Editorial: D.C. protests ineffective

Over the past several days, Washington, D.C., has hosted the annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. As usual, anti-globalization protesters mobilized opposition to these organizations. In stark contrast to protests in April 2000 and in Seattle, these protesters were largely ineffectual and were shut down by a strong security contingent of Washington police. Thankfully, this round of protests did not evolve into a violent raucous like past protests have. Although the validity of the protester complaints is suspect, the main problem with these types of protests in general is the violence they result in.

The First Amendment clearly protects the rights of individuals to free speech and to freedom of assembly. However, these freedoms are predicated on the notions that any protests will be carried out in a non-violent way. In order for freedoms to remain, dissenters must conduct their protests in an appropriate way. Protesters can make their voice heard without using force and causing damage. Ultimately, by resorting to violent tactics, protesters are crippling their own cause.

However, the protesters' cause is less than clear: They give a laundry-list of problems with the world, but do not offer any solutions. Moreover, protesters villanize corporations, supranational organizations and globalization without engaging in constructive debate about these issues, providing intellectual justifications for their beliefs or giving any reasonable alternatives to what they protest. Standing out in the street with a sign, harassing member of the IMF or the WTO, or burning representations of corporate America in effigy may serve to bring protesters media attention, but they do nothing to contribute to discussion of the very real problems facing the world today. Conversely, the very organizations the protesters are opposed to, the WTO and the IMF, are at least trying to provide solutions to the problems of the developing world.

First off, for the developing world, globalization and increased free trade, including the flow of technology and ideas from developed to less developed countries, provides the greatest mechanism for economic betterment in the third-world. While there are undeniably losers from free trade, these are primarily in the less developed world and waning industries. Overall, free trade makes all countries better off and specifically improves the lives of workers in the less-developed world.

Second, by providing loans to the less-developed world, the IMF is at least trying to give them a leg-up and a chance to better themselves. Protesters might have a valid argument that these non-governmental organizations and the Western world should forgive part or all of the third-world debts, it is also an imperative that the Western world excersice control over future loans and grants to ensure that these monies do not go solely for the purpose of lining the pockets of dictators.

Ultimately, the greater interconnectedness and interdependence between countries is an inevitable reality in the 21st century, to become more pronounced in the future. Protesters demanding an anachronistic return to isolationism or unrealistic demands against the Western world are destroying their own cause, as are those protesters who use violence to argue their case. In order to effect positive change for the developing world, protesters should re-examine their position and their methods and rearticulate what they stand for and the justification behind their beliefs.