Mennonite
Central
Committee

Reflections on the economic globalization consultation

By Daryl Yoder-Bontrager, MCC Latin America/Caribbean Co-Director

Although the perspectives aired at this conference sometimes seemed homogenous, the listening committee came up with three distinct positions that did reflect the comments of participants. Engagement, resistance and a new Biblical vision reflect possible responses to the economic globalization. How they are viewed has much to do with how one answers the question of whether to accept the world and work with it or hold out for something better. Two things caught my attention which should factor into our views on globalization no matter the approach one takes to working for change.

First, the importance of self-determination. Although I didn’t hear it mentioned specifically, I interpreted many of the feelings expressed in the conference as having their roots in a lack of self-determination, from a personal to a national level. Among others, Zenayda Tórrez talked calmly, but with an underlying sense of indignation about the treatment of maquila (assembly plant) workers, not able to decide for themselves how fast or how long the wanted to work, or even when they could use the bathroom. Nelson Garcia gave Honduran statistics showing that global economics trump government’s preferred domestic policies. This feeling that the globalized economic system restricts people’s control over their own lives led me to some reflections.

People always react to circumstances which leave them without the ability to make decisions for their own lives. A quick look at our own Anabaptist tradition shows that Anabaptism itself was founded as a reaction to a Catholic church that forced entire populations to join a church over which they had little say. Indeed, choice is a central tenant of the Genesis story. From little up I was taught that the ability to choose is what distinguishes humans from animals. My theology says that even God respects the right to choose, inviting, rather than compelling, people to follow God’s way.

People who feel their self-determination threatened have dealt with it in different ways. Luis Acosta shared how the hunting and gathering indigenous people he works with have taken the new stuff and quietly adapted it to fit into their culture. Their history with the Catholic church shows that they did it quite successfully. Take the saints, lay them like a transparency over the original religion, but underneath the old beliefs remain – changed perhaps, but certainly not lost. The result is an ongoing sense of identity. The groups that Luis relates to have adopted a similar attitude toward economic globalization.

Maybe that’s what I hope for when every month I place an order for fairly traded coffee instead of buying it at the local supermarket. The sellers assure me that by buying fair trade from them I am guaranteeing small coffee farmers a price three to four times higher than if they sold to the name brands. When I make the effort to buy fairly traded coffee I hope that I’m achieving what the indigenous groups did with the Christian church – adapting the system to fit my needs. The coffee is good. By paying a bit more I hope that I really am giving a better living to the coffee producers. I hope that I’m not just being fooled by a system that will eventually gobble up all efforts at giving its producers more self-determination in its relentless hunger for profits.

There is irony in lamenting a lack of self-determination at an economic globalization discussion. Globalization is supposed to be the final triumph of capitalism. Capitalism is an article of faith for the world’s economic powers precisely because it purports to grant maximum self-determination to those within its system. A communist economic system was anathema to the "free world" because people were told what, how much and where to produce their goods. Let everyone manage their economic affairs in the way that is best for them, said Adam Smith, to the ultimate benefit of all. But something has gone wrong when so much of the world’s population feels enslaved by the very system that preaches that they will be completely free if they will only follow it.

People will rarely embrace for long a plan in which they don’t feel their own control. Underneath the words in this conference one could hear a plea. Let us work in our own way individually and as a nation. Give us the freedom to work it out for ourselves. Sensing this undercurrent reinforced for me again the thought that any response that MCC has to economic globalization, indeed, any program at all, must start by asking whether it will add to or take from a person’s or community’s ability to decide for itself how it will then live.

A second thing which I heard with interest was the emphasis given by several speakers to humility, an odd concept for a self-important topic like economic globalization. In his opening devotional comments Patricio Mora of Nicaragua spoke several times of the need to approach the theme with humility. Luis Acosta from Argentina mentioned humility as characterizing the response of the Tobo indigenous people to economic globalization. Humility may be a more natural theme for some of the participants than for others, particularly those who didn’t feel that they knew much about it or what it meant, but it was a good word to all of us who were there.

Even a fairly homogenous group like this one had many varied ideas of how to engage globalization, although we lacked sufficient time to engage them fully. I came away with the conclusion that no one knows for certain which is the best response. Even though it’s easy for me to zoom in on the downsides of a system that leaves so many people feeling alienated, for all I know a strict free market could still turn out to be the best option. No other option that I’ve heard of seems to answer all the criticisms. That awareness should be enough to keep us humble.

Several times during the conference we were challenged with economic texts from the Bible. Listening to them again served as a reminder that I rarely meet the standards the Bible suggests. Another reminder to approach the subject humbly. I am not sure of the best way to respond to the system. I know that my own life falls short of the principles set forth in my own book of faith. Better to step forward cautiously and evaluate carefully, than to preach loudly the sermon I have today.

After the consultation, as my bus was crawling over the hills of southern Honduras toward El Salvador on pothole filled roads that barely meet the standards of infrastructure required for efficient participation in a free market world, I read an article by Tina Rosenburg titled "The Free Trade Fix." Rosenburg suggests nine rules that could make economic globalization work. She ends her article by saying that "Globalization can begin to work for the vast majority of the world’s population only if it ceases to be viewed as an end in itself, and instead is treated as a tool in service of development."

Economic globalization as tool, not as ideology, is a refreshingly intelligent approach. Tools are not the product. They are there to use as long as they function or until a more efficient device comes along. If there is anything that today’s age teaches us, it is that a better device will come along sooner or later. That lesson should keep proponents, opponents and fence straddlers alike, humble – and searching together for what will work better.

Make a visit to 10 different carpenters and you’ll find 10 different ways to use their tools. No one is telling each carpenter that they must use their tools in exactly the same way. In fact, they visit each other to see what new and better ways of using the tools the other has found. If economic globalization were conceived as such a tool, imagine the things we could learn from each other.