Multilateralism in Disarray

SUMMARY
Yet even as the prophets of globalization talked about the increasing obsolescence of the nation-state,
the main beneficiary of the new post-Cold War global order was the United States. When the Asian
financial crisis engulfed countries that had been seen by many in the business community as America's
most formidable competitors, Washington did not try to save the Asian economies by promoting
expansionary policies. Instead, it used the IMF to dismantle the structures of state-assisted Asian
capitalism that had been regarded as formidable barriers to the entry of goods and investments from US
transnationals that had been clamoring vociferously to get their piece of the 'Asian miracle'.

Acting to achieve its interests under multilateral cover was the preferred US strategy for most of the
post-war period, whether it was the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations or the Group of
Seven that provided the framework for 'hegemonic leadership'. Yet when these institutions got in the
way of US interests, Washington did not hesitate to act unilaterally. The instrumental use of multilateral
agencies was stark when it came to the UN. While using the United Nations to provide cover for its
policy of isolating Iraq, Washington also refused to pay its dues to the UN owing to the influence of the
Republican right, angry at the world body's not kowtowing wholeheartedly to US policy.

The G-7 - later G-8 with the addition of Russia - emerged in the 1970s to provide a mechanism for more
multilaterally shared decision-making among the advanced capitalist countries, especially in economic
matters. Yet, especially under the administration of George W. Bush, Washington has embarked on a
unilateralist course that has brought it into sharp conflict with other members on the burning issues of
banning land mines, climate change, missile defense and reconciliation between the two Koreas.
Washington's brusque junking of a painstakingly negotiated agreement, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate
Change, marked a new low in unilateralist behavior.

EXPLANATION
As the title stated above, multilateralism was indeed in disarray because of the internal conflict present
between the countries belonging in G-8 as USA is still exercising unilateralist behavior. Considering that
most of its citizens are not in favor in globalization resulting to the Battle of Seattle, as well as the
protest in Genoa that happened during the annual summit, undeniably, the US preferred unilateralism.
Although my opinion will be subjective, seeing how the Washington helped the Asian countries during
the Asian financial crisis by pledging billions using IMF, there is somehow that underlying agenda of
making them indebted so it won't be seen as formidable opponents. US maybe part of the United
Nations but they will act accordingly if some are in the way of their interests.
Porto Alegre and the Future
SUMMARY
In sum, in a little over a decade, global capitalism has passed from triumph to the crisis. September 11,
in retrospect, was a slight reversal of this prolonged crisis, but the widening cracks in the system of
global capitalism - including the liberal democratic political regimes and American military hegemony
that act as its protective canopy - cannot be papered over for long. At this point, the crisis is principally a
crisis of legitimacy. Crises of legitimacy, however, are a necessary prelude to change, since when
legitimacy or consensus goes, it may only be a matter of time before the structures themselves unravel.

Yet the crisis of the system of global capitalism does not necessarily result in its replacement by a more
benign alternative. Here it is important to retain a historical perspective. During the first phase of
globalization, the reaction to capitalism's inexorable commodification of the natural and social world
was a search for community, for a new basis of social solidarity beyond the market. In retrospect,
socialism, communism, social democracy and national liberation movements can all be seen as
expressions of this countervailing thrust. Fascism, which Karl Polanyi defined as 'the reform of the
market economy achieved at the price of the extirpation of democratic institutions', was also part of this
countervailing drive, one that hijacked the search for community in the service of reaction,
counterrevolution, and racism.

On the progressive side of the spectrum, diverse responses globally are coming together under the
canopy of the 'Porto Alegre process'. The site of the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001 and again in
2002, Porto Alegre, a medium-sized city in Brazil, has become the byword for the spirit of the
burgeoning movement against corporate-driven globalization. In symbolic terms, while Seattle was the
site of the first major victory of the struggle against corporate-driven globalization, Porto Alegre
represents the transfer to the South of the center of gravity of what is now a surging global movement.

Now an annual affair, one might say that Porto Alegre performs three functions for this movement. First,
it represents a space - both physical and temporal - for this diverse global movement to meet, to
network and, quite simply, to feel and affirm itself. Second, it is a retreat during which the movement
gathers its energies and charts the directions of its continuing drive to confront and roll back the
processes, institutions, and structures of global capitalism. Third, Porto Alegre provides a site and space
for the movement to paint, elaborate and debate the vision, values, and institutions of an alternative
world order.

EXPLANATION
Porto Alegre had significant role to dismantling the corporate-driven globalization because it proved
that although the globalization is beneficial to some, it is a much more threat to most. Instances where
people had sought refuge to this medium-sized city in Brazil shows that tragedy is present during the
globalization. Naomi Klein stated that Porto Alegre moment is needed so that an alternative world is
possible without the corporate-driven globalization which breeds fascist, racist, fanatical and
authoritarian populist forces.