Follow-up to the Open Letter by Guy Verhofstadt, Prime Minister of Belgium, President of the EU

Mr. Guy Verhofstadt published an open letter ‘Paradox of Anti-Globalisation’ in late September 2001 in a number of newspapers. His idea was to challenge the demonstrators of Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa, and to open up a dialogue – at least with their opinion leaders. As a follow-up to this letter, the Belgian EU Presidency organised a ‘an international conference on globalisation’ in Gent, Belgium, on 30 October 2001.

1. The open letter by Mr. Guy Verhofstadt, addressed to the ‘anti-globalisation protesters’, is very welcome in at least three important regards. Firstly, the intent of opening up a dialogue is a highly positive gesture. Secondly, the attempt to come to terms with at least some of the acknowledged problems of globalisation in terms of ‘ethical globalisation’ is a move towards the right direction. And thirdly, the hint at global democracy – ‘everyone in our world community would be represented’ – is bold.

Nonetheless, the open letter fails to make crucial distinctions between the meanings of the ambiguous term ‘globalisation’. It does not tackle the key problem, namely the hegemony of global political programmes – often referred to as the ‘Washington consensus’ – based on the ideological illusions of orthodox economics. And it contains a number of unsubstantiated or false claims, largely stemming, indeed, from the contentions of orthodox economics. For these reasons, I believe that the open letter does not really address the concerns of what is misleadingly labelled as the ‘anti-globalisation protesters’.

2. Mr. Verhofstadt invited participants to send comments on the open letter in advance to the conference. It seems that many people had pointed out the above mentioned problems in their pre-conference reactions to the open letter. In his opening remarks, Mr. Verhofstadt admitted that the term ‘anti-globalisation’ is misleading. However, he wanted to turn this admission into support for his own contention that there is no reason to be against ‘globalisation’, and that we in fact should have more of ‘globalisation’, particularly in terms of trade liberalisation. The PM of Belgium insisted that his notion of ‘ethical globalisation’ remedies current globalisation from all of the problems for which it is now being criticised. This notion basically means: no double standards in ‘free trade’ and better representation of different regions of the world in trade negotiations – coupled, perhaps, with a ban on small arms and setting up a permanent international criminal court.
3. In the morning session, contributors such as Susan George and Naomi Klein maintained that the term ‘trade liberalisation’ is misleading. It disguises a full political project of privatisation and marketisation of almost everything in society, on the terms of the powerful multinational corporations. Ultimately, what is at stake is the logic of capitalist market economy. Thus, although true, Hernando de Soto’s far-reaching point that the clear majority in the South is excluded from the operation of capitalist market economy may leave the most essential problem untackled: should the believers in the autonomous harmony of capitalist markets be challenged much more thoroughly, by pointing out the illusionary nature of their constructions, and by demonstrating alternatives?
4. By mid-afternoon, the tide seemed have turned in favour of Mr. Verhofstadt’s ‘ethical neoliberalism’ vision. Already in the pre-lunch discussion, some business representatives and neoliberal academics had defended ‘liberalisation’ of markets and attacked the idea raised by Susan George, namely global keynesianism. Also the moderator of the conference, Ms. Christine Ockrent, seemed to be allocating speaking time more to those in favour of neoliberal globalisation.

After lunch, people were sitting in their chairs for a long time, waiting for the session to start – until finally Elvis entered the building, with some half-a-dozen tough-looking bodyguards. The former President of the US, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton, gave a speech that was rhetorically skilful, at times powerful, full of historical and concrete details to demonstrate that he understands and cares. And after the well deserved applauds, he shook hands with the afternoon session panelists – and left the building.

The effect was disturbing. It must have been obvious to everyone how arrogant the setting was. While there was no budget to pay the trips of the invited civil society actors (those who came were those who could afford it, the majority being Belgians), Mr. Clinton’s astronomic remunarations are well-known. While the whole purpose of the exercise was to construct a dialogue, Mr. Clinton gave a monologue and left. While Mr. Verhofstadt was himself arguing for more representative trade negotiations, it was so obvious from the body language and rhetorics that he considered Mr. Clinton as his master. In one regard, Clinton may indeed be Elvis, giving a well-practised and powerful show. In another – and much more serious – regard, he is the retired Sovereign of the world, and was treated as one.

After this episode, the performances of Mary Robinson and Peter Piot appeared meagre. Both talked about important official processes (human rights and fights against racism and AIDS); neither challenged the post-Clintonian mood. It was easy to sense the frustration of many in the hall.

5. Finally came the turn of Chee Yoke Ling, representing the Third World Network. Her very well-argued, yet passionate critique of trade liberalisation marked a turning point. Continuing from the earlier remarks of George and Klein, she maintained that the overall effect of ‘trade liberalisation’ to most states in the South are highly controversial, to say the least. Visible, drastic cut-down of welfare states; dislocation of real people; undesired changes in structures of ownership and control; and the destruction of existing industrial and other capabilities are a high price to pay for the alleged efficiency gains in patterns of global economic exchange. She argued vividly against further rounds of trade liberalisation. Instead, she called for a long pause and an independent, truly pluralist and representative committee to study the real effects of liberalisation.

The applauds outvoted those of Clinton’s. They were so intensive and lasted so long, that both Mr. Verhofstadt and the moderator started to look embarrassed. Finally the dust settled, and the floor was given for an exceptionally (outrageously) long time to an assistant of the EU’s chief trade negotiator, who was not in the programme. His boring speech lacked any serious argument and instead was content with listing details of issues on the agenda. The afternoon session was concluded by Noreena Hertz, who went back to the basics, albeit in a very lucid and accessible fashion.

6. In conclusion, this ‘conference on globalisation’ may have been better than nothing, but clearly fell short of a real dialogue. The claim that ‘everybody is and must be for free trade’ is perhaps the key. The critics argue that ‘free international trade’ results no more in automatic ‘equilibrium’ than anything else in capitalist market economy. Moreover, the attempt to define the political programme of transnational neoliberalism in terms of ‘freedom of trade’ is highly misleading – and ideologically biased. Hence, in order to really open up a dialogue, the first concession should be that ‘trade and finance liberalisation’ is exactly the contested core of the political programme of transnational neoliberalism.

It is this what not only the protesters but so many others in the contemporary world find so objectionable. If Mr. Verhofstadt listened to what the critics have to offer instead; and assisted them in cultivating and realising at least some of those alternatives; a real dialogue would have been opened.

Meanwhile, the EU will continue to pursue further trade liberalisation. And it remains to be seen whether the Belgian Presidency has succeeded in putting a new process in place, or whether this was only a unique occasion. One thing is clear, however. The future of this dialogue does not depend on the goodwill of the rulers only, but also, in particular, on the power of the political movement demanding global democratic changes.

Heikki Patomäki (heikki@nigd.u-net.com)