Commentary No. 77, Nov. 15, 2001
"Five Years From Now"
Ever since Sept. 11, the U.S. government has been preaching the theme, "be alert" but "let normal life continue." At a moment when the military picture in Afghanistan shows reverses for the Taliban, where should we look for normal life? Perhaps to Doha, where the conference of the World Trade Organization has just ended.
The conference was held in Doha, in Qatar, because no other country offered itself as a site, out of fear of the difficulties of handling the protesters coming from the "anti-globalization" movement. The decision was effective in that regard, the number of protesters being very reduced by comparison with Seattle. Of course, the events of Sept. 11 also played a role in this reduction.
Doha seemed a quasi-success at the finish, in that some kind of accord was reached. But Doha brings to our attention that the future of the world-economy is not a simple matter of a struggle between those favoring and those opposing "globalization." Far from it, as we wrote on Dec. 15, 1999 (Commentary 30) concerning Seattle. There are three separate battles, and the line-up shifts for each battle. There is the battle between the U.S. and the European Union. There is the battle between the North and the South. And there is the battle between the forces who wish to protect the environment and acquired workers' rights and the others.
The United States got something important out of Doha. It wished to have a renewal of talks on further liberalization of the world-economy, and it obtained agreement that such talks would start. India was allowed to enter into the minutes its reservations. And start of course does not finish. In order to obtain even this decision, the United States had to give ground on two major issues. It had to agree that the European agricultural subsidies would not be formally excluded in the future but merely made a subject of further negotiations. And it had to agree on a loosening of the protection of the patent protections for pharmaceutical companies (a loosening, not an abandonment). Nothing was done for the environment, and not much for greater access in the North for textiles produced in the South.
Where does this leave us? The editorial in the Financial Times of Nov. 14 on "A Deal in Doha" says: "Reaching a deal required so many compromises and caveats that the final agenda is almost meaningless." I agree. In the world-economy, as in Afghanistan, the game remains wildly open. All the players are still standing, and no particular direction of events is assured.
Going into Doha, there were two warning signals for the U.S. from Europe. One was the statement of Pascal Lamy, the European Commissioner for Trade: "Our concern with development places us in the position of an intermediary between the U.S. and the countries of the South." It is by no means clear that either the U.S. or the South welcomes Europe as the intermediary. But that is little consolation over the medium run for the U.S. which prefers to see itself as the leader of a united North. But the second appeared in the magazine for Portuguese entrepreneurs, Fortunas e negocios. Its November issue explored aloud two things which are being said more quietly throughout Europe. Its lead article discussed the economic advantages of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, going from Lisbon to Vladivostok, struggling against a United States that is doing all it can to "keep Europe weak." And its editorial noted, even more provocatively, that Europe had a long tradition of linkage with Islam which has ended before in reconciliations. It then added: "Islam is...a paradigmatic case for Europe. Because economically also we have a common adversary."
The U.S. government seems to be thinking that the Sept. 11 events have given it the opportunity to recreate its role as the center of a world coalition against a small minority of evil forces. And it is congratulating itself of the success it seems to have had in this effort. But we have to come back in five years to see whether this is partial or total self-delusion.
The first thing we should look at over the next five years is whether or not, despite the WTO, there will exist three de facto relatively separated economic zones: the Americas, Europe (from Lisbon to Vladivostok) and East/Southeast Asia. A little noticed meeting of ASEAN recently called for the creation of a free trade zone including China, in order to achieve "greater independence" from the United States. The admission of China (and Taiwan) to the WTO will have one major effect that is also little noticed. It will accelerate considerably Taiwanese investments in and trade with China, leading to de facto integration of the two, transforming the internal politics of Taiwan, and advancing Chinese goals in the region.
A second thing to look at over the next five years is whether or not, and in what form, the forces that make up the movement of Porto Alegre can regroup, can give themselves some concrete objectives that command wide support, and can achieve some organizational coherence.
And a third thing to watch is the impact of the economic downturn on the internal politics of the United States. In either of the two most likely scenarios (Afghanistan recedes as an issue, or the U.S. finds itself in a continuing quagmire in Afghanistan and the Islamic world in general), the result is likely to be a breakdown of the temporary U.S. unity. Politics within the U.S. may become much harsher than in the past few decades, and there could be some realignments.
The crucial things to think about are the longer-run trends.
Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax: 1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen
from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
Email this Commentary to a colleague
______________________________________________
Go to List of Commentaries