Whither the Anti-Globalization Movement?

An article on the end of militant anti-globalization protests may seem odd given what happened at the G-8 meetings, but the following piece is interesting nonetheless:

Julie Oliver, the Ottawa Citizen

Police in riot gear move up Elgin Street during the 2001 protest at the G20 summit.

Taking it off the streets; Where did the anti-globalization movement go? In North America, it morphed into something quieter and, some say, more effective
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Page: B1 / FRONT
Section: Saturday Observer
Byline: Kate Heartfield
Column: Kate Heartfield
Source: The Ottawa Citizen

In the auditorium of a former high school, an audience watches slides of the Battle of Seattle, the 1999 protests outside a meeting of the World Trade Organization. On the screen are images of angry young people with bandannas over their mouths and noses.

The audience is older than the people in the slides. Their wardrobes aren’t black and there aren’t any anarchy symbols to be seen. There are a lot of jeans, long skirts and pastel T-shirts bearing messages of peace. This is the core of the social justice movement in Ottawa: people who were concerned about free trade long before Seattle and who are still activists. The auditorium is full. Still, there’s a sense of nostalgia for 1999. Back then, droves of angry young people were joining the movement and the media were paying attention.

“They blocked streets and they made sure the ministerial meetings did not start!” says organizer Morna Ballantyne from the podium, to applause.

For the full article, click here.

One comment

  • September, 2007 Indianapolis, Indiana

    Is Globalization good for America? Arena seating and theater seating manufacturers outsource to third world countries.

    The large outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing jobs that began years ago continues today. Michigan, a furniture manufacturing center, lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in the last few years. North Carolina experienced a similar fate, as has every state in the U.S.

    U.S. seating manufacturers have in recent years outsourced and manufactured seating in third world countries, for example Mexico, China and Malaysia. However, Preferred Seating, located in Tennessee, is struggling upstream to supply manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. Preferred Seating wants to manufacture arena seating and theater seating in the U.S., create jobs and contribute to the U.S. economy.

    The larger seating manufacturers who have the capital to build factories in third world countries make larger profit margins when they import seating parts from countries where labor and materials are less expensive. These companies argue that the public benefits from lower prices for their products. However, they sell their auditorium seating and theater seating for the same price as U.S. manufacturers, but make more profit. While these companies are making stronger sales, they are adding few jobs.

    A leading U.S. seating manufacturer stated in “The Grand Rapids Press, Grand Rapids Michigan, Jan 23, 2005 the following:

    “Absolutely, every company should be looking at China and offshore production, whether or not they actually do it. The good old days are just that – old, and the climate will never be the same. It’s now a global world where people don’t buy (just) from their country anymore. They buy the product that fits their needs, and a lot of it has to do with cost.”

    While standards of living have increased as third world countries become more industrialized, they have fallen in developed countries. Was it not the industrialized revolution in the U.S. that contributed to the U.S. becoming a world super power? Losing our manufacturing base will make us more vulnerable to those countries we are allowing to manufacture our products.

    Lower wage, unskilled earners are affected the most. They do not have skills that can be applied to other jobs. Education, with the ability to change careers, is the key to survival. The only answer that political and business leaders have agreed to so far is the necessity of an educated, adaptable workforce. But who is going to pay for the massive reeducation of the dislocated labor force, taxpayers?

    We may enjoy lower pricing for products. Companies will make more of a profit by outsourcing. However, in my opinion the cost and risk to America is too great for the short term benefits.
    Author: Billie Sumner
    Preferred Arena Seating and
    Theater Seating

    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Tollfree 866-922-0226

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *