Introduction
The 1960s saw a transformation in certain commodities on the global market. This transformation did not only include the many goods that arrived on the global market but also aspects like intellectual property, financial institutions and money capital. From the experiences of these developments, sociologists have been quick to conclude that globalization has become the principal determinant when it comes to talking about social change in our modern epoch. The rate at which states cooperate and depend on one another has also been outstanding especially after the 1960s. Moreover interaction between states in terms of culture has also been great with different levels of interconnection and interdependence becoming a common occurrence between different nation states of the globe. Closely tied to globalization are its accompanying problems like global environmental problems, drug trafficking and refugee problem to name just these. These problems, which appear to be common problems that have been plaguing the entire inhabitants of the world have been, look upon as a strong force of globalization. There are also many networks like the United Nations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and some global social movements which have been put in place as major elements of the globalization epoch.
The strength behind globalization has been so dominant to the extent that it has been commonly held that some states no longer hold the complete autonomy they once had and this situation has made globalization a strong and singular social force. Moreover, after the 1960s, the so called freer world trade became so selective and uneven such that a lot of changes within national policy created an avenue whereby items like agricultural produce, raw material like textile could easily crisscross international borders.[1] However, these changes are not as open as one would expect. For instance most developing countries are still under the bondage of import barriers placed by developed countries for goods like sugar, textile and steel. In addition, the economies of some modern societies and most developing countries of the south have never really been fully integrated as compared to the case of Latin America during the eighteenth century and even England in the nineteenth century.
In fact it is possible to look at the situation based on the perspective that the current international economy is not as open as was the case during the later part of the eighteenth century to the period before World War I. The current trend of events with respect to trade is not as free as has been or was projected. Many social scientists even hold the view that if the social forces behind globalization had followed the existing course when the concept came in to being during the early parts of the 1970s, instead of the global liberation we now have, we would have had a state directed market institution.
The result of has been the coming to play of the anti globalization movement with the aim to check those decisive aspects of the globalization movement, some of which are the strengthening of free trade institutions, the growing loss of power by states to exercise total control over social and environmental legislation. Between the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, there were world systems of globalization like the case of the British global hegemony but there were no social movements or organizations with global tendencies which could help moderate one another during the process of international integration.[2]
This strengthens the position of some social scientists, who are of the opinion that social movements for globalization need to widen their areas of influence and vision if they hope to achieve success. In this respect therefore, the only way to check the excesses of some these free trade movements like the case of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is to create anti globalization movements that covers the entire world so that the movement can spread it tentacle every where to check the activities of these institution. It is as a result of this that a lot of people have credited the anti globalization movement that has the capacity to alter the course of social changes in the years to come.
Some of those Involved and their Goals
Some of these anti globalization groups include the Peoples’ Global Action, the World Social Forum and the Globalize Resistance. What is common about these movements is the fact that they all share a common goal. For instance, they all insist on participants to oppose the World Trade Organization (WTO), free trade, corporate power and international financial institutions like the World Bank, and the IMF. They all claim to support extra-institutional, direct action as a key mode of struggle. In addition the anti globalization movement believes that the diversity of the movement is an essential force of the anti globalization movement.[3] The websites of Peoples’ Global Action, Globalize Resistance and the World Social Forum all indicate that their participants see themselves as part of a wider struggle and explicitly appeal to others identified with that struggle. Although these movements have areas where they differ their identity could only be clearer if they increase communication, negotiation and decision making among participants.[4] Whatever the case complete agreement would still be very difficult to achieve.
As mentioned earlier, the anti globalization movement has its own goals and target and has a strong collective identity with a specific political culture. Anti globalization members or participants have a variety of activities that they get involved in. They strongly oppose multinational corporate power they also strongly reject the dominant principles of modern era capitalism.[5] Anti globalization movement participants stand to support social and environmental justice, human rights and the ideal of democratic participation. Democratic participation is valued sufficiently strongly so that participatory diversity, organizational diversity, and ad hoc organizational arrangements take precedence over organizational hierarchy and enforcement of consistency of ideology and discourses.
A significant portion of the anti globalization movement’s work has been devoted for education with the writing of publications of various kinds and doing some media related work and to meetings where coalition and tactics are discussed in case of anti globalization protests. A sizable share of the work of the movement is in some sense that undertaken by other movements and associated NGOs. The anti-globalization movement, for example, is now endorsed in the publications and on the home pages of a vast array of NGOs and related movements, and these other groups consider themselves to be integral components of the anti-globalization movement.[6] A wide variety of environmental, agricultural, labor, consumer, human rights, animal rights, and related groups now have trade or globalization analyst staffers.
Theories
Various theories have been employed to determine what a movement is all about and to see if the anti globalization movement falls within this realm. One of them has been the social movement theory. The most valued approach in this regards looks at movements in the light of crowd psychology or collective behavior with the area of attention being that of large scale mobilization in the street as the main sign of social dysfunction.[7] Meanwhile theorists like the resource mobilization theorists regard movements like the anti globalization movements as the outcome of a group of individual who have come together to pursue a common goal. The point of attention in this case has to do with impact produced by the availability of social resources in organizations. It is on this basis that, political opportunity theorists lay their case on the changes that occur within the frame work of politics and more importantly on the structure of states.[8] The changes brought about by globalization on states and on movements have thus been analyzed from the perspective of political theorists. In this direction, it becomes possible to find some analysis of the anti globalization movement in particular at times concentrating on those organization closely oriented towards political institutions coupled with the material and cultural resources at their disposal to rally their supporters and drive their message across.[9]
Following all these theories, there seem to be no clear cut or generally accepted agreement on what a social movement is. While some theorists use mobilization as the basis to identify a social movement, others see shared interest as a major element to determine if a group falls within the realm of a social movement. Some theorists even look at rationality others rationality; some emphasize formal organization, others horizontal networks; some institutionally orientated lobbying, others extra-institutional activism.[10] What is specific about this is that it is possible for all these forms of identification to be found in one social movement. In other words, it is possible for all these forms to co-exist within a particular movement. This point is has been made clearer by the Mario Dani who is of the view that although social movements are not organizations, organization can still be part of a social movement.[11]
Protests
The organization of protests against globalization institutions has been an essential part of the anti globalization movement. Countries in the Northern Hemisphere widely believed that the main motive of the anti globalization movement is to organize regular protests by citizens and protesters from countries against institutions in the North like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Much of the protests were also believed to come from countries in the North like the United States of America. However, some of the protest have been occurring in countries in the south like Bolivia, Argentina, Thailand, India, Brazil, and Indonesia. On 1st of May 2000, there were anti globalization protest in about 75 in all the continents of the world. [12]
The role played by protesters has become a central aspect of the anti globalization movement. Protesters have adopted a new strategy whereby they contest the annual meetings of all globalization institutions. The movement now has a broad base of supporters from Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and affiliates. These group of supporters fall under what is known as the Seattle Coalition which was formed during events in the wake of the at the 1999 WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle.[13] The movement depends on a small group intellectual figure to develop a uniform ideology. Among this group of intellectuals are people like Walden Bello, Jose Bova, Vanadana Shiva, Kevin Danaher and Lori Wallach all of whom are linked to one NGO or the other. Some of these NGOs are members of the anti globalization movement and as members, they help to attract sympathizers who visit their websites during protest and in the process spreading the message of the movement across.[14] The AFL-CIO has been a dependable and effective organizer and has a very strong presence at North American anti-globalization protests.
There are a number of ways that protest organizers employ to get their message spread throughout the world. Some of the protests are organized through internet, websites, email and through chat rooms. The advantage of this is that there is no need for a central command and no real resources and bureaucratic requirements are need to organize a protest of this nature. Most of these protest are loosely coordinated like the Initiative Against Economic Globalization in Prague at the September 2000 Prague World Bank/IMF protest, the Anti-Capitalist Convergence of the April 2001 Quebec City Summit of the Americas protest, the Mobilization for Global Justice at the September 2001 World Bank/IMF protest, and the Genoa Social Forum at the July 2001 Genoa G8 summit protest.[15]
When a multiple protest is to be organized, small groups of anti globalization protesters come together to organize traveling road shows and teaching all over the country where the protest is to take place. Cell phones play a vital role as they become the main means of communication of activities during protests. The importance of this is when a protest is properly coordinate using these means, it becomes easy for protesters to put a strong resistance against law enforcement and security officers who usually jump in to disperse protesters.[16] The inclusion of cell phones as an element of protest have greatly speeded up a number of issues within the anti globalization movement making it easier for the movement to forge ahead.
The lack of direct contact among various group tend work against infighting. In fact it is this street aspect of protest that has made Varyrnen (2000) to look at anti globalization movement as transnational movement with multiple and variables and even contradictory trends that in the end sum up to one.[17] In addition about 100.000 people are known to have taken part in protest with some even noted to be professional protest who move from one country to the other to go about with their job. This has made protests of this kind to be looked upon as a series of episodes, a chain of separate but interlinked events.
It is also important to understand that a reasonable number or better still a majority of those considered to be active participants of the anti globalization movement especially those who have been very active in carrying out protest are young people. This makes the movement stronger when it comes to protests because these young people have the necessary strength to resist law enforcement personnel. The participants in this movement are not only young but they are also educated thus putting them in a high social structural profile which is some worth considered as the required standard for the new social movement.
It is important to understand that anti globalization movements draw a lot of press attention especially when it comes to issues related to protest and this has had some impact on the movement. The press has played a determinant role in the nature of specific protests, for instance protests have been known to gain a lot of publicity from the press even when it seems clear that there would be no violence and disruption.[18] This situation has worked in the favor of the movement. More press attention means more people will be there to see how events unfold thereby further intensifying the attention given by the press to protests.[19] It also means the number of supporters who are bound to show up at the scene of action will be on the rise.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Seattle Coalition and t
During the Seattle protest in 1999, which occurred at the WTO Ministerial, the movement got some favorable commentaries from the press after bringing to light issues that attracted world attention.[20] This made the press to produce reports that favored the movement. However, the press has also produced some negative impact on the movement with regards to anti globalization protests. The press some times projects the movement as a group with a reasonable number of angry, antagonistic and violent protesters. The press points to the youthful state of protesters as an aspect that makes protest participants unwilling to go in to any negotiation.[21] In other words youth protesters according to the press would prefer to demonstrate rather negotiate of the rising presence of white supremacist, and anarchist groups; and so on.
In fact the events that took place in Seattle in 1999 happen to be the peak of mass anti globalization protests. The events in Seattle came in response to certain occurrences that had taken place prior to this period. One of these occurrences came in the early part of the 1990s when Mexico launched a complaint against the U.S. to the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT).[22] If GATT had issued an immediate resolution, it would have had some negative impact on the U.S., thus a bilateral negotiation was immediately conveyed with the result that the part of the Marine Mammal Protection Act that banned the importation of tunas produced under the condition that led to the death of dolphins was to be uplifted. The WTO in another complaint also ruled in favor of Venezuela and Brazil following the ban imposed by the U.S. on imported gasoline.[23]
There was equally another ruling by the WTO in 1998 against a U.S. law banning shrimp imports from countries whose shrimp produce killed sea turtles in shrimp nets. Prior to these rulings, trade liberalization groups such as World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, Audubon, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund that stood for trade liberalization rulings stood for the WTO.[24] Meanwhile those who took to defend wild life and conserve nature had always maintained a policy of neutrality towards trade liberalization. Environmental groups welcomed the WTO rulings with a lot of shock especially those groups that had stayed neutral towards WTO principles.[25] This ruling was to prove fatal during the 1999 WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle.
In fact if these environmental protection groups had one lesson to draw from these rulings, it was that domestic environmental laws don’t stand a chance, unless the scope is widen to accommodate the conditions of production of imported goods with the case tuna-dolphins import amendments as a clear example. Another lesson drawn from these was that it became clear that the WTO could push foreign government to revisit domestic environmental laws in certain instances.[26] By the 1990 it was becoming clearer to American environmental groups that the section of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had become ineffective. These developments greatly reshaped the position held by environmental NGOs with regards to globalization and trade liberalization. It is therefore not surprising that in the early months of 1999 moderate environmental groups combined forces with other groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and Public Citizen to oppose corporate globalization.[27] It was these developments that partly led to the anti globalization movement in Seattle in 1999.
Also the financial crisis that occurred in Asia also played a vital role in the events that later culminated to the Seattle protest. This crisis made many to conclude that the IMF gave priority to the protection of investors from Europe and America over the livelihood of the inhabitants of the other continents. The crisis made to understand that the IMF was more concerned with international monetary stability in the IMF, World Bank and the WTO rather the survival of people in the developing countries.[28] In addition when the world became bitter about intense growth in genetically modified food in Europe and East Asia, a new crisis had been created for the WTO. By virtue of the WTO regulations the European Union (EU) seen not to have the powers to regulate the proliferation of genetically modified food.[29] This led to a rise in public sentiments against these new technologies thus pushing the EU to work against the WTO regulations and the American corporate and Federal Government views. This situation pushed many farm groups like the U.S. National Farmers Union and sustainable agriculture organizations to stand up against the WTO and in the process culminating to the events that helped bring the Seattle coalition to light.
The Seattle coalition could be regarded as one of those events that drew a lot of attention to the anti globalization campaign when one considers the magnitude of events. The coalition was made up of some anti globalization groups like the International Forum on Globalization, Global Exchange, and Public Citizen Global Trade Watch. There were also anti globalization and environmental organizations like the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, International Institute for Sustainable Development. Organized labor and consumer groups like the Consumers International and world hunger groups like Oxfam, Development Group for Alternative Policies were all present at Seattle to make their point heard.[30] It is important to understand that many of these groups came from countries in the south.
The Seattle coalition was an extensive one with many groups from around the world holding firm on their position with regards to anti globalization. Among these groups were anti-globalization groups like the International Forum on Globalization, Global Exchange, Public Citizen Global Trade Watch. There were also joint anti-globalization/environmental organizations present at Seattle like the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, International Institute for Sustainable Development); farm, sustainable agriculture, and anti-GMO groups (e.g., the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Genetic Resources Action International); organized labor; consumer groups (e.g., Consumers International); development activist/world hunger groups (Oxfam, Development Group for Alternative Policies); animal rights groups; and the governments (as well as NGOs and activists) of many countries of the South.[31]
What drew a lot of attention to the Seattle coalition was the nature of its posters one of which read “Teamsters and Turtles-Together At Last.”[32] In fact the role played by environmentalists during the Seattle protest was so outstanding that some even hold that the most outstanding part of the protest was the temporal environmentalisation of the anti globalization movement. Both main stream and radical environmental groups joint forces with anti WTO and labor activists to detest the changes that resulted from globalization. The role played by environmentalists during the Seattle protest was a strong force that helped to win the anti globalization movement support from the U.S. public following earlier rulings by WTO against U.S. environmental regulations.[33] It also contributed to the favorable coverage the protest had from the press.
The Seattle protest was so strong that after the event anti globalization protest and rallies became common all over the world. For instance in April 2000, at the World Bank and IMF meeting, the presence of protesters was so strong so that the police had to intervene before the meeting could hold. A similar situation occurred in September 2000 during the World Bank/IMF meeting in Prague. The activities of protesters in this case were so intense that in some instances tens of thousands of protester even resorted to violence.[34] The Quebec City Summit of the Americas, which organized to negotiate a Free Trade Area of the Americas, attracted substantial protest in April 2001. The G8 Summit at Genoa in July 2001 also witnessed a violent protest that even result to an incident of death, widespread police repression and brutality, indiscriminate violence by some protesters and many casualties on both sides.
At the 2002 millennium summit of the UN protester were also present not even considering the fact that the UN had always supported pro-democratic sentiments. A protest was organized for the 2001 World Food Summit of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, though the influence of the United States was the primary focus. There were protests of larger magnitude and intensity in Bangkok in February 2000, during the Tenth Assembly of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, and in Melbourne[35] in September 2000 during World Economic Forum.[36] All these protest have helped to strengthen the case of the anti globalization movement.
Successes of the Movement
The anti globalization movement has already registered a significant amount of successes from it inception. Due to the enormous anti globalization protests and rallies mounted during meeting held by international organization, most international institutions no longer meet in open locations as had been the case. International institutions now prefer to meet in very remote areas so as to avoid mass anti globalization protests. If the location is not remote, there are always maximum security arrangements to help curb any inconveniences that could be created by protesters.[37] In addition, some of these international institutions which are already suffering from public relations problems because they are not accessible to the public have been forced to move further away from the public. The intense support that the anti globalization movement has from the public has from the public has pushed many regimes to reconsider some of their practices or in some cases show the willingness to make changes.[38] The Millennial Round of the WTO has been stalled for over two years and counting.
In addition to these, the anti globalization movement remains among the most influential global movement in general and can be singled out as the most significant left wing global movement. Its activities have pushed the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO to make certain changes in their policies. Protests organized by the anti globalization movement have greatly thwarted negotiations with regards to the WTO ambitious millennium rounds. The movement has also contributed to push the EU to stand firm on its stance during the millennium rounds negotiations for example, the movement has urged the EU member states persist in rhetoric about multifunctionality in the WTO Millennial Round agriculture debate.[39] Even though the anti globalization movement has been registering some amount of success, the movement has also been plaque by numerous difficulties or set backs.
Also, the movement seems to have undergone some remarkable progress in term of de-environmentalization, and having taken a shift towards the North South disparity, coupled with the fact that there are concrete reasons to think that WTO and other trade liberalization agreements will take into consideration or better still put pressure on an environmental race to the poor countries. However the truth is that there seem to be very little evidence to show that an environmental-regulatory race to bottom is possible. However it is possible to believe that the manner in the WTO seek to resolve disputes now appears to have witnessed some changes to the effect that dispute resolution system now appears to take in to consideration the avoidance of more controversial anti-environmental rulings such as tuna-dolphin and shrimp-turtle.
Difficulties
One major difficulty faced by the anti globalization movement, which intend could be interpreted as a failure is that the world bank which stands as one of the biggest institutions of globalization still carries on with its debt relief policies. In fact the World Bank and the IMF have been expanding and speeding up their policies on debt relief and increasing their attention on the migration of poverty.[40] The Bank has devoted its World Development Report for 2000/2001 to poverty alleviation, and in so doing has gone beyond the standard claims about macroeconomic restructuring to giving major attention to health, environmental, and educational mechanisms for reducing poverty and increasing the quality of life in the developing world.[41] The idea here is that these are institutions that the anti globalization movement seek to challenge thus if we see them making progress in term of advancing their policies it logically means the anti globalization movement is not succeeding. In addition the big question remains whether international strategy can succeed in a world whose political economy is largely dominated by one country, that is, the U.S. This current situation has been tilting the balance to the disfavor of the anti globalization movement.
Another set back that has been plaguing the anti globalization movement has been the notion most people have with regards to violence. The Black bloc has been labeled as an anarchist group that usually stirs up violence during anti globalization protests. There are other groups associated with violence during anti globalization rallies and this notion of violence has been retarding the progress of the movement. In fact, intensity of violence coupled with press coverage linked to these violent scene has indeed been a set back to the movement.[42] The press has always reported violent protests in a manner that does not tally with the progress of the organization.
This situation has been threatening to split up the movement as mainstream movement participants seek means to dissociate themselves from aspects relating to violence hence distancing themselves from violent and anarchist groups. The violent part of protest has drawn more attention and even more scrutiny following the bombing of the World Trade center and the Pentagon on the 11th of September 2001.[43] An event of this magnitude has made the world to revisit the standard type of anti globalization protests that occurred between 2000 and the beginning of 2001. In fact, many critics of the anti globalization movement point to the events of September 11th 2001, that is the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as an event capable of the anti globalization movement to its demise. The need to address the matter of violence, and the fact that the November 2001 WTO meeting was held in the largely inaccessible city of Doha, Qatar, has led many in the movement to ponder eschewing the strategy of staging a single mass action. Instead, they are suggesting that future protests should stress community-based actions at the local level across the world.
The anti globalization movement has also witnessed remarkable set back following recent changes in world economies. Looking at the twenty first century unipolar world headed by the U.S, coupled with a continuous reduction in the amount of foreign dished out to developing countries, some of these poor or developing countries are left with no option than to get involved in international trade under what they consider the most favorable conditions that are possible to achieve. This new situation has put the countries in the south in a position whereby during negotiations the poor countries find it difficult to oppose the U.S. in her bid to further market liberalization, deregulation, and more effective enforcement of WTO rules. Developing countries now find themselves in a position where they themselves cannot support thus it is possible that these developing countries would stand to encourage the position of U.S. which discourages the building of labor and environmental protection in to the next WTO agreement than to support the anti globalization movement position. In this respect, prohibitions against child and prison labor will be difficult for most developing country governments to accept without significant concessions. This again has been interpreted as a huge deception which could stand on the way success for the anti globalization movement.
The anti globalization movement also faces difficulties with regards to the movement’s coalition and ideology. After the protest mounted in 1999 in Seattle, where more attention was given to trade environmental issues following the so many environmental groups that showed up, the movement has been witnessing a relative decrease in the pursue of its environmental claims. Instead a significant part of the movement’s activities has been on the area of social justice with socioeconomic inequality as the main principal target. One of the protests mounted in this direction was in 2001 during the G8 meeting in Genoa, Italy. Here, the anti globalization movement emphasis were concentrated on a global scale especially the inequality witnessed between countries of the North and those of the South, that is the growing international economic disparity and the impressive roll back rules of globalization which stand to favor the countries of the South. This seems to be a problem because this indicates that the anti globalization movement has divided attention in the pursuit of its mission.
There is also a problem with the fact that the anti globalization movement has shifted its principal concerns to the North-South inequality, in other words on behalf of the poor countries could bring tremendous complications to the movement. Here there is a problem with representation as the movement could be regarded as representing groups that appear to have a lot of differences. The point here is that critics of the movement now find favorable ground to hold that protesters do not even understand the Third World and therefore do not stand to understand what these third world countries really want. By taking the challenges faced by nation states as a principal concern, the anti globalization movement stand to witness a big set back in including aspects labor and environmental standards to the WTO, that state officials from most countries of the South appear to be worried about at best while their counterparts in the north seem comfortable with these issues.[44] A good example is the case already mentioned above where WTO dispute resolution panel ruled against U.S. environmental laws following complaints filed by developing country governments such as those of Mexico, Thailand, Venezuela, Pakistan, Malaysia, and India.
It is also possible that deviation in the issues the anti globalization movement seek to address to issues of inequality between the North and the South could cause problems to the movement. This is in respect with the movement dropping environmental agendas in favor of international inequality and social justice. In most of the North, which is the most critical audience for the anti-globalization movement, the North-South inequality issue is not likely to attract a wide swath of support.[45] Environmental claims-making, along with discourses stressing environmental and domestic social-policy in the North, are more likely to generate long-term public support. It is arguably the case that the current core and strength of the movement, that is, a highly committed, dynamic group of young radicals who see pro-corporate globalization rules reinforcing mass poverty in the South, will not be sufficient to attract a long-term mass following that will assist in effecting policy changes. In this light, seems apparent that the anti-globalization movement will need to be a coalitional movement that involves at a minimum, labor, environmental, and minority groups in other to achieve its goals.
Even though the anti globalization movement points to the WTO as one of the main promoters of global economic inequality, with the countries of the South being the main victims of this policy, there seem to be very little evidence to show that there has been an increase in global inequality since the inception of the WTO. The countries of the south continue to witness a decline in per capita income. This situation has been going since the 1990s while the industrialized nations in the north have been experiencing tremendous growth in their economies. According to Jeffrey Sachs, the IMF operates more as a debt collection enforcer of private financial institutions with the result of these kind of policies, the economic recovery of most of the countries in the South and the South East of Asia have been sacrificed or better still the economies of the countries have been left at the mercy of the IMF policies. In addition, the concessions that have been granted thus far by the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, who are considered to be the main globalization institutions lie mainly in the arena of North-South inequality.[46]
References
Buttel, Frederick H. “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement” Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 38, Issue: 1. 2003.
Eschle, Catherine et al. Critical Theories, International Relations, and “The Anti-Globalization Movement”: The Politics of Global Resistance. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Jensen-Lee, Cathie. Power, Profit and Protest: Australian Social Movements and Globalization. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2003.
O’Brien, Robert ets als. Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[1] Frederick H. Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement”, Australian Journal on Social Issues, Vol. 38, 2003, P. 54+.
[2] Ibid, P. 54+.
[3] Catherine Eschle et al., Critical Theories, International Relations, and “The Anti-Globalization Movement”: The Politics of Global Resistance. (New York: Routledge, 2005), P. 20.
[4] Buttel, Some Observations On the Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 54+
[5] Ibid, P. 54+.
[6] Ibid, P. 54+.
[7]Eschle et al., Critical Theories, International Relations, and “The Anti-Globalization Movement, P.19.
[8] Ibid, P. 19.
[9] Ibid, P. 19.
[10] Ibid, P. 20.
[11] Ibid, P 20.
[12] Frederick H. Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement” Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 38, Issue: 1. 2003, P. 54+.
[13] Ibid, P. 54+.
[14] Eschle et al., Critical Theories, International Relations, and “The Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 29.
[15] Eschle et al., Critical Theories, International Relations, and “The Anti-Globalization Movement, P.19.
[16] Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 54+
[17] Ibid, P. 54+.
[18] Ibid, P. 54+.
[19] Ibid, P. 54+
[20] Ibid, P. 54+
[21] Ibid, P. 54+.
[22] Ibid, P. 54+. See also Robert O’Brien ets als. Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: (Cambridge University Press, 2000), P. 110.
[23] O’Brien ets als., Contesting Global Governance, P. 114.
[24] Ibid, P. 113
[25] Ibid, P. 144.
[26] Buttel et al., Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 54+.
[27] Ibid, P. 54+.
[28] Ibid, P. 54+.
[29] Ibid, P. 54+.
[30] O’Brien ets als. Contesting Global Governance, P. 161.
[31] Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 54+
[32] Ibid, P. 54+.
[33] Ibid, P. 54.
[34] Ibid, P. 54+.
[35] Cathie Jensen-Lee, Power, Profit and Protest: Australian Social Movements and Globalization ( Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2003), P. 312.
[36] O’Brien ets als. Contesting Global Governance, P. 162.
[37] Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement, P.54+
[38] Ibid, P. 54+.
[39] Ibid, P. 54+.
[40] O’Brien ets als. Contesting Global Governance, P. 164.
[41] Ibid, P. 164.
[42] Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 54+
[43] Eschle et al., Critical Theories, International Relations, and “The Anti-Globalization Movement, P.17.
[44] Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 54+
[45] Eschle et al., Critical Theories, International Relations, and “The Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 180.
[46] Buttel, “Some Observations on the Anti-Globalization Movement, P. 54+
