ABSTRACT
The GJM rose out of the stagflation and lower rates of profit experienced in the Global North by the late 1970s. The 1979 recession in the USA and record oil prices combined to create an economic crisis across much of the Global South. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and theWorld Bank (WB), as lenders of last resort, offered many crisis-ridden states debt relief but with conditions attached to their loans. As the name implies, these creditor demands were understood as “structural adjustment programs” (SAPs). These macro-economic policies included austerity measures including radical cuts in governmental subsidies for food and energy. Societies already troubled by hyper-inflation were devastated by the new cuts giving rise to “IMF riots,” which were the precursors to “anti-globalization” movements. SAPs typically also included fire sales of state-owned enterprises, national mineral resource privatization, weakened labor unions (euphemistically praised as “flexible labor markets”), capital market liberalization, lowered tariffs, and deregulation. The policies were significant for enabling the process of global economic integration and neo-liberal globalization, but they also caused tremendous social dislocations. The critiques of neo-liberal globalization multiplied on a number of fronts. In brief, besides
the rising inequalities within and between nations, activists and some academics note that it “privatized profits and socialized the risk,” national resource endowments were sold at the expense of the citizenry, it put workers in a weaker position (decline of unions, lower wages, more employment insecurity), it enabled quick exit for foreign capital and firms, and international bodies now adjudicate domestic economic, environmental, and social disputes. Environmentally, deregulation allowed for rapid exploitation of natural resources with less regard for the long-term impact of extraction processes. Easy exit made it more difficult for states to hold corporations accountable for damages incurred in resource extraction. States have also increasingly lost their ability to guarantee food sovereignty or even prohibit
the production of genetically modified crops. Trade agreements and IMF/World Bank policies also endangered indigenous lands through resource exploration and exploitation. Many feminists argue that economic globalization and its effects reinforce patriarchy, shifting more work onto women as men become redundant or underemployed due to the new economic orientation. Cuts in state programs and protections often make women’s lives more burdensome and diminish their ability to resist further oppressions.Many critics of neo-liberal globalization also document decreases in social provisions even as police and military budgets remain high to respond to domestic unrest and border disputes often created by SAPs or competition over resources. Finally, many GJM activists consider this form of economic globalization as imperialistic because of the imposition of policies from above with little democratic input from below, because it perpetuates the cleavage between developed and less-developed nations, because of the opaque decision-making structure of theWorld Trade Organization (WTO), IMF, andWB, and because it imposesWestern values and models onto the Global South. Opposition to SAPs was spasmodic at first but political parties, movements, and organiza-
tions soon rose at the local and national levels to put pressure on respective states to ameliorate the decline in economic rights and increasing deprivation. In general, linkages between national movements were very weak until after the mid 1990s when a number of factors combined to deepen the linkages, raise abilities for coordination and build stronger solidarities between movements. One of the most powerful factors was that multinational corporations pried markets open wider. Local activists targeted multinationals and discovered that other people were fighting the same struggles and corporations elsewhere, creating the grounds for networks and solidarities for collective action against companies such as Monsanto,Pfizer,Nike, Vivendi, Occidental Petroleum, Chevron,Wal-Mart and Coke. During the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round, the
World Trade Organization was established. Instead of the GATT’s loose and negative regulatory institution for trade agreements, a positive and proactive institution began to oversee trade. While the WTO did give developing nations a timetable for implementation of liberalized trade in manufactures, it also put in place stricter protections for other areas of trade including intellectual property to the advantage of the developed nations. The Uruguay Round and the WTO failed to reach substantive agreements on agriculture because of the power of domestic agribusiness, farmers, and peasants to limit their governments’ designs. Their opposition began to take on a transnational character as early as 1992 when farmers from Latin America, Europe, and Asia protested at Geneva and Strasbourg against the GATT talks (Edelman, 2003). In the same year that theWTO was established, the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) went into effect. The new trade regime, like other neo-liberal policies, created significant opposition. Arguably, the origins of the GJM lay in the transitional Zapatistas (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional or EZLN). They opposed the regional deployment of neo-liberal policy in their strident criticism of NAFTA. The agreement threatened multinational exploitation of Chiapas and the lives and culture of its Indigenous people. More to the point, the Zapatistas called for a meeting of international activists in the Lacandón Forest (Chiapas) for the foundation of a larger web of resistance. In 1996 the First International Encounter for Humanity and against Neo-liberalism agreed that another encuentro should meet in Andalucía, where the participants initiated the Peoples’ Global Action (PGA) that would be formally established in Geneva early in 1998. The Italian Ya Basta! were another spin-off from the encuentros and it, in turn, gave birth to the Tute Bianche whose English cousins were the WOMBLES (White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles).1 All of these movements had several commonalities that differed from earlier social movements. They opposed neo-liberalism and fought against it both within their own borders and, more importantly, on a transnational level. They sought to pressure their own governments but also international institutions of economic management. They also tended to appropriate new telecommunications technology to build networks to share information, tactics, strategies of opposition, and alternative economic practices. These activists have thus created new identities and subjectivities that cut across class, ethnicities, sexuality, race, and culture as a result of collective actions. In parallel fashion, peasants and farmers were also constructing mutual aid and resistance
networks. The most prominent and powerful of these isVia Campesina. This network of farmers and peasants from all over the world started in the same year as the EZLN. It now has over 200 million agricultural producers under its umbrella. It too opposes neo-liberal policies as well asWTO-protected genetically modified seeds and trade subsidies that support corporate farming. As with most other GJM entities, it has alternatives to offer including a platform for food sovereignty, seed banks, and land reform, as well as organic and intensive production methods (rather than extensive industrial agricultural). Finally in 1994, on the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of theWorld Bank and the IMF, a number of groups including Development Gap for Alternative Policies, International Rivers Network, Global Exchange, Oxfam America, Colombian Justice and Peace Office, and the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns founded the “50Years is Enough” campaign. Most of these organizations had been working on various aspects of World Bank and IMF policies. They decided that they would be much stronger working together and, thus, argued for reform of these 1944 Bretton Woods Conference inspired institutions. The promise of coordinated action was reinforced by a series of financial ruptures ending
in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. It was becoming clearer that the IMF/WB were not providing solutions but rather promoting policies for the benefit of large investors, corporations, and
the international financial system. The legitimacy of these institutions began to be questioned by more than just the subject populations but also many mainstream economists and policymakers, including the US Congress. In the midst of the Asian crisis, the first flowering of international mass mobilizations began against institution-driven economic globalization. During 1998, regional conferences were held in India to protest against theWTO; in Canada, workers and activists marched against the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development’s Multilateral Agreements on Investments; the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais SemTerra (MST – LandlessWorkers Movement) held a 50,000 strong march on Brazilia; and in Geneva thousands protested at the headquarters of theWTO. The PGA estimated that over a million people had participated in some form of opposition to theWTO in the first weeks of May. A little over a year later it organized “carnivals against capitalism” in most of the world’s financial centers to coincide with the meeting of the G8. The critical mass of popular forces that would shut down the SeattleWTO was picking up steam. One example of this momentum was the formation of United Students Against Sweatshops
in the USA less than one month after the first PGA demonstrations. This US organization of college or university chapters campaigns by individual campus on a host of issues. They have been at the forefront in targeting multinational corporations for exploitative labor practices as well as educating and mobilizing students. At almost the same moment, on the other side of the Atlantic, Association pour la Taxe Tobin pour l’Aide aux Citoyens (ATTAC) was formed in opposition to the ongoing liberalization of capital markets by the IMF.2 In response to the bombing of Serbia, European activists including Ya Basta! organized a number of marches and a caravan on the continent to oppose theYugoslav wars as well as the prisons for migrants to Europe who had been pushed off the land by economic globalization and drought. In Asia a group of Korean activists organized the “People Challenging the IMF:Neo-liberalism, the IMF and International Solidarity” conference in Seoul for September 1998. Early in the summer of 1999 the Jubilee 2000 (a solidarity network of over 75 organizations from 40 countries) created a human chain around the US Treasury calling on it to push for the cancellation of Global South debts owed to the IMF andWorld Bank. At the G8 Summit in Cologne activists formed another human chain and solidarity rallies were held in London, Latin America, and Africa. By the fall of 1999, José Bové led his comrades from the Confédéracion Paysanne in the
dismantling of a McDonald’s in Millau, France to highlight aWTO-sanctioned US surcharge on Roquefort cheese produced in the town. However, the movement’s iconic moment was beginning to take shape. Central to organizing the Seattle protests against the WTO was the Direct Action Network, Earth First!,Rainforest Action Network, and the Ruckus Society who trained a good number of the activists in non-violent direct action techniques. The “Battle of Seattle” helped convince delegates from the Global South that the WTO was detrimental to their people but also it did not have the solid support of people in North America. Seattle was a crucial success for GJM because it demonstrated the possibility of mass mobilizations to alter the best-laid plans of corporations and governments. TheWTO, the Seattle police, the Secret Service and broad swaths of the press fabricated an argument that the activists were violent because a small segment of the groups damaged property. The activists pointed out that the WTO et al. were violent against people both as a consequence of their policies but also as the police used tear gas, pepper spray, truncheons, and rubber bullets to clear the streets. Despite clear intentions of non-violence by activists, the forces of the status quo increased their militarization and internationalized their techniques. As with other global actions, the Seattle protest was not confined to one location: 75,000 marched in various French cities, protests were also registered in Manila, Bangalore, Berlin, and all over the British Isles. Seattle confirmed the convergence of many networks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and even some
labor unions. This power was extended to many of the delegations from the South who used it as leverage in negotiations and refused to agree to another round ofWTO protocols. Yet, even in the face of a clampdown, the new millennium carried forward the momentum
of GJM. The next large demonstration was “A16” (April 16), in Washington DC as the IMF andWorld Bank held talks. Even prior to the actions, the police and fire departments invaded convergence centers and shut down workshops where potential weapons of mass distraction were being crafted: papier-mâché puppets, protest signs, banners, and the like. A month later Quebec hosted elite discussions for a hemispheric free-trade zone for the Americas (FTAA). While opposition had grown exponentially, the forces of corporate capital and neo-liberalism were undaunted. Canadian authorities in preparation for mass demonstrations built a minifortress of chain-link fences, turned activists back at the Canadian-US border, adorned full-combat gear, and suspended civil liberties. Riots followed where over 4,500 people were tear-gassed with chemicals that police would later admit were experimental. In solidarity actions, 1,800 protested in Sao Paulo. They too suffered from police repression. Two months later, the Swedish police not satisfied with the Canadian model used live
ammunition to beat back demonstrators at the EU summit. The increased state violence of Quebec and Göteborg (Sweden) may have encouraged the Italian police. They drew on the tradition of Mussolini in their designs for the G8 meeting in Genoa. In this very large demonstration of more than 200,000 demonstrators from all over Europe,walls were again constructed to eliminate the potential for democratic input. The carabinieri (military police) used agent provocateurs dressed as Black Blockers to smash banks, and make crowds seem more menacing. The carabinieri also drove marches into dead-end streets, invaded independent media centers, and even arrested their own elected officials. They detained GJM activists with no charges, used humiliation, intimidation, and torture. In sum at least 600 protesters were injured and, unfortunately, a young carabineri killed an Italian protestor. Thereafter, international meetings of financial and political elites were often cordoned off or held in remote areas from Evian to Doha to Kananaskis. Governments cooperated on repressing broad democratic expressions. For example, in preparation for Evian 2003, the Swiss government invited both German and French police to join them in Geneva. International economic institutions also adjusted their public pronouncements but have not, as yet, reformed most of their policies. The actions in the developed nations had parallels in the rest of the world. In Bolivia protests
exploded as the Banzer government extended WB prescriptions to privatize the economy including water services. In Cochabamba the sole bid for a water works was from a subsidiary of Bechtel Corporation who promptly raised rates by 35 percent. The exorbitant rate sparked massive protests organized by the La Coordinara (Coalition in Defense ofWater and Life) that led to violent repression. As an international outcry spread, the Bolivian government was forced to roll back charges only to be sued by Bechtel for lost profits. Bechtel eventually chose to settle the case for a nominal fee in 2006. Elsewhere in South America, in Quito and various other places in Ecuador, people took to the streets in January 2001 against IMF austerity measures implemented by Gustavo Noboa. CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) was at the head of the protests that echoed the previous year’s demonstrations that deposed the Jamil Mahuad government. Noboa was forced to make significant adjustments to austerity measures but stayed in power with military backing. Likewise, South Africans organized against the privatization of electricity with the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, and a month later the Anti-Privatisation Forum formed in response to Igoli 2002, an African National Congress program informed by neo-liberal inspired IMF andWorld Bank policies. As popular oppositions gained strength, activists and intellectuals sought an arena to articu-
late and promote the positive and constructive agenda of the GJM that was often left out of
media reports. Further, they sought an outlet to expose the misconception that “there is no alternative” to neo-liberal economic globalization.Rather they showcased debates on the many alternatives. The First World Social Forum (WSF) held in 2001 chose the motto that indeed “AnotherWorld is Possible.” The subsequent forums bring together activists, NGOs, intellectuals, and social movement representatives to debate alternatives, share strategies, build coalitions, and deepen solidarities. The Forum has grown exponentially both at its annual meetings and in the proliferation of national and local forums (see below). The US “war on terror” in response to the crime of 11 September stalled many GJM mobi-
lizations as the networks debated the proper response, even as the Bush administration went into high-gear in planning a rollback of civil rights in the USA. One exception was the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002 in Johannesburg.While corporations tried to carry their agenda for “public-private” development plans inside the conference, activists who wanted alternatives to privatizations marched in the streets in the tens of thousands. They revealed to the international press through interviews and meetings the terrible conditions of poverty, lack of clean water, sanitation, health care, electricity, and other necessaries of life.While activists chose not to protest in September 2001, they began to formulate plans for stopping large-scale US military operations. The GJM was significantly altered, possibly distracted, but also strategically fortified. It had successful removed the façade of multi-lateral action by the USA and many world leaders now had to fear for the sovereignty of their nations. The rising use of US military power depleted its soft power including its leadership in international institutions. Despite the focus on war, global justice activists continue to apply pressure at international
meetings including the G8 meeting at the very exclusive Evian, but more importantly local struggles also continue including the MST, South African squatters, Indian Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA – Save Narmada Movement) damn site occupations, pro-immigrant rights demonstrations, Nigerian strikes against the oil industry and government, and a host of other critiques of ongoing neo-liberal policies across the world. In 2003 the opposition to neo-liberalism had become more powerful.Yet, the Global North
had not reformed in response. Their own economic policies especially in the area of large farm subsidies persisted in being hypocritical. Hence,WTO meetings at Cancun were troubled from the start as many nations from the Global South refused to budge on the agenda presented by the North. Added to the intramural divisions was a large manifestation that was precluded from confronting and dialoguing with delegates who were safely cocooned by fences, private security forces, and the Mexican military. Some infiltrators did make it into the meetings and protesters breached the wall only to sit down in silent remembrance of the South Korean agronomist Lee Kyung Hae who took his own life at the head of a march of over 15,000 farmers from all over the world in the previous days. The ministerial talks ended in failure as a number of delegates walked out. TheWTO has
made little or no headway in securing any new agreements.Moreover, high commodity prices and fiscal austerity has increased current account surpluses in many countries in the Global South. In part, they have been insuring themselves against future attacks on their currency but also from IMF conditionalities. In effect, the IMF has lost much of its legitimacy even in the face of the European Debt Crisis. The appointment of PaulWolfowitz, one of the architects of the IraqWar, as president of theWorld Bank, further undermined the credibility of the institution and its appointment process.Wolfowitz tried to increase the anti-corruption policies of the Bank but found himself involved in a personal corruption scandal and was eventually forced to resign. In his place, Robert Zoellick, the former free-trade crusader as the US Trade Representative, was appointed to the vacated seat. The current president, Jim Yong Kim, has
addressed some of the criticisms of the Bank with a greater emphasis on anthropocentric analysis, reports, and communications indicating the bank’s recognition of declining public support. The delegitimation of the international financial institutions (IFI:WTO, IMF, and World
Bank) has changed the focus of GJM but it has not been its undoing. Social movements and NGOs gained considerable leverage in domestic politics across the globe. They have a greater influence on some of their governments as they have forced open the political process. In some cases they pressed their governments hard but were unable to stop what they have considered inimical state policies or actions. For example, in Guatemala, opponents of the Central American Free Trade Agreement shut down the Congress for several days in 2005 before the military was sent in to crush the demonstrators. During the 2006 Mexican presidential elections, Lopez Obrador nearly defeated Felipe Calderon running on an explicit rejection of much of the NAFTA accords. In other countries, huge demonstrations attempted to sway governments from agreeing to bilateral and regional free-trade agreements including: Peru (2006, 2008 – four farmers killed), Panama (2006), Colombia (2006), South Korea (2006-8), Philippines (2007-8), Japan (2007), and Mexico (2008). In 2008 50,000 Senegalese turned out to oppose the Economic Partnership Agreement with the EU; several thousand in Ougadougou (Burkina Faso) joined them. In some states the explicit opponents of neo-liberal policies, aligned with GJM activists, have
been voted into office. Nestor Kirchner was elected president of Argentina in 2003 with less than 30 percent of the vote. His popularity skyrocketed to over 85 percent when he refused to repay IMF loans and was able to have them reduced to about 25 percent of their face value. His wife has succeeded him in office. Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales was an indigenous activist who participated in campaigns for farmers to grow their traditional crop of coca and against the privatization of water before becoming the executive in 2005. In Ecuador, Raphael Correa was elected president in 2006 on a platform rejecting free trade agreements. Hugo Chavez, well known for his opposition to IFI, was re-elected twice and his party continues to hold power. Daniel Ortega ran on an anti-free trade platform though he has since given his support to CAFTA. These governments as well as those of Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay funded an alternative to theWorld Bank and IMF, the Banco del Sur in 2013.
