PROTECTING
BRITAIN AGAINST GLOBALISATION -
VOTE GREEN FOR LOCALISATION Mike
Woodin and Caroline Lucas MEP The Greens -
an Antidote to Voter Apathy All parties and commentators are expressing
concern about the expected low turnout at the forthcoming election. Often a
reason given is that people don't have confidence that politicians are
capable of significantly improving the conditions in which people live in
terms of health, education, transport, crime, pensions and so on. This instinct is absolutely correct. All the
Westminster parties have given up more and more control of the economy to the
main beneficiaries of globalisation - big business. Thus when Motorola is in
the process of pulling out of Britain it can contemptuously dismiss a
pleading phone call from Tony Blair. Were William Hague or even more
incredibly Charles Kennedy to become Prime Minister they would be able to do
no better. All three main Westminster Parties and their leaders believe that
globalisation is inevitable, is good and cannot be reversed. They are today's
appeasers. Their capitulation to the big businesses agenda of lower trade
barriers, lower taxes, and curbing environmental and labour standards will
decrease their chance of ever providing what the British people want. There is an alternative for such sceptical
voters - and that is to vote Green. The rest of this article outlines the
Green's alternative to globalisation, ie localisation, which prioritises the
protection and rebuilding of local economies in the UK and globally. In the
process big business and roving capital can be brought to heel by
democratically elected politicians. The localisation programme also means
that adequate taxes and social and environmental regulations can be introduced.
This will ensure that there are enough resources and political power to
provide the social services people crave for, whilst fully protecting the
environment. So whether you are a
disgruntled pensioner, or fed up with substandard health and education, or are
sympathetic to the aims of most anti globalisation protesters, or all of
these, there is an alternative - VOTE GREEN.
Leading by
Example In 1989, the Greens sent shock waves through
the other parliamentary parties when they gained 15% of the votes in the
European elections. This result, reflecting as it did growing concerns about
the state of the planet, galvanised all the other parties into adopting their
own environmental policies - inadequate as they were and still are. Thus the
Greens acted as a lightning rod for a public concern that the other parties
were largely ignoring. Now there is growing unease and opposition to
the adverse effects of globalisation, particularly as it reduces job security
and increases inequality both within and between nations. The recent slap
down of Tony Blair as he pleaded with one of our supposed high tech saviours,
Motorola, not to shut their British factory in the face of the world-wide
economic downturn, is just the latest instance of how embracing globalisation
leads to increased political impotence. The Green Party on the other hand is making an
alternative - "localisation", a key plank of its election campaign.
It is the first political party to challenge the existing political and
economic theology of globalisation and instead call for its replacement with
an emphasis on local production and the rebuilding of local economies. Building
self-reliance Import and export controls should be negotiated
to reduce international trade to a fairly traded exchange of goods that
cannot be produced locally. Developing nations should meet local needs by
setting up import substitution schemes, with OECD assistance, based on
appropriate technology and sustainable agriculture. "Reach for the
Future" Green Party Manifesto Globalisation is "irreversible and
irresistible" says Tony Blair The Prime Minister's view typifies the attitude
of all UK political parties except the Greens. The others have swallowed Mrs
Thatcher's most corrosive, four letter legacy-TINA (there is no alternative).
In doing so they slavishly adhere to the view that globalisation is
inevitable and the best they can offer their voters is the hope that it might
be tinkered with to make it a little bit kinder and gentler to both people
and the planet. The Green Party's goal by
contrast is to ensure that everything that could reasonably be produced
within a nation or region should be. Long-distance trade is then reduced to
supplying what could not come from within one country or geographical
grouping of countries. This has the environmental advantage of no longer
transporting so many goods over unnecessary distances. It would allow an
increase in local control of the economy and the potential for its benefits
being shared out more fairly, locally. Technology and information would be
encouraged to flow, when and where it can to strengthen local economies.
Under these circumstances, beggar-your-neighbour globalisation gives way to
the potentially more cooperative better-your-neighbour localisation. The Party's localisation approach is not
against rules for trade - but we want them to have the different end goal of
protecting and rediversifying local economies. The rules of globalisation, by
contrast, force all nations to bow the knee to the false god of international
competitiveness. Under our approach, the rules for the diminished
international trading sector then become those of the "fair trade"
movement, where preference is given to goods supplied in a way that benefits
workers, the local community and the environment. The Party's Election Manifesto has a programme
of a mutually consistent and self-reinforcing set of measures to achieve
localisation. These include: a) the reintroduction of protective safeguards for
domestic economies (tariffs quotas etc); b) a "site here to sell here" rule
for manufacturers and services; c) keeping money local via policies ranging
from exchange controls through to a "Tobin Tax" on currency
speculation; d) resource and progressive taxes to fund the
transition, whilst protecting the environment; e) the reorientation of the goals of aid and
trade rules so that they contribute to the international rebuilding of local
economies and local control world-wide. Poor countries could then concentrate
on meeting basic needs, not out-competing their already impoverished
neighbours for exports to the North. Cooperation
Against Globalisation Such a dramatic, radical change will of course
need to overcome fierce opposition from the major beneficiaries from
globalisation - transnational companies (TNCs) and international capital. It will be difficult for one country to
shoulder this burden alone. Individual countries will need to co-operate
against globalisation, on a regional basis, but without falling into the trap
of "globalisation"on a smaller scale in "free
trade"blocs. Regional blocs, such as Europe and America can have a key
role to play. They could face down corporations and capital and introduce
adequate controls on them. Unfortunately four years of Bush's programme of
deliberately rolling back key social and environmental protection means that
very little can be expected from the US, and so Britain should urge Europe to
take on the mantle as a major engine for change. The Green Party appreciates the need to seek
allies in Europe against globalisation. Co-author Caroline Lucas, elected to
the EU parliament in 1999, is already working with the European Greens to
make localisation more central to such policies. When the Nice Summit was discussing
expanding the European Union eastwards, she kicked off such a debate by
publishing "From Seattle to Nice: Challenging the Free Trade Agenda at
the Heart of Enlargement." In this she called for a bolder, more
ambitious vision of a Europe of genuine stability and co-operation, based on
the rebuilding of sustainable local economies both East and West, and
throughout the world. The Green Party's General Election Manifesto
makes clear that the Green Party are in favour of a very different Europe
from what is on offer at present. The manifesto rejects the superstate model
of the European Union, "dominated by vested economic interests"
with "remote and unaccountable institutions." The Party is working
for a multi-track Europe that co-operates on matters of shared concern. Localisation - Central to Solving Social and
Environmental Problems Of course in the Green Party's Election
Manifesto there is inadequate space to spell out the far reaching
improvements possible under the localisation programme. However the main
strength of this approach lies in its potential to provide an overarching
political framework that will enable citizen's campaigns across a whole
variety of issues to become more achievable. This holds true for matters as
disparate as tackling climate change through to global poverty, from
inadequate pensions through to crumbling public services. Many people when they think of the Green Party
think purely of environmental concerns. However the policies of localisation
will not only enable the achievement of the level of environmental protection
needed in the UK and world-wide, but will also allow the funds to be raised
for social necessities such as the substantial improvement of health,
education, transport and community renewal. Globalisation- the Roadblock to Domestic
Improvements Many activists campaigning for such domestic
improvements still look to more government expenditure as the solution. Yet
because of their history of seeing such improvements through a domestic lens,
they often fail to take into account that globalisation puts the governments
under huge ideological and business pressure to curb public expenditure.
Hence the chances of obtaining the levels of resources for public services
they require are virtually zero. A major roadblock to adequate levels of
taxation for the provision of such services is the threat by big business to
relocate should taxes rise. This is frequently justified in order to overcome
the competitive pressures generated by globalisation. The presumed need to
lure in foreign investment is cited as another reason to curb taxes. To
provide adequate levels of social funding will need globalisation to be
replaced by economic policies that enable elected governments to take back
control of their economy. These include: A Site-Here-to-Sell-Here Policy In conjunction with the phased introduction of
tariffs, quotas and subsidies to ensure the maximum protection and diversity
of the local economy, the Green Party's site-here-to-sell-here legislation
would, over time, considerably reduce levels of imports by localising
industry and services. Threats by big business to relocate thus become
less plausible, as the cost of doing so is to lose market share to local
competitors. Once large companies are thus grounded, then their domestic
activities and the levels of taxation they pay could be brought back more
under the control of citizens and their governments. Campaigners' demands for social, labour and
environmental standards also become feasible. Since under localisation, these
TNCs would no longer be able to play the trump card of international
competitiveness as an excuse not to be bound by better working, environmental
or tax regimes. Furthermore adequate company taxation can help compensate
poorer households for any increases in prices. Market access for foreign companies would be
dependent on the exporter being able to supply goods and services not
available in the importing country. Preference would also be given to such
imports provided by countries as close as possible, thus limiting long
distance trade. Reasonable levels of company taxation would
become feasible, since the excuse of unfair competition from low tax/ low
wage foreign competitors would no longer be valid. The levels of other
taxation could then be raised to pay for social provision, since under
localisation countries would no longer have to curb taxes in order to lure in
foreign investment. The same would be true of resource taxes such as those on
energy which at present are easily constrained by business arguing that they
would render domestic producers uncompetitive. The Greens' Localisation Programme Could
Help NGO's Campaigns Under localisation the constraints on the
ability of business to threaten relocation makes them far more susceptible to
domestic calls for change. Compare this with present efforts to curb the
power of big business, which all assume ever more open borders will be the
norm. This leads to a set of usually rather cautious approaches ranging from
calls to monitor TNC activity through to various, usually voluntary, codes of
conduct and standards. However, under globalisation, any really radical
improvement in corporate social or environmental practise soon flounders.
Adequate compliance is usually deemed impossible since changes would make the
company uncompetitive, hence it might shut down or relocate. The most
widespread example of this has been resistance to energy price increases to
combat climate change. In terms of the developing world, anti-TNC
campaigns by citizen's movements both North and South tends to focus upon
four areas: the product the company is producing (eg the anti-Nestles baby
milk campaign); the workers' age or their conditions (eg the Asian football,
carpets or toy campaigns); the involvement of businesses in supporting
regimes deemed unacceptable (eg South Africa under apartheid or Burma today);
and the adverse effects of the production process or environmental threats
(such as clear-cut logging and deforestation by Mitsubishi and MacMillan
Bloedel). The activists research, lobby, hold
demonstrations, call for boycotts, demand the introduction of codes of
conduct and insist on adherence to international standards. While these
approaches have had some success in changing the behaviour of the specific
TNC targeted, there has been very little significant change in the overall
activities of TNCs. Indeed the pattern of the companies' responses has tended
to be denial, followed by a degree of admission of a problem, followed by
lengthy discussions of the details of voluntary codes of conduct, then
further arguments of the scope of the code along the supply chain, and
finally discussions of the details of independent verification and
monitoring. The end result is often far short of the original goal. Tax and SPEND on Society and the
Environment: At Last Feasible Under Localisation Ecological taxes on energy, other resource use
and pollution would help pay for the radical economic transition towards
localisation. They would be environmentally advantageous and should replace VAT.
Indeed a central plank of any government policy to tackle the environmental
problems will be adequate taxes on energy and other resources. These, along
with the necessary legislation, grants and loans can provide the revenue to
rebuild public transport, turn organic farming from niche to normality, phase
out polluting chemicals and reduce carbon emissions by the 60% required to
tackle climate change. What is stopping this green transition is the
fact that, under globalisation, as soon as even mild taxation is muted, big
business from the pro fossil fuel Climate Coalition to the CBI clamours that
international competitiveness is threatened. This, allied with judicious
threats of closure and relocation, ensures that any plans for adequate green
taxes are dropped. This happened in the early days of Al Gore's vice
presidency, when he was still trying to be a practising environmentalist.
Efforts by the European Union to try and introduce an anodyne carbon energy
tax to begin to address climate change met with the same fate. Yet how else is the world to get a 60-80%
reduction in carbon emissions in the next 40 years? This will require a
massive increase in energy taxes in order to change behaviour adequately,
along with supportive legislation and incentives. Significant amounts of
money will also be needed to meet the initial costs of shifting energy
supplies away from mobile sources like oil, gas and coal, to more localised
sources like wind, wave and solar. Up front spending will also be necessary
for the massive improvement in energy conservation levels of the entire
building stock; adequate provision of public transportation; and shifting
agriculture from intensive to organic methods. Some money could be diverted
from subsidies to fossil fuels, but the likely costs could run into of
billions of dollars to adequately alter the existing infrastructure. So
Vote Green The growing number of anti-globalisation
demonstrations across the world are coming under increasing fire from their
critics for failing to offer an alternative. Yet the UK Green Party have done
just this and so deserve all your support at the upcoming election. We are
standing in around 140 constituencies and if we gain significant support, it
will send a much needed wake up call to the New Labour, Conservative and
Liberal Democrat appeasers of globalisation. More importantly it could kick
off the debate about alternatives to globalisation that could help encourage
the growing international protest movement to shift from opposition to much
needed proposition. Mike Woodin and
Caroline Lucas MEP The
authors would like to thank Colin Hines (author of "Localization- A
Global Manifesto" [Earthscan]) for his input on the policies proposed in
this article. Green
Party of England & Wales |