Globalization isn't dead. While the need to fight terrorism dominated the weekend meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders, below the surface was a renewed determination to keep opening markets.
That terrorists and their heinous attacks on New York and Washington dominated this year's gathering of leaders from the 21-member APEC was no surprise. The spate of anthrax attacks made them even more determined to use the meeting to rally support for the war on terror.
Below the surface, however, was a clear commitment to free trade. While Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's boilerplate anti-globalization rant grabbed some headlines, his self-serving views were even more in the minority than usual. He says opening economies gives too much power to Western governments and investors who want to control poor nations and profit from them.
Yet to those who believe backtracking on opening economies and markets, Canadian Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew had this to say: "Those people are just plain wrong. Far from being a cause of it, economic globalization is the only hope we have for ridding the world of poverty," he told delegates in Shanghai last week.
The Asia-Pacific leaders agreed freer trade is "more important than ever" as concerns about terrorism deepen a global economic slump, especially hurting developing nations such as Thailand and Mexico. "We are determined to reverse the current economic downturn and maintain public confidence at a time of uncertainty by fighting protectionism," they said in a statement at the end of the two-day meeting.
Here's why. The primary argument against developing economies opening up is that they risk being exploited by richer ones.
Part of the concern is that the US government, the IMF and World Bank acts on behalf of investment banks. Another part is that financiers are waiting in the shadows to rush into emerging markets and ravage them as trade barriers are lowered.
No one is under any illusion that hedge fund managers or large investors care a whole lot about people who live in the countries in which they invest. The morality of all of this is a complex subject and it's often oversimplified.
Few among us can be happy about the widening gap between the rich and poor or the strains put on the environment in the name of corporate profits. Watching a CEO in Chicago making tens of million of dollars while folks work for pocket change in Malaysia or Brazil doesn't sit well with many of us either.
As APEC leaders made clear, the problem isn't too much globalization, but too little.
It's no coincidence that the most pro-trade economies and those most intertwined with the global economy are the richest. Free-trade nations are also the freest. That helps explain why you so rarely see members of the groups anti-globalists claim to be speaking for marching hand-in-hand with them.
There were no anti-globalization protesters in Shanghai because China isn't inclined to grant them visas. But those twenty- and thirtysomethings who travel from one anti-trade protest to the next like Grateful Dead fans believe they're speaking out for those who lack a voice or platform to demand a more equal distribution of wealth among nations. These are sound and important goals and activists' hearts are in the right place. Yet they are doing more harm than good.
RSS