Issues / Democracy & Governance
The reverberations from the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 enmeshed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in a major legitimacy crisis over its recently assumed mission to promote free capital mobility around the globe.
Since September 11, the United Nations has gained a rare prominence in Washington's calculations.
Instead of taking the opportunity for dialogue, rich countries have offered little or nothing to address the concerns of African and other developing countries.
The objective of this discussion paper is to examine in broad terms the emergence of a transnational citizen movement opposed to the current forms of global economic governance, while providing sketches of main analytical tendencies within this diverse movement.
The policies of the IMF are not only backed by the U.S. government and its allies, but also by powerful elites in low-income countries. Yet the economic case for change is overwhelming
The U.S. is now officially among the few countries in the world not formally committed to the fight against racism.
Let us take as a starting point that the broadly consensual strategy and basis for self-activity in what we can term Global Justice Movements is the following: to promote the globalization of people and halt (or at minimum radically modify) the globalization of capital.
The U.S. could have made a strong, positive impression by sending its African-American Secretary of State, a descendent of slaves, and making a forceful stand against racism. Instead, it chose to send a low-level delegation.
There is little chance for changing Bush policy on the Middle East with the Democrats outflanking the administration on the right.
What do Fox and Bush mean when they say they want progress on NAFTA?