All Sorts of Legit

Globalization, for many, is something that is both misunderstood and feared. While that fear is largely the result of that lack of understanding, there are many legitimate reasons to be wary of the global marketplace that the WTO is creating. Singer addresses 4 primary complaints against the WTO and, more generally, globalization. These concerns are that economics is the only consideration, that national sovereignty is sacrificed, that the WTO is undemocratic, and that this has and will increase inequality. The one concern that is lurking underneath, which Singer addresses, is legitimacy. For people to buy in to the WTO, they must trust that the WTO's actions match up with its words. Just as it is necessary for American corporations to trust the political, financial, and legal structures in other countries before the corporations is willing to do business in that country, the same holds true for the WTO. While the WTO does not need the support and trust of the citizens of the world since it already has the allegiance of the countries themselves, in order for the WTO to effectively move toward the more fair, globalized economy that it desires, it must have the enthusiasm of all people.

The WTO must be legitimate in that people must be able to understand exactly what the priorities and strategies are. When people demand that the environment or some other non-economic item be given substantial consideration, the WTO must act in accordance with the way it responds to those criticisms as well as to what its charter documents state that it will do. The best example of this is the product v. process policy. While the WTO claims that it will not interfere with a country's attempts to protect the environment as long as it holds foreign and domestic goods to the same standards, that has simply not been the case. While the WTO argues that a governmental regulation regarding process could be used as a protectionist measure, it is completely negating its professed devotion to environmental concerns. While a government could use a process restriction to its advantage, it is more than likely that the process is simply morally reprehensible. One would hope that the WTO policy makers would be intelligent enough to determine if the process restriction falls into the category of legitimate law for a legitimate concern, or a veiled attempt to favor domestic goods. The people, rightly or wrongly, are making that judgment about the WTO. Rather than being honest, it is saying the right things with no follow through for its own benefit; a protectionist measure of its own.

Another factor that puts many people off about the WTO and international organizations in general is that, as Singer states, it regards a government as legitimate as long as that government is in power. This once again marginalizes the importance of the process. Whether a government is democratically elected or it run by an Idi Amin, corporations and organizations are generally going to recognize and trade with the government. While it is impossible for a company to resist the urge to sell when a market exists, it is within a government's power to impose trade embargoes or take other steps to punish 'bad' governments and prevent them from wrongfully taking advantage of resources that belong to the people rather than a general that took power in a coup. This is where international organizations can prove their merit to their detractors, by being proactive and showing that there are values at the core of the organizations. Without being recognized as a legitimate entity, whether it be a government or a trade organization, that body will never be respected unless it is recognized as legitimate by the people it is meant to represent.

First Post

In the first chapter of his book One World, Peter Singer poses the question "To what extent should political leaders see their role narrowly, in terms of promoting the interests of their citizens, and to what extent should they be concerned with the welfare of people everywhere?" Now, the government’s answer to that question seems to be that its citizens are the only people whose interests they should protect. One could argue that our current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a deviation from that allegiance to the American people, but it is for our safety that the government took military action. The fact that the US government only acts in the interest of its citizens is not a failing on the government’s part, but on the citizens.

The American citizens elect politicians to represent their views. The politicians will have very short careers if the decisions they make and the legislation they support while in office conflict with the views of their respective constituencies. While the politicians themselves receive the brunt of the criticism from human rights activists and other groups that fight for the good of the entire world rather than just their country, it is the citizens who are responsible for this shortsightedness.

For globalization to succeed, as Singer points out, we must get passed our nation-state mentality and adopt the view that all the peoples of the Earth are one. Of course, adopting that mentality may mean that some of our fellow Americans will experience poverty, at least temporarily, as the economy adjusts to the changes that this global mentality entails. Still, it is up to us as Americans to embrace this change and demand that our political leaders also adopt this global ideology. While this change is coming, it is more than likely that Americans will prefer to isolate rather than integrate. For the United States to be a leader in globalization, people must learn about the benefits of the changes rather than be fearful of change itself.