leaders from
the Swiss skiing resort of Davos to New
York as a gesture of solidarity with the city,
the protesters are out in force, although
they promised to eschew violence.
Of course, "globalisation" means many
things, now including Teletubbies on
Chinese state television. And many of
those protesting on the streets of New York
against the foreign and economic policies of
the US and its allies take a simplistic view
of "globalisation", as if this were a single,
evil phenomenon directed from a White
House in the pay of multinational
corporations. This overlooks the extent to
which free trade and liberal capitalism are
part of the solution to world poverty rather
than the cause.
Yet many of the protesters are right to give
voice to criticism of Western leaders for
their failure to turn the post-11 September
rhetoric into reality. The criticisms which
deserve to be heard are those of the failure
of the governments of rich countries to
manage global economic forces in ways
that help the world's poor.
This week has seen too many examples of
how the good intentions of last year have
been dissipated. President Bush's State of
the Union address took the campaign
against terrorism in the sterile direction of
aggression towards the "axis of evil",
naming three unconnected countries, one of
which, Iran, has been moving in recent
years towards reintegration in the world
community. All they have in common is
ballistic missiles - an obsession of US
foreign policy from before the attacks of 11
September, events which should have
broadened US understanding of the nature
of the threats to its security.
Then his [BUSH] administration rejected the call
from James Wolfensohn, president of the
World Bank, for a doubling of aid from rich
countries to poor.
Meanwhile, Mr Blair, evangelist of the new
moral world order, has sent the interim
leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, away
empty-handed when he came to ask for
more troops for longer to help stabilise his
country.
The theme of the World Economic Forum in
New York is "Leadership in Fragile Times:
A Vision for a Shared Future". Neither Mr
Bush nor Mr Blair are consistently
demonstrating such leadership now.
argument.independent.co.uk |
