Activist resources

8/10/2019 Activist resources

1/46
http://www.all4all.org/http://www.viacampesina.org/http://www.theyesmen.org/http://www.globalexchange.org/http://www.corpwatch.org/http://www.ifg.org/http://www.bignoisefilms.com/http://indymedia.org/


2/46

2017 Mission Street, # 303 San Francisco, CA 94110 tel 415.255.7296 fax 415.255.7498 www.globalexchange.org

1. The WTO Is Fundamentally Undemocratic

The policies of the WTO impact all aspects of society and theplanet, but it is not a democratic, transparent institution. TheWTO rules are written by and for corporations with insideaccess to the negotiations. For example, the US TradeRepresentative gets heavy input for negotiations from 17Industry Sector Advisory Committees. Citizen input byconsumer, environmental, human rights and labororganizations is consistently ignored. Even simple requests for

information are denied, and the proceedings are held in secret.Who elected this secret global government?

2. The WTO Will Not Make Us SaferThe WTO would like you to believe that creating a world of freetrade will promote global understanding and peace. On thecontrary, the domination of international trade by rich countriesfor the benefit of their individual interests fuels anger and resentmentthat make us less safe. To build real global security, we needinternational agreements that respect peoples rights to democracyand trade systems that promote global justice.

3. The WTO Tramples Labor and Human RightsWTO rules put the rights of corporations to profit over humanand labor rights. The WTO encourages a race to the bottom inwages by pitting workers against each other rather than promotinginternationally recognized labor standards. The WTO has ruled

that it is illegal for a government to ban a product based on theway it is produced, such as with child labor. It has also ruled thatgovernments cannot take into account non commercial valuessuch as human rights, or the behavior of companies that dobusiness with vicious dictatorships such as Burma when makingpurchasing decisions. The WTO has more power to punishcountries that violate its rules than the United Nations has tosanction violators of international human rights standards.

4. The WTO Would Privatize Essential ServicesThe WTO is seeking to privatize essential public services such aseducation, health care, energy and water. Privatization means

the selling off of public assetssuch as radio airwaves or schoolsto private (usually foreign) corporations, to run for profit ratherthan the public good. The WTOs General Agreement on Tradein Services, or GATS, includes a list of about 160 threatenedservices including elder and child care, sewage, garbage, parkmaintenance, telecommunications, construction, banking,insurance, transportation, shipping, postal services, and tourism.In some countries, privatization is already occurring. Those leastable to pay for vital servicesworking class communities and

communities of colorare the ones who suffer the most.

5. The WTO Is Destroying the Environment

The WTO is being used by corporations to dismantle hard-won local and national environmental protections, which areattacked as barriers to trade. The very first WTO panel ruledthat a provision of the US Clean Air Act, requiring both domesticand foreign producers alike to produce cleaner gasoline, was illegal.The WTO declared illegal a provision of the Endangered SpeciesAct that requires shrimp sold in the US to be caught with aninexpensive device allowing endangered sea turtles to escape. TheWTO is attempting to deregulate industries including logging,fishing, water utilities, and energy distribution, which will leadto further exploitation of these natural resources.

6. The WTO is Killing PeopleThe WTOs fierce defense of Trade Related Intellectual

Property rights (TRIPs)patents, copyrights andtrademarkscomes at the expense of health and human lives.The WTO has protected for pharmaceutical companiesright to profit against governments seeking to protect theirpeoples health by providing lifesaving medicines in countriesin areas like sub-saharan Africa, where thousands die everyday from HIV/AIDS. Developing countries won animportant victory in 2001 when they affirmed the right toproduce generic drugs (or import them if they lackedproduction capacity), so that they could provide essentiallifesaving medicines to their populations less expensively.

Twelve Reasons to Oppose

the World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization is writing a constitution for the entire globe. The trade ministers and corporateCEOs who control the WTO would like you to believe that its purpose is to inspire growth and prosperity for all.In reality, the WTO has been the greatest tool for taking democratic control of resources out of our communitiesand putting it into the hands of corporations. An international movement is growing to oppose the corporate ruleof the WTO and replace it with a democratic global economy that benefits people and sustains the communitiesin which we live. And importantly, we are winning!


3/46

Unfortunately, in September 2003, many new conditionswere agreed to that will make it more difficult for countriesto produce those drugs. Once again, the WTOdemonstrates that it favors corporate profit over saving

human lives.

7. The WTO is Increasing InequalityFree trade is not working for the majority of the world. Duringthe most recent period of rapid growth in global trade andinvestment (1960 to 1998) inequality worsened bothinternationally and within countries. The UN DevelopmentProgram reports that the richest 20 percent of the worldspopulation consume 86 percent of the worlds resources whilethe poorest 80 percent consume just 14 percent. WTO ruleshave hastened these trends by opening up countries to foreigninvestment and thereby making it easier for production to gowhere the labor is cheapest and most easily exploited andenvironmental costs are low.

8. The WTO is Increasing HungerFarmers produce enough food in the world to feed everyone

yet because of corporate control of food distribution, asmany as 800 million people worldwide suffer from chronicmalnutrition. According to the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, food is a human right. In developingcountries, as many as four out of every five people maketheir living from the land. But the leading principle in theWTOs Agreement on Agriculture i s that market forcesshould control agricultural policiesrather than a nationalcommitment to guarantee food security and maintaindecent family farmer incomes. WTO policies have alloweddumping of heavily subsidized industrially produced foodinto poor countries, undermining local production andincreasing hunger.

9. The WTO Hurts Poor, Small Countries in Favor of RichPowerful Nations

The WTO supposedly operates on a consensus basis, with equal

decision-making power for all. In reality, many importantdecisions get made in a process whereby poor countriesnegotiators are not even invited to closed door meetings andthen agreements are announced that poor countries didnt evenknow were being discussed. Many countries do not even haveenough trade personnel to participate in all the negotiations orto even have a permanent representative at the WTO. Thisseverely disadvantages poor countries from representing theirinterests. Likewise, many countries are too poor to defendthemselves from WTO challenges from the rich countries, andchange their laws rather than pay for their own defense.

10. The WTO Undermines Local Level Decision-Making andNational Sovereignty

The WTOs most favored nation provision requires all WTOmember countries to treat each other equally and to treat all

corporations from these countries equally regardless of their trackrecord. Local policies aimed at rewarding companies who hirelocal residents, use domestic materials, or adopt environmentallysound practices are essentially illegal under the WTO. Developingcountries are prohibited from creating local laws that developedcountries once pursued, such as protecting new, domesticindustries until they can be internationally competitive. CaliforniaGovernor Gray Davis vetoed a Buy California bill that wouldhave granted a small preference to local businesses because it wasWTO-illegal. Conforming with the WTO required entiresections of US laws to be rewritten. Many countries are evenchanging their laws and constitutions in anticipation of potentialfuture WTO rulings and negotiations.

11. There are Alternatives to the WTOCitizen organizations have developed alternatives to thecorporate-dominated system of global economic governance.Together we can build the political space that nurtures ademocratic global economy that promotes jobs, ensures thatevery person is guaranteed their human rights to food, water,education, and health care, promotes freedom and security,and preserves our shared environment for future generations.

12. The Tide is Turning Against Free Trade and the WTO!International opposition to the WTO is growing. Massiveprotests in Seattle of 1999 brought over 50,000 peopletogether to oppose the WTOand succeeded in shuttingthe meeting down. When the WTO met in 2001, the Tradenegotiators were unable meet their goals of expanding theWTOs reach. The WTO met in Cancn, Mexico this pastSeptember 1014, and met thousands of activists in protestand scoring a major victory for democracy. Developingcountries refused to give in to the ri ch countries agenda of

WTO expansion - and caused the talks to collapse!GET INVOLVED!!

*EDUCATE your community and connect with localcorporate issues through bringing speakers , videos, and bookslike GXs Globalize This! The Battle Against the World TradeOrganization and Corporate Rule, available on our website.

*TRAVELto Miami to protest the proposed Free Trade Areaof the Americas. Contact us at 415-255-7296 [email protected] to order an Action Pack andcheck out www.globalexchange.org for more information.


4/46

Published by the Working Group on theWTO / MAI, July 1999

Printed in the U.S. by Inkworks, a worker-owned union shop

ISBN 1-58231-000-9

The contents of this pamphlet may befreely reproduced provided that its sourceis acknowledged.


5/46

this system sidelines environmentalrules, health safeguards and laborstandards to provide transnationalcorporations (TNCs) with a cheap supplyof labor and natural resources. The WTOalso guarantees corporate access toforeign markets without requiring thatTNCs respect countries domesticpriorities.

The myth that every nation can grow byexporting more than they import is centralto the neoliberal ideology. Its proponentsseem to forget that in order for onecountry to export an automobile, someother country has to import it.

What do the U.S. Cattlemens Associa-tion, Chiquita Banana and the Venezu-elan oil industry have in common? Thesebig business interests were able todefeat hard-won national laws ensuringfood safety, strengthening local econo-mies and protecting the environment byconvincing governments to challenge thelaws at the World Trade Organization(WTO).

Established in 1995, the WTO is apowerful new global commerce agency,which transformed the General Agree-ment on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT) intoan enforceable global commercial code.The WTO is one of the main mecha-nisms of corporate globalization. Whileits proponents say it is based on freetrade, in fact, the WTOs 700-pluspages of rules set out a comprehensivesystem of corporate-managed trade.Indeed, the WTO has little to do with the18th Century free trade philosophydeveloped by David Ricardo or AdamSmith, who assumed neither labor norcapital crossed national borders.

Under the WTOs system of corporate-managed trade, economic efficiency,reflected in short-run corporate profits,

dominates other values. Decisionsaffecting the economy are to be confinedto the private sector, while social andenvironmental costs are borne by thepublic.

Sometimes called the neoliberal model,


6/46

of its current rules before negotiatingnew agreements.This booklet explainswhat the WTO is, how it is damagingthe public interest, how corporationsand some governments want to expandWTOs powers, and what you can do.

The WTO is the international organiza-tion charged with enforcing a set of traderules including the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade (GATT), Trade RelatedIntellectual Property Measures (TRIPS),General Agreement on Trade in Services(GATS), among others. WTO was estab-lished in 1995 in the Uruguay RoundofGATT negotiations.

Prior to the Uruguay Round, GATTrules focused primarily on tariffs andquotas. Consensus of GATTmemberswas required to enforce the rules. TheUruguay Round expanded GATT rulesto cover what is known in trade jargon

as non-tariff barriers to trade. Theseare food safety laws, product stan-dards, rules on use of tax dollars,investment policy and other domesticlaws that impact trade. The WTOsrules limit what non-tariff policiescountries can implement or maintain.

A global system of enforceable rulesis being created where corporationshave all the rights, governments have

all the obligations, and democracy isleft behind in the dust.

Now the worlds transnational compa-nies want more a new MillenniumRound of further WTO negotiationswhich would accelerate the economicrace to the bottom by expanding theWTOs powers.

But this concepts failure goes beyondthis inherent sham: the lose-lose natureof export-led growth was exposed in the

aftermath of the East Asian financialcrisis of 1998. When the IMF compelledAsian countries to try to export theirway out of their crises, the U.S. becamethe importer of last resort. U.S. steel-workers lost jobs to a flood of steelimports, while workers in Asia remainedmired in a terrible depression.

The neoliberal ideological underpinningof corporate-managed trade is pre-sented as TINA There Is No Alter-native an inevitable outcome ratherthan the culmination of a long-termeffort to write and put into place rulesdesigned to benefit corporations andinvestors, rather than communities,workers and the environment.

The top trade officials of every WTOmember country are meeting in Seattleat the end of November. If you haventbought the public relations campaign onTINA and want to help change therules, join your fellow citizens on theRoad to Seattle and Beyond. To startwith, the WTO must assess the effects


7/46

Currently there are 134 member countriesin the WTO and 33 nations with observerstatus. Officially, decisions in the WTOare made by voting or consensus. How-ever, developed countries, especially theso-called QUAD countries (U.S., Canada,Japan and the European Union), repeat-edly have made key decisions in closedmeetings, excluding other WTO nations.

The WTOs lack of democratic processor accountable decision-making is epito-mized by the WTO Dispute SettlementProcess. The WTO allows countries tochallenge each others laws and regula-tions as violations of WTO rules. Casesare decided by a panel of three trade bu-

reaucrats. There are no conflict of inter-est rules and the panelists often have littleappreciation of domestic law or of gov-ernment responsibility to protect workers,the environment or human rights. Thus,it is not surprising that every single envi-ronmental or public health law challengedat WTO has been ruled illegal.

WTO tribunals operate in secret. Docu-ments, hearings and briefs are confiden-tial. Only national governments are al-lowed to participate, even if a state law isbeing challenged. There are no outsideappeals.

Once a final WTO ruling is issued, losingcountries have a set time to implementone of only three choices: change their

law to conform to the WTO requirements,pay permanent compensation to the win-ning country, or face non-negotiated tradesanctions. The U.S. official position is thatultimately, laws must be changed to beconsistent with WTO policy.

On behalf of its oil industry,Venezuela challenged a U.S. Clean AirAct regulation that required gasrefiners to produce cleaner gas. Therule used the 1990 actual performancedata of oil refineries required to file withEPA (mostly U.S. refineries) as thestarting point for required improve-ments for refineries without r eliabledata (mostly foreign). Venezuela

claimed this rule was biased againstforeign refiners and took the case tothe WTO.

A WTO panel ruled againstthe U.S. law. In 1997, the EPA

When the WTO was created, con-cerned citizens and public interestorganizations warned that the combina-tion of the WTOs pro-industry rules andpowerful enforcement would pose athreat to laws designed to protectconsumers, workers, and the environ-ment. Almost five years later, there is aclear record: the cases settled underWTO rules show the WTOs biasagainst the public interest.


8/46

changed the clean air rules to giveforeign refiners the choice of using anindividual baseline (starting point). TheEPA acknowledged that the changecreates a potential for adverse environ-mental impact.

should have the right to enact laws thatsupport their choices. Instead, the WTOempowers its tribunals to second-guesswhether health and environmental ruleshave a valid scientific basis.

: The U.S. challenged a Euro-pean Union ban on the sale of beeffrom cattle that have been raised withcertain artificial growth hormones.

In 1998, a WTO appellatepanel ruled against the EU law, givingthe EU until May 13, 1999 to open itsmarkets to hormone-treated beef.

The ban on artificialhormones applies equally to Europeanfarmers and foreign producers. If

European consumers and governmentsare opposed to the use of art ificialhormones and are concerned aboutpotential health risks or want to promotemore natural farming methods, they

: Refiners from Venezuelaand other countries will use the indi-vidual baseline option only if it givesthem a weaker starting point, and thuslets them sell dirtier gasoline in theU.S., which would deteriorate airquality. The WTO gives businesses aspecial avenue to challenge policies,like the Clean Air rules, which havewithstood domestic challenges.

Four Asian nations challengedprovisions of the U.S. EndangeredSpecies Act forbidding the sale in theU.S. of shrimp caught in ways that kill

endangered sea turtles.

: In 1998, a WTO appellatepanel decided that while the U.S. isallowed to protect turtles, the specificway the U.S. tried to do so was notallowed under WTO rules. The U.S.government is now considering waysto change the law to comply withWTO.

It is possible to catchshrimp without harming turtles byfitting shrimp nets with inexpensiveturtle excluder devices. U.S. lawrequires domestic and foreign shrimpfishermen to use turtle-safe methods.The goal of saving turtles could beundercut by the WTOs second-guessing of how U.S. policy should beimplemented, given the most inexpen-sive, effective means has been ruledWTO-illegal.


9/46

The U.S. argued that Europeantrade preferences for bananas fromformer European colonies in theCaribbean unfairly discriminate againstbananas grown by U.S. companies inCentral America.

In 1997, a WTO panel decidedthat European preferences for Carib-bean bananas are WTO-illegal. The

EU proposed a new policy that the U.S.claims still violates WTO rules. TheU.S. was granted authority by the WTOto impose $200 million in trade sanc-tions against European imports until theEU changes the policy to suit WTOdemands.

The Caribbeans tinyshare of the EU market for bananas isthe major source of revenue and jobs insome Caribbean nations where moun-tainous terrain rules out other crops. IfEurope abandons its policy to complywith the WTO, some 200,000 smallfarmers in very poor countries couldlose their livelihoods.

Officials in small Caribbean nationsworry that implementation of the WTOruling will destabilize their economiesand democracies. The U.S. drug czarnoted that the policy change couldmake these countries more vulnerableto drug trafficking.

Different countries and interests havedifferent agendas for the WTOs SeattleMinisterial meeting. There are three sets

of issues: First, many WTO agreements(Agriculture, Intellectual Property, Ser-vices) have built-in reviews set forspecific time periods. These reviews donot necessarily require new deregulationtalks. The second category includescommittments made at past WTO


10/46

ministerial meetings to conduct futurenegotiations on agriculture and ser-vices. The key question that will beresolved during this year is whether athird category of new issues will bemoved into the WTO. Inclusion ofthese new issues, such as invest-ment, competition policy and govern-ment procurement, would expand thepower of the WTO further than everbefore.

The Trade-Related Intellectual PropertyAgreement (TRIPS) sets enforceableglobal rules on patents, copyrights andtrademarks.

The pharmaceutical industry exercisedheavy influence onTRIPS negotiations.As a result, the f inal TRIPS pactrequires countries to adopt U.S.-styleintellectual property laws, such asthose granting monopoly sales rights toindividual patent holders for extendedtime periods. TRIPS requires nationslike India, Argentina and Brazil toabandon many policies that help themto develop local pharmaceutical pro-duction and make drugs affordable andavailable to poor consumers.

Pharmaceutical companies hope thatnew WTO intellectual property negotia-tions will enable them to tighten therules even further, with developingcountries losing the modest options leftto make essential medicines, includingthose for prevention and treatment ofHIV/AIDS, more available.

The WTOs Agreement on Sanitary andPhytosanitary Standards (SPS Agree-ment) sets constraints on governmentpolicies relating to food safety (bacterialcontaminants, pesticides, inspection,labeling) and animal and plant health(imported pests, diseases).

The SPS agreement goes well beyondforbidding discrimination betweendomestic and foreign goods. It also setslimits on thelevel of safety a countrycan choose, even it applies it equally todomestic and foreign goods. For

instance, the SPS rules undercutcountries use of the PrecautionaryPrinciple, which calls for policies to erron the side of precaution when t here isnot yet scientific certainty about poten-tial threats to human health and theenvironment. The SPS rules, on theother hand, err on the side of protectingtrade flows at all costs.

The PrecautionaryPrinciple was eviscerated in the WTOsBeef Hormone ruling. The SPS Agree-ment puts the burden of proof oncountries to scientifically demonstratethat something is dangerous before itcan be regulated. The WTO disputepanel declared that the European Unionlacked sufficient scientific proof thatartificial hormone treated beef can

threaten human health. The EU musteliminate the ban or face trade sanc-tions.

Exotic Pests. Invasive exotic spe-cies, such as the Asian Long-HornBeetle, are second only to habitat loss


11/46

The WTO declared anobscure agency Codex Alimentarius(an agency known to have a thickcorporate presence) as the arbiter offood safety standards for the world. Thismove was seen as a significant threat tohard-won consumer protections. Evenworse, the Clinton Administration nowargues that SPS rules restrict a countrysright to label products with informationthat consumers care deeply about, suchas the production method (e.g. organic)or genetic manipulation. This woulddramatically limit consumers right toknow.

as a cause of species extinction andcost the U.S. economy approximately$123 billion annually. Under SPS rules,governments must prove that a particu-lar pest or exotic species could beharmfulbeforeapplying safeguardsintended to keep it out. Yet scientistsagree that it is impossible to predict allforms of damage posed by all insects orpest plants. Without the precautionaryprinciple, forests have to be infestedand devastated by beetles beforeasafeguard can be applied.

Services, as in goods and services,includes nearly all economic activity notinvolving manufactured goods, rawmaterials or farm products. Sincemany services, such as patient care orteaching, require person-to-personinteraction, it used to be almost atruism that services would remainlocalized. No longer. Today banking,insurance, and data management haveall become part of the global economy.

Since 1987, U.S. services exportshave more than doubled, reaching

$239 billion last year.

- U.S. Dept. of Commerce

The General Agreement on Trade inServices (GATS) is one of 15 UruguayRound agreements enforced under theWTO. GATS calls for continuingnegotiations, although major telecom-munications and financial servicesderegulation agreements have alreadybeen completed in the past four years,further services talks are still on theWTOs built-in agenda. Indeed, theindustry and now U.S. Trade Represen-tative Charlene Barshefsky are callingfor new coverage of health and educa-tion under WTO rules. Explicit coverageunder GATT terms of water and watersystems, including municipal drinkingwater, may also be included on theGATS agenda.

GATS terms include commitments byeach country to deregulate each servicesector. Further financial servicederegulation is one of the back doorsto slip parts of the MAI into the WTO.

There would be no value to labeling

where there can be no perceivedbenefit to the public other than that

some sector of the public thinks it istheir right to know.

-Arnold Foudin, USDA

The entire Agriculture Agreement,including SPS, has a built-in review.Instead of launching further deregulationtalks, the SPS agreement should bereviewed with a view to changing it toprotect our environmental, health andsafety laws.


12/46

The Uruguay Round Agreement onAgriculture set rules on internationalfood trade and on domestic ag policy.These rules have accelerated the rapidconcentration of agribusinesses andundercut poor countries ability tomaintain food self-sufficiency throughsubsistence agriculture.

The agreement assumes that ratherthan being self-sufficient in food,countries will buy their food in interna-tional markets using money earned

from exports. However, many lessdeveloped countries face low commod-ity prices for their limited range ofexports. During the WTOs first fouryears, the prices of agricultural com-modities fell to record lows, while foodprices remained high. This system canhurt both farmers and consumers andpaves the way for TNCs to dominatemarkets, especially in poor countries.

Rules are needed to address the rapidconcentration in agribusiness. A smallhandful of companies trade virtually allthe worlds corn, wheat, and soybeans.For example, were Cargill to succeed inits current bid to buy Continentals grainoperations, it would control more than40% of all U.S. corn exports, a third ofall soybean exports and at least 20% of

wheat exports. This increased consoli-dation has led to near monopolyconditions in both the farm supplyindustry and in the food processing anddistribution systems.

The Multilateral Agreement on Invest-ment (MAI) aimed to set strict globalrules limiting governments right andability to regulate currency speculation,investment in land, factories, services,stocks, and more. It was negotiated insecret for two years at the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Devel-opment (OECD), a club of 29 of theworlds richest countries. Negotiationswere pushed by TNCs and major

business lobbies worldwide.

In 1997, the deal started to unravelwhen activists exposed the potentialcorporate power grab. By December1998, the OECD threw in the towel andceased negotiations. Now many OECDcountries, led by the EU, want to revivethe MAI by putting it in the WTO.

The MAI would have:

!

!

!

!! forbidden consideration of

company or country human rights, labor or environmental records as investment criteria

!

!

!!! prevented governments from promoting local economic development by granting big foreign corporations new absolute rights to enter markets and get preferential treatment.

!!!!! banned certain investment conditions altogether, such as requiring recycled or domestic content in manufacturing or hiring local workers


13/46

The Clinton Administration has made ita priority to have a forest productsagreement signed in Seattle. Theproposed Global Free Logging Agree-ment would expand global consump-

tion of paper, pulp and other woodproducts by 3-4% says industry. It alsocould restrict certain pro-environmentalgovernment policies. It could pose amajor threat to endangered forests,

!!!!! forbid regulating hot money

speculation - the very cause of the devastating Asian financial crises.

The MAI even included provisionsempowering foreign corporations to suenational governments in MAI tribunalsfor monetary compensation if theybelieved government policies undercuttheir future profits.

Local officials realized how the MAIwould jeopardize their ability to servetheir communities. Many city councils,such as San Francisco, Seattle,Geneva and others rallied against the

MAI by passing local resolutionsdeclaring their communities MAI FreeZones. It will take the continuedalliance of activists, local governmentsand unions to prevent the MAI frombeing reborn at the WTO.

ecosystems or biodiversity.Eliminating

tariffs on forest products will result inan increase in consumption and loggingat a time when the worlds nativeforests are facing extinction. Accordingto the World Resources Institute, nearlyone-half of the worlds original forestcover is gone. Of the remaining originalforests, most is severely degraded,while only 22% remains as large tractsof relatively undisturbed frontier forests.

It is critical that the international

forest products industry set asideparochial interests and join together

to support a WTO trade liberal-

ization agreement in [forestproducts] this year.

- W. Henson Moore, Presidentand CEO of the American

Forest & Paper Association

The negotiations could also threatenimportant environmental rulesthat the WTO considers to be non-tariffbarriers to trade: for example, thefederal ban on the export of raw logsfrom most public lands which wascreated to protect endangered forests.Popular eco-labeling or certificationpolicies (such as those in Arizona, NewYork and Tennessee) which requiretropical rainforest wood purchased bygovernment to be sustainably har-vested, could also be considered non-tariff barriers.

The Clinton Administration should beliving up to its pro-environmentrhetoric by writing trade agreementsthat protect forests and ecosystems


14/46

TNCs view efforts by governments tofoster local economic development byrestricting TNCs access to local marketsas being an anti-competitive practice.With support from the European Union,TNCs want new absolute rights to enterand operate in any country to be agreedin the proposed WTO Millennium Round.Proponents cynically argue that localfirms, especially in developing countries,will benefit by becoming more eff icientwhen facing competition from abroad. Inreality, removing governments ability toavoid monopolization of markets by hugeTNCs will only lead to more of thetakeovers, mergers and other consolida-tion of industry that is undermining realcompetition.

Now some countries want these rules tobecome compulsory for all WTO mem-bers (and for the states, provinces, andregions within each country) in theproposed Millennium Round of negotia-tions. Government procurement dwarfscurrent trade flows in dollar value.

Local, state and federal governments usegovernment procurement to achievedomestic policy goals from increasinglocal employment to awarding publiccontracts to firms owned by women orminorities to spur economic developmentin these groups. In the U.S., thanks tofederal government set-aside programs,23% of firms owned by women of colorhave some sales to the government.TNCs are attacking these programs andpolicies as interfering with the freemarket. If TNCs get their way, govern-ment purchasers will join the race to thebottom.

The Uruguay Round even includedrules on how governments can spendour tax dollars. Under these rules,governments cannot take political,social, environmental, or justice issuesinto account when deciding what orfrom whom to buy. Basically, the rulesforbid all non-economic considerations,such as preferences for recycled paperor bans on products from certainnations. However, unlike all of the otherrules enforced by WTO, not everycountry was required to sign on to theprocurement rules which cover 26countries and some U.S. states.

rather than pursuing a Global FreeLogging Agreement.


15/46

When the WTO countries meet in Seattle,they will finalize a Ministerial Declarationthat will announce the future WTO agenda.At the end of t he previous Round, WTOmembers agreed to form committees toconsider agriculture, services and intellectualproperty rights (now called the built-inagenda). Now some countries want to addinvestment (the MAI), procurement andcompetition policy, calling for the launch of aMillennium Round of negotiations. What-ever future negotiations might be agreed,

further deregulation favoring private interestscan be anticipated.

The European Union wants to launch aMillennium Round at Seattle. The U.S.favors the more limited built-in agenda.Some developing countries are stronglyopposed to further negotiations sincederegulation and privatization have hurtthem. They oppose a new Round and call fora turn-around of the WTO, a theme which isbeing echoed by a growing consensus ofactivists worldwide, see www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/

Educate yourself and others about the

WTO! Check out the contact list of web-pages listed on pages 23-25 for additional

information.

Write your Member of Congress, both

your Senators and local elected officials.Urge them to oppose the launch of a new

round of WTO negotiations inSeattle and to endorse an assess-ment of the WTOs record to date.Urge members of Congress to signRep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), DearColleague letter demanding WTOreview and repair.

Contact the U.S. negotiators

and tell them why you think weshould conduct an assessment ofthe WTO rather than expand it.Make sure to mention that youoppose any investment negotia-tions in the WTO.U.S. Trade Representative (theagency in charge of WTO talks) is

Charlene Barshefsky, phone: 202-395-6890, fax: 202-395-4549White House: John Podesta202-456-1414Vice President Gore:202-456-1111

Write a letter-to-the-editor

about why we need to assessWTOs current record, not expandits reach further. Find sampleletters on the web-pages listed onpage 23.

Sign and circulate the interna-tional organizational sign-on letteropposing a new round of negotia-tions and demanding a WTOassessment (www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/).

Participate in days-of-actionagainst a Millennium Round.More information will be posted onthe web-sites on page 23.


16/46

Organize a Teach-In, town hall

meeting, debate etc. on the WTO andglobalization. Focus on local conse-quences. Invite proponents and oppo-nents of so-called free-trade.

Come to Seattle for the ministerial

meeting!The meeting will take placefrom November 29 through December3, and will include a major internationalTeach-In organized by the InternationalForum on Globalization (IFG) theweekend before, street festivities,education, cultural activities, protestsand much more. Contact People for aFair Trade Policy (Seattle based toll-free at 1-877-STOP-WTO or 786-7986)or www.tradewatch.org

The World Trade Organizationwww.wto.org, Geneva, Switzerland,(+ 41 22) 739 51 11

General

"Public Citizens Global Trade Watch.www.tradewatch.org, Washington, DC(202) 546-4996

"International Forum on Globalization(IFG). www.ifg.org, San Francisco,CA, (415) 771-3394

Agriculture and Food Policy

"Institute for Agriculture and Trade

Policy.www.iatp.org, Minneapolis,MN (612) 870-3405

"National Family Farm Coalition.

Washington, DC (202) 543-5675

Developing Country PerspectiveThird World Network.www.twnside.org.sg, Penang, Malaysia,+ 60-4-2266728."50 Years Is Enough Network,www.50years.org, (202)-463-2265

Economic/Political

"Alliance for Democracy. www.afd-

online.org, Washington, DC (202) 244-0561

"The Preamble Center.www.preamble.org, Washington, DC

(202) 265-3263"United for a Fair Economy.www.stw.org, Boston, MA (617) 423-2148

Environment

"American Lands Alliance.

www.americanlands.org, Washington,DC (202) 547-9230.

"Center for International Environmental

Law. www.econet.apc.org/ciel.,Washington, DC (202) 785-8700

"Friends of the Earth. www.foe.org,

Washington, DC (202) 783-7400

"Pacific Environment and ResourcesCenter (PERC). www.pacenv.org,Oakland, CA (510) 251- 8800

"Sierra Club. www.sierraclub.org,Washington, DC (202) 547-1141

(202) 778-9721"Defenders of Wildlife.www.defenders.org, 202-682-9400


17/46

Millennium Round-name given byEuropean Union officials to their call forbroad new trade negotiations they hopewill be agreed at the 1999 WTO Minis-terial and launched thereafter.

OECD- Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development de-scribes itself as an intergovernmentalorganization comprising 29 advancedeconomies from Europe, NorthAmerica, and the Pacific Region. Untilthe MAI talks, OECD has served as athink tank for rich countries.

IMF- The International Monetary Fundis one of the three Bretton Woodsorganizations set up after World War IIalong with GATT and the World Bank.The IMFs original role was to help withshort-term cash crunches relating totrade finanacing. In recent decades theIMF has morphed into providing long-term loans to developing countries onthe condition that these countriesreorganize their laws and economies toprioritize servicing debt, for instance bycutting government spending andliberalizing trade and investment rules.

IPRs-Intellectual property rights areownership rights on designs, formulas,information, or processes. IPRs include

patents (exclusive rights to sell aproduct or use a process for manufac-turing a product); copyrights to creativematerial such as books or films; andtrademarks to brand names. The WTOTRIPs agreement requires countries togrant strong protection of IPRs.

Labor

"AFL-CIO (American Federation of

Labor and Congress of IndustrialOrganizations).www.aflcio.org/front.htm. Washington, DC, (202) 637-5000

"International Brotherhood of Team-

sters. www.teamster.org, Washington,DC (202) 624-6800

"United Autoworkers of America(UAW). www.uaw.org, Washington, DC(202) 828-8500

"United Steelworkers of America.www.uswa.org, Washington, DC, (202)778-4384

Womens Organizations"Womens Edge, Washington, DC,www.womensedge.org, (202) 884-8394" Womens International League forPeace and Freedom, Washington, DC(202) 546-6727

Religious OrganizationsWomens Division, GBGM UnitedMethodist Church, Washington, DC,[email protected], (202) 488-5660

SeattleWTO Host Committee of People for FairTrade, Seattle, WA,www.tradewatch.org,1-877-STOP-WTO (786-7986)

Small BusinessUnited States Business and Industry

Council (USBIC) Educational Founda-tion. www.usbusiness.org, Washington,DC, (202) 728-1985


18/46

principle has been attacked under WTOrules requiring governments to havescientific evidence to regulate importsof potentially dangerous products.

Uruguay Round- The most recent pastmulti-sectoral GATT trade negotiationsstarted in 1986. It established the WTOand included a major expansion ofGATT into new issues such as ser-vices, IPRs and some investmentissues.

TRIPS- Trade Related IntellectualProperty Rights. See page 11.

GATS- General Agreement on Trade

in Services. See page 14.

SPS- Sanitary and PhytosanitaryStandards. See page 12.

MAI- Multilateral Agreement onInvestment. See page 16.

TRIMS-Trade Related InvestmentMeasures. See MAI page 16.

GMOs- Genetically modified organ-isms are animals, plants or microor-ganisms scientists createby manipulat-ing genetic material. GMOs often aredeveloped by inserting genes from onespecies into another.

Single undertaking- A round of tradetalks including multiple sectors in whichvarious issues are bargained off foreach other. At the end of negotiations,countries either accept or reject theentire package; they cannot selectparts of the deal a la carte.

Early Harvest-Unlike a single under-taking, this negotiating strategy calls for

specific issues or pieces of a broadnegotiation to be harvested early bysigning an agreement on one of theissues under negotiation before theentire negotiation is complete.

Director General- Title given to thehead of the World Trade Organization.

Tariffs- Taxes on imported products setas a percentage of the products value.They are collected at the importingcountrys border. GATT negotiationsover the past 50 years have loweredtariffs on most products.

NTMs or NTBs - Non tariff measureor Non-tariff barrier is trade terminol-ogy for any government policy that isnot a tariff but may affect trade.

Precautionary Principle- Well-ac-cepted principle that in cases of scien-tific uncertainty, governments shouldtake action erring on the side of protect-ing health and the environment. This

TNCs- Transnational Corporations.


19/46

To order additional copies of this booklet:

Send mail orders to :The Apex PressSuite 3C, 777 UN PlazaNew York, NY 10017

ORDERS FROM THE U.S., CANADA,MEXICO:

For a single copy, send $2.00, plus aself-addressed, stamped #10 envelope

with 55 cents postage.

Organizational discounts on bulk ordersare as follows:

Quantity Price/copy Postage2 -10 1.50 $3.00 Priority11 - 24 1.50 $5.00 UPS25 - 99 1.00 Call Apex Press100 + .75 Call Apex Press

ORDERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES:

Single booklet is U.S. $3.50 includingpostage.Orders must be pre-paid using a creditcard or $U.S. money order.

For multiple copies or to use credit card,please phone/fax Apex Press at 914-

271-6500 or email [email protected].

Alliance for Democracy

Americans for Democratic Action

American Lands Alliance

Association of State Green Parties

Defenders of Wildlife

50 Years Is Enough Network

Friends of the Earth

International Brotherhood ofTeamsters

Institute for Agriculture and TradePolicy

Pacific Environment and ResourcesCenter

The Preamble Center

Public Citizen

United Steelworkers of America,District 11

Womens Division, GBGM UnitedMethodist Church

Womens International League forPeace and Freedom


20/46


21/46

A B e t t e r Wor l d

I s P os s i b l e !

A lt e r nati v e s To

Economic

G l ob a l i za ti on

Release Date of Full Publication: Spring 2002

Drafting Committee:

John Cavanagh, ChairSarah Anderson

Debi BarkerMaude BarlowWalden BelloRobin BroadTony ClarkeRandy HayesColin Hines

Martin KhorDavid KortenJerry Mander

Helena Norberg-HodgeSara Larrain

Simon RetallackVandana Shiva

Victoria Tauli-CorpusLori Wallach

report summary


22/46

4A. Global ResistanceB. Different WorldsC. Transformational Imperative

Box A. Commentary: Conflicting Paradigms (Khor)D. Economic DemocracyE. Global GovernanceF. Building Momentum

. 6A. Key Ingredients and General Effects

1. Pillars of GlobalizationBox B. National Laws as Impediments to Free Trade (Mander)Box C. Export-Oriented Production:Intrinsic Negative Consequences (Mander)

2. Beneficiaries of GlobalizationBox D. Global Economic Apartheid (Broad, Cavanagh)

B. Bureaucratic Expressions of Globalization1. World Bank2. International Monetary Fund

Box E. Argentina (Anderson)3. World Trade Organization

Box F. Effects on the Third World (Bello)C. Conclusions

. 8

A. New DemocracyB. SubsidiarityC. Ecological Sustainability

Box G. Sustainable Chile (Larrain)

D. Common HeritageE. Human RightsF. Jobs/Livelihood/EmploymentG. Food Security/Food SafetyH. EquityI. Diversity

Box H. Cultural Diversity (Barlow)J. Precautionary Principle

Box I. Canada: Citizens Agenda (Clarke)

1


23/46

. 10A. The Tradition of The Commons

1. Europe2. Indigenous Peoples

Box J. Living Alternatives (Corpuz)3. Asia

Box K. No Patents on Life Forms (Shiva)4. Global Commons vs. National/Local Commons

B. The Modern Commons1. Duty of Governments in the Modern World2. Basic Human Rights: Economic and Political3. Intrinsic Rights of Nature4. Against Commodification of Basic Services

C. An Affirmative Agenda

. : 12

A. Understanding SubsidiarityB. The Road to the Local

C. Focus on Investment and Finance Issues1. Capital2. Taxation3. New Rules on Investment

D. Critiques of Localization and Subsidiarity

. 14A. Addressing Corporate Power

1. Corporate Responsibility2. Corporate Accountability3. Corporate Removal4. Corporate Re-chartering5. Corporate Restructuring6. Corporate Dismantling

B. Tackling Corporate-State Collusion1. Eliminate Corporate Welfare, Special Corporate Rights, and the Mechanisms by

Which Corporations Exert Influence over Public Policy

2. Policies to Rebuild Economies Responsive to Human Needs

. : 15, , ,

A. Energy Systems1. The Promise of A lternative Energy Systems

B. Transportation Systems1. Subsidies2. The Private Car3. Ecocities

2


24/46

Box L. Curitiba, Brazil (Retallack)C. Agriculture and Food Systems

1. Actions and Policies Toward Alternative SolutionsBox M. Cuban Organic Agriculture (Retallack)D. Manufacturing Systems

. 18A. Unify Global Governance Under a Restructured United NationsB. Weaken or Dismantle Bretton Woods Institutions

1. The WTO: Reform or Reject?2. World Bank and IMF

C. Strengthen the Countervailing Powers of Other International OrganizationsBox M. Alternative Policies for Southern Econo mies (Khor)

D. New Global Institutions1. Create an International Insolvency Court2. Create an International Finance Organization3. Create Regional Monetary Funds4. Replace the WTO5. Create an Organization for Corporate Accountability

Bibliography/Resources

Notes

3


25/46

I

n January 1999, the International Forum on Globalization (IFG)initiated a process to define

alternatives to the current model of corporate globalization. Over the past three years, sometwo dozen of our board members and key associates have held regular meetings to discuss andprepare drafts of crucial ingredients of viable alternative systems. This document is an execu-tive summary of a 250-page document that represents the present status of this process.

The final report, which will be published in spring 2002, offers a broad menu of viable optionsthat are consistent with a new set of operating principles for international society. The princi-

ples and proposals are not meant as final arguments for any specific system. Our plan is to dis-tribute the document among the many thousands of citizen and public policy groups on allcontinents that are engaged in these issues.

We will then begin a three-year process that will include meetings in every region amonginterested groups to further refine these ideas, expand and/or modify them for local conditions, seek

general consensus on as many points as possible, and then republish a new document that mayalso include clear and more specific steps to take us from here to there. We welcome all responses.

The following are summaries of the upcoming full version of the IFGs alternative report.

A. Global Resistance Society is at a crucial crossroads. A peaceful, equitable and sustainable futuredepends on the outcome of escalating conflicts between two competing visions: one corporate, one dem-ocratic. The schism has been caught by media images and stories accompanying recent meetings ofglobal bureaucracies like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund(IMF), the World Bank, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and numerous other gatherings ofcorporate and economic elites, such as the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, (although in2002 it will meet in New York City).

Over the past five to ten years, millions of people have taken to the streets in India, the Philippines,Indonesia, Brazil, Bolivia, the United States, Canada, Mexico, A rgentina, Venezuela, France, Germany,Italy, the Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, England, New Zealand, Australia, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand,

Malaysia and elsewhere in massive demonstrations against the institutions and policies of corporateglobalization. All too often the corporate media have done more to mislead than to inform the public onthe issues behind the protests. Thomas Friedman, The New York Timesforeign affairs columnist, is typi-cal of journalists who characterize the demonstrators as ignorant protectionists who offer no alterna-tives and are unworthy of serious attention.

The claim that the protestors have no alternatives is as false as the claims that they are anti-poor, xeno-phobic, anti-trade, and have no analysis. In addition to countless books, periodicals, conferences, andindividual articles and presentations setting forth alternatives, numerous consensus statements have beencarefully crafted by civil society groups o ver the past two decades that set forth a wealth of alternatives

[ r e p o r t s u m m a r y ]

4


26/46

with a striking convergence in their beliefs about the underlying values human societies can and shouldserve. Such consensus statements include a collection of citizen treaties drafted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992

by the 18,000 representatives of global civil society who met in parallel to the official meetings of theUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). A subsequent initiative pro-duced The Earth Charter, scheduled for ratification by the UN General Assembly in 2002 the productof a global process that involved thousands of people. In 2001 and 2002, tens of thousands more gath-ered in Porto Alegre, Brazil, for the first annual World Social Forum on the theme Another World IsPossible to carry forward this process of popular consensus building toward a world that works for all.

B. Different WorldsThe corporate globalists who meet in posh gatherings to chart the course of cor-porate globalization in the name of p rivate profits, and the citizen movements who organize to thwartthem in the name of d emocracy and diversity are separated by deep differences in values, world view,and definitions of progress. At times it seems they must be living in wholly different worlds which inmany respects they are.

Corporate globalists inhabit a world of power and privilege. They see progress everywhere because fromtheir vantage point the drive to privatize public assets and free the market from governmental interfer-ence appears to be spreading freedom and prosperity throughout the world, improving the lives of peo-ple everywhere, and creating the financial and material wealth necessary to end poverty and protect the

environment. They see themselves as champions of an inexorable and beneficial historical processtoward erasing the economic and political borders that hinder corporate expansion, eliminating thetyranny of inefficient and meddlesome public bureaucracies, and unleashing the enormous innovationand wealth-creating power of competition and private enterprise.

Citizen movements see a starkly different reality. Focused on people and the environment, they see aworld in deepening crisis of such magnitude as to threaten the fabric of civilization and the survival ofthe species a world of rapidly growing inequality, erosion of relationships of trust, and failing plane-tary life support systems. Where corpo rate globalists see the spread of democracy and vibrant marketeconomies, citizen movements see the power to govern shifting away from people and communities tofinancial speculators and global corporations dedicated to the pursuit of short-term profit. They see cor-porations replacing democracies of people with democracies of money, self-organizing markets with cen-trally planned corporate economies, and diverse ethical cultures with cultures of greed and materialism.

C. Transformational Imperative In a world in which a few enjoy unimaginable wealth, 200 millionchildren under five are underweight due to a lack of food. Fourteen million children die each year fromhunger-related disease. A hundred million children are living or working on the streets. Three hundred

thousand children were conscripted as soldiers during the 1990s and six million were injured in armedconflicts. Eight hundred million people go to bed hungry each night. Human activity most particu-larly fossil fuel combustion is estimated to have increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxideto their highest levels in 20 million years. According to the WorldWatch Institute, natural disasters including weather related disasters such as storms, floods, and fires affected more than two billionpeople and caused in excess of $608 billion in economic losses worldwide during the decade of the 1990s more than the previous four decades combined.

D. Economic Democracy Humanity has reached the limits of an era of centralized institutional powerand control. The global co rporation, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank are structured to concen-


5


27/46

trate power in the hands of ruling elites shielded from public accountability. They represent an outmoded,undemocratic, inefficient and ultimately destructive way of organizing human affairs that is as out of step

with the needs and values of healthy, sustainable and democratic societies as the institution of monarchy.The current and future well being of humanity depends on transforming the relationships of power withinand between human societies toward more democratic and mutually accountable modes of managing humanaffairs that are self-organizing, power-sharing, and minimize the need for coercive central authority.

E. Global Governance The concern for local self-reliance and self-determination have important impli-cations for global governance. For example, in a self-reliant and localized system the primary authorityto set and enforce rules must rest with the national and local governments of the jurisdictions to whichthey apply. The proper role of global institutions is to facilitate the cooperative coordination of nationalpolicies on matters where the interests of nations are inherently intertwined as with action o n global

warming.

F. Building Momentum Growing public consciousness of the pervasive abuse of corporate power hasfueled the growth of a powerful opposition movement with an increasingly impressive list of achieve-ments. Unified by a deep commitment to universal values of democracy, justice, and respect for life thisalliance functions with growing effectiveness without a central organization, charismatic leader, ordefining ideology taking different forms in different settings.

In India, popular movements seek to empower local people through the democratic community con trolof resources under the b anner of a million strong Living Democracy M ovement (Jaiv Panchayat). InCanada, hundreds of organizations have joined in alliance to articulate a Citizens Agenda that seeks to

wrest control of governmental institutions back away from corporations. In Chile, coalitions of environ-mental groups have created a powerful Sustainable Chile (Sustenable Chile) movement that seeks to reverseChiles drift toward neoliberalism and re-assert popular democratic control over national priorities andresources. The focus in Brazil is on the rights of the poor and landless. In Bolivia it takes the form of amass movement of peasants and workers who have successfully blocked the privatization of water. In

Mexico, the Mayan people have revived the spirit of Zapata in a movement to confirm the rights ofindigenous people to land and resources. Farmers in France have risen up in revolt against trade rulesthat threaten to destroy small farms. The construction of new highways in England has brought outhundreds of thousands of people who oppose this desecration of the countryside in response to global-izations relentless demand for ever more high speed transport.

These are only a few examples of the popular initiatives and actions in defense of democratic rights thatare emerging all around the world. Together these many initiatives are unleashing ever more of the cre-

ative energy of humanity toward building coo perative systems of sustainable societies that work for all.

The alternatives offered in this report grow from the widespread damage inflicted by economic global-ization over the past five centuries as it passed from colonialism and imperialism through po st-colonial,export-led development models. The driving force of economic globalization since World War II hasbeen several hundred large private corporations and banks that have increasingly woven webs of produc-


6


28/46

tion, consumption, finance, and culture across borders. Indeed, today most of what we eat, drink, wear,drive, and entertain ourselves with is the product of globe-girdling corporations.

A. Key Ingredients and General Effects Economic globalization (sometimes referred to as corpo-rate-led globalization), features several key ingredients:

! Corporate deregulation and the unrestricted movement of capital;! Privatization and commodification of public services, and remaining aspects o f the globaland community commons, such as bulk water and genetic resources;! Integration and conversion of national economies (including some that were largely self-reliant)to environmentally and socially harmful export-oriented production;! Promotion of hyper-growth and unrestricted exploitation of the planets resources to fuel the growth;! Dramatically increased corporate concentration;! Undermining of national social, health and environmental programs;! Erosion of traditional powers and policies of democratic nation-states and local communitiesby global corporate bureaucracies;! Global cultural homogenization, and the intensive promotion of unbridled consumerism.

1. Pillars of Globalization:The first tenet of economic globalization, as now designed, is the need to inte-grate and merge all economic activity of all countries within a single, homogenized model of development;

a single centralized system. A second tenet of the globalization design is that primary importance is givento the achievement of ever more rapid, and never ending corporate economic growth hy per growth fueled by the constant search for access to natural resources, new and cheaper labor sources, and newmarkets. A third tenet concerns privatization and commodification of as many traditionally non-com-modified nooks and crannies of existence as possible seeds and genes for example. A fourth importanttenet of economic globalization is its strong emphasis on a global conversion to export-oriented produc-tion and trade as an economic and social nirvana.

2. Beneficiaries of Globalization:The actual beneficiaries of this model have become all too obvious. In theUnited States, for example, we know that during the period of the most rapid globalization, top corporateexecutives of the largest global companies have been making salaries and options in the many millions o fdollars, often in the hundreds of millions, while real wages of ordinary workers have been declining. TheInstitute for Policy Studies reports that American CEOs are now paid, on average, 517 times more thanproduction workers, with that rate increasing yearly. The Economic Policy Institutes 1999 report saysthat median hourly wages are actually down by 10 percent in real wages over the last 25 years. As forlifting the global poor, the U.N. Development Programs 1999Human Development Reportindicated thatthe gap between the wealthy and the poor within and among countries of the world is getting steadily

larger, and it named inequities in the global trade system as being one of the key factors.

B. Bureaucratic Expressions of Globalization Creating a world that works for all must begin withan effort to undo the enormous damage inflicted by the corporate globalization policies that so badly dis-tort economic relationships among people and countries. The thrust of those policies is perhaps mostdramatically revealed in the structural adjustment programs imposed on low and intermediate incomecountries by the IMF and the World Bank two institutions that bear responsibility for enormous socialand environmental devastation and human suffering. Structural adjustment requires governments to:

! Cut government spending on education, healthcare, the environment, and price subsidies for basicnecessities such as food grains, and cooking oils in favor of servicing foreign debt.


7


29/46

! Devalue the national currency and increase exports by accelerating the plunder of naturalresources, reducing real wages, and subsidizing export-oriented foreign investments.!

Liberalize financial markets to attract speculative short-term portfolio investments that createenormous financial instability and foreign liabilities while serving little, if any, useful purpose.! Increase interest rates to attract foreign speculative capital, thereby increasing bankruptcies ofdomestic businesses and imposing new hardships on indebted individuals.! Eliminate tariffs, quotas and other controls o n imports, thereby increasing the import of consumergoods purchased with borrowed foreign exchange, undermining local industry and agricultural pro-ducers unable to compete with cheap imports, which increases the strain on foreign exchangeaccounts, and deepening external indebtedness.

The World Bank and the IMF, along with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World TradeOrganization (GATT/WTO) are together known as the Bretton Woods institutions the collectiveproduct of agreements reached at an international gathering held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire,in July, 1944, to create an institutional framework for the p ost-World War II global economy.

C. Conclusions The Bretton Woods institutions have a wholly distorted view of economic progress andrelationships. Their embrace of unlimited expansion of trade and foreign investment as measures of eco-nomic progress suggests that they consider the most advanced state of development to be one in which

all productive assets are owned by foreign corporations producing for export; the currency that facilitatesday-to-day transactions is borrowed from foreign banks; education and health services are operated byglobal corporations on a for-profit, fee-for-service basis; and most that people consume is imported.

When placed in such stark terms, the absurdity of the neoliberal ideology of the Bretton Woods insti-tutions becomes obvious. It also becomes clear who such policies serve. Rather than enhance the life ofpeople and planet, they consolidate and secure the wealth and power of a small corporate elite, the onlyevident beneficiaries, at the expense of humanity and nature. In the following section, we o utline theprinciples of alternative systems that posit democracy and rights as the means toward sustainable com-munities, dignified work, and a healthy environment.

The current organizing principles of the institutions that govern the global economy are narrow andserve the few at the expense of the many and the environment. Yet, it is within our co llective ability to

create healthy, sustainable societies that work for all. The time has come to make that possibility a real-ity. Sustainable societies are rooted in certain core principles. The following ten core principles havebeen put forward in various combinations in citizen programs that are emerging around the world.

A. New Democracy The rallying cry of the amazing diversity of civil society that converged in Seattlein late 1999 was the simple word democracy. Democracy flourishes when people organize to protecttheir communities and rights and hold their elected officials accountable. For the past two decades,global corporations and global bureaucracies have grabbed much of the power once held by govern-ments. We advocate a shift from governments serving corporations to governments serving people andcommunities, a process that is easier at the local level but vital at all levels of government.


8


30/46

B. Subsidiarity Economic globalization results first, and foremost, in d e-localization and disempower-ment of communities and local economies. It is therefore necessary to reverse direction and create new

rules and structures that consciously favor the local, and follow the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., what-ever decisions and activities can be undertaken locally sho uld be. Whatever power can reside at the locallevel should reside there. Only when additional activity is required that cannot be satisfied locally, shouldpower and activity move to the next higher level: region, nation, and finally the world.

C. Ecological Sustainability Economic activity needs to be ecologically sustainable. It sho uld enableus to meet humans genuine needs in the present without compromising the ability of future generationsto meet theirs, and without diminishing the natural d iversity of life on Earth or the viability of theplanets natural life-support systems.

D. Common Heritage There exist common heritage resources that should constitute a collective birth-right of the whole species to be shared equitably among all. We assert that there are three categories ofsuch resources. The first consists of the shared natural heritage of the water, land, air, forests, and fisherieson which our lives depend. These physical resources are in finite supply, essential to life, and existed longbefore any human. A second category includes the heritage of culture and knowledge that is the collectivecreation of our species. Finally, basic public services relating to health, education, public safety, andsocial security are modern common heritage resources representing the collective efforts of whole

societies. They are also as essential to life in modern societies as are air and water. Justice thereforedemands that they be readily available to all who need them. Any attempt by persons or corporations tomonopolize ownership control of an essential common heritage resource for exclusive private gain to theexclusion of the needs of others is morally unconscionable and politically unacceptable.

E. Human Rights In 1948, governments of the world came together to adopt the United NationsUniversal Declaration on Human Rights, which established certain core rights, such as a standard ofliving adequate for ...health and well-being..., including food, clothing, hou sing and medical care, andnecessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment. Traditionally, most ofthe human rights debate in the United States and other rich nations has focused on civil and politicalrights as paramount. We believe that it is the duty of governments to ensure these rights, but also toguarantee the economic, social and cultural rights of all people.

F. Jobs/Livelihood/EmploymentA livelihood is a means of living. The right to a means of livelihoodis therefore the most basic of all human rights. Sustainable societies must both protect the rights of work-ers in the formal sector and address the livelihood needs of the larger share of people who subsist in whathas become known as the non-material, or informal sector (including small-scale, indigenous, and arti-

sanal activities) as well as those who have no work or are seriously underemployed. Empowering workersto organize for basic rights and fair wages is vital to curb footloose corporations that pit workers againsteach other in a lose-lose race to the bottom. And, the reversal of globalization policies that displace smallfarmers from their land and fisherfolk from their coastal ecosystems are central to the goal of a world

where all can live and work in dignity.

G. Food Security and Food Safety Communities and nations are stable and secure when peoplehave enough food, particularly when nations can produce their own food. People also want safe food, acommodity that is increasingly scarce as global agribusiness firms spread chemical- and biotech-intensiveagriculture around the world.


9


31/46

H. Equity Economic globalization, under the current rules, has widened the gap between rich andpoor countries and between rich and poor within most countries. The resulting social dislocation andtension are among the greatest threats to peace and security the world over. Greater equity both amongnations and within them would reinforce both democracy and sustainable communities. Reducing thegrowing gap between rich and poo r nations requires first and fo remost the cancellation of the illegiti-mate debts of poor countries. And, it requires the replacement of the current institutions of global gov-ernance with new ones that include global fairness among their operating principles.

I. Dive rsity A few deca des ago, it was still possible t o leave ho me and go somewhere else where thearchitecture was different, the landscape was different, the language, lifestyle, food, dress, and values

were different. Today, farmers and filmmakers in France and India, indigenous communities worldwide,and millions of people elsewhere, are protesting to maintain that diversity. Tens of thousands of commu-nities around the world have perfected local resource management systems that work, but they are nowbeing undermined by corporate-led globalization. Cultural, biological, social, and economic diversity arecentral to a viable, dignified, and healthy life.

J. Precautionary Principle All activity should abide by the precautionary principle. When a practiceor product raises potentially significant threats of harm to human health or the environment, precau-tionary action should be taken to restrict or ban it even if scientific uncertainty remains about whether

or how it is actually causing that harm. Because it can take years for scientific proof of harm to be estab-lished during which time undesirable or irreversible effects may continue to be inflicted the propo-nents of a practice or product should bear the burden of proving that it is safe, before it is implemented.

This section grapples with one of the most pioneering yet difficult arenas in the alternatives dialogue:the question of whether certain goods and services should not be traded or subject to trade agreements,patents or commodification. Lengthy discussions among IFG members have clarified a lot of issues, butdiscussion is ongoing. The section will lay out the categories of goods and services that the draftersbelieve should be subject to different kinds of restrictions in global economic commerce: goods thatcome from the global or local commons, and goods which fulfill basic rights and needs. The section willthen offer categories of proposed restrictions.

"##########"##########"

In a world where many resources have already been over-exploited and seriously depleted, there is con-stant pressure by global corporations and the public bureaucracies that serve them to privatize andmonopolize the full range of co mmon heritage resources from water to genetic codes that have thus farremained off limits to commodification and management as corpo rate profit centers. Indeed, the moreessential the good or service in qu estion to the maintenance of life, the greater its potential for generat-ing monopoly profits and the more attractive its ownership and control becomes to global corporations.

Water, a commonly shared, irreplaceable, and fundamental requirement for the survival of all life, is aleading example. Everywhere around the world, global corporations are seeking to consolidate their


10


32/46

ownership and monopoly control of the fresh water resources of rivers, lakes and streams for promotionas an export commodity like computer memory or car tires. The rules of many new trade agreementsdirectly assist this commodification process.

Another formerly pristine area one that most human beings had never thought could or ought to be acommodity bought and sold for corporate profits is the genetic structure of living beings, includinghumans, which is now falling rapidly within the control of life science industries (biotechnology), andcoming increasingly under the purview of global trade agreements. A third area concerns indigenousknowledge of plant varieties, seeds, products of the forest, medicinal herbs, and biodiversity itself, whichhas been vital in successfully sustaining traditional societies for millennia. A fourth area is bioprospectingcurrently underway by global corporations seeking genetic materials from the skin and other body partsamong native peoples. Several of these latter areas, and others, are subject to patenting (monopoly control)by large global corporations, protected under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement(TRIPS) of the WTO and a similar North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) chapter. The netresult of these new corporate protections and rights over formerly non-commodified biological materialsis to make it costly, difficult or impossible for agricultural or indigenous communities to avail themselvesof biological resources that they formerly freely enjoyed.

Parallel to such efforts at privatizing and commodifying areas of the global commons is the tremendous

effort to privatize and commodify as many public services that were once taken care of within communi-ties and then performed by local, state and national governments on behalf of all people. These servicesmay address such basic needs as public health and hospital care; public education; public safety and pro-tection; welfare and social security; water delivery and purity; sanitation; public broadcasting, museumsand national cultural expressions; food safety systems; and prisons. While these areas may not havebeen traditionally defined as part of the commons, in the same way as water, land, air, forests, pastureor other natural expressions of the earth that have been freely shared within communities for millennia,in the modern world these public services have nonetheless been generally understood to fall within the

vital fundamental rights and needs o f citizens living in any nominally successful, responsible society.

If the corporate globalists have their way in negotiations at the General Agreement on Trade in Services(GATS) of the WTO, or within the FTAA, the way will be cleared for many of these essential services tomove directly into the hands of global corporations to be operated as corporate profit centers account-able only to the interests of their shareholders. As with corporatized healthcare in the United States, therich may be well served, but the vast majority of people will b e unsatisfied, overcharged, or abandoned.

In the view of the drafters of this document, this process of privatizing, monopolizing, and commodify-

ing common heritage resources and turning pub lic services into corporate profit centers and the protec-tion of this process within global trade agreements, must be halted at once. There is an appropriateplace for private ownership and markets to play in the management, allocation, and delivery of certaincommon heritage resources, as for example land, within a framework of effective democratically account-able public regulation that guarantees fair pricing, equitable access, quality, and public stewardship.

There is no rightful place in any public body, process, or international agreement to facilitate the unac-countable private monopolization of common heritage resources and public services essential to life orto otherwise exclude any person from equitable access to such essential resources and services.


11


33/46

:

It is the major conceit or gamble of the corporate globalists that by removing economic control from theplaces where it has traditionally resided in nations, states, sub-regions, communities or indigenoussocieties and placing that control into absentee authorities that operate globally via giant corporationsand bureaucracies, that all levels of society will b enefit. As we have seen, this is not true, and it is a prin-cipal reason why so many millions of people are angrily protesting.

The central modus operandi of the globalization model is to delocalize all controls over economic andpolitical activity; a systematic, complete appropriation on the powers, decisions, options and functionsthat through prior history were fulfilled by the community, region or state. When sovereign powers arefinally removed from the local and put into distant bureaucracies, local politics must also be redesignedto conform to the rules and practices of distant bu reaucracies. Communities and nations that formerlyoperated in a relatively self-reliant manner, in the interests of their own peoples, are converted intounwilling subjects of this much larger, undemocratic, unaccountable global structure.

If democracy is based u pon the idea that peop le must participate in the great decisions affecting their

lives, then the system we find today of moving basic life decisions to distant venues of centralized, inter-national institutions, which display a disregard for democratic participation, openness, accountability,and transparency, brings the death of democracy. We have reached the end of the road for that p rocess.Its time to change directions.

A. Understanding Subsidiarity As globalization is the intractable problem, then logically a turn towardthe local is inevitable; a reinvigoration of the conditions by which local communities regain the powersto determine and control their economic and political paths. Instead of shaping all systems to conformto a global model that emphasizes specialization of production, comparative advantage, export-orientedgrowth, monoculture, and homogenization of economic, cu ltural and political forms under the directionof transnational corporate institutions, we must reshape ou r institutions to favor exactly the op posite.

The operating principle for this turnaround is the concept of subsidiarity, i.e., favoring the local when-ever a choice exists. In practice this means that all decisions should be made at the lowest level of gov-erning authority competent to deal with it. Global health crises and global pollution issues often requirecooperative international decisions. But most economic, cultural and political decisions sho uld not beinternational; they should be made at the national, regional or local levels, depending on what they are.

Power should be encouraged to evolve downward, not upward. Decisions should constantly move closerto the people most affected by them.

Economic systems should favor local production and markets rather than invariably being designed toserve long distance trade. Th is means shortening the length of lines for economic activity: fewer foodmiles; fewer oil supply miles; fewer travel-to-work miles. Technologies should also be chosen that bestserve local control, rather than mega-technologies that operate globally.

B. The Road to the Local Localization attempts to reverse the trend toward the global by discriminat-ing actively in favor of the local in all policies. Depending on the context, the local is defined as a sub-


12


34/46

grouping within a nation-state; it can also be the nation-state itself or occasionally a regional grouping ofnation-states. The overall idea is for power to devolve to the lowest unit appropriate for a particular goal.

Policies that bring about localization are ones that increase democratic control of the economy by com-munities and/or nation-states, taking it back from global institutions that have appropriated them:bureaucracies and global corporations. These may enable nations, local governments and communitiesto reclaim their economies; to make them as diverse as possible; and to rebuild stability into communitylife to achieve a maximum self-reliance nationally and regionally in a way that ensures sustainableforms of development.

Moving in the direction of localization will require changes in the assumptions of industrial society, andwill also require a long time and many steps. But to get our thinking started, we mention only a few points:

! Reintroduction of protective safeguards that have traditionally been used to protect domestic(local) economies, and to aid local economic renewal.! Changes in subsidy policy to favor vital local enterprises such as small-scale organic agriculture forlocal markets, small-scale energy and transportation infrastructures.! New controls on corporate activity, including a site here to sell here policy for manufacturing,banking and other services, whether domestic or regional.! Grounding capital and investment within the community; profits made locally remain primarily

local.!Major changes in taxation policies such as increases on resource taxes for extraction and depletionof natural capital like forests, water, minerals; and the introduction of pollution taxes.! Increased direct public participation in policy making to help ensure equity and diversity of view-point.! Re-orientation of international aid and trade rules and the domestic policies that influence thosechanges so that they contribute to the rebuilding of local rather than global economies.! New competition policies such that global corpo rations lose access to local markets unless theyconform to all local investment rules.

C. Focus on Investment and Finance Issues Perhaps the most crucial issue concerning the viabilityof a local economic system is how to channel investment capital into prod uctive investments while pre-

venting a loss of local control to foreign owners and the economic disruption created by massive unregu-lated flows of speculative money through international currency markets. It is important to bear in mindthat productive capital includes the natural capital of healthy forests, fertile soils, and clean rivers, andthe social capital of relationships of trust and cooperation. Too often conventional measures of economicperformance such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP) create an illu-

sion of growing prosperity even as a country is depleting its real capital and mortgaging its future to for-eign bankers to finance luxury imports for the rich and military armaments to keep the poor in check.

! Capital: Every country must provide a framework of rules for both foreign and domestic finance todirect resources to areas of productive investment need and to limit predatory speculative extraction.

To this end, communities are encouraged to explore a range of options, including: the reintroductionof exchange controls; re-regulation of banks and finance institutions so that far greater advantagesare achieved through local investment than flight; introduction of very high speed bumps thatpenalize investors who move money from one asset to another with no contribution to useful pro-ductive output.


13


35/46

D.Critiques of Localization and Subsidiarity Critics of localization fear it may bring local threats tohuman rights or encourage autocracy. Of course subsidiarity is no guarantee of democracy or rights, butmakes them far more likely, as smaller communities offer much greater access to sources of power. On theother hand, corporate globalization is intrinsically centralized, undemocratic and destructive to commu-nity viability and democracy. In any case, the area of human rights is one in which international agreementsmay continue to play a useful role. Other criticisms include loss of competitive stimuli, threats to bene-fits from markets, encouragement of "protectionism," etc. All are discussed at length in the full document.

Any citizens agenda for transforming the global economy must be rooted in a plan of action for dealingwith global corporations. By the onset of the new century, the combined sales of the worlds top 200 cor-porations exceeded a quarter of all countries measured economic activity. And, if one listed the top 100economic units on the planet, 51 are corporations and only 49 are countries.

A. Opposing Corporate PowerThere are six strategic options for taking on corporate power, rangingfrom more reformist ones to more transformative ones:

Corporate Responsibility: One of the longest standing strategies has been what is frequently called thecorporate responsibility movement. The prime objective is to make corporations operate in a moresocially responsible manner, often in relation to specific environmental, labor and human rightsissues. In the past, this strategy has made use of shareholder action tactics. Similarly, the UnitedNations Global Compact, launched in 2000, whereby a number of transnational corporations in vari-ous sectors of the global economy were invited to sign a set of nine guidelines, was an exercise inpromoting voluntary corporate social responsibility. (Many people fear, however, that the compacthas undermined UN social and ecological responsibility.)Corporate Accountability: Closely related are strategies for corporate accountability. The objective hereis to make corporations o perate in a more publicly or democratically accountable manner in societyat large. Often, these strategies are pursued through legislative initiatives that seek to ensure thatU.S. corporations, for example, act in a more publicly accountable manner through their overseasoperations by establishing standards along with some enforcement mechanisms. The standards couldinclude: the payment of a living wage to workers; bans on mandatory overtime for workers under 18,and pregnancy testing; and retaliation against whistle blowers; respect for basic International LaborOrganization (ILO) standards such as right to unionize, and health and safety protections.Corporate Removal: Some activists have also developed the strategic action capacity to rid their com-

munities of unwanted transnational corporations

Activist resources

Documents

Transcript of Activist resources