There are countless issues worthy of attention today, across the board, from one corner of the globe to the next. For civilization, to achieve and then maintain justice, security and order, all would be important of course, and within these, some issues seem to stand out as critical, begging priority. Overall human rights and equal rights would top the list, then you would have the world economy and down the list would be globalization concerns such as sovereignty, jurisdictional matters and associated trade issues. Since I’m already addressing human rights, equal rights and globalization in my webpage Battle Stations, it seems appropriate the world economy should be dealt with next.

Yes, it can be said that the world economy is as important as anything else. After all, if the world was starving, all other issues would seem irrelevant. Even though a short article can't fully address the world economy, all that surrounding the various currencies, rates of exchanges and specific trade issues, nonetheless a brief overview can still be enlightening. I'm limited to presenting a brief overview anyway because I’m not an economist, but for this... I don't need to be.

It is said the world economy is so incredibly complex that only a handful of people in the world can fully comprehend it. The most difficult part is fathoming the ripple effects for every action. If that is true, then it follows many policymakers are probably pushing buttons without fully realizing the consequences. It is apparent world economic policies, collectively and jurisdictionally, are based on a ‘patch mentality’... that is, just keep plugging holes. In lieu of a foundation with solid footing, substituting instead are those international agreements and understandings serving as a temporary foundation. This makes negotiations the only alternative available to these policymakers. What constitutes ‘solid footing’ is relatively simple, it requires uniformity. Perhaps at this particular stage in our development as a civilization, that is, with all the various currencies still in circulation and with the various authorities and ideologies, there is simply no choice but to patch and make adjustments… this means negotiations are necessary. By 'negotiations' I mean the act of bargaining trade issues and economic understandings (through treaties for example).

Within this patching process (negotiations) there can exist countless precarious situations and inequities, even pitfalls. The greatest pitfall is the natural tendency to jockey for position, make the best deals and ultimately… to ‘win’. To win is a natural desire, something humans strive for everyday in one way or another. When it comes to the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings, we see this in action. Every advantage is sought and the biggest exporters, always trying to out-muscle each other, has the effect of forcing everyone else to the same competitive level. It's a situation whereby the disadvantaged third-world countries, which, without the resources and economic clout, are losing out and falling further behind. Some can't even afford to field a bargaining delegation. Positioned somewhere in-between the U.S. and the EU in this wrestling match is Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, Brazil and China and because of America’s trade deficits, Japan and especially China may hold some trump cards and are assuredly affecting outcomes. They'd have leverage, you see. It's also a matter of 'dumping' in an attempt to control the market. Third-world countries can't afford to dump their products nor would they have leverage.

So, could something be done to overcome the resulting inequities as seemingly allowed within the current system? Assuredly it’s possible and assuredly the third-world countries are trying to solve their dilemma every waking minute. After all, they’re up against negotiators with much more leverage, an incredibly powerful tool, but it boils down to something more basic, it’s because we live in a world where everyone wants to win. Winning too often however, can be dangerous.

The current process under which the WTO operates, that is, negotiations (for all that entails), the facts say it is a situation whereby the rich countries get richer and the poor, poorer. Yet negotiations themselves, normally considered a healthy function basic to the principles of free enterprise, the use of leverage can often make a mockery out of fairness. How much 'pressure' is fair pressure? At any rate, the WTO says it is (quote) "the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business" (unquote). While such an organization is necessary, nonetheless it's obvious something must be inherently wrong with the WTO. It's an unfair system, far too many claim, as nations such as India, Argentina, Venezuela and even Brazil are threatening to pull out. While 'negotiations' is serving as the poster-boy for the WTO, representing fairness one would think, apparently that is not the reality. It seems the unfair use of leverage is the culprit... the limits of which legalese cannot describe. No, legalese can't describe how much you love your spouse either. It's amazing how much mankind must rely on 'good faith'.

So, is taking advantage of a bargaining position an ethical matter? I think it depends on the extent ... certainly if by means of intimidation and threats. Even 'implying' that a particular position could affect other trade issues and programs would be unfair. In short, tying them in. To the extent possible, I think all trade issues should stand on their own to be legitimately fair... otherwise it could amount to economic blackmail. The WTO dilemma lies within the likelihood those countries with the advantages will surely not voluntarily cede them. As a result, what would seem to be a very predictable scenario is that many, if not all, third-world countries will eventually pull out, upsetting the entire world economy… by regionalizing it. However, perhaps not a bad idea, it may turn out to be a healthy situation in the long run. And, to everyone's delight, it might also strangle some transnational corporations out of existence, those guilty... those who champion excessive greed.

It seems to me, in the interests of globalization, these third-world countries should be pacified and to the full extent fair play allows to keep globalization on track. That sounds like I’m in favor of globalization doesn’t it? Well, actually I don’t like anything uniform or regimented but it seems inevitable. Yet within the process of creating a single world authority there exists a great opportunity for egalitarianism. If the third-world countries should pull out of the WTO and set-up their own regional economies, it would send a powerful message… that indeed the concerns of all must be taken into account before globalization can succeed.

As it stands now, globalization, as an ideal, is nothing more than a house of cards. If the powers-that-be truly want to see it become a reality, they need everyone onboard... and we common folk would be more receptive to the idea of globalization in exchange for guaranteed human rights. A one-world government doesn’t have to be a bad thing you know; it could be a very good thing for world justice and peace. As I’ve outlined in my webpage Battle Stations, we first need a ‘perfect’ constitution prepared beforehand for that occasion, one perfectly clear with teeth whereby encroachments upon human rights would carry the harshest of penalties... penalties, by the way, are something the American Constitution lacks. In other words, no perfect constitution, no globalization.

It should be recognized the most likely scenario for the next 100-200 years is not an ‘official’ one-world government but rather a de facto one-world government. And, dependent upon economic positions and the outcome of wars, countries might take turns being the head honcho. Unfortunately this would have the effect of stringing out the prospects for human rights as should universally exist. America's chances? Not so good since Adam Smith's tenet 'all new wealth comes from the soil' was dismissed as folly and abandoned... since America began to bean-ball its farmers aground. In 1950 there were 5-1/2 million American farmers, now there is less than 2 million... less than the pre-Civil War days of 1860. Conversely, Brazil understands this relationship between soil and wealth and could be, within 50 years, the next economic powerhouse.  

Meanwhile, until this one-world government becomes a reality, we will continue to see the world economy negotiated because there is no alternative yet. While I suppose some credit is due the policymakers, that is, somehow they’ve managed to keep things from totally collapsing of late, they should recognize that their ‘patching’ must include rectifying economic injustices... otherwise disaster looms. While the causes for economic meltdowns in the past were understood in hindsight, today, it should be obvious beforehand this is the greatest threat to economic stability... as the number of desperately poor third-world countries continues to grow.

A.O. Kime

Resource Box: © A.O. Kime (2003) A.O. Kime is a retired farmer and author of two books plus 70+ articles on ancient history, spiritual phenomena, political issues, social issues and agriculture which can be seen at http://www.matrixbookstore.biz
email: allen@matrixbookstore.com