Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

April 22, 2002, 11:05 a.m. Death of a Movement The anti-globalists go anti-American. by William R. Hawkins

he organization I work for, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, used to be part of the coalition that staged "anti-globalization" protests at the meetings of major multilateral institutions. As a broad-based movement, those protests peaked with the disruption of the Seattle session of the World Trade Organization in 1999. Since then, the movement has degenerated rapidly, being dominated more and more by hard-Left activists with an agenda that has alienated support from any respectable quarter.

The USBIC has opposed "globalization" on the traditional conservative grounds of national interest. It is opposed to the assault on the nation-state launched from below by private corporations who want to help China improve its long-range-missile capabilities; or run their own foreign policies with rogue states like Cuba and Iran. And the USBIC worries about the loss of strategic industrial capabilities and mounting foreign debts which have undermined other great nations in the past.

We also wish to guard against any lost freedom of action for the United States in the world arena due to the interference of the United Nations or an International Criminal Court whose foreign bureaucrats are hostile to American values and U.S. interests.

It is clear, however, that the protests that took place in Washington over the weekend, nominally against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were not staged by those whose first concern is how to maintain the economic power and world leadership of the United States.

The weekend protests have little to do even with their proclaimed targets. Mundane problems like the moral hazard of IMF bailouts or the World Bank's history of failed projects were of little interest. There were the usual demands for writing off old third-world debts, to clear the way for running up new debts, but even here passions were waning.

This was an old-fashioned "anti-war rally" for which the Left has been nostalgic since the Soviets collapsed.

There were three main fronts in this anti-war campaign: the Bush administration's "war on terror," Israeli actions on the West Bank, and U.S. aid against the narco-insurgents in Columbia.

Saturday kicked off with a Palestinian Solidarity march, followed by a short, perfunctory protest at the IMF and World Bank. Then the herd moved on to the largest organized event of the weekend, the afternoon "Stop the War" march to the Capitol and rally on the Mall.

Its principle sponsor was Answer (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), a coalition of groups many of which have Cold War pedigrees (from the losing side). "The Answer coalition rejects the opportunistic use by the Bush administration of the tragedy of September 11, to pursue, through military means, pre-existing imperialist objectives" proclaimed its manifesto, promising that Answer "will take a stand against any new war carried out by the Bush administration, whether it's in Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Indonesia or elsewhere....We must stand firmly with the people's struggles of the world." Of course, the main struggle of the people in the countries listed is just to survive day to day under the most brutal tyrants on the planet.

Palestine was the unifying theme Saturday, with the Washington Post reporting that it was "busloads of Arab Americans and their supporters that dominated the streets." Speaker after speaker was more than willing, however, to make common cause with a much-expanded "axis of evil." Sara Flounders, who lobbies against economic sanctions, started the mob chanting "Free Palestine, No War Against Iraq." One aging radical even thought the way to rouse the crowd was to read state department cables from the Kennedy administration condemning Castro's efforts to "end poverty in Cuba." And many speakers embraced North Korea.

Sunday was devoted mainly to protests of U.S. policy in Columbia, though a cold soaking rain cut participation dramatically.

President George W. Bush had welcomed Colombian President Andres Pastrana to the White House a few days earlier. Bush told Pastrana that defeating drug traffickers was part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism. The White House has asked Congress to lift restrictions on aid to Columbia so that future military assistance "shall be available to support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking, terrorist activities, and other threats to [Colombia's] national security." Chief among those threats to Columbia is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a Left-wing insurgency financed by the drug trade.

Add the Bush administration's obvious desire to see the removal of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, a comrade of Castro who has made his country a rear area for FARC, and the prominence of the Columbia track in the weekend protests becomes clear.

Sunday's protests were organized by the National Mobilization on Columbia. Its stated goals "are to end US support for the war in Colombia on all fronts: military, economic and ecological and to close the School of the Americas." The School of the Americas was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation last year. Its mission is to provide U.S. training for Latin American soldiers. The Left sees this as a barrier to revolution, and the NMOC traces its opposition back to the wars in Central America during the Reagan administration. "If the U.S. is serious about eradicating terrorism all over the world, it should start with the terrorists it trains on its own soil," raves a sample letter NMOC urged its members to send to Congress.

NMOC also opposes the eradication of the coca and poppy crops in Columbia, claiming such a campaign is harmful to the biodiversity of the region and its indigenous people. The real danger of drug eradication is to the finances of FARC, of which NMOC is undoubtedly aware.

NMOC tried to disrupt Monday's rush-hour traffic. Given that the normal congestion is already paralyzing, most commuters probably didn't notice. Still, the prospects of urban gridlock gave some radicals a reason to stay over another night.

So did a bit of poor planning. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee was holding its conference starting on Sunday and running through Tuesday, featuring speeches by Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.. Hundreds demonstrated outside the hotel where AIPAC was meeting, chanting '"Stop the killing, stop the crime, Israel out of Palestine" while holding up signs lauding the suicide bombers as "the poor man's F-16." The "peace" movement remains a misnomer. It's not "anti-war," it's just on the other side.

It is clear that the demonstrators were not really "anti-globalists" at all. There were calls for the "international community," the U.N., and even the ICC to curtail the actions of the United States and Israel. This is the old liberal-Left desire for the disarmament of Western nations and the empowerment of "world" institutions to reign over them in the name of the downtrodden elsewhere.

The shift from anti-globalism to anti-Americanism has cost the demonstrators more than just the sympathy of the USBIC. The AFL-CIO — which provided most of the clout in Seattle, has also distanced itself. Union members are patriots. It wasn't by chance that the first flags waving after 9/11 were often from the cabs of pick-up trucks. And many of us still remember the reaction of "hard hats" to the anti-war movement in the 1960s. Even two years ago, the break could be seen when the AFL-CIO made a point of holding its mass protest against expanded trade with China, separate from and before the IMF/World Bank protests.

Tom Hayden once conceded that the greatest weakness of his New Left was its inability to wave the American flag. The anti-globalization movement has collapsed for the same reason.

Yet, a reasoned debate is still needed over how deeply the United States can afford to entangle itself in "globalist" arrangements of economic interdependence and institutional constraints while still maintaining its national power and freedom of action. Now that the Left has again marginalized itself with flag burnings, the rest of us can focus on what America needs at the dawn of the 21st century to sustain its dominant position in the world system.

— William R. Hawkins is senior fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, Washington, DC.