I've been attempting to show that our world has experienced a long history of progress toward unity. But at the same time, during the many years of man's existence, there have been numerous instances of resistance thereto on the part of various persons and forces. Opposition has usually been referenced to, or voiced in connection with, one of four subjects: economics, power, identity or culture, and impracticality. It appears to me that such opposition has usually been: a) less than well-founded; b) capable of correction; and/or c) unworthy of permanence.
* * * * *
ECONOMIC
Opposition to proposals for economic cooperation can include an instance, in 1946, during a period of particular Soviet obstructionism, when a proposal voiced at the United Nations for European economic unity was promptly rejected by Russia. This exemplified the adoption of an obstinate negative reaction on the part of a member of a proposed group. Perhaps attempts to determine and correct the cause of the Soviets' posture--or, in the alternative, exclusion of Russia, at least temporarily, from the anticipated union--might have resulted in the other nations reaping the possibly beneficial effects of that which had been proposed
Not many years later, during the late fifties, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan expressed opposition to involvement of his country in a world role, justifying his opposition with an opinion that such a role would place an unacceptable economic burden upon his nation. This also appears to demonstrate an unnecessarily pessimistic viewpoint; for history has amply proven that participation in joint economic endeavors has more frequently resulted in advantage to all of the parties thereto.
A frequent companion to expressions of disapproval of programs involving international cooperation, particularly to the economic aspects thereof, has been the proverb, "Charity begins at home." This originates in the fact that, despite its impracticality, many continue to subscribe to the sanctity of political boundaries; and thereby consider the interests of their fellow citizens (who may live thousands of miles away) to be more worthy of their concerns than that of people who live across the border (perhaps only a few miles distant).
Economists Robert and Jean Gilpin tell us that "many of the assertions of both proponents and opponents of globalization are either untrue, exaggerated, or just plain silly." (R. and J. Gilpin, The Challenge of Global Capitalism) In recent years, this opposition has included ample demonstrative--even violent--expressions of disapproval concerning worldwide unification on an economic level. As an example, on the occasion of the world economic forum, held at Davos, Switzerland, in January, 2003, police officers with tear gas grenades and water cannons were deemed necessary to preserve the peace and dissuade protesters from attacking delegsates.
A few months later, when a "Group of Eight" meeting was to be held at Evian, France, on the other side of Lake Geneva, the city's merchants boarded up their stores, and left in anticipation of the arrival of groups of demonstrators. Sure enough, they did arrive: "an assorted group--opponents of globalization, big government, sexism, meat-eating, and war, along with environmentalists, human rights advocates, and anarchists." (New York Times, June 1, 2003) In fact the anticipated presence of so many potentially violent groups of demonstrators was said to have discouraged other groups--of peaceful demonstrators and church groups--resulting in a much smaller actual number of demonstrators than had been expected.
It is likely that protest--against attempts to improve societyvia economic relationships and cooperation, as well as just about anything that might be suggested or proposed--is an inevitable phenomenon. There is nothing wrong with people lawfully and peacefully demonstrating their support for, or disapproval of, anything that has been proposed or enacted. However, it has long been my opinion that stronger and more fruitful expressions of such support or disapproval can be presented via other means than gathering in large groups in the streets with signs and shouts of repetitious exclamations. Meaningful dialogue, including with and among supporters as well as opponents of a cause, ought become a substitute for unlawful or violent protest.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment