Dear Sir/Madam,

Contrary to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who argues in today's Guardian that Globalisation is good for us (10 Sept. 2001), I think it should be obvious - to all but those who are blind or depend on it - that up until now trade between rich nations and poor has done far more harm than good. 

Not only is such trade usually completely amoral and unfair (in line with the philosophy of a free (amoral) market economy), but also creates ideal conditions for money-grabbers and evil-doers.

What happens with most of the money Africa makes from its trade with the West? It is spent on weapons, luxury goods and services for its ruling elites, or finds its way onto Swiss bank accounts.

This is great, of course, for Swiss bankers and western manufacturers of armaments and luxury goods, but not for the African people as a whole.

I do not question that trade, including a certain amount of international trade, is good, and in fact essential, for modern society. Only a fool would deny it. But for Jack Straw to simply claim that globalisation is good for us shows him to be a fool himself, or to think that we are.

We need to be discussing the nature and extent of international trade and globalisation that would be good for society as a whole, rather than for just a privileged few. Globalisation, which is responsible for the massive, ongoing expansion in international trade, is heating up what was already a hotbed for the amoral, if not criminal exploitation of our planet's natural and human resources.

Hotbed is an appropriate analogy:  As things heat up, at first most plants grow faster and everyone is pleased. But as the heat increases, only the plants (genetically modified) to withstand the temperature can thrive. The vast majority - and all biodiversity - withers and dies. Jack Straw may not care for diversity, but many of us do. 

A major problem is that there is no clear distinction between truly criminal activity, on the one hand, and perfectly legal, amoral economic activity, on the other. Probably because often there is none!

The same applies to the role of money: there is no clear distinction between its truly criminal use, on the one hand, and its perfectly legal, amoral use, on the other. Again, probably because often there is none!

Mankind has lived with excessive amounts of  crime, amorality and injustice since the dawn of history (and no doubt before) and, notwithstanding the terrible suffering caused, has survived - so far.

However, our situation at the beginning of the 21 Century is fundamentally different to earlier times, since we are now approaching, or we may already have reached, the limits of what we can do to our planet - Spaceship Earth - without impairing its ability to continue supporting us.

As I pointed out in my last letter to you (A voluntary MAXIMUM WAGE for the wealthy, 9 Sept. 2001), it is not the poor who are the central problem in achieving a humane and sustainable future on our vulnerable and finite planet,  but the rich, whose amoral use of money and a free market economy is inherently unsustainable and - unless there is a veritable revolution away from our materialistic values, attitudes and aspirations - will soon lead to climatic, ecological and social disruption on a catastrophic scale - and eventually to the extinction of our species.