Dialogue: One big happy family? Have a look at the history books

By GARTH GEORGE

This column was written on Monday night. In the light of the world-shattering events that have occurred since then, it seems so trivial - as does everything that has engaged our attention so far this century.

Nevertheless, it is surely significant that the main target chosen by the perpetrators of this unspeakable atrocity was the World Trade Center in New York.

For nearly a decade now, the biggest buzzword around, in more ways than one, has been "globalisation".

It seems there are a lot of people who reckon the world can be one big, happy family in which everyone gets a fair crack of the whip.

I say that's nonsense, that there is as much chance of welding the diverse nations of the world into an amorphous whole, even economically, as there is of mixing oil and water or making gold out of lead.

Even if the motives were altruistic rather than commercial, it still couldn't be done - and the whole history of mankind says so.

The first to give it a go were the Romans, starting more than 2000 years ago. At the peak of its power, the Roman Empire embraced the entire known world. It even had free trade - the Romans grabbed everything that wasn't nailed down, and a lot that was, for free and traded it back home.

But as the centuries went by, one by one the vassal tribes, states and nations began to fight back to reclaim their rightful homelands and heritages, and bit by bit the Roman Empire crumbled until, riven by corruption and immorality, it ended up right back where it started.

Centuries later, Britain created an empire on which the sun never set. It, too, had free trade, initially on the same terms as the Romans, but later using a few baubles and bits of metal, sometimes guns, to acquire land and resources of inestimable value.

Other nations, too, notably Spain, created little empires solely for the purpose of extracting from them everything of value they could conveniently carry home.

In all cases the globalisation they set out to achieve was backed by a vast force of arms which ensured that their schemes succeeded.

In the process, particularly in Africa and South America, entire civilisations were wiped out, and those who were still alive were left destitute. Many still are.

So what's so different about today's moves towards globalisation? You can guarantee that the motives are the same - vastly increased wealth for the globalisers.

But the difference today is that the invaders are backed up not by armies but by corporate boards, and the weapons being used to subdue those who stand in the way are dollars and not guns.

Those who would be the new rulers of the world are the multinationals and the governments and institutions that back them, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And already the question has to be asked whether the real rulers of the world are the governments, or a handful of enormous companies?

The evidence is there. Some big American corporations have assets and turnover greater than the entire gross domestic product of South Africa, and hugely rich men, such as Walmart's Sam Walton, have a greater wealth than the economies of the whole of the African continent.

There is no question in my mind that the global economy of which we hear so much is just a 21st century version of the ambitions of Rome and Britain and its achievement, if that ever happens, will have the same result - a handful of winners and millions of losers.

But I doubt whether it will ever succeed, except, perhaps, fleetingly, for it ignores a fundamental fact of life - that ever since man arrived on this Earth he has separated himself into families and tribes and states and nations and has, when the chips are down, been prepared to fight to the death for his homeland and his kith and kin.

Have you ever holidayed or lived overseas and ached for the green, green grass of home and to return to the bosom of your family, friends and relatives? Have you ever yearned, having moved north or south, to return to the place where you were born and raised and went to school - home, in other words?

Have you looked askance at the arrival in great numbers into this country of people from the Pacific, Asia, India, Africa and the Middle East and felt what you would call unease and what I would call threatened - a fear that is quickly camouflaged by anger?

Do you feel disconcerted when people talk of joining Australia, or when Helen Clark and others like her invite 150 stranded boat people to this country without consulting anyone.

If you answer yes to any or all of those questions, you know what I'm talking about - and, furthermore, you are a perfectly normal human being.

And that's why globalisation is bound to fail.

* garth-george@nzherald.co.nz