Globalization is usually understood as a process in which barriers (physical, political, economic, cultural) separating different regions of the world are reduced or removed, thereby stimulating exchanges in knowledge and goods. Globalization allows freedom of movement (liberalization), and to most people this seems positive. Globalization also promotes mutual reliance. As the number of exchanges of goods and of information increase, the result is a growing interdependence between countries as they come to rely on various imported products, services, and cultural input. However, there is another side to globalization that is less savory. In the absence of barriers, globalization invites the strong to invade the territory of the weak, opening the door to wholesale exploitation. In economic terms, what this amounts to is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; in environmental terms, it means the accelerated destruction of the planet's biosphere.

Although globalization is a frequently heard word these days, it is not really a new phenomenon. In the past, various waves of 'globalization' occurred, usually within an imperialist framework. The Macedonians under Alexander the Great, for example, expanded their trade to many countries in the far and middle east. The Macedonian empire was short-lived, however; not long after Alexander's death, the empire collapsed. The expansion of the Roman Empire fueled a longer wave of globalization. For almost 500 years, the Romans traded throughout Europe and much of North Africa. But nothing in the past was ever as extensive, as truly 'global', as the latest wave of globalization.

The current wave of globalization dates from just after WWII. Before World War II, the USA had always been a protectionist nation. It maintained trade barriers in the form of high tariffs, isolating itself to promote the development of domestic industries. This policy was clearly a success because by the beginning of World War II the U.S. had achieved the greatest productive capacity on the planet. When the U.S. declared war on Germany in 1941, this superior productive capacity was applied to the manufacture of military weapons, such as tanks and aircraft, and by 1945, the U.S. had emerged victorious over both Germany and Japan.

With Germany and Japan defeated, and with England and Russia significantly weakened, the United States was by far the dominant economy in the world at that time (as it still is today), and there was little need for it to continue a protectionist policy. Furthermore, victory had allowed the U.S. to install occupation forces in both Germany and Japan which gave it political leverage over those countries. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy had reached the point at which it hungered for new markets to take advantage of an ever-growing productive capacity. The time was ripe for the U.S. to emerge from its isolationist-protectionist posture and adopt a policy of free trade.

In 1947, with the U.S. providing the momentum, a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) was signed by 23 countries. The countries agreed to reduce their tariffs on various products to stimulate free trade. In subsequent years, more countries entered into the GATT agreement, and with each new round of talks, more tariff reductions were negotiated. By the time of the conclusion of the Uruguay round in 1994, most tariffs had been abolished or were scheduled to be abolished.

The Uruguay round of GATT went further than just abolishing tariffs, though. It was perceived that there were other barriers to trade besides tariffs, such as health and safety standards and ownership provisions which varied from one country to another. At the Uruguay round of GATT talks, it was decided to establish a permanent organization which would have the power to arbitrate in the case of disputes concerning indirect trade barriers, the goal being to eliminate such barriers. This organization was named the World Trade Organization (WTO... OCM in French).

Most people were not really aware of the potential power of the WTO when it was first formed in 1994, but they soon had their wake-up call. In the first trade complaint to be resolved by the WTO, the regulations within the United States Clean Air Act (which forced oil companies to ensure that their gasoline satisfied certain pollution standards) were deemed to be in violation of the WTO code. The WTO gave the U.S. government a choice: remove the regulations or accept a fine of 150 million dollars per year to compensate companies for loss of profits. The US government changed the law, and the case became a standard pattern for the WTO: when democratically established regulations designed to protect health or the environment are in conflict with business interests, business interests prevail.

Every WTO decision to date has confirmed this. When the European Union (E.U.) banned beef containing artificial hormones, the U.S. agricultural industry complained and forced the E.U. to comply. WTO decisions are not always in the United States' favor. In 1995, U.S. environmentalists, concerned about the unnecessary slaughter of dolphins caught in tuna fishing nets, succeeded in having clauses added to the Marine Mammal Protection Act which were designed to protect the dolphins by regulating the type of nets that could be used to fish tuna. Soon afterwards, however, the WTO undid their efforts under pressure from the international fishing industry. So when the WTO resolves disputes, it is not really one country or another which comes out the winner; the winner is big business.

How did the WTO amass the kind of power that allows it to overrule the democratically established laws of its member nations? The answer is that politicians representing the countries which belong to the WTO surrendered sovereign rights voluntarily when they signed on to the WTO. The next obvious question is: Why did they sign on? Simply because they get elected with money from big business, and big business benefits from a strong WTO.

The WTO is effectively an instrument of the most powerful segment of the business world: the transnational corporations (TNCs). TNCs are anxious to see free trade extended, because it opens up large, unprotected markets in which they can enjoy the cost advantages of large-scale production. Without the cushioning effect of tariffs, small domestic companies find themselves unable to compete, and many of them end up being bought up and absorbed into larger TNCs. TNCs also have the advantage of being active in many countries, and therefore they are less vulnerable to fluctuations in any single one. So, for example, a domestic coffee producer in Columbia might go out of business if the harvest fails for a year or two running, but a huge company like Nescafe will only suffer losses in its Columbian branch; elsewhere, the company will in fact make larger profits, because the shortage in Columbia will drive up the world price of coffee.

Perhaps the most important advantage enjoyed by TNCs, however, is their access to different labor markets around the world. Whereas a company based in one country must pay its workers at least the minimum wage of that country, TNCs are free to shop around and to establish their factories in the country that offers them the cheapest labor. The net effect of this is that wages are driven down in poor countries as they compete to attract TNC investments, and at the same time unemployment grows in the industrially developed countries as companies transfer their operations to foreign locations. Advocates of trade liberalization talk about the importance of 'level playing fields', and yet they don't seem worried about the fact that the average worker in the third world makes about 1/16 the income of a worker in an industrially developed nation (see the UNDP Human Development Index of 1998). In spite of the spiralling inequities of this situation, the question of wage imbalances is ignored at the WTO.

Globalization can't simply be stopped, and yet if globalization is left to proceed on its current course, the vast majority of the human race will suffer severe consequences. Pollution, resource depletion, the loss of biodiversity, and the gap between rich and poor are problems that continue to get worse as the industrialized powers relentlessly pursue globalization as a means towards economic growth.

A solution must involve redirecting the process of globalization so that the distribution of wealth becomes less skewed, and so that environmental concerns are given more priority. Yet the WTO, which is doing most of the directing at the moment, is not working towards either of these goals, and it never will be so long as it is primarily an instrument of the TNCs. Change must come through pressure from people who don't have vested interests in TNCs (TNCs employ about 3 percent of the world's workers), which means the vast majority of humanity. Unfortunately, all of the major media are controlled by TNCs, and the information which they disseminate presents conflicting views designed to discourage or to marginalize activism. Most people are therefore incapable of action. Either they are unaware of what is going on, or they are too confused or too fearful to do anything about it.

People must be made aware of the dire consequences of growth-oriented globalization. They must be reminded of the obvious fact that there are limits to economic growth on this planet, and that at some point sustainability must take precedence over economic exploitation. Evidence suggests overwhelmingly that that point has already been reached. Nevertheless, TNCs continue to amass wealth at the expense of the environment and the rest of humanity. It is up to these last to make their voices heard, and to do it quickly. To sit back is to court disaster.