[mobglob-discuss] The G-8 and the American Empire (fwd)

[Tom_Childs at Douglas.BC.CA]

Subscribers,  Here's a great commentary from Murray Dobbin if you haven't
seen it.  Forward f.y.i.     Regards, -tc
  ----- Forwarded message: -----
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:12:07 -0700
From: Murray Dobbin <mdobbin at telus.net>
Reply-To: mdobbin at telus.net
Subject: The G-8 and the American Empire 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/415458p-526468c.html

Winnipeg Free Press

Jun 23, 2002

The G-8 and the American Empire

By  Murray Dobbin

What should Canadians think of the G-8 meetings coming up in Kananaskis?
They could just treat the whole photo-op for the world's "most
important" leaders as a relatively ho-hum event livened up by
anti-globalization demonstrators. But it might be a good idea to closely
examine this self-appointed forum of the powerful. While it's legitimacy
now seems beyond question, just what gives these powerful politicians
any moral authority in world affairs? Simply, power. They declare their
legitimacy because there is no one around to challenge it. Here we have
eight countries who have arrogated to themselves the lofty role of
deciding how the world will be run.

This is not multilateralism or democracy -- that role is supposed to be
played by the United Nations. No, this is effectively a dictatorship of
some nations over all others. Except members of this exclusive club now
prefer to call themselves "economies." That may seem an esoteric point,
except that it reveals a lot about our current world, one in which
nation states are being systematically weakened in terms of their
capacity to act in the interests of their citizens and communities.

But, of course, not all nation states are seeing their sovereignty
eroded. Despite all the hype about "leading economies," globalization
and the borderless world, the United States has no plans to abandon its
status as a nation-state. Indeed, as the only superpower remaining in
the world it is becoming increasingly comfortable -- even enthusiastic
-- about the idea of being an empire.

Journalist Emily Eakin recently identified this trend for the
International Herald Tribune. The American conservative columnist
Charles Krauthammer stated: "People are now coming out of the closet on
the word 'empire.' The fact is no country has been as dominant
culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history
of the world since the Roman Empire." The Wall Street Journal's Max Boot
wrote: "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort
of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident
Englishmen in jodphurs and pith helmets.' Journalist Robert Kaplan
opined: "... future historians will look back on 21st-century United
States as an empire as well as a republic... "

This development -- the systematic erosion of nation state sovereignty
globally, while the empire-republic enhances its power -- is a formula
for disaster. It is particularly dangerous for Canada, which for 15
years has followed a deliberate policy of tying itself more and more to
the U.S. under the illusion that this will guarantee its future. It may
instead ensure our demise as a distinct nation and community. In fact,
what we will witness at Kananaskis is not the meeting of the G-8 but the
first unabashed gathering of the G-1. At no time in world history has
there been such a disparity of power between a dominant empire and the
rest of the world. Of course it could be argued that this American
dominance is nothing new -- just the end point of the evolution of the
G-7, which was initiated by the U.S. in the first place (and expanded in
1999 to include Russia). It has been, primarily, a tool of U.S . foreign
and economic policy since it was founded in 1975 by U.S. President
Gerald Ford.

As it turned out, the G-7 was to become the implementation committee of
the Washington Consensus, the new elite consensus -- free trade,
deregulation, privatization and deep cuts to social spending -- that
developed out of institutions like the Trilateral Commission and World
Economic Forum. While the TLC and WEF gave broad definition to the new
consensus, the G-7 made it operational.

Perhaps the single most important initiative of the G-7 was the creation
of the World Trade Organization, the most powerful global institution
ever created and one that enjoys world government powers that the UN can
only dream of. It is, of course, world government in the narrowest
sense: it enforces the property rights of transnational corporations
against the sovereign authority of democratic nation states.

At the 1981 summit held in Ottawa, the G-7 leaders formed what would
become a key organization in the formation of global trade policy and
agencies. It was called the Trade Ministers Quadrilateral, now known
simply as the Quad. It is the self-appointed executive committee of the
WTO and it blithely sets the WTO agenda and imposes it on the other 137
member countries. Canada plays a key role in the Quad bullying and is
now seen by developing countries as no different than the U.S.

The agenda pushed by the G-7 has been catastrophic for Third World
countries. Between 1960 and 1980 most of the countries in Latin America
and Africa were either welfare statist or socialist, pursuing policies
of public ownership and import substitution and growing economically.
The Washington Consensus policies imposed by the G-7 and its agencies,
the IMF, World Bank and WTO, dramatically reversed that record growth.

Between 1960 and 1980 per capita income in Latin America grew 73 per
cent, and in Africa, 34 per cent. During the period of economic
liberalization, 1980 to 2000, that growth plummeted to 7 per cent in
Latin America and in Africa it went into reverse -- minus 23 per cent.
These numbers put into perspective Prime Minister Jean Chretien's highly
publicized support for a "new" plan for African development. Known as
the New Partnership for Africa's Development -- NEPAD-- its lofty aim is
"to eradicate poverty and to place African countries on a path of
sustainable growth and development." But NEPAD is little more than a
joke. The new plan is just more of the same -- more open markets, more
privatization, more deregulation and more grand lies about debt
forgiveness.

All the pomp and ceremony surrounding the meeting in Kananaskis would
suggest serious democratic leaders grappling with intractable problems.
The trouble is, the problems were created by this same gang. These are
not statesmen. They are more like a political Hells Angels handing out
toys to poor kids at Christmas to polish their image -- all the while
running a protection racket for the world's most powerful corporations.

Canadians should be outraged at what these so-called "leaders" are up to
on Canadian soil with respect to the Third World. And as for our own
future as a nation, if Canada does not actively resist American
arrogance and unilateralism it will be dragged into supporting whatever
new adventures the US is planning. When the U.S. ignores pleas from its
G-8 partners to change its behaviour -- as it certainly will --
Canadians should take it as a signal to demand a national debate about
our relationship with our imperial neighbour to the south.



--