If they wanted to show solidarity with the other 80% - the 80% of the world that isn't in the G20 -- they could have made proposals on trade and immigration that were at least as specific as their proposals on universal healthcare, universal higher education, universal pensions, and universal child care. Something as simple as a single bullet point demanding the abolishment of trade barriers or relaxation immigration controls would have been enough. No, vague rants about the international financial elite don't count.
You're building strawman to attack them. There is no world government, therefore it's pointless to make a proposals applying to people on countries where there is no influence by this "movement". They're targeting
their own governments, and that is politically correct, for those are the only ones they can hope to influence. The only thing with an international impact they're calling on is a reduction on the voting rights of those rich countries in come international institutions: that is something they are able to call for, for it is about
their own governments giving up something, not about imposing policy on others.
Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the simple abolishment of trade barriers is in the best interests of poorer countries. The opposite is more likely true: developing countries need tools to selectively encourage some economic activities. It would not be correct to deman of the governments of rich countries that they imposed (through use military and economic might?) on the rest of the world such an abolition of trade barriers. In fact accusations have been made that rich countries have pretty much been doing that in order to better control the resources of those poorer countries, against the interests of their populations!
As for "open borders" in the "rich world", you
know that is not doable, and implemented in a limited way it serves mainly the purpose of depressing the negotiating power of the poorer classes in those wealthier countries. Obviously they're not calling for it. And you should not call for it either, because wherever it is done in a crisis context you will get the results the greeks (for example) are seeing: the rise of neo-nazi parties.
So, you're criticizing them for...
being realistic in defending the interests of the vast majority of the population of the countries they're operating in?
The manifesto makes relatively specific demands for pensions, healthcare, education and child care. These are squarely directed at rich countries, because poor countries simply cannot afford those luxuries.
The world is made up of different regions, organized into different countries, and requiring different policies. Duh! Any other complaint?
They rail on the international financial system, the WTO and IMF, because those are easy targets; yet they don't make even the simple demands to reduce immigration barriers or eliminate farm subsidies. Their choice of demands, and their choice of which demands to make specific and which general, tells me a lot about their relative concern for rich and poor nations.
The Manifesto is aimed squarely at the 99% of the 20%. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I certainly think it's disingenuous to call it "global".
Reduce immigration barriers - I already addressed that. Eliminate farm subsidies: are you aware at all that
agricultural productivity in the rich world is still much higher that that of the poorer world? That in a
world without any trade barriers what little farming exists in Africa would absolutely be crushed, with the exception of extremely large farms, probably owners by foreign corporations, used for the cultivation of a few select cash crops? Independent farmers, who make up a large portion of the population, would absolutely be crushed. Some countries in South America, which are already relatively rich, might benefit
vis-a-vis Europe and the USA. The rest of the world,
especially the poorer countries, would lose, badly, by losing the ability of regulating trade that some of them use to control their own equilibrium between local food production and price (through cheaper imports).
And we can open a thread specifically about this issue (agriculture across the world) if you want!
This manifesto doesn't try to score any points with cheap shots at such a complex issue as agricultural policy? Good for them, they should be
praised for that!
?
