>I wonder how many
>hours of besuited meetings have been devoted around the world to the
>question of what to call the uncivilised masses who dare to call the
>current system into question.
An uncharacterically intemperate edit from today's FT:
Financial Times - September 28, 2000
Protesters for poverty
A small number of protesters against global capitalism have, as expected, graced the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Prague with their ugly presence. How should the world respond to these uncivilised representatives of "civil society"? With contempt, is the answer. They should be told, firmly, that they are wrong. Unfortunately, for the most part, this is not what is happening.
How, for example, did James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, respond to these protesters against the global market? "Outside these walls," he said, "young people are demonstrating against globalisation. I believe deeply that many of them are asking legitimate questions, and I embrace the commitment of a new generation to fight poverty. I share their passion and their questioning. Yes, we all have a lot to learn. But I believe we can move forward only if we deal with each other constructively and with mutual respect."
Yet how is anyone to deal constructively with people who believe that throwing stones is a proper response to world poverty? What is required instead, are leaders willing to state that bringing the world's people within the market economy is the unique opportunity afforded to this generation.
What is needed, in addition, are policies and institutions that make market-led globalisation work for the world's poor. On that there can be no dispute. But that is both easier and more difficult than the World Bank, in its current incarnation, appears to realise. It is easier because the requirements of a successful market economy are well understood. It is more difficult because the biggest obstacle is the predatory, indifferent or incompetent elites of the countries in which most of the world's poorest live.
If they are to help, global institutions must have a focused understanding of their objectives and appropriate means. Mr Wolfensohn hardly provides this. He states, to take just one example, that "poverty is about more than inadequate income or even low human development; it is also about lack of voice, lack of representation. It is about vulnerability to abuse and to corruption. It is about violence against women and fear of crime. It is about lack of esteem." Alas, a development institution that believes poverty is about all this will collapse under its imperial overstretch.
The backlash against economic globalisation represents a serious intellectual and moral challenge. Those charged with responsibility for the fate of the world's poor must confront it head on. Their aim must be to offer economic opportunities to more people than ever before. This is the opposite of what the extreme anti-capitalist protesters seek, whatever they may claim. They must be opposed. There is no sane or honourable alternative.