The geopolitical stage

The development of the biotechnology industry is an integral part of the rise of the neo-liberal global economy. As neo-liberalism's technological, legal, and institutional armature grows, commensurate oversight and social governance are being weakened. There is a steady erosion of pubic knowledge of the issues, public participation in making decisions, and public accountability among the agents of industries, governments, and intergovernmental organizations. Capital has become more mobile, while the movements of labor have become more restricted (through such mechanisms as immigration laws). At the local level, this inevitably leads to erosion of community control over health, social welfare, and the economy. At the level of the nation-state, governments are shifting away from the task of providing for the general welfare toward that of subsidizing economic adventures and controlling their populations. Of course, both these tendencies have always been inherent in the nation-state, but recently it is easy to envision a very pessimistic scenario, as the distinction between police and armies everywhere is blurred--when there are a "war on drugs" in the U.S. and a "peacekeeping mission" in Haiti. Some have called it the epoch of full-fledged "neo-colonialism."

Cases related to biotechnology

Shiva (1991) has argued persuasively that the internecine struggles in the Punjab, which the mass media often simply call "religious" and "ethnic" conflicts, have their roots in the introduction of Green Revolution technologies. Dispossessed and shattered communities struggling to redefine and rebuild themselves have turned to violent competition for scarce resources. It can be argued that the rise of quasi-fascistic nationalism in Eastern Europe, or the evolution of the "patriot movement" in the rural U.S., are grounded in similar economic calamities, disintegration of traditional communities, loss of previous privileges, and alienation from major political decisions. Yet some of the very people who insist that they are struggling against neo-liberalism are unwilling to tackle the problems that inform and impel these movements. Others simply dismiss them as "crazy." As noted above, Juma (1989) and Athanasiou (1996) have observed new international political dynamics evolving. Juma warns us that as agriculture is separated from labor and land, "collective bargaining" by the "South" will become more difficult; Third World countries will not necessarily have any valuable resources in common. While the industrialized countries are coming to a consensus on the role of biotechnology in the global economy, already weak relations between diverse Third World countries are being steadily undermined. If Athanasiou is right, and there is differential incentive to invest in either Eastern Europe or in the Third World South, neo-liberalism will almost certainly play the two regions against each other to get the best offer--unless concerted effort is made to build countervailing political relations.

The setback in the negotiation of a global "bio-safety" protocol, pursuant to the CBD, is an example of the limits of massive intergovernmental institutions. This is not to imply that a legally binding bio-safety protocol is undesirable and unattainable--and that it would not set an important precedent--but nongovernmental organizations that have pursued this effort have been enormously frustrated by the influence of governments and industry in the official international arena. The United Nations, the most prodigious of intergovernmental institutions, has been no model of egalitarian politics, and its programs are beholden to rich, industrialized countries. Even as nongovernmental organizations and Third World governments have been finding a voice in its forum, the machinations of First World governments have been squelching it.

Biotechnology, then, is wrapped up in our loss of meaningful political life.