The strident anti-US positions taken by Arundhati Roy and others of her ilk in the wake of the September 11 attacks betray a great ignorance of what the US stands for -- and the terrorists stand against. Her eloquence and passion notwithstanding, Ms Roy's essays make sweeping judgements that do not stand up to critical scrutiny.

(This is the fourth of a five-part series on anti-US critics by two readers of TheNewspaperToday. We will continue to showcase thought-provoking work by our readers -- Executive Editor)

ON MULTINATIONALS

Ms Roy's articles cited above suggest some level of confusion regarding her real view of Americans. On the one hand American citizens are held up in high esteem for their talents and accomplishments, and it is noted that the freedoms and liberties available inside the US are excellent. On the other hand, the American philosophy of free markets and globalization is considered worse than scum - something that is feared to lead to a "unipolar" world dominated by American "neo-capitalism and corporate globalisation". Of course, we the readers are left with the question of how the United States as a country can somehow take on a philosophy that its citizens do not share or propagate at all! How could the purported "evil" of America not be a reflection of its citizens, who actively work for their "marauding multinationals"?

Ms Roy's (or for that matter Mr Chomsky's) definition of "unipolar" or "monocultural" is interesting, since it is a pole or culture that seems to be defined purely based on a belief in "free markets" (or is it "globalisation"?). Usually, the United States is one of few countries most people think of when we ask if it is indeed possible for people from various countries, faiths and cultures to co-exist happily with each other. Indeed, the supposed unipolar world of America is composed of a multipolar world of human minds driven by their own desires to achieve success in life (as each one sees fit) in a setting that rewards people for doing their best. The vituperative derision of this so-called "neo-capitalism" in the US fails to recognise the fundamental driving force that keeps this philosophy afloat - which is a recognition and reward of innovation and drive in each human being. The consequence of prejudiced or narrow-minded, extreme views is that the underlying philosophy is deemed criminal, rather than its sometimes distorted practice by those enveloped in greed, ignorance or a lust for power. Such an approach is no different than, say, characterizing Hinduism, Islam or Christianity to be the most pathetic religions in the world because of the misinterpretations of these religions either by extremists or even the common public (e.g., due to sectarianism, caste-ism, slavery, sati, dowry, child marriage, female foeticide, suppression of women's rights, anti-Semitism, etc.) In that sense, we could make the originators of various economic philosophies or religions look like morons - but we won't and we shouldn't because it is easy to compare the negatives or excesses of someone else's philosophy with the positives of one's own! That is not a fair comparison - that is blindness.

Since US multinationals are one of the most favorite targets for US critics such as Ms Roy, we would ask the following question in that context. How do multinationals become successful in those "multi" nations? Do they become successful by freely distributing their products and services (let's call this "junk" for Ms Roy's benefit) amongst the billions of hapless, poor, innocent citizens in those nations who are so shaking in their pants that they feel compelled to accept such "junk"? Multinationals succeed because of the people who knowingly buy their "junk", not because the multinationals put a gun to their head. Multinationals are aware of what the new world order is - it is one dominated by an astonishing ability to communicate globally, with more and more competition - and they adapt to that order to try and profit by making their products and services palatable to the markets they engage in. They would not profit if what they sold was of no interest to their customers.

Since the profiteering of multinationals and globalization appears to be what is under attack, perhaps the anti-globalization experts such as Ms Roy and Mr Chomsky would like the whole world to be run like a giant non-profit organization - an idea that we explore further here for the sake of clarity. According to this idea, profits in any endeavor should naturally be disallowed since that would be tantamount to endorsing the behavior displayed by the "marauding multinationals". (After all, in today's global marketplace who knows who or what suffered elsewhere in the world because an individual made a profit today on a given product or service?) Every citizen should be paid exactly the amount that they would need to pay for food, medical bills and justifiable household maintenance expenses (called "allowed expenses") for their family since entertainment, enhancements, or other endeavors cannot possibly be considered justifiable in this scenario. Companies that make products that support anything else should presumably be shut down. Companies that want to stay in business should only be permitted to sell "allowed" products or services, as long as they make just enough money to recover their costs of developing those, and for the costs of maintaining their staff, i.e., as long as they don't make a profit. All "junk" produced in excess of this requirement should be put away in warehouses and be sold only when required to meet their continuing costs. Accordingly, such a non-profit tilt will ensure that the Government cannot really collect any taxes and enrich its coffers. Moreover, each citizen of the world should aim for the goal of becoming a professional in an area he or she is very passionate about (if such an area exists), aiming to have the same cost-recovering salary as another who has no interest in that job. All employees are to be paid effectively the same amount (indexed to the number of family members they have with no limit on the latter since it is a fundamental right). Profiting as a whole should be banned and punishable by jail or life imprisonment in extreme cases - as soon as one figures out who will fund the jails considering that the government cannot collect any taxes. No donations to any non-essential causes will also be possible since the non-profit government will have no tax funds available and all other institutions, companies, and individuals will have no profits available for donating. And so on.

It is probably fair to ask if Ms Roy used her local supermarket for publishing and distributing copies of her book worldwide - a book responsible for a fair amount of her recent successes? Probably not. The last time we looked publishers like Random House were, believe it or not, American multinationals. Perhaps she should give up reading all books originating in the West, since chances are, many were printed and/or published by American multinationals. Perhaps she should revert to online reading, but then again chances are some multinational or its local partner manufactured the microchip running her PC, her computer, her monitor, and her modem. It is also likely some multinational or an affiliate built the intercontinental communications networks that stream data, voice and video to her PC, radio or TV. Maybe then she would rather do her "reading" in person by traveling from country to country. Better walk or take a homemade boat or ship then, since almost all airplanes are built by some multinational or the other.

On second thought, the "anti-globalisation", "non-profit" system is perhaps not the best system for this planet. Perhaps it is appropriate to say "Enough!" to this one-sided nonsense about the heroic fight needed against multinationals and globalization. Here's the bottom line: if you hate a multinational company, start a peaceful movement and have people vote with your money - America's free market is one market where your vote will be heard resoundingly! (Unlike in many other countries where big companies or conglomerates are perpetually propped up by their governments using taxpayer funds). Just ask the companies going bankrupt routinely in the United States. Or those that are paying out millions or billions in reparations in America's courts on a routine basis after they were caught in the act of greed by the "dull" and "ignorant" American citizens or the "not-so-free" American press. If you have a problem with a multinational inside your country, use your (hopefully "clean") Government to deal with excesses perpetrated by the multinational in your country. For our part, we will provide suggestions on dealing with the excesses of the "free market" philosophy in our next article.

Read More
» The Oversimplification of Globalisation: The Big Picture