2006-10-01 12:33:19globalist
全球化受害者的訊息應該傳播出去
世銀及國際貨幣基金IMF日前在新加坡舉行年會，新加坡政府為了﹂確保」會議進行的「安全順利」，竟禁止任何抗議團體入境去抗議，連世界及IMF都向新加坡政府抗議未果。
作者是新加坡大學的教授，他認為抗議民眾的行為，應該被與會代表們聽到，因為大部份的與會代表雖然來自世界各國，但他們的背景及受西方教育的經驗都相同，因此，對其他不同的意見經常考量不足，對全球化的輸家了解不夠，意即盲目的追求全球化，可能造成部分輸家悲慘的結局，許多國家的政府無力協助輸家，市場機制也無法幫忙，他舉印度的農民在印度開放農產品進口後，一年就有一萬七千名農民自殺，這樣的情形沒有受到該有的重視。自由貿易的利弊得失，抗議行動可以提醒這些世銀等代表們。
Let them hear the message of the masses
Deborah K. Elms International Herald Tribune
Published: September 29, 2006
The recent annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Singapore were notable in part for what they omitted: There were no visible protest or advocacy groups ringing the convention center.
Such international institutions have been regularly besieged by protest groups, first seen in large numbers at the 1999 meetings of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington. The numbers tapered off after 9/11, but have been growing again.
Activists and protestors come in all stripes. Some argue against specific policies or programs that they believe cause harm in recipient states. Others lobby for new rules or procedures for future projects.
Some are inherently hostile to all large-scale multinational organizations, while others are supportive of the mission and objectives. Many are well- informed and carry a thoughtful and articulate message; others are not.
Yet all protestors ought to be seen as a critical element for IMF/World Bank meetings. They serve as visible reminders to the delegates that globalization creates winners and losers. Unless they see the placards or hear the slogans shouted over bullhorns, delegates can easily forget about those who have failed to benefit from the policies they advocate.
At the Singapore meetings, delegates were whisked from five-star hotels to the convention center, while other participants were provided with special shuttle buses running along closed-off streets.
The convention center itself was solidly sealed off from the public by a series of fences and gates patrolled by armed guards. These measures undoubtedly enhanced the security of the event, but also left delegates unusually isolated from the world outside.
Even without the security measures, the delegates are already at a high risk of being disconnected from their publics. Most of the IMF and World Bank staff members are Western-educated economists, financiers or bankers. Most of the delegates, such as central bankers from member countries, have similar backgrounds. Academic research has shown the potential for closed thinking among those with similar experiences.
A common background means that the basic assumptions of the classical economics model are never questioned. Ever since David Ricardo first articulated the principles of comparative advantage nearly 200 years ago, for example, economists have pressed for ever freer trade. Speaker after speaker at the annual meetings hammered at this point and urged the swift completion of Doha Round talks at the World Trade Organization.
But free trade has costs as well as benefits. For example, The New York Times reported recently that 17,107 farmers in India committed suicide in 2003. Many of them were facing insurmountable obstacles in the 15 years after India opened its agriculture to global competition.
In theory, the "winners" are supposed to seamlessly compensate the "losers." Yet this is not happening in large parts of the globe. Governments are unable or unwilling to shift resources to assist those who are economically unsuccessful. Private markets are inadequate to the task. Individuals cannot shift avenues of employment or obtain training in new fields. They cannot cope with the global market.
These are the faces that must be seen and the messages that must be heard by IMF and World Bank representatives at every annual meeting.
Paul Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank, has argued strongly for engagement with civil society groups and with individual activists. The IMF and World Bank both issued public statements of dismay over the banning of some activists at the Singapore meetings.
But the inclusion of activists and protestors must go beyond lip service. Real engagement is critical to building popular support for IMF/World Bank programs. Ensuring security, of course, is a key responsibility of host cities. But eliminating public expression is not the solution.
Concerned individuals and citizen groups have very few opportunities to engage World Bank and IMF staff members. The annual meetings are a time when interaction is possible. It must be allowed.
Deborah K. Elms is assistant professor at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies (IDSS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
作者是新加坡大學的教授，他認為抗議民眾的行為，應該被與會代表們聽到，因為大部份的與會代表雖然來自世界各國，但他們的背景及受西方教育的經驗都相同，因此，對其他不同的意見經常考量不足，對全球化的輸家了解不夠，意即盲目的追求全球化，可能造成部分輸家悲慘的結局，許多國家的政府無力協助輸家，市場機制也無法幫忙，他舉印度的農民在印度開放農產品進口後，一年就有一萬七千名農民自殺，這樣的情形沒有受到該有的重視。自由貿易的利弊得失，抗議行動可以提醒這些世銀等代表們。
Let them hear the message of the masses
Deborah K. Elms International Herald Tribune
Published: September 29, 2006
The recent annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Singapore were notable in part for what they omitted: There were no visible protest or advocacy groups ringing the convention center.
Such international institutions have been regularly besieged by protest groups, first seen in large numbers at the 1999 meetings of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington. The numbers tapered off after 9/11, but have been growing again.
Activists and protestors come in all stripes. Some argue against specific policies or programs that they believe cause harm in recipient states. Others lobby for new rules or procedures for future projects.
Some are inherently hostile to all large-scale multinational organizations, while others are supportive of the mission and objectives. Many are well- informed and carry a thoughtful and articulate message; others are not.
Yet all protestors ought to be seen as a critical element for IMF/World Bank meetings. They serve as visible reminders to the delegates that globalization creates winners and losers. Unless they see the placards or hear the slogans shouted over bullhorns, delegates can easily forget about those who have failed to benefit from the policies they advocate.
At the Singapore meetings, delegates were whisked from five-star hotels to the convention center, while other participants were provided with special shuttle buses running along closed-off streets.
The convention center itself was solidly sealed off from the public by a series of fences and gates patrolled by armed guards. These measures undoubtedly enhanced the security of the event, but also left delegates unusually isolated from the world outside.
Even without the security measures, the delegates are already at a high risk of being disconnected from their publics. Most of the IMF and World Bank staff members are Western-educated economists, financiers or bankers. Most of the delegates, such as central bankers from member countries, have similar backgrounds. Academic research has shown the potential for closed thinking among those with similar experiences.
A common background means that the basic assumptions of the classical economics model are never questioned. Ever since David Ricardo first articulated the principles of comparative advantage nearly 200 years ago, for example, economists have pressed for ever freer trade. Speaker after speaker at the annual meetings hammered at this point and urged the swift completion of Doha Round talks at the World Trade Organization.
But free trade has costs as well as benefits. For example, The New York Times reported recently that 17,107 farmers in India committed suicide in 2003. Many of them were facing insurmountable obstacles in the 15 years after India opened its agriculture to global competition.
In theory, the "winners" are supposed to seamlessly compensate the "losers." Yet this is not happening in large parts of the globe. Governments are unable or unwilling to shift resources to assist those who are economically unsuccessful. Private markets are inadequate to the task. Individuals cannot shift avenues of employment or obtain training in new fields. They cannot cope with the global market.
These are the faces that must be seen and the messages that must be heard by IMF and World Bank representatives at every annual meeting.
Paul Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank, has argued strongly for engagement with civil society groups and with individual activists. The IMF and World Bank both issued public statements of dismay over the banning of some activists at the Singapore meetings.
But the inclusion of activists and protestors must go beyond lip service. Real engagement is critical to building popular support for IMF/World Bank programs. Ensuring security, of course, is a key responsibility of host cities. But eliminating public expression is not the solution.
Concerned individuals and citizen groups have very few opportunities to engage World Bank and IMF staff members. The annual meetings are a time when interaction is possible. It must be allowed.
Deborah K. Elms is assistant professor at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies (IDSS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.