Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:02:45 -0100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Roundtable on the state and globalisation: Peter


Steve and All,

Sounds like so many roundtables - circles of chat.

Agree on Steve's points, but would add AIDS in Africa, China, India, Human
Rights, Destruction of Global Resources, especially oil, but  including
fish, forests, fauna.  Other items: Global Pollution and Warming, and
occasional Slavery.

U.S. Bashing may feel good, but won't likely persuade U.S. officials to
assist in
solving, or mitigating, some of the above problems.  Perhaps the Roundtable
speakers will reveal a plan.

If the U.S. hadn't aided its friends in two World Wars, Korea, Kuwait,
Bosnia and Kosovo, Globalization might have remained a European
responsibility, as it was for four centuries after Columbus..

regards,
Hugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> All
>
> apologies - my mailer sometimes shows independence of mind in formatting..
> hence the resend.
>
> My notes from the discussion attended yesterday follow  but a couple of
> comments, I was concerned by the nature of the questions asked and the
> quaintly archaic notions raised from the audience  most deliriously the
> issue of Lenins writings on imperialism, fundamentally I wasnt sure that
> the different nature of the current world structures was understood or
> addressed. I was also alarmed by the speechlessness of the women in the
> audience, not one spoke or as far as I could tell from my vantage point,
> gestured to speak. I would have also said that there was an absence of
> speech from the 3rd world but a man from Thailand addressed the issue of
> business and corruption in Thailand.
>
> The positions put forward consisted broadly of discussions of the
following:
> the relationship between the state and the Superstate tier of
international
> organisations.
>
> The following key arguments, points and issues raised.
>
> Position1:  (Peter Gowan) Globalisation is the US response to the threat
of
> regional hegemony  - most specifically Europe  USA state department paper
> from 1992 from Wilfovitel states expressly that the major threat to US
> hegemony (read empire)  over the world consists of threats of autonomous
> actions from the EC and other advanced capitalist regions. That there is
> evidence that the so-called pacific union of dominant capitalist states
> are increasingly ignoring or working against the international
> organisations, weakening them rather than strengthening them as you would
> imagine would be required. In this vein institutions such as the world
bank
> are falling in influence as the major economic decisions and direction are
> set by the pacific union states  dominated in turn by the USA. The world
> Trade Organisation rulings only followed if in agreement with USA This
> position can be broadly bunderstood as being that Globalisation is a US
> fronted myth for the continuation of US global power
>
> Position 2: (Leo Panitch) Globalisation is still broadly dominated by USA
> but with some caveats and a different history  refuses the David Held
> liberal democratic approach which emphasizes the success and growth of
forms
> of liberal democracies. Argues that there is no supporting evidence for
this
> approach. Also rejected is the social democratic analysis; Paul Hirst was
> gestured at as the representative of the we have seen all this before
> approach social democratic analysis rejected as being a form of
> neo-hegelism where the state is regarded as the repositary of community
> values. Globalisation is proposed as starting in the liberalisation of the
> USA banking regime in the 1960s. Materialist analysis required to
understand
> the processes of globalisation. Shifted into discussion of the pacific
> union, dominated once again by USA as being essentially an imperialist
> regime  borrowed heavily from Negri and Hardts analysis of the post-modern
> as globalisation  an Empire and avoided and denied any purchase on the
> present of the pre-second world war imperialist theories.
>
> Position 3:  (Martin Shaw) Occupied a more positive relationship to
> globalisation. Worth noting that prior to this point nothing positive had
> been raised. Pointed towards the history of globalisation involving the
> following elements: Argument around the importance of the
inter-governmental
> agencies. That it is important to recognise the globalising effect of the
> military alliances,  that it completed the process of decolonisation,
> depends on the normalisation of the democratic process  by the end of the
> 20th C all major states in the central economic block had democracy in
some
> form or other. Establishment of a common world economic framework  western
> global conglomerate.  That outside of the pacific union democratic regimes
> the forms of state power that predominated are quasi-imperial despotic
> regimes, these have been proven to less efficient than the western state
> structures.
>
> In conclusion there was some tripartite discussion on the importance of
the
> struggles for democracy ongoing throughout the world  and also the
emerging
> anti/counter-capitalist movements. The speaker for position three
emphasised
> the importance of supporting the growth in liberal democracy and argued
that
> this form of struggle was more important in itself, and was having a
greater
> impact than the anti-capitalist movements.
>
> Whilst sympathetic to both lines of struggle  it is plainly absurd to
> suggest that one line is more important than the other
>
> End note;
> There was discussion of nato and the ec and their relations to USA, Europe
> and Bosnia,Kosovo  and so on  but the implications of the events were not
> complete and I was not convinced.
>
> Note the complete lack of discussion of Transnational conglomerates,
> non-government organisations, migrants, nomads.
>
>
> > regards
> >
> > sdv
> >
> > Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:
> >
> > > steve brockbank wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Going to this - food for thought:
> > > >
> > > > What do people think of the agenda?
> > > >
> > > > sdv
> > > >
> > > I'm not familiar with the speakers, but it sounds interesting to me. I
> > > for one am interested in how this conference impacts you and what
> > > comments you might make about it.  Maybe inaugarate another flurry of
> > > furious posts during a hot and humid July.
>