Is the Network something that individuals and/or groups can be part of? How many
are currently involved?
As a network, its open to anyone who wants to join. We have more than 300
members in more than 30 countries representing every part of the work. Its our
diversity that Im especially pleased about.
The INDG is breaking new ground by linking issues of globalisation and militarism.
Its unfamiliar territory for lots of people in the peace movement and the anti-
corporate globalisation movement. So, what we've done is connected with people
within organisations and have provided them info and analysis, who in turn bring it
to their organisations and educate others about the links between the issues. Its a
strategy that has worked, as many organisations are now beginning to start work in
this area. For other groups, we need to take more time to help them understand that
corporate globalisation is a threat to peace and even their ability to work for peace.
Do you have any famous patrons or participants?
Yes we do! we've worked with lots of people at the International Forum on
Globalisation one of the most successful groups on the international scene. Maude
Barlow of the Council of Canadians, Susan George of the Transnational Institute,
Edward Goldsmith of the Ecologist magazine, and many others are members and
supporters.
What do you feel is the Networks main purpose?
Our website describes the INDG as a network of concerned individuals which shares
information and promotes greater awareness of the relationship between
globalisation and militarism and which opposes international trade and financial
institutions (like the World Trade Organization and the IMF) which do not promote
peace and disarmament.
On another level, it has served as a bridge between the peace movement and the anti-
globalisation movement. Since Seattle, Ive spent the last year speaking to a variety of
groups about these issues in Bangladesh, Russia, Spain, as well as in Canada and the
United States. There are now others in the network speaking to organisations about
the issues too so our work is spreading.
What kind of disarmament are Network participants interested in: nuclear,
handguns, arms trade, general demilitarisation?
When youre looking at issues of corporate globalisation you need to understand
how the arms industry works. So we spend a lot of time looking at the weapons
corporations, how they operate, what role they play in determining military policy
and government spending, and especially understanding the nexus points between
globalisation, trade agreements, corporate and military interests.
For example, we've looked at National Missile Defence through its connection with
major weapons corporations Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and TRW. These
corporations are driving NMD, and stand to win the lions share of the $60 billion in
contracts to build the system.
As well, we've looked at industrial policy and how trade agreements drive
government industrial programmes toward military spending. Trade agreements
prevent governments from intervening in the economy, protecting the environment,
and providing social programmes. But the arms industry and military spending are
completely excepted. So how does the US government help Boeing compete with
Airbus? Through massive defence contracts! So developing a dangerous missile
defence system helps Boeing compete against Airbus in selling passenger aircraft.
As well, we look at the big picture at how these trade agreements are enforcing a
hegemony of the industrially advanced word over all other countries. The spread of
US corporate interests, for example, requires a military force to protect those interests
and investment. As Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times, behind the
invisible hand of the free market is an invisible fist called the US Navy, Air Force,
Army and Marines.
Does the INDG identify as antimilitarist?
Well, we certainly use the term militarism, so I think that would apply. We use it
as the opposite of peace. The analysis stems from an economic and systemic analysis
of militarism, viewing militarism as an outcome of the unfettered free-market
system. This would be different from those who approach peace from a personal or
cultural standpoint. But I think we all agree that these are linked analyses, and are
mutually reinforcing in creating a socially and economically just world.
Where do you think it can make the most difference?
We've already had a number of examples of making a difference. A recent issue of
New Internationalist magazine was devoted to the subject on militarism and
globalisation, which borrowed heavily on our work.
Several important conferences on globalisation are now incorporating speakers on
militarism, and peace groups are getting involved in anti-corporate globalisation
events and protests. The INDG has provided the analysis that allows those groups to
make the links and join in political action together.
How do you think it best serves activists?
As Ive mentioned, we've provided peace activists with the information and analysis
they need to participate in the burgeoning anti-corporate globalisation movement
that we've seen in Seattle, Washington, Prague, Melbourne, and elsewhere. Even
more, we've given anti-corporate globalisation activists a better understanding of
how we need to address militarism if we are to create global economic and social
justice.
Does the INDG have formal links with any other organisations or networks?
We have many informal links with other organisations and networks. These include
the International Forum on Globalization, Abolition 2000, The International Peace
Bureau, The Hague Appeal for Peace, WILPF, The World Policy Institute, End the
Arms Race, GRACE, Justicia I Pau, Ecole de la Paix, and even Peaceboat.
Is the INDG really international? Do you have input from and control by, a real
spectrum of international participants?
Yes we do. As the Chair, I work very closely with people in Canada, the United
States, and Europe. This network will be better formalised this year, and I hope to get
better participation outside of North America and Europe.
Where do you think there are problems with INDG and do you see solutions to
these?
Like any group, certainly financial resources are a barrier. But even more, since the
network is breaking new ground, some groups are unsure how to relate to the
network. Since the network acts to bridge two movements, its not completely
understood by either the peace or anti-corporate globalisation movements. But over
time this will become less of a problem. Already, I am seeing groups coming closer
together in analysis and actions.
Do you think the Network will develop and do you have any plans for this?
The INDG is at the cusp of tremendous growth. People around the world are
connecting the dots between the global economy and militarism. The INDG, along
with others, needs to be ready to organise this emerging group of activists. This is the
first generation of post-Cold War activists, and its crucial that they be made aware
of the need to confront militarism.
