alisonboston.com

Canadian politician and humanitarian Dr. Lloyd Axworthy spoke here in Budapest the week before last at Eötvös Loránd University, by invitation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I went to hear his talk and it has provoked some interesting reading and thinking.

It’s difficult to summarize his talk; he presented a lot of ideas - yet the strongest message I got was his belief in the collective power of individuals to change the world, essentially by believing in truths contrary to appearances. For example, some of the truths he has believed in include the establishment of an international treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines. ( A truth that was also seen and shared by the late Princess Diana). He has also campaigned against the use of child soldiers and the international trade in light weapons. During his talk, he also mentioned that he has at times been considered a nut case for some of his ideas.

His talk The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges and Responses to Global Conflicts was essentially about the protection of the rights of the individual in an increasingly globalised world - in particular the rights of migrant individuals who attain a kind of ’stateless’ existence.

In that context he also used the term public domain, which prompted me to go in search of a better understanding of that. I learned that public domain does not only refer to creative goods on which the copyright has expired, nor does it only refer to the internet, but it was also used by the United States when it was originally being settled to refer to lands claimed by the ’state’ and then sold to private individuals. It was then that I recognised the possibility of applying the term to the entire planet - which is another idea Dr. Axworthy put forward: a world in which there are no borders. An interesting take on the terms public domain and globalisation.

Other events in my lifehave recently led me to read and listen to some interviews with Dr. Noam Chomsky , who has recently been voted the most important public intellectual in the world today , and who some people like to associate with the anti-globalisation movement - yet in more than one recent interview Dr. Chomsky goes so far as to call the term ‘anti-globalisation’ propaganda.

From On Globalization, Iraq, and Middle East Studies an interview with Danilo Mandic published in Princeton Progressive Review and Dollars & Sins, March 11, 2005:

DM: A lot of eminent scholars are fond of using the phrase “anti-globalization movement.” What do you think of that label?

NC: As I’ve said repeatedly, including at the World Social forum, it’s just plain propaganda. I mean “globalization” used in a neutral sense just means “international integration.” The World Social Forum in fact is a perfect example of globalization at the level of people. I mean you have people from India, Africa, Brazil, Latin America, North America, Europe, just about everywhere, from every walk of life, who have somewhat common concerns and interests. That’s globalization. In fact, globalization itself has been the guiding vision of the workers’ movements on the left since their origins in the 19th century.

He reiterates this belief in a more recent interview Fight the Power interviewed by Ian Rappel, in the Socialist Review, July, 2005:

Globalisation is a term of propaganda, and we should never use it. There is a technical meaning of globalisation. It means international integration. This can take all sorts of forms. In fact, if we use globalisation in this neutral technical sense of international integration, then the leading proponents of globalisation historically have been the workers’ movements and the labour movement. That’s why every union is called an International. Of course they aren’t Internationals but that’s what they strove to be. There were several failed attempts to develop Internationals through history, but the idea of international integration at the level of people - that’s the ideal of the left and the workers’ movements from their origin.

Interestingly now, for the first time in years, there are actual seeds of what could be the first meaningful globalisation in history - namely the World Social Forum and its regional and local offshoots, and the various local and regional movements that partially integrate themselves in that framework - I mean, that’s real globalisation. It brings together people from many different countries, mostly the South, where most of the activism and vitality is, but increasingly the North as well - working people, environmentalists, feminists, the anti-war movement - a wide range of interests and a broad variety of people.

When Dr. Axworthy spoke, he spoke about this original socially-conscious concept of globalisation -also called The Global Justice movement. I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of this vision when we pick up the megaphone to condemn globalisation. It’s very trendy right now to carry the anti-globalisation banner, but how often do the people using that term actually know what they are talking about? And how often do they live it? I’ve noticed that people love to call themselves “anti-global feminists” but they don’t really know what it means, and when it comes right down to practicing what they are preaching, well, they fall a little short of their vision.

I’ve recently encountered a nasty blip in one person’s walk that is drastically different from their talk, so I feel it appropriate and necessary to give a feminist speech here:

Feminism is inclusive and collaborative. That means, when you use the term ‘feminist’ to refer to something you are doing, you are making a 200% effort to ensure that women’s voices (i.e. opinions, ideas, desires, etc.) are heard, listened to, acknowledged and given a place. That means, including equal numbers of women in the decision-making, or creative process - as the case may be. It doesn’t mean going out and finding a feminist who is looking for a public forum and using her words, name and voice to serve your own needs - in a hegemonical or dictatorial manner - and then cutting her off from any further discussion or contribution.

One of the most disturbing things I often hear said here in Hungary, is that ‘older’ women don’t have a chance, and that women are shut out of opportunities for self expression and to voice opinion. I don’t accept that. Yes, when I count the women I see around me who are in decision-making positions, or who have the power of the microphone they are few and far between. But I don’t accept that they must be silenced. For me that is a lie, an untruth. The TRUTH is that women of all ages can take a place of authority here in Hungary; they can take the microphone and speak their minds - they just have to do it, and perhaps most importantly, support other women who are doing it or trying to do it.

I never thought I’d see me blazing a feminist trail in 2005 in eastern Europe. But here I am, and my Hungarian is pathetic. And that’ s the Truth!