Davos to Durban

Economic and social globalisation go hand in hand

The ongoing United Nations conference in Durban against racism and related intolerance has given rise to an intense debate at home, centering on whether casteism ought to be recognised in international fora as racial discrimination. In the welter of arguments and counter-arguments, what has gone largely unnoticed is the hypocrisy of those riding the anti-globalisation bandwagon. Those picketing international meets at Seattle, Davos et al find fault with globalisation ie the integration of individual nations’ economies and the consequent rise in cross-border economic and technological linkages. Their concerns stem from the purported loss of national sovereignty at the hands of global organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Their long-standing refrain has been that these bodies, run by a select group of unelected officials, frame universal rules which trample over national laws and interests. Regularly, non-governmental organisations vent their ire, through non-violent as well as violent means, at such institutions.

In, Durban however, NGOs have no qualms about utilising a global institution, the UN, for pushing through their anti-establishment agendas. For instance, the Indian dalits want the international community to exercise pressure over the government over the treatment meted out to them at home. Those representing the Romas (gypsies) want to draw attention to social injustices suffered by them at the hands of fellow Europeans. The American civil rights groups look to the UN to provide a fillip to their national movement. The common thread that binds them is the desire to harness multilateral intervention, irrespective of domestic national constraints or policy. The point is, if a Davos is to be maligned for all it stands for, so should a Durban. Discussing racism at a global forum, endorsing the framing of global, universal (one-size-fits-all) rules at the hands of another bunch of unelected bureaucrats, subsequent imposition of obligations upon member nations — often, irrespective of domestic opinion — is fundamentally akin to discussing trade liberalisation at the WTO. Indeed, economic and social globalisation,whether carried out by the WTO or the UN, are two sides of the same coin. Manipulating the anti-globalisation movement to suit their own ends will only make NGOs seem less credible than they already do.