June 2 marks the beginning of a cycle of international demonstrations against the G8. The largest event is expected in Rostock, Germany, close to where the G8 will be meeting. An alternative summit is also planned, during which activists and sympathizers will discuss issues related to global justice, democracy, labor rights, war, immigration, climate change, education, and activism.
Although such protests are absolutely legitimate and arguably useful, one may question their rallying assumption that globalization is today’s greatest evil. For example, the joint call for the Rostock June 2 demonstration (entitled “Another World Is Possible!”) states:
“Every five seconds, a child dies somewhere in the world from hunger. More than 800 million people are chronically malnourished. Primarily responsible are unjust world trade policies, forwarded by the rich industrialised countries within the G8 and other international institutions.”
The problem with such statements is that they suggest that the solution to world hunger is pretty simple: just and fair trade policies. However, trade alone is far from being enough to reduce hunger and poverty and foster development. South Korea and China, as Dani Rodrick has argued, did not become poster children for globalization simply by virtue of liberalizing their trade regime. Industrial and social policies are indispensable and arguably more important than trade policy. Most opponents of globalization also advocate industrial and social policies; then why focus on trade policy? Furthermore, in blaming the G8 for hunger, world poverty, climate change, and war, opponents of globalization implicitly suggest that nation-states still have tremendous powers. But if they do, globalization is not the culprit iron cage that activists claim. Then why the fuss about globalization? As always, it has all to do with politics more than anything else.
