Globallization

The idea of globalization is a greatly misconstrued, detrimental policy to those countries and people outside of the North American sphere of life. Corporations are globalizing not only to reduce production costs, but also to expand markets, evade taxes, acquire knowledge and resources, and protect themselves against currency fluctuations and other risks (Brecher and Costello 18). Three hundred companies own an estimated one-quarter of the production assets of the world and the richest fifth receives 82.7% of the total world income (Brecher and Costello 29).

The gap between rich and poor is increasing worldwide: almost one-third of the population of developing countries, 1.3 billion people, live in absolute poverty- to poor to provide the minimum diet required for full human functioning (Brecher and Costello 24). The driving force of the marketplace is competition: sales go to the company who offers the lowest price. This alone is not a maligned process as prices are lower and there is improved efficiency in production. But when corporations and governments lower costs by reducing environmental protection, wages, salaries, health care and education, the result can be malevolent- "a downward leveling" of environmental, labor and social conditions (Brecher and Costello 20).

The most prevalent symptom of globalization is the reduction in labor, social and environmental conditions that results directly from global competition for jobs and investment (Brecher and Costello 22). As the workforce seeks to become "more competitive" by reducing its wages and social and environmental overheads, income, social and material infrastructures deteriorate. Lower wages and reduced public spending mean less buying power leading to stagnation, recession and unemployment (Brecher and Costello 25).

Globalization has detrimental effects on every aspect of life, whether domestic or on the world-stage. The advent of NAFTA resulted in the creation of a free-trade agreement amongst the United States, Canada and Mexico. An anti-NAFTA coalition was formed in the indigent Mexican state of Chiapas (New Statesman and Society 1). The coalition turned into an uprising led by the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN). The uprising began on January 1, 1994, signifying the day that NAFTA came into force. The livelihood of the Indians of Chiapas rested on the cultivation of maize, grown on tiny plots of land. The trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico was designed to sweep away this sustenance agriculture.

The vast, mass-production of corn crops of the North American and Canadian prairies would poor into Mexico, undercutting the small producers (New Statesman and Society 2). The EZLN had a ten-point manifesto: "work, land, shelter, nutrition, health, education, liberty, democracy, justice and peace" (New Statesman and Society 1). On New Year's Day, the revolutionary guerillas came out of the forests, down from the hills,

and took over nine towns in Chiapas. Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari sent in the Mexican army, resulting in the death of more than 100 guerillas. The insurgence came to an end almost two months after it began. The Indians announced a 32-point accord with a "peace representative" acting on behalf of the Mexican federal government. The deal promised democratic reforms, limited autonomy for indigenous communities and Mexico's first anti-discrimination law, together with schoolteachers, health clinics and doctors, electricity, better housing, roads and childcare centers.

Indigenous people also received their own radio station free of government control (New Statesman and Society 1). NAFTA does nothing to promote the well being or help the people of Mexico. It was created to promote and protect the interests of U.S. investors in Mexico. The Chiapas Indians lashing out against this globalization which does nothing to alleviate the indigence of Chiapas' 3.5 million inhabitants represented a voice on the world-stage against the exploitation of Third World countries by neo-imperialist countries.

In 1939, when Carmen Miranda helped bananas to become popular in the U.S., it established the banana as a staple crop for many Central and South American countries, thus ignited the creation of 'banana republics.' Banana republics are described as countries whose land and soul are in the clutches of a foreign company, supported by the might of its own government. Its government is staffed by people who line their own pockets by doing the bidding overseas corporation and its political allies (Enloe 133). The fundamental banana republics were those Central American countries, which came to be

determined by the United Fruit Company's monoculture, the U.S marines and the handpicked dictators (Enloe 133). Behind every all-male banana plantation