Alternative global visions

Let us now consider the alternative form of globalisation put forward by the Bush administration. This model places a heavily militarised United States as the core of a process of globalisation, dominated by the developed nations; and in particular transnational corporations, global finance markets and global commercial governance structures, notably the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

While the forces of economic liberalisation reconstruct all social, economic and political relations under this logic, the US acts as global policeman, keeping in check dissident societies, including nation states like North Korea and Iraq, and social movements like Islamic fundamentalism.

There are two problems with this vision: Firstly, it is doubtful that even the US can sustain the politico-military forces required to do the job, especially if Europe shifts out of the US sphere and China challenges US power in Asia.

Secondly, this vision has no obvious answers to the chronic problems of environmental degradation and uneven socio-economic development. The combination of challenges to US hegemony, from nations like China or movements like Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, and the growing awareness concerning the costs of environmental crisis and poverty, will sooner or later be too great for the US to deal with unilaterally.

The only medium to long-term response to emerging global crisis of governance, is to build and improve global frameworks for sustained negotiation of all problems; whether they be those facing the species, such as global warming, or those relating to conflict between nations or ways of life.

This is the other meaning of the Kyoto protocols. They are the most serious attempt yet, to organize a sustainable global order with genuine negotiations about costs and benefits. Because they are focussed on a specific goal [dealing with global warming], success can be measured and the lessons learned (in contrast to that other great global hope, the United Nations).

It is highly likely that the next US government will begin to shift towards greater accommodation with the negotiated globalisation model. Indeed, if Al Gore were President, they would probably be agonising over it right now.

From Australia’s perspective, either this government or the next will have to join the Kyoto protocol sooner or later. Let us hope they do so before the Americans - to save some international face.

This is one of those times in history when paradigms are in clear conflict, and stark alternatives for social development are apparent. It would be an understatement to say that there is a lot riding on the decisions being made by world leaders right now.