Posted by Peter Barnes-Davies on February 11, 2002 at 15:10:27:
Personally, I don't like the term "anti-globalization." While it is descriptive to talk of an anti-globalization movement, I'm not sure it's helpful. In the first place, what are we for? Give me something positive, towards which I can move - not just the negative against which I must fight or flee. In the second place, isn't globalization a reality of the 21st century? If so, the question becomes how to change this reality so it is more just, more humane.
If we chuck the term "anti-globalization," do we pick up "global justice movement?" Again, personnaly, I'd say no. Why? Because it doesn't reckon with the fact that globalization is upon us.
Globalization is a reality of the 21st century. So I offer a third alternative: the "just globalization movement." Yes, I know it sounds different. We question whether there really can be just globalization.
Such questioning, I fear, only shows how limited we the "movement" have been in infusing justice, real justice, into the global military/economic/political order.
Progress will continue to be made. The movement, whatever it's called, will continue to have its successes. And I, for one, will count justice as a major measuring stick - the kind of justice where Enron officials who "stand the fifth" risk implications of guilt in the court of law, not just the court of public opinion (and legislative inquiry).
I'm not sure how such justice is pursued in the globalized world. Still, I do know that freezing the assets of such corporate criminals would be a step in the right direction.