Free Trade and Globalization

The world is becoming more globalized, there is no doubt about that. While that sounds promising, the current form of globalization, neoliberalism, free trade and open markets are coming under much criticism. The interests of powerful nations and corporations are shaping the terms of world trade. In democratic countries, they are shaping and affecting the ability of elected leaders to make decisions in the interests of their people. Elsewhere they are promoting narrow political discourse and even supporting dictatorships and the “stability” that it brings for their interests. This is to the detriment of most people in the world, while increasingly fewer people in proportion are prospering.

The western mainstream media, hardly provides much debate, gladly allowing this economic liberalism (a largely, but not only, politically conservative stance) to be confused with the term political liberalism (to do with progressive and liberal social political issues). Perhaps there is no alternative for such prosperity for a few, but what about a more equitable and sustainable development for all?
Global trading that allows all nations to prosper and develop fairly and equitably is probably what most people would like to see. Neoliberalism is touted as the mechanism for this.

While internationalism and equitable global trading allowing fair development is probably what most people would like to see, the current model of corporate-led free trade and its version of globalization that has resulted, has come under criticism by many, many NGOs, developing nation governments and ordinary citizens.

The mainstream media has been flooded by free trade proponents and heavily backed by those that will profit from it the most. This makes public debate more difficult.
The World Trade Organization, (WTO), is the primary international body to help promote free trade, by drawing up the rules of international trade. It too has been criticized for being very opaque and not allowing enough public participation, while being very welcoming to large corporations. (That doesn't help the claims of free, open and democratic!) Criticisms have taken form in the shape of enormous protests in Seattle, in November 1999, of similar protests in Davos, Switzerland at the beginning of 2000 and there have also been increased campaigns for and against China's accession into the WTO, amongst many other issues to do with the WTO.

December 2005 saw Hong Kong host the 4th World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial meeting. This meeting, one of the most important in the world, was to discuss a number of trade-related issues, key for developing and developed nations, alike. This meeting continues from the earlier “Doha round” where it was recognized that the global trading system was unequal and unfair for most of the world and so the meetings should place development at the fore. Thus this meeting is being billed as a “Development Round.” However, the concerns as per previous years continued to include the lack of transparency and democracy in the decision-making processes, and the power that the rich nations have over the poor distorting trade in their favor. The previous Ministerial meeting two years earlier collapsed as the developing world took a strong stance and stood up to the rich nations. Yet, since then, the same kinds of issues have resurfaced as rich nations appear to have hardly moved on their countless promises, pledges and obligations. As a result, and perhaps predictably, poorer countries were pressured to agree to a deal that did not really work in their favor.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) July 2004 Package of Agreements Framework meeting was in response to the failure of the Cancun Ministerial Meetings in September 2003. However, these trade talks also resulted in more bullying and arm-twisting tactics from the richer, more powerful countries and regions, such as the EU and US.
The 5th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico was held in mid-September, 2003. Issues similar to those raised in Doha were raised again, with the accompanying controversies. The talks collapsed because rich countries refused to finish discussion on issues raised in previous meetings. Instead, they wanted to talk about new issues. Poorer countries wanted to finish discussion on the previous issues because it impacts them the most. While the talks failed, it was the first time the developing world took a united stance against the rich countries.

The 4th WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar was held in November 2001. But it was marred with controversy. Qatar was selected as the venue due to its repressive laws about the right to protest. Furthermore, both in the lead up to the meetings, and in the outcomes, developing countries on the whole had once again been marginalized and ignored.

Protectionism is often referred to as being a barrier to free trade. The word seems to conjure up negative images of isolationism and subsidizing industries that could otherwise not compete fairly against others. (This can help indicate why some industries would strongly support protectionism for themselves.) Complete deregulation allows corporations to benefit but at the possible expense of people in that nation or region if that deregulation means relaxation of environmental rules, health and educational services including control of natural resources and energy. (This hints at the powerful lure that the "freeing" of trade and liberalization of access to resources from regulation has to some proponents.) Neither seems to answer the notion of fairness, though. Often those nations that promote free trade for all, want protectionism for themselves.
There have been numerous regional free trade agreements. Some have been controversial, while others may be beneficial. Examples include the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), US attempts at free trade agreements with African nations and so on.

As more and more people around the world are being negatively affected by the current corporate-led form of globalization, there are an increasing number of protests. While most have heard of the Seattle and Washington D.C. demonstrations against the WTO and the IMF/World Bank, respectively, there have been many around the world. Media portrayal by the corporate-owned mainstream of course, has been biased against the protestors.