THE clash of globalisation is now featuring regularly in fierce street battles outside security cordons and razor-wire fences surrounding the venues of all major global conferences.

The ‘bane or boon’ dilemma is at the core of this global dispute. Tens of thousands of anti-globalists protested against this year’s recent G8 summit in Germany this month. The summit, like the past ones, attracted protesters from all over the world opposed to capitalism, globalisation, the Iraq war and G8 itself.

Anti-globalisation protests have plagued similar global conferences in recent decades, including the WTO meeting in Seattle and World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington DC and elsewhere. All these organisations are seen as the “torch-bearers” of globalisation. The question is what motivates this extraordinary resistance and organised protest? If globalisation only means the freedom of movement for goods and people, why is it a subject of deep controversy and violent hostility across the globe?

Globalisation is perhaps the most widely discussed and often most vehemently challenged phenomenon of our times. There are those who look at globalisation as the only panacea for the world’s ills, especially issues of poverty and under-development. The rising tide, in their view, will benefit everyone. Globalists have always insisted that poverty and inequality are not the result of economic integration which according to them is in fact lifting the majority of the developing world’s people out of poverty.

They argue that globalisation allows poor countries and their citizens to develop economically and raise their standards of living. Examples are cited of developing countries that have managed to integrate themselves with world markets seeing their average incomes increase. Those countries open to international trade have achieved double the average annual growth of developing countries that are not.

And then there are those who think globalisation is a curse. It has actually aggravated economic disparities, worsening conditions for the poor. The fact of the matter is that the market-driven process of globalisation, integrating national economies into the world economy, is an asymmetric one, with some winners but many losers.

Growth and development have not and cannot automatically bring about reduction in inequality. The growing size of the pie does not ensure that everyone will get his or her piece of the pie.

Anti-globalists look at the emergence of an unfettered international free market as benefiting only the multinational corporations in the western world at the expense of local enterprises, local cultures and the common people. Resistance to globalisation has, therefore, taken shape both at a popular and at a governmental level as people and governments try to manage the flow of capital, labour, goods, and ideas that constitute the current wave of globalisation.

Globalisation also raises serious concerns in the form of issues of imbalance, inequity and incoherence. Blind globalisation, serving primarily the expanding reach and commercial interests of the dominant powers and forces, could still discredit globalisation as a deeply flawed or even failed experiment. The Chilean intellectual Osvaldo Sunkel questioned globalisation when he remarked that “international integration leads to national disintegration.”

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, however, has tried to draw a balance between the two schools of thought by acknowledging the “productive and economic contributions of global integration” and accepting that “global economy has actually brought prosperity to many different areas of the globe.” But then, he also wants us to recognise “the enormous inequalities that exist across the globe and often within each country.” According to him, there are “global doubts” about global economic relations which need to be addressed.

The question remains: if globalisation was working well then why are there so many poor people in the world at a time of such abundance of wealth? Why is the number of least developed countries increasing? There seems to be a tendency to oversimplify the whole issue by saying that there is no alternative. Is there really no alternative? If it is so, then one is to believe that income disparities will continue to aggravate and poor continue to become poorer and the rich, richer.

Without going into the details of the debate on globalisation, one can make one conclusion with some degree of certainty, that it creates aspirations for consumption patterns and lifestyles that cannot be sustained socially, culturally, politically or environmentally unless the process is appropriately managed. It is also apparent that mismanagement could lead to serious consequences for the global economy and humanity. To better understand the consequences of further marginalisation in the process of globalisation, one does not have to delve too deep in the archives of economic history.

The first phase of globalisation began in the 1820s and lasted until the First World War. At that time, the world was more global than it is today and people had the same sense of inevitability of globalisation. Norman Angell even wrote a book in 1911, The Great Illusion ruling out war because economic integration had made people too dependent on each other to bother with such archaic evils. He proved to be wrong. The next two decades witnessed two world wars, the spread of protectionism, the contraction of the world economy and the rise of fascism and communism.

The costs of globalisation, in the form of social disruption, rising income inequality, and domination by foreign elites became unacceptable. The political and intellectual underpinnings of globalisation, which had once seemed so secure, were exposed as fragile and the popular counterattack against the logic of globalisation grew irresistible.

In fact, many of the features of the current wave of globalisation are similar to those prevailing before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.

Today, we see many of the same things although not identical. The technology sector is in shambles, popular sentiment has turned strongly against many of the tenets of globalisation. Lending to emerging markets has all but dried up.

Debt default is becoming a reality. Unemployment is on the rise and global economy remains under pressure. In addition, globalisation continues to exert its destabilising and often unequalising effects.

Will the international consensus, that supports globalisation, last when it is failing the large part of humanity? The outlook is not very positive. While there is strong support in many circles for free trade, economic liberalisation, technological advances and free capital flows, we already are witnessing a vehement political reaction against globalisation.

This backlash was evident in the return of populist movements and street clashes in Seattle, Geneva, Washington DC, Prague, Davos, Quebec, Goteborg and Genoa, and now in Rostock and other cities of Germany.

Can we simply disregard these protesters by labelling them as anarchists who are out there to hijack the important gatherings of world leaders? No. Their calls must be heeded to. They are only reinforcing the principle of democracy and are the voice of civil society which can only be ignored at great peril to the process of global economic integration. The challenge for the international community and for the world leaders is, therefore, to ensure that the perils and promise of globalisation are managed to benefit the large majority of people living in poverty and misery.Those suffering from the negative consequences of globalisation believe that it is a new form of economic and cultural, and eventually political domination. While the rich and the connected enjoy its fruits, the rest have been left out in the cold. The fact is that the world economy, despite its global interdependence and vulnerability, is not global. Trade, investment and financial flows are mostly concentrated within the developed blocs. There is no transfer of resources from developed to the developing countries. The reverse is, in fact, the case.

While the developing world is plied with sermons about the advantages of deregulation and liberalisation, the developed countries hardly apply these principles to their own markets which in most cases are almost like closed fortresses. Major areas of export interest to developing countries are either closed or protected through subsidies and other means.

There is no level playing field, because a level playing field is not possible between strong and weak economies unless international regulatory measures are in place to control the predatory policies of the more powerful players. The signs of a resurgence of 19th century economic adventurism through military force are no less alarming for the developing world. Unipolarity has unleashed an overbearing security agenda at the cost of internationally agreed development goals and commitments, including those made in the Millennium Declaration (2000) and Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development (2002).

The case for a holistic, coherent, democratic and participatory multilateral economic framework for equitable global economic integration is compelling. The process of integration needs to be carefully managed. If globalisation is not made to work for everyone then it might not work for anyone. The challenge is to manage globalisation for the benefit of all. Either we all win or we all lose. The choice is ours to make.

The current global economic trend raises some fundamental questions: How do we remain on track to achieve universally acclaimed development goals? How does one prevent further marginalisation of developing countries in the face of the recent economic downturn? How do we make globalisation a positive force in support of development?

There are no easy answers to these questions. But the challenge is not insurmountable. Using the analogy of a glass half empty, the other half is still filled with hope and expectations. We can, and should, make globalisation work for all.

If we fail to do so, in the end, it will certainly work for none. It is time the developing and the developed countries both stretched forward from their respective positions and evolved a realistic partnership based on justice, equity and equal opportunity.

In order not to be a zero-sum game, development has to be pursued as a shared goal and common agenda in a meaningful and mutually supportive partnership between the North and the South through coherent multilateral cooperation.

The burdens and blessings of globalisation also need to be shared and managed by all through open, democratic, transparent and participatory multilateralism.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

IF there are pseudo-intellectuals, then it stands to reason that there must be pseudo-idiots too.

So we predict that within another decade — after scholars have ransacked archives, all the overpaid official memoirs have been forgotten and the battered US begins to show signs of recovery from Bush’s reactionary reign — it will become apparent that the greatest acting performance of the 21st century has been George W. Bush playing the fumble-mouthed clueless president throughout an eight-year long run on the White House stage.

It will all have turned out to be a brilliant beguiling performance worthy of the late Sir Laurence Olivier or Marlon Brando, who both would have wept with thespian envy. Imagine an actor of their calibre playing a simpleton and you begin to get the picture.

Intelligence usually shines through such miscast roles, betraying itself with a flash of wit, a sly nod, or a knowing wink as to who really hides behind the empty face. This is the reason why a very intelligent actor was miscast in maverick film maker John Sayles’ 2004 movie ‘Silver City’ about the irresistible rise of a gormless George W. Bush figure.

The actor Chris Cooper just couldn’t play it dumb enough. This takes a lot of talent. Someday we will all appreciate the injustice of displaying advisor Karl Rove as Bush’s brain — as a documentary film maker portrayed him — when none other than the boy emperor (as Gore Vidal calls Bush) himself really was the brains behind it all. Only 28 per cent of Americans are perceptive enough to see through his consummate guise, and support him unreservedly. What a shame.

It takes tremendous political acumen and a shrewd eye for human weaknesses to manipulate a cunning creature like outgoing British prime minister Tony Blair. Bush outwitted the suave Blair, out-manoeuvred the entire US Congress, cowed the media, and brought many a liberal intellectual (Christopher Hitchens, Paul Berman, and others) simpering to their knees.

Who can forget that during the 2000 and 2004 elections the American press corps swooned whenever Bush uttered a half-coherent answer that bore the slightest relation to reality or to the question he was originally asked. This tongue-tied fellow, the canny press corps always insisted, was smarter than he sounded.

Bush was an ordinary guy, except for his own inherited wealth and status. It takes genius to pull off so sublime a charade. Moreover, he is a graduate of Yale University and Harvard Business School yet manages to come across as if he barely graduated from an inner city high school. Both he and John Kerry were inducted into the hyper-exclusive Yale secret society Skull and Bones — a tightly connected world which privileged Pakistanis enjoy their own versions of.

Some of that erudite education must have rubbed off on him but all he has to show for it are flashes of light-hearted contempt towards all those beneath him on the social scale. These occasional lapses — witness the Hurricane Katrina aftermath — were quickly explained away. We’re all human, you know.

Bush upon becoming president rolled out a brilliantly basic repertoire: cut taxes for the rich as the solution, no matter what the problem was. That’s what rich people crave. Bush enthusiastically pressed ahead to mutilate the welfare state and, after 9/11, civil rights too.

In democracies the key trouble for parties of the rich is that, by definition, they are a small minority. So how do they attract enough people to gain office? One ploy is to experience a religious conversion into the fold of US fundamentalists who prefer good mindless dogma to good hard thinking. These pious people steadfastly imagine a rich loud convert is still on their side even as he raises prices for everything, hold their wagers down, send their jobs abroad, undermine workplace protections, prices them out of housing, hikes the tuition for their kids’ schooling, and makes healthcare unaffordable or unreliable. Well played, Mr Bush.

One foresees Bush someday leaning back and bragging how easy it was to fool the religious rubes. All he needed to win political power then was plenty of money, a compliant corporate-owned media and an increasingly privatised voting system (the majority of votes now are counted in electronic machines manufactured and controlled by Republican supporters). Investigative reporter Greg Palast estimates that through various legal and illegal ruses Republican operatives have erased more than four million Democratic voters from the rolls.

Americans from birth are badgered by media blitzes to believe that the mystical market — dominated in every key sector, including the media, by a few major firms — is a sure cure for whatever ails the economy. Bold private enterprise is the answer. Yet defence firms, agribusinesses, oil companies, computer firms, pharmaceutical and chemical firms, and banks and investment firms always depend on the government and sup happily at the public trough.

The internet wouldn’t exist if not for publicly funded research. The ‘Halliburtonisation” of funding practices under Bush and Cheney invites infinite corruption and waste. To that end, privatising state assets is portrayed, instead of the huge subsidy to the rich that it is, as an efficiency measure. In Tony Blair’s Britain, for example, the woefully inefficient and overpriced privatised rail system costs the state far more in subsides than the total cost when it was in public ownership. One of Bush’s few dismal failures, by his lights, was an attempt to privatise US social security.

In foreign policy Bush reminded us that a president will lie for as long as the obliging media and timid opposition will let him. There is no question that if Bush had his way that Orwell’s vision of ‘thought crimes’ would come to pass in the US and be prosecuted. International law, after Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, is plainly meaningless to Bush where it conflicts with US plans. Even though the vast majority of American Jews, according to Zogby polls, want a fair and just solution for Palestinians in the Middle East, a band of neo-cons and well-funded right-wing lobbying groups run the policy show, although, to be fair, this state of affairs antedated Bush’s arrival.

Bush has induced most Americans to ignore the nearly 700,000 Iraqi deaths since 2003. Only patriotic American casualties matter. Yet the much-lauded soldiers he dispatches abroad to serve the designs of American energy companies are often enough consigned to poor care and homelessness when they return home, no longer useful.Bush now is busy assuring long-term profits for ravenous defence industries by provoking a new cold war through ringing Russia with “defensive” weapons systems. The US defence budget is now $582 billion although the combined Iraqi resistance finds plenty of ingenious ways to make it seem like pennies.

A UN report finds the top 20 per cent get 86 per cent of the world’s wealth — and Bush means to exacerbate it. Under a series of Republican and conservative Democratic administrations the distribution of wealth inside the US accelerated in favour of the rich — the top one per cent saw their share of wealth rise from 20 per cent to 40 per cent since 1970 — and Bush means to keep that trend going.

In sum, Bush did exactly what he came to do for the people he serves. Pakistanis, of course, hardly need pity average US citizens. But during six and a half years of the Bush presidency the US has moved more towards Pakistan’s legal and economic standards than Pakistan has moved towards earlier envied US standards.

Apart from Iraq, what the deeply “misunderestimated”, to use his own word, George W. Bush will have demolished by the time he exits office is the widespread delusion that most upper-class Americans and corporate behemoths care for ordinary human beings abroad or at home. Say what you like about Bush, the epitaph on his administration must read: mission accomplished.