In conjunction with the ‘Identities versus Globalisation?’ art exhibition opening at the Chiang Mai Art Museum, the Heinrich Böll Foundation organised the conference

“Debating the politics of culture, identity and globalisation”

 Concept note for the opening debate

“Ten misconceptions of opponents of globalisation - Debating the critique and the anti-critique”

 Saturday, February 7^th, 9.30-12.00

 Globalisation has been often discussed and debated and yet the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung in Chiang Mai feels the need for another round of this controversial debate in the context of the events organised for an international and local audience around the opening of the exhibition “Identities versus Globalisation?”

 Globalisation is the defining issue of our times. It is all embracing. Whilst it touches and changes people’s lives everywhere the consequences are felt in very different ways. People’s realities, perceptions and their responses are varied, depending on where they belong: rich or newly industrialised countries, developing or least developed countries and the broad spectrum between these extremes. But political affiliation and social class within societies are perhaps more important. The latter largely determining access to the opportunities that globalisation offers.

 In the context of our discussions around the exhibition theme, understanding the multifaceted globalisation process in itself is insufficient. What is also required is comprehension of its “perceptions” and “misperceptions”, of the critic and the anti-critic: Is globalisation eroding our identity, national or otherwise? Has the world economy colonised both global brands as well as our minds? Are we losing control of our lives to mega-corporations and faceless markets? Is globalisation a choice or a force? Can it be regulated and if so, how? Are corporations running the world or do national governments still determine the fate of their nations? Would a world without globalisation be a better one? These and other questions depict the ongoing controversy about globalisation.

 Nevertheless such a debate should not be constructed as an alternation of “globalisation versus anti-globalisation or de-globalisation”. Rather what is badly needed is an objectification of the debate, to some extent a “de-ideologising” in conjunction with an analysis of developments based on facts. The camp of the globalisation critics as represented by Naomi Klein, Noreena Hertz or Attac etc. have rightly been challenged by their critics for being sometimes manipulative in presenting the evidence for their arguments. At the same time the anti-critics have to prove that they are not blindly embracing the virtues of free trade and advocating neo-liberal economic policies for growth as the “one shoe fits all recipe” for poverty alleviation and global justice.

 Organising such a controversial debate acknowledges that there is truth on both sides and building upon it can contribute to the formulation of alternatives and needed reform in regulation and democratic control of globalisation.

 Many people world-wide agree that there is an urgent need to democratise the rules of the global economy, but many do at the same time shy away from recognising the logic of global capitalism as the source of the disruption of societies and of the environment. Therefore, when we are talking about regulating globalisation, we are talking about regulating global capitalism! We have got to recognise that many of the ills complained about are of systemic nature.

 We may reach common ground in recognising that the relationship between market/economy and society needs to be reversed in such a way that the driving principle of the economy is to serve first and foremost people and the society at large, not vice versa. Such a reversal will provide high priority for values like justice, equity, solidarity and ecological sustainability.

 Acting on behalf of the proponents of this global controversy about globalisation and how to control it in the interest of the large majority of people on this planet, we have invited Markus Balser, who together with his colleague Michael Bauchmüller, has authored the book “The 10 misperceptions of the globalisation critics – how ideology can be refuted by facts”, published in Germany, at Eichborn in September 2003. Balser has been trained in Cologne as journalist and specialised in the fields of politics and economy. He writes for the Süddeutsche Zeitung. His partners in the debate will be Najma Sadeque, a journalist, women’s rights activist and recognised specialist on globalisation issues from Pakistan and Nicola Bullard, a political analyst and activist, Co-Director of Focus on the Global South, Chulalongkorn University Bangkok and many of you present in the audience.