A few weeks ago leaders, business people and experts from around the world gathered at the regular Word Economics Forum in the Swiss town of Davos. While the forum’s participants discussed various issues beyond the understanding of “the man on the street,” such as the US economic recession, the euro outlook, the future of the world trade system, genetic engineering, etc., protest marches and clashes with the police raged on the streets of Davos. Since the World Trade Organization summit in 1999, such riots by “protestors against globalisation” have become a usual sideshow of international economic forums. The “antiglobalism” movement is turning into a new phenomenon of contemporary international relations. Therefore, the followers of this movement, the motives of the protestors and the truthfulness of their claims merit a more careful analysis.

At first glance, the majority of the participants of such protest actions consist of troublemakers who like to make noise and break public order. “Radical” social groups of that kind have existed at all times and probably in all countries; it is only their targets and tactics that have differed. Even among those who disapprove of violence, there have always been social groups who oppose the dominant order and ideology.

A considerable part of the opponents of globalisation are people dissatisfied with the “neoliberal” world order (whatever that means), the “domination” of rich countries and the “capitalist system.” Such radical groups usually have no constructive proposals. Nor is constructiveness the underlying feature of the measures they take to attract public attention. Their proposals usually end with such slogans as “ohoho, the WTO must go home,” “they are destroying my vegetarian body,” etc.

Nevertheless, whilst being the most tumultuous, such protestors are far from being the most influential group of opponents of globalisation and open economy. As some analysts indicate, numerous protests are indicative of a strengthening movement against the growing economic interdependence, competition, movement of capital and increasingly rapid technological changes. There are several reasons why antiglobalisation protests have become more frequent in recent years and why they are particularly targeted against the WTO.

The end of the Cold War put an end to the division of the world’s countries into conflicting ideological blocs, while reforms in Central and Eastern European countries have upset many people’s illusions about the benefits of the Socialist system. The geopolitical situation during the Cold War had generated wide public support for the capitalist system in Western countries. Such support was reinforced by the collapse of the Socialist system. Some observers even felt tempted to declare “the end of history.”

But a new feature of this epoch started taking shape soon after – heightened attention to international economic and other nonmilitary issues, driven by the rapidly developing means or transport and communication. However paradoxical this may sound, there would be no protests against globalisation, or they would be much weaker, if their organizers and participants did not use the main fruits of globalisation – the Internet and cheap international travel. As the organizers of the protest actions in Seattle confessed, they owed their success in organizing such massive demonstrations and in drawing the media’s attention to the Internet. Before any significant international forum takes place, new websites are published, offering to enroll in protest marches and spreading information about travel routes and accommodation options.

So far, the WTO has been the primary target of protests. According to various estimates, 3,000 to 10,000 people took part in the street protests during the Seattle forum. The WTO is often regarded to be the icon of globalisation, so it draws most of the criticism. It has been accused of evils, starting with the impoverishment of poor countries and exploitation of workers and ending with destruction of the environment. This focus on the WTO can be explained by the relative weight of this organization in determining economic policies in various countries, as compared with the less influential international organizations dealing with environmental and labour issues. Another two reasons are the erroneous attribution of various evils to the activities of this organization, as well as the aim to restrict international trade and the competition it creates.

The groups dissatisfied with the WTO can be relatively categorized into environmentalists, trade unions and defenders of poor countries. It is these groups of non-governmental organizations that often present the most “attractive” arguments and are seeking to influence the national governments. Environmentalist organizations, such as Friends of the Earth, claim that the WTO and international trade are responsible for environment pollution. This is in spite of some far more weighty arguments showing that trade, by encouraging innovation and exchange in higher technology, makes it possible to minimize the damage caused to the environment. Trade can indeed increase the price of the environmental policy: for example, if farmers are not prevented from polluting rivers, increased exports of their products will contribute to greater pollution. However, in such event, the roots of the problem lie in improper government policies rather than international exchange.

Another group of WTO opponents consists of Western trade unions, which are discontent with increasing competition from other countries (including Central and East Europe) and with “unfair” trade. Driven by their lobby, EU and US leaders are considering including labour issues in the WTO’s agenda.

However, contrary to the claims of such interest groups, international trade encourages job creation and economic growth. If their demands were satisfied, most damage would be sustained not only by the citizens of Western countries, but also by the developing countries which are right in accusing the United States and the EU of unfair protection of their domestic markets. As Indian representatives said in Davos, a reduction of US import duties is far more important for India’s economy than the prospects of the US or EU economic expansion. However, street protests are normally dominated by opposite ideas of the “defenders” of developing countries. After all, there were quite a few people in Seattle who, carrying Japanese camcorders and sipping French coffee, were declaring that trade should be local rather than global.

All the groups protesting against globalisation have one common denominator – their yearning to restrict the movement of goods, services, capital and information. Many of their proposals are mere contradictions in terms, while their influence on the national US and EU governments is questionable.

However, the activities of the interest groups opposing globa-lisation have the effect of a magnifying glass, which unmasks the inconsistent and contradictory economic policies of Western states. Some experts say the best response to such protests would be to pursue consistent policies and to present them to the public in every country. This task also awaits politicians in Lithuania, which is about to join the WTO. So far, Lithuanian politicians have undermined the prospects of consolidating WTO principles in the country, as they have rejoiced publicly over the high level of market protection they have managed to “wing.” They are also advocating the option of restricting trade as one of the advantages of WTO membership. Lithuania’s admission to the WTO can hardly be expected to proceed smoothly unless the country’s interests are separated from those of narrow interest groups and unless efforts are made to openly present the economic consequences of international trade to the public.

Reprinted from the Lietuvos Rytas daily of February 2, 2001