THE COMMISSION ON GLOBALISATION

The proposal for an international and cross-sectoral Commission on Globalisation grew out of State of the World Forum 2000, convened September 4-10, 2000 in New York. The conference was a multi-stakeholder “post Seattle” dialogue on globalization and coincided with the UN Millennium Summit of Heads of State. The event was unprecedented in scope and diversity and gave rise to the recommendation that such a substantive and diverse interaction should be continued in light of the growing public and political debate on globalization and global governance, heightened by the number of protesters at WTO, IMF/World Bank and World Economic Forum meetings from Seattle to Genoa. The Commission was the result of those discussions and considerations, and was designed to be a four-year enterprise. In August 2004, the Commission on Globalisation completed its activities.

When the Commission was launched, globalization was the central international concern. Protestors were laying siege to the World Bank, WTO and IMF meetings around the world. Politicians were engaged in a debate concerning the “Washington consensus” and the public was waking up to concerns about social equity and environmental protection at unprecedented levels. It was within this context that it was felt that a global network of leaders drawn from government, civil society and business would make a contribution to the ongoing debate by coming together for cross sectoral dialogue and to work collaboratively on specific issues of global import.

Then came the events of September 11, 2001 in the U.S. and everything was instantly enveloped within the over-arching concern for terrorism and security. The U.S. invasion of Iraq followed in March 2003 and then everything was seen through the prism of American unilateralism and international expressions of concern about U.S. actions.

The end result of these developments has been to cloud the issues of globalization and global governance with issues of terrorism and war. It is now difficult to get at the globalization debate in a direct and straight forward manner. The paradox is that terrorism arises to a significant degree from the world’s inability to solve the problems generated by current policies governing globalization. Yet the “war on terrorism” over-shadows any serious attempt at getting at the inequities that give rise to terrorism. This has produced a very strange state of affairs, one that increasingly is characterized by a gathering of the darkness rather than any meaningful illumination of our global challenges.

Through these vicissitudes of fate, the Commission convened, worked together, and built a global network. What follows is a description of the aspirations, the work and the accomplishments.

STRATEGIC PURPOSE

The purpose of the Commission on Globalisation was to undertake an inclusive and comprehensive multi-stakeholder inquiry into the nature and character of globalization; and to develop integrated thought and action leading to specific recommendations for governance and policy-making at a global level that promoted greater social equity, environmental stability, enhanced security, and sustainable economic growth.

The Commission served as an incubator, catalyst and integrator for innovative leaders and institutions working to bring greater equity, democracy and accountability to globalization and global governance.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of the Commission was to develop an interconnected web of dynamic partners and projects worldwide, all working in highly diverse ways and in different domains, while united in the common efforts to create a more humane future for humanity. The Commission sought to fulfill its mission through its:

Global Leadership Network: a diverse and committed network of innovative leaders from around the world, serving in their personal capacities, and dedicated to collaborative engagement in the constructive reform of the global system;

Work of the Commission: projects convened under the leadership of one or more of the Co-Chairs and Commissioners, designed through a multi-stakeholder process of deliberation and dedicated to bringing about innovative solutions to global challenges;

Cross-Sectoral Deliberations: the establishment of high-level, multi-stakeholder, consultative mechanisms, in and through which senior decision-makers from civil society, government and the corporate sector could debate, dialogue, and deliberate on the critical challenges and opportunities central to the future of globalization and its impact on human development; and

Public Engagement: the solicitation and inclusion of public input into the deliberations of the Commission and the dissemination of the Commission’s findings and recommendations through its website, annual meetings and regional events, with the intent of promoting public discourse and comment, as well as more democratic decision-making on issues of critical importance.

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP NETWORK AND ITS ANNUAL GATHERINGS

The first priority was to establish a global network of leaders drawn from diverse constituencies. In the end, over two hundred such leaders agreed to participate in Commission activities as either Co-Chairs or Commissioners. The Commission was formally launched at the Inaugural Meeting of the Commission in London December 13-15, 2001, convened at the London Business School. A Joint Statement, signed by over 100 Co-Chairs and Commissioners, calling for the world community to take action to reconcile the contradictory tendencies inherent in globalization, was published in the global edition of the Financial Times on December 13, 2001. During the two-day gathering, 80 Co-Chairs and Commissioners, as well as a select group of invited guests, discussed the Commission’s strategy and purpose; substantive work and process; and management and governance.

The Commission network met again for its Second Annual Meeting in Mexico City December 4-7, 2002. Over 150 Co-Chairs, Commissioners and specially invited guests participated and discussed issues including the war on terrorism and human rights, free trade and social equity, migration and the displacement of peoples, risk management in the global economy, and pathways to a sustainable civilization. In addition, Policy Action Group and Special Initiative leaders organized small-group roundtables, and provided special briefings for the conference. A full-day special session on Poverty and Globalisation, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, was organized on the opening day of the conference, which was followed by the opening dinner, sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton.

A third gathering of the Commission network was hosted by the Foundation in Support of the Commission on Globalisation, an independent non profit organization established in Europe to cultivate greater European support for the Commission. The conference, "National Sovereignty - Universal Challenges:Choices for the World After Iraq", convened in Brussels, Belgium June 18-20, 2003, drew specialists from around the world and from conservative and liberal perspectives to examine the phenomenon of U.S. power; the deepening fissures in the transatlantic alliance; and what can be learned from the development of the European Union.

WORK OF THE COMMISSION

The Commission was established to engage in “dialogue-and-action” as a single integrated concept. The intent of the Commission was the constructive engagement of individuals across sectors to think through the complexities involved in the globalization process and the need for global governance; and to recommend policy alternatives and work to implement changes in the global system. The focus was on thought as well as action, engaging in substantive debate as well as seeking concrete results.

The work of the Co-Chairs and Commissioners was contributed to the Commission; the work was not of the Commission. The magnitude of diversity within the Commission made it impossible for complete consensus on either the causes and effects of globalization or what concrete actions should be taken to remedy its inequities: thus the need for continual dialogue and debate as well as allowance of independent action. What has united all Commissioners has been the recognition that globalization is having a dramatic effect on the human community for both good and ill; the need to understand its complexities more comprehensively; and the need to take action to ensure that it is made more equitable.

Out of this common concern and in the spirit of autonomy for all involved, the Co-Chairs and Commissioners engaged over the past four years, in a spectrum of activities. What naturally emerged was a “maturity mix” of projects ranging from those highly developed and sharply focused, to those that were exploratory in nature and which required time and effort to create critical mass.

The Commission catalyzed, supported and/or assisted in the development of the following projects by various Co-Chairs and Commissioners:

Ethical Globalization Initiative - with Co-Chair Mary Robinson, which resulted in a new organization and collaboration between the Aspen Institute, Columbia University and the International Council for Human Rights Policy to mainstrean the human rights agenda.

G8 NePAD - with Commissioners Gordon Smith and Barry Carin, who worked within the context of the G8 and NePAD commitments on African development, and with the support of the Mott Foundation and the International Development Research Centre, to establish specific projects fulfilling the NePAD vision.

Access - a partnership between Hewlett Packard, the Hewlett Foundation, Center for Global Development, Klaus Schwab Foundation, Medley Global Advisors and State of the World Forum, to develop ways to qualify NGO and CBO organizations and work for donors.

Integral Governance Initiative - with Co-Chairs Lloyd Axworthy, Maria Cattaui, His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan Bin Talal and Surin Pitsuwan, among other Commissioners, to examine the “new operating reality” and how to more effectively develop global issue networks.

International Interfaith Investment Group - with Commissioner Martin Palmer, developed in an active collaboration with Citigroup, the Mott Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, the Pilkington Trust, and major religious institutions to develop common socially and environmentally sensitive guidelines for religious institutional investment.

International Water Security - with Co-Chair Lloyd Axworthy, in partnership with State of the World Forum and the Liu Center for Global Studies at the University of Vancouver, to develop greater community participation in decisions related to water distribution.

Learning and Education - with Commissioners Paul Cappon and Helga Breuninger to formulate more effective educational and learning policies within the G8 commitments on education and the ongoing work of UNESCO.

PULIC ENGAGEMENT

Input into the deliberations of the Commission from the wider public was an important component of the Commission’s work and was solicited through regional, multi-stakeholder dialogues and annual meetings and through the Commission website. The distribution and dissemination of the Commission’s writings, findings and recommendations, including the Commission Final Report, were additional ways in which the network interacted.

In an effort to engage regional civil society representatives, regional Community Building meetings were convened in 2001 and 2002 by State of the World Forum, which served as the Secretariat for the Commission. The meetings were funded by a grant from the Ford Foundation and included:

Washington, DC - A meeting of about 50 individuals drawn from civil society, the World Bank and the United Nations was convened at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies on April 23 to discuss the Commission. The intent of the meeting was to solicit feedback and suggestions on how the Commission could best contribute to bridging the divide between the many voices in the globalization debate, and to proceed with establishing a common agenda that would foster a constructive spirit of dialogue and inquiry. Co-Chair Mikhail Gorbachev addressed the meeting along with John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, and Co-Chair Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen Trade Watch.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - This meeting was convened on August 23rd at the premiere Brazilian think tank, the Vargas Institute, and drew over 50 representatives from the various sectors to discuss an increasing role for civil society in the globalization debate. The event also emphasized regional issues relevant to the Commission’s mandate and included leaders involved in the original World Social Forum meeting in 2001. Thais Corral, a member of the Commission and the REDEH organization, coordinated the meeting and the broader trip. The opportunity to learn more about the issues and concerns of the region through the experience of academics, NGO leaders, and activist organizations was compelling and provided significant value to the overall diversity of views within the Commission. Meetings were held with dozens of civil society leaders from Latin America, exploring local issues like privatization of water, the World Social Forum, and the Landless Worker’s Movement during this trip. Progress was made toward developing a strategy for future collaboration in Latin America and seven new Commissioners were identified during the visit.

Budapest, Hungary - State of the World Forum produced a one-day symposium entitled, “September 11: Its Impact on the Effectiveness of Civil Society's Engagement in Global Issues,” on Oct 17th at the Central European University in Budapest. The debate was fresh, rich and surprisingly frank. While there was general agreement that the September 11th events had fundamentally changed part of the world’s psyche, the discussion highlighted the differences in regional perceptions of the same event. The lively debate spilled over into the main conference, “Reshaping Globalisation: Multilateral Dialogues and New Policy Initiatives” convened on Oct 17th – Oct 19th at the Central European University in Budapest, and invigorated the more formal discussions over the following two days. This conference was co-organized by the Central European University and the University of Warwick.

Porto Alegre, Brazil - The Forum Secretariat convened a workshop during the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, January 31 – February 5, 2002, entitled “Strengthening Civil Society’s Participation in Global Governance Through Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues.” Commissioners Mark Ritchie, Tom Spencer, Maria Ivanova and Marcelo Palazzi participated. The Commission had members represented in both the World Economic Forum and the World Social Forum, pointing to the diversity of the Commission network. The Commission was profiled in the Economist, National Public Radio, the BBC, and a number of other newspapers and journals resulting from activities in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The strategic intent of all of these activities of the Commission was to build a global coalition of individuals and institutions committed to exercising democracy at the global level; work collaboratively to take actions that would shape globalization humanely; and refine the processes related to multi-stakeholder deliberations.

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP NETWORK

The Co-Chairs and Commissioners were a diverse and committed Global Leadership Network of innovative leaders from around the world, serving in their personal capacities, and dedicated to collaborative engagement in the constructive reform of the global system. Commissioners worked in highly diverse ways and in different domains, but remained united in the common effort to create a more humane future for humanity.

By September 2004, the following confirmed their commitment to serve on the Council of Co-Chairs:
 
Mahnaz Afkhami
Minister of Women’s Affairs, Iran (1976 - 1978)
President, Women's Learning Partnership

Lloyd Axworthy
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada (1996 - 2000)
Director, Liu Centre, University of British Columbia

Georges Berthoin
European Chairman, Trilateral Commission (1975-1992)

Jagdish Bhagwati
University Professor, Columbia University; Special Adviser to the UN on Globalization (2001); External Adviser to the WTO (2001-2002)

Carl Bildt
Prime Minister, Sweden (1991 - 1994)
Special Envoy of the Secretary General for the Balkans, United Nations
 
Bill Bradley
United States Senator (1979 - 1997)

Kim Campbell
Prime Minister, Canada (1993)
 
Ruth Cardoso
Chair of the Board, Comunidade Solidaria Program, Brazil
 
Gareth Evans
President, International Crisis Group
Foreign Minister, Australia (1988 - 1996)

Jane Goodall
Primatologist
 
Mikhail Gorbachev
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1990)
Chairman, Gorbachev Foundation

Oded Grajew
President, Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsabilidade Social
 
Rebeca Grynspan
Director Subregional Headquarters in Mexico,
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)
  
Cândido Grzybowski
Director-General, Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas (IBASE)

His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan Bin Talal
 
Noeleen Heyzer
Executive Director, United Nations Development Fund for Women
  
Enrique Iglesias
President, Inter-American Development Bank
 
Yolanda Kakabadse
President, The World Conservation Union
 
Craig Kielburger
Founder, Kids Can Free The Children
 
Maria Livanos Cattaui
Secretary General, International Chamber of Commerce
 
Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo
Prime Minister, Portugal (1979)

Miguel de la Madrid
President, Mexico (1982 - 1988)

Ruud Lubbers
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Koichiro Matsuura
Director General, United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Pascoal Mocumbi
Prime Minister, Mozambique
 
Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan

Thoraya Obaid
Executive Director, United Nations Population Fund

Surin Pitsuwan
Foreign Minister, Thailand (1997 - 2001)
Member of Parliament, Thailand
 
John Polanyi
Nobel Laureate (1986)
President, Canadian Committee of Scientists and Scholars
  
Jose Ramos-Horta
Foreign Minister, East Timor
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1996)
 
Shridath Ramphal
Co-Chairman, The Commission on Global Governance
 
Mary Robinson
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997 - 2002)
 
Richard Sandor
Chairman and CEO, Environmental Financial Products
Research Professor, Northwestern University
 
Vandana Shiva
Director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and National Research Policy
 
Juan Somavia
Director General, International Labour Organization
 
George Soros
Chairman, Soros Fund Management
 
James Gustave Speth
Administrator, UNDP (1993 - 1999)
Dean, Practive of Enviornmental Policy and Sustainable Development
Yale School of Forestry and Enviornmental Studies
 
Sigmund Sternberg
Co-Founder, The Three Faiths Forum
 
Joseph Stiglitz
Chief Economist, World Bank (1997-2000)
Nobel Economics Prize Laureate (2002)
 
Strobe Talbott
President, The Brookings Institution
  
Manuel Tello
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico (1994)
Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations (1995 - 2000)
 
Desmond Tutu
Chairman, Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1984)
 
Lori Wallach
Director, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
 
William White
President, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
 
Marian Wright Edelman
President, Children's Defense Fund
 
Muhammad Yunus
Managing Director, Grameen Bank

As of September 2004, the following confirmed their commitment to serve on the Commission’s deliberative body as Commissioners:
 
Ahmedou Abdallah
Executive Secretary, The Global Coalition for Africa
 

Rebecca Adamson
President, First Nations Development Institute
 

Ladan Afrasiabi
Member of the Board of Directors, The Society of Iranian Professionals

Techeste Ahderom
UNDP Senior Advisor on Recovery; President, Institute of Technology

Diego Arria
Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the United Nations (1991-94)
Director, The Columbus Group

Nuno Miguel Teixeira de Azevedo
Chairman, Global Advisory Board Sonae SGPS, Portugal

Mervat Badawi
Director, Technical Department, Arab Fund for Economic & Social Development

Alícia Bárcena
Chief, Environment and Human Settlements Division,
United Nations Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
 
Richard C. Bartlett
Vice Chairman, Mary Kay Inc.
 
Monique Bégin
Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa

Tom Bentley
Director, Demos, UK

Chris Beresford
Partner, KPMG Transaction Services, UK

Johannah Bernstein
International Environmental Lawyer, Environmental Law and Policy Consulting

Betty Bigombe
Senior Social Scientist, Social Development, Post Conflict Unit, World Bank

Angela Blackwell
President, PolicyLink

Helga Breuninger
Chair, Breuninger Foundation

Charlotte Bunch
Executive Director, Center for Women's Global Leadership, Rutgers University
 

Sharan Burrow
President, Australian Council of Trade Unions

Aspasia Camargo
Vice-Minister for Environment, Brazil
 
Paul Cappon
Director General, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
 
Barry Carin
High Commissioner of Canada to Singapore (1996-2000)
 
Myrtha Casanova
Founder and President, The European Institute for Managing Diversity
 
Juan de Castro
President, Metaeconomics Research Center, Spain
 
Maria Silvia Portella de Castro
Advisor, Unified Workers Confederation (CUT)
  
Alpesh Chokshi
Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning and Business Development, American Express
 
Nat Colletta
Founding Manager, Post Conflict Unit, World Bank (1998 - 2001)
 
Apela Colorado
Founder, Worldwide Indigenous Science Network
 
Thais Corral
Vice President, Women’s Environment and Development Organization, Brazil
 
Clare Cowan

Founder and CEO, Venture Exchange Network
 
Linda Crompton
President and CEO, Investor Responsibility Centre
 
Yeda Crusius
Federal Deputy, Brazil
 
Jose Maria Dagnino Pastore
Chairman, Banco Sudameris Argentina, SA
 
Thomas d’Aquino
President and CEO
Canadian Council of Chief Executives

Gurcharan Das
Former CEO, Proctor & Gamble, India

Susan Davis
Advisor to the Director General, International Labour Organization
 
Yael Dayan
Member of Parliament, Israel (1994-2000)

Meghnad Desai
The Centre for the Study of Global Governance and the Asia Research Centre, London School of Economics
 
Kojo Boakye Djan
Chief Policy Adviser, Boakye Djan& Co, Independent Policy Advisers, UK
 
Felix Dodds
Executive Director, Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future
 
Elizabeth Dowdeswell
President & CEO, Nuclear Waste Management Organization;
Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (1993 - 1998)

William Drayton
President, Ashoka Innovators for the Public

Hans-Peter Duerr
Emeritus Director, Professor, Max-Plank Institut für Physik, Germany

Nick Dunlop
Executive Director, e-Parliament Initiative
 
Peter Eigen
Chairman of the Board, Transparency International
 
Bo Ekman
Chairman, Nextwork AB, Sweden
  
John Elkington
Co-Founder, SustainAbility Ltd.
 
Amr Enany
Vice Chairman, Enany Group of Companies, Saudi Arabia

Ruth Escobar
Actress and Cultural Ambassador, Brazil
 
Daniel Esty
Associate Dean, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Director, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy
 
Michael Fairbanks
CEO, Monitor Co.
 
Christiana Figueres
Executive Director, The Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas
 
Alberto Forchielli
Director, PEA S.p.A

Shepard Forman
Director, Center on International Cooperation, New York University

Lynn Franks
President, Sustainable Enterprise and Empowerment Dynamics,(SEED), London
 
Graham Galer
Associate, Global Business Network
 
Timothy Garden
Visiting Professor, Centre for Defence Studies, King's College
 
Mark Gerzon
President, Mediators Foundation
 
Anthony Giddens
Director, London School of Economics
 
Ronni Goldfarb
Executive Director, Equal Access

Pregaluxmi Govender
Women's Rights Activist, South Africa

Jonathan Granoff
CEO, Global Security Institute
 
Ted Hall
Managing Director, Mayacamas Associates
Chairman Emeritus, McKinsey Global Institute
 
Halle Hanssen
Vice-Chairman, ATTAC, Norway
 
Khadija Haq
President, Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre, Pakistan
 
Hazel Henderson
Author, Futurist, Economist
 
Richard Hodapp
Chairman, The Mapping Alliance, Inc.
  
Hanns Michael Hölz
Global Head, Public Affairs and Sustainable Development, Deutsche Bank AG
 
Will Hutton
Chief Executive, The Work Foundation, UK
  
Maria Ivanova
Director, Global Environmental Governance Project,
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy

Devaki Jain
Women’s Rights Advocate, India

Adam Kahane
Managing Partner, Generon
 
Laszlo Kapolyi
Chairman of the Board, System Consulting PLC, Hungary

Sam Keen
Philosopher and Author

Gail Koff
Founding Partner, Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices

David Korten
President, The People Centered Development Forum

Bart Jan Krouwel
Director, Sustainability and Innovation, Rabobank Group, the Netherlands

Matthew Kukah
Secretary-General, Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (1996 - 2001)

Huguette Labelle
President, Canadian International Development Agency (1993-1997)
 
Michael Levett
President, Citizens Democracy Corps
 
Alexander Likhotal
First Vice President, Green Cross International

Walter Link
Chairman, The Global Academy
 
Laura Liswood
Secretary General, Council of Women World Leaders
 
Amory Lovins
CEO of Research, Rocky Mountain Institute
 
Hunter Lovins
CEO of Strategy, Rocky Mountain Institute
 
Marc Luyckx
Director, Vision 2020  
 
Alejandro Martinez-Cuenca
President, Fundación International para el Desafio Económico Global (FIDEG), Nicaragua
 
Fred Matser
President and Founder, Sofam Beheer

Richard Medley
President, Medley Global Advisors
 
Paola Melchiori
President, CRINALI - The Free University of Women, Italy
 
James Miscoll
Vice Chairman, Bank of America (1984-1992)

Uwe Morawetz
Chairman, International Peace Foundation, Austria

Harriet Mouchly-Weiss
Managing Partner, Strategy XXI
  
Tandiwe Munyanyi
Youth Committee Member, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), Zimbabwe

Caroline Myss
President, Caroline Myss, Inc.

Kumi Naidoo
Secretary General and CEO, CIVICUS

Dragoljub Najman
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to UNESCO
 
Jane Nelson
Director, Business Leadership and Development
Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum

Susan Nycum-Buckley
Co-founder and President
Technology Disputes Resolution Services, Inc.

Oscar Olivera
Secretario Ejecutivo, Federación de Trabajodores Fabriles de Cochabamba

Rosiska Darcy de Oliveira
President, National Council on Women’s Right, Brazil (1995-1999)

Michael Olmstead
President, e2k World
 
Martin Palmer
Director, Alliance for Religion and Conservation, UK
 

Prinn Panitchpakdi
Mergers and Acquisitions Department, ABN AMRO Corporate Finance Limited, UK  
 
Ebrahim Patel
General Secretary, South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (SACTWU)
 
Berniece Patterson
Chairman, Pioneer Health Care Services
 
C.E. Patterson
President, MacKenzie Patterson, Inc.
 
Nicanor Perlas
President, Center for Alternative Development Initiatives
 
Howard Perlmutter
Emeritus Professor of Social Architecture and Management, The Wharton School
 
John Pickering
Secretary, Labour Finance and Industry Group, UK
 
Sirpa Pietikäinen
Member of Parliament, Finland

Jorge Pinto
Director, Center for Global Finance, Lubin School of Business, Pace University
 
Jacqueline Pitanguy
Executive Director, The Civil Society Forum of the Americas
 
Eduardo Ramos-Gómez
President, United States - Mexico Chamber of Commerce
 
Shalini Randeria
Fellow, Institute of Sociology, Free University of Berlin

Aruna Rao
President, Association for Women’s Rights in Development, India

Stephen Rhinesmith
Partner, CDR International
 
Mark Ritchie
President, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
 
Douglas Roche
Senator, Canada; International Chairman, Middle Powers Initiative

Robert Rubinstein
Founder and CEO, Brooklyn Bridge

Kumar Rupesinghe
Secretary-General, International Alert (1992 - 1999)

Guy Ryder
General Secretary, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions

Francisco Sagasti
President, FORO Nacional/Internacional, Peru
 
Alison Sander
Manager, Boston Consulting Group
 
Robert Savio
Chair, Inter Press Service (IPS) International Board of Trustees
Secretary General, Society for International Development

David Schneider
President & Chief Executive Officer, Nextera
 
John Sewell
Senior Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
President, Overseas Development Council (1980-2000)

Leticia Shahani
Secretary General, UN Third World Conference on Women 1985, Nairobi, Kenya
 
Barbara Shailor
Director, International Affairs Department, AFL-CIO
 
Gordon Smith
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada (1994 - 1997)
Director, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria

Boaventura de Sousa Santos
Visiting Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School
 
Oliver Sparrow
Director, The Challenge Network
 
George Starcher
Secretary General, European Baha’i Business Forum

Mervat Tallawy
Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
 
Henry Tang
Chairman, Committee of 100
  
Majid Tehranian
Director, Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research
 
Terrence Tehranian
Managing Partner, GMT Communications Partners Ltd, UK
 
Steven Trevino
Chief Strategist Mission Assurance, ASE, Inc. Subsidiary Booz Allen Hamilton

Wouter van Dieren
President, IMSA Institute for Environment and Systems Analysis Amsterdam Ltd.

Raymond van Ermen
Executive Director, European Partners for the Environment

Paul van Seters
Executive Director, Globus, the Netherlands
 
Eduardo Viola
Professor of Globalization and Governance, University de Brasília, Brazil
  
Lindsay Wagner
Actress

Anders Wijkman
Member, European Parliament
 
Kathryn Williams
Chairperson of the Board, KRW International
 
Judith Woodard
Senior Vice President, Digitas
  
Ngaire Woods
Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University College, Oxford University

Xu Mingqi
Executive Council Member, Chinese Society for World Economy Studies

Simon Zadek
Chief Executive, Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility

Kees Zoeteman
Deputy Director General for Environmental Protection, the Netherlands (1988 - 2001)

ANNUAL COMMISSION MEETING REPORTS

*COMMISSION ON GLOBALISATION INAUGURAL CONFERENCE
London Business School, UK - December 13-15, 2002

I. INTRODUCTION

The State of the World Forum Secretariat launched the formal activities of the Commission on Globalisation at the London Business School December 13-15, 2001. More than eighty Co-Chairs and Commissioners attended the two full days of wide ranging discussions on the strategy and goals of the Commission; solid reports on the special projects and Policy Action Groups which comprise the work of the Commission; energetic business meetings in which a highly diverse and competent Steering Committee was elected; and substantive dialogues after meals about important global issues.

The Inaugural Meeting brought closure to many months of preparation and provided a sense of direction and common purpose. A lot of hard work lies ahead, but the challenges can now be approached with a sense of community and strength.

A Joint Statement, signed by over 100 Co-Chairs and Commissioners, appeared in the global edition of the Financial Times on December 13, 2001:

"We the undersigned have come together to issue the following joint statement:

Moral, economic and political imperatives mandate that the world community take action to reconcile the contradictory tendencies inherent in globalisation. The global challenges before us must be understood and solved in a more comprehensive manner. In the aftermath of September 11, it is clearly the responsibility of the world community to build a sustained coalition against terrorism. It is also our responsibility to build an equally enduring coalition dedicated to building a more peaceful and just world order.

In this spirit, we have come together from around the world and across a spectrum of disciplines to establish a COMMISSION ON GLOBALISATION, which will convene at the London Business School December 13-15. The Commission is an international non-governmental network comprised of leaders from civil society, business, and government who believe that human security, economic prosperity and environmental stability must be developed in an integrated manner to ensure long term sustainability and for the benefits of globalisation to be enjoyed equitably throughout the world. Our goal is to convene leaders from all sectors to deliberate and take collaborative actions focused on the constructive reform of specific aspects of the globalisation process. Our recommendations will be presented to the member states of the United Nations.

Under current conditions, it is essential that those who might not normally consult with one another, or even sit at the same table, come together and share innovative thinking and best practices concerning the equitable and democratic governance of the global system. Nothing less will suffice to create the future to which we all aspire."

CO-CHAIRS

II. MEETING REPORT

Click here for a .pdf file (1.6MB) of the Inaugural Report.

Click here for a Word text-only file of the Inaugural Report.

The next Commission meeting is planned for December 4-7, 2002. In the interim, the Forum and its collaborating partners will seek to strengthen the composition of the Commission's participants, expand its political and corporate influence, enhance its thought leadership and intellectual capacity, as well as continue to work with its Policy Action Groups and Special Initiatives.

III. PARTICIPANTS

Over 100 Co-Chairs, Commissioners and Special Guests participated in the two-day meeting, including:

CO-CHAIRS

Mahnaz Afkhami
President and CEO
Women’s Learning Partnership for Rights, Development and Peace

Georges Berthoin
International Chairman
European Movement

Carl Bildt
Special Envoy of the Secretary General for the Balkans
United Nations

Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo
President
Independent Commsn. on Population & Quality of Life

Cândido Grzybowski
Director-General
Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas (IBASE)

Craig Kielburger
Founder and Chair
Kids Can Free The Children

George Soros
Chairman
Soros Fund Management

Sigmund Sternberg
Co-Founder
Three Faiths Forum

William White
President
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation

Marian Wright Edelman
President
Children's Defense Fund

COMMISSIONERS

Ahmedou Abdallah
Executive Secretary, The Global Coalition for Africa

Ladan Afrasiabi
Member of the Board of Directors, The Society of Iranian Professionals

Nuno Miguel Teixeira de Azevedo
Chairman, Global Advisory Board Sonae SGPS, Portugal

Mervat Badawi
Director, Technical Department, Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, Kuwait

Monique Bégin
Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa

Tom Bentley
Director, Demos, UK

Chris Beresford
Partner, KPMG Transaction Services, UK

Betty Bigombe
Senior Social Scientist, Social Development,
Post Conflict Unit, World Bank

Helga Breuninger
Chair, Breuninger Foundation

Aspasia Camargo
Vice-Minister for Environment, Brazil

Barry Carin
High Commissioner of Canada to Singapore
(1996-2000)

Juan de Castro
President, Metaeconomics Research Center, Spain

Apela Colorado
Founder, Worldwide Indigenous Science Network

Thais Corral
Vice President, Women's Environment and Development Organization, Brazil

Susan Davis
Advisor to the Director General, International Labor Organization

Kojo Boakye Djan
Chief Policy Adviser, Boakye Djan& Co,
Independent Policy Advisers, UK

Elizabeth Dowdeswell
Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (1993 - 1998)

Hans-Peter Duerr
Emeritus Director, Professor,
Max-Planck Institut für Physik, Germany

Nick Dunlop
Executive Director, EarthAction Network

John Elkington
Co-Founder, SustainAbility Ltd.

Alberto Forchielli
Director, Strategos

Mark Gerzon
President, Mediators Foundation

Ronni Goldfarb
Executive Director, Equal Access

Pregaluxmi Govender
Women's Rights Activist, South Africa

Jonathan Granoff
CEO, Global Security Institute

Ted Hall
Managing Director, Mayagamas Associates; Chairman Emeritus, McKinsey Global Institute

Halle Hanssen
Vice-Chairman, ATTAC, Norway

Khadija Haq
President, Mahbub ul Haq
Human Development Centre, Pakistan

Hazel Henderson
Author, Futurist, Economist

Maria Ivanova
Director, Global Environmental Governance Project, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy

Devaki Jain
Women's Rights Advocate, India

Adam Kahane
Managing Partner, Generon

Gail Koff
Founding Partner,
Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices

Bart Jan Krouwel
Director, Sustainability and Innovation,
Rabobank Group, the Netherlands

Huguette Labelle
President, Canadian International
Development Agency (1993-1997)

Fred Matser
President and Founder, Sofam Beheer

Paola Melchiori
President, CRINALI -
The Free University of Women, Italy

Caroline Myss
President, Caroline Myss, Inc.

Jane Nelson
Director, Business Leadership and Development
Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum

Susan Nycum-Buckley
Attorney, Baker & McKenzie

Marcello Palazzi
Founder and President, Progressio Foundation,
the Netherlands

Martin Palmer
Director, Alliance for Religion and Conservation, UK

Nicanor Perlas
President, Center for Alternative
Development Initiatives

John Pickering
Secretary, Labour Finance and Industry Group, UK

Aruna Rao
President, Association for
Women's Rights in Development, India

Robert Rubinstein
Founder and CEO, Brooklyn Bridge

Kumar Rupesinghe
Secretary-General, International Alert (1992 - 1999)

Francisco Sagasti
President, FORO Nacional/Internacional, Peru

Alison Sander
Manager, Boston Consulting Group

Leticia Shahani
Secretary General, United Nations Third World Conference on Women 1985, Nairobi, Kenya

Gordon Smith
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada
(1994 - 1997)
Director, Centre for Global Studies,
University of Victoria

Tom Spencer
Executive Director,
European Centre for Public Affairs, UK

George Starcher
Secretary General, European Baha'i Business Forum

Mervat Tallawy
Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, Lebanon

Majid Tehranian
Director, Toda Institute for Global Peace and
Policy Research

Terraence Tehranian
Managing Partner, GMT Communications Partners Ltd, UK

Wouter van Dieren
President, IMSA Institute for Environment and Systems Analysis Amsterdam Ltd.

Paul van Seters
Executive Director, Globus, the Netherlands

Eduardo Viola
Professor of Globalization and Governance, University of Brasilia, Brazil

Kathryn Williams
Chairperson of the Board, KRW International

Judith Woodard
Senior Vice President, Digitas

Xu Mingqi
Executive Council Member,
Chinese Society for World Economy Studies

Kees Zoeteman
Deputy Director General for Environmental Protection, the Netherlands (1988-2001

SPECIAL GUESTS

Zaki Badawi

Marcus Braybrooke

Alan Buckley

Susan Cote-Freeman
Transparency International

Dan Fleshler
Strategy XXI

John Goldstein
Senior Managing Director, Strategic Planning and Business Development
Medley Global Advisors

Leo Harari
Deputy Representative in Europe and Israel
Inter-American Development Bank

Richard Hodapp
President
The Mapping Alliance, Inc.

Nick Isles
European Enterprise Summit
Industrial Society

Therese Karim
Personal Assistant
Mervart Talllawy- ESCWA Executive Secretary

Paul Kloppenborg
Progressio Foundation

Karin Lissakers

Ermanno Magnani

Jeremy Newmark
Assistant to Rabbi Sacks

Jonathan Sacks
Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

Peter Spiegel
Director
Breuninger Foundation

Daniel Truran
European Baha’i Business Forum

*SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
Mexico City, December 4-7, 2002

I. INTRODUCTION

Over 150 Co-Chairs, Commissioners and specially invited guests participated in the second annual gathering of the Commission convened in Mexico City from December 4-7, 2002. The final list of participants is listed below.

During the two full days of meetings, Co-Chairs, Commissioners and invited guests from Mexico representing the government, business sector and civil society, came together to discuss issues including the war on terrorism and human rights, free trade and social equity, migration and the displacement of peoples, risk management in the global economy, and pathways to a sustainable civilization.

In addition, Policy Action Group and Special Initiative leaders organized small-group roundtables and provided special briefings for the entire conference. A full-day special session on Poverty and Globalisation, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, was organized on the opening day of the conference, which was followed by the opening dinner sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton.

II. FINAL AGENDA

To see the final agenda for the conference, please click here.

III. POVERTY AND GLOBALISATION WORKSHOP: A SPECIAL SESSION REPORTING TO THE COMMISSION ON GLOBALISATION SECOND ANNUAL MEETING

PURPOSE

This special session on Poverty and Globalisation was convened the day prior to the second annual meeting of the Commission on Globalisation to determine the contribution the Commission, an international leadership network representing government, the corporate sector and civil society, could make toward the world movement to reduce poverty and ensure greater social and economic equity within and between nations, including the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals.

This workshop on Poverty and Globalisation was funded by the Canadian International Development agency and organized by Commissioner Huguette Labelle, President of CIDA (1993-1997) and Chancellor of the University of Ottawa. Commission Co-Chair Rebeca Grynspan, Second Vice President of Costa Rica (1994-1998) and now the Director of the Subregional Headquarters in Mexico for the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, co-moderated this special session. More than 40 participants gathered to discuss their experiences with globalization and what the Commission could do in terms of actions and solutions.

THE CHALLENGE

Although great progress has been achieved during the last century in improving human well being, poverty and inequity within and between nations remains the single most important issue facing humanity. Of the world’s 6 billion people, 2.8 billion live on less than $2.00 per day. Over the next 25 years the world’s population is expected to increase by an additional 2 billion people, 97% of which are expected to be born in developing countries. Close to 1 billion of the world’s population are between the ages of 15 and 25, with the great majority left without any sustainable livelihoods.

The various UN Summits of the 90’s committed to the goal of reducing world poverty by 50% in absolute terms by 2015. In September 2000, more than 150 Heads of State responded to the call from the Secretary General of the UN by reaffirming this commitment as they issued the UN’s Millennium Declaration. Since then, participants at the 2002 Monterey Conference on Financing for Development, the 2002 G7/8 meeting and the World Summit on Sustainable Development have all reiterated these commitments and have pledged additional development assistance. The broad challenge ahead is to ensure these commitments are met with sufficient, appropriate and timely action and support.

More specifically, in addition to a highly credible analysis of the major issues within the framework of globalization, a vision for the future of humanity and the political will to achieve what now remains a potential, are desperately needed. There are currently many visions, but no one shared vision of what the world should look like. This is the basis for the lack of policy coherence, a lack in governance coherence and an inability to properly address today's growing terrorist threats. Although we know that our present path is unsustainable, we have not mapped out other possible alternatives.

Globalization has opened new opportunities for reducing poverty and ensuring greater equity. We now have the knowledge, the technologies and the resources for a prosperous and secure world. What is missing is a shared global vision that can lead to focusing on new opportunities created by the revolution in technology, the end of the cold war and the trend to globalization. New opportunities include global development, transformed governance and a global rights and responsibilities framework. Each of these three broad areas requires new thinking, new structures, and new activities.

CRITICAL QUESTIONS

The following questions were presented to the workshop participants in advance of the session in an effort to assess what actions and processes would be most suitable to be pursued by the Commission recognizing its role, structure and means, and considering the work that others around the world are already pursuing.

Sustaining human capital
• How can the poor be empowered to best prepare them to assume a leadership role in their own development?
• How can developing countries and poor communities be supported in preparing their own policies and programs essential for their development?

Financing development
• What measures are required to enhance support for ODA and for its boost to required levels?
• What supplementary mechanisms could be developed to significantly increase the resources available for development, such as people-to-people giving, public-private sector partnerships, etc.?
Expanding poor people’s assets
• How can markets be made to work for the poor?
• How can we reform the rules of trade and investment to help mitigate poverty?

Supporting improved governance to enhance social achievement and national wealth
• How can local and national governments be supported in becoming more effective and transparent?
• What “new world approach” is required at the multilateral level?

Ensuring access to the essential conditions for development
• Recognizing that a secure environment, access to social and physical infrastructure, land, credit, markets, and information and sustainable occupations are essential to development, how can developing countries and poor communities be supported in preparing their own policies and programs essential to the conditions for development?
• How can resources be generated to achieve such development?

Harnessing the forces of globalization to serve the interests of the poor
• What types of alliances are required to maximize the benefits of globalization and mitigate some of the negative aspects?
• What type of national and international ‘fireproofing’ is required to protect against cross-border shocks; and what type of means are required to respond quickly when they cannot be prevented?

SPECIAL SESSION INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Huguette Labelle
Huguette Labelle opened the meeting by pointing out that the significant advances of the last decades resulting in increases in food production and medical technology, for example, have led us to believe that the world was on a steady path to progress in human development.

However, the current combination of globalization and the deregulation of markets and the information technology revolution has created a new more volatile situation. The hope had been that greater economic growth along with less impediment to the movement of capital and resources would eventually benefit populations at large. The result has been the creation of immense wealth in the hands of a few. It has also made it possible for those who already possess assets to access the benefits of this world situation. Simultaneously we saw a major increase in the extent and degree of poverty worldwide. In addition, population growth, civil conflicts with migration and internal displacement, spontaneous economic crises and new epidemics, in particular, HIV/AIDS, are not only making it more difficult for countries to “catch up” in certain circumstances, it is wiping out decades of development.

It is worth taking special note of the current HIV/AIDS tragedy. In a number of countries it is devastating the twenty to thirty age group. Africa is the continent most affected by this human disaster. It has seen its working age group dwindling rapidly with life expectancy soon to be reduced to the low thirty level in certain regions. As we meet there are over two million orphaned children from HIV/AIDS in South Africa alone, with many of these children becoming head of household by the age of nine or ten.

Returning to the issue of the reversal in human development, Latin America best portrays this phenomenon. In 1980 there were 135 million people living below the poverty level. By 1999, this number had increased to 211.4 million. The negative trend has continued since then. In Guatemala, for example, 86.5% of the indigenous population live in poverty. These numbers demonstrate the impact on life expectancy of this situation. A group that requires special attention in all countries is the 15 to 25 age group, of which there are close to one billion. Further, in many impoverished countries, those below the age of 25 constitute up to 65% of the total population, creating a rising tide of young people entering the labor market and post secondary educational system. In Kenya, for example, in 2002 there were 42,000 youth graduating from high school who had succeeded in the university entrance examinations. Unfortunately there were only 13,000 places available in that country’s universities.

Finally, youth unemployment is generally double the rate of unemployment in the general population. This data masks a different reality. In Algeria, for example the youth unemployment rate is estimated to be 80%.

Poverty and exclusion breed frustration, resentment, alienation and disengagement. Young people want to be engaged and countries badly need their contributions. We cannot afford to treat young people as only part of our future. They understand the world in the context of globalization and the information society. Ways must be found to fully engage them in the process of designing our collective future.

Learning from the past, we know that in most situations, there was a time for action that could have minimized or prevented the degeneration of a situation to a major crisis. Leaders of countries, as well as the international community, have been too slow in many cases at taking action. The result has been huge costs in terms of loss of life, destruction of assets and poverty.

We have ample evidence to show that when there is a collective determination to effect positive and timely change, even that which was originally thought to be impossible can be achieved. We have seen this in the Americas with the eradication of poliomyelitis.

We have also witnessed that when mechanisms are found to share experience and knowledge in all aspects of development, that the impossible can also be attained. Information technology has given us additive tools in this respect to bridge the gap in global knowledge dissemination.

As mentioned earlier, over the past two years world leaders have made major commitments. Although these only deal partially with poverty reduction, their implementation by real and timely action would make a significant difference in improving the lives of hundreds of millions of poor people. With a rich world GNP of 25 trillion dollars, it is possible to find an additional 50 billion per year in development assistance to begin to break the poverty cycle.

Rebeca Grynspan
Rebeca Grynspan continued by adding that in Latin America poverty is increasing in absolute terms, with 40% of the population living below the poverty level, and absolute poverty being higher in these countries than in the 1980’s. She also pointed out that Latin American economies need to grow at a faster rate in order to effectively reduce poverty, but while most governments are basing their economic strategies on increasing openness of trade, dramatically lowering tariffs, the link between growth and trade has changed, and exports are growing faster than GDP. The central challenge seems to be how to link growth to the reduction of poverty and unemployment. After the crisis of the1980’s, Latin America’s poverty was decreasing while growth, exports and foreign investments were increasing. However, growth and stability were not as high as was expected with the implemented reforms. By comparison, in the last decade poverty has gone back up again and growth has deteriorated significantly, especially after 1997.

One of the achievements of the period, however, was the return of democracy and ensuing advancements in the human rights agenda. So why were the expected results in growth not achieved? In looking deeply at this question, there are three additional points to be made: 1) while exports and foreign investment went up in a very dynamic way, growth was not as dynamic; 2) the growth that did occur was not enough to provide sufficient employment, especially for women and young people between the ages of 15 and 24, to help themselves escape poverty conditions; and 3) growth has become more inefficient in the last two decades to effectively combat poverty and enhance the social goals which are aspired for. Latin America has also suffered from its quality of growth, characterized by volatile, unstable and non-equitable growth. This causes the greatest suffering for the poor, given that inequality never recovers even when growth recovers. The fact remains that poverty and inequality are inextricably linked and must be addressed together. Finally, Latin America must look very objectively at past results and look for new ways of moving forward.

Khadija Haq
Khadija Haq, President, Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre in Pakistan, was invited to compare this situation with South Asia. Khadija pointed out that the situation in South Asia is a mirror image of Latin America in that globalization-led growth has not reduced poverty in that region, and whatever little wealth was created has not spread to many sectors. During the globalization phase when South Asian economies were increasingly integrated with the world economy, half a billion people in the region lived in poverty. Income inequality has widened between the rich and poor and between urban and rural areas. Prior to globalization, South Asia had some of the worst indicators of human deprivation such as high levels of illiteracy and out-of- school children, infant mortality and morbidity, and high population growth rate. These initial conditions remained almost the same during the phase of rapid globalization in the 1990s.

Moreover, growth has not increased human security. Public expenditure on education, health and social welfare and poverty alleviation programs have been reduced while the prices paid for food and utilities have gone up. Economic growth has neither been job-led nor pro-poor. Gains and losses as a result of globalization have disproportionately burdened the poor. Trade barriers have greatly hampered the export of goods from South Asia while at the same time the social safety net has been eroded. The World Bank and IMF are asking governments to cut deficits at the expense of social programs, and yet it is the investment in social programs that will have the greatest impact in improving the social and economic situation of the poor.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The following views were expressed during the general discussion by different participants:

Use of Policies to Maximize Benefits of Globalization - The Chinese Experience
The Chinese believe that globalization has brought with it many problems such as inequality. However absolute poverty decreased from 250 million to 20 million in China due to the forces of economic globalization which allowed this country to grow and create many alternatives, including new rural and urban enterprises. It was also pointed out that while globalization is inevitable and unavoidable, it is basically not all bad. Globalization simply requires adaptable policies that maximize benefits, but no such policies are currently in place to solve the problem of poverty.

Common Responsibility for Social Equity
We have gotten used to poverty as a fact of statistics, and because we have segregated the poor, they have become essentially invisible. Although poverty always seems to be someone else’s problem, it is very much a collective responsibility, requiring changes in attitude rather than, or commensurate with, changes in policy.

Need for Regionally Adapted Solutions
Solutions to poverty were likely to be specific for each region rather than uniform. Redistribution and inequality is where there have been huge failures, rather than in wealth creation. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with the for-profit motive as long as the business sector tries to equalize costs, something that American Express, for example, is trying to do.

Follow-up on Commitments is Vital
While commitments have been made, the real problem has been in follow-up. Furthermore agricultural issues, including the need for North America to open its markets and the fact that farms have become “corporatized,” have also compounded the problem. It was noted that change would only come with collective responsibility.

Link Between Poverty, the Environment and Democracy
Poverty, the environment and democracy are inextricably linked, and with the planet being finite in resources, we are destroying the underlying wealth base. In addition, a huge gap exists in political power, with 1/10 of 1% of the population controlling the majority of the wealth. How do we organize ourselves to bring the environment into balance with decision-making when there is increasing power in the financial markets, and the U.S. is ruling the world with military power. As it currently exists, the economy is good for concentrating power which only exists in a fraction of the population.

Negative Impact of Globalising Forces on Small Countries and the Poor
Global environmental problems, the liberalization of goods and services by the WTO, and the negative impact of many transnational corporations are leaving Mexico and other smaller Latin American countries unprepared and at a disadvantage. However, regionalism appears to be emerging, which brings with it enormous opportunities for Latin America. Further concerns were expressed that Latin American governments had sold off all of their state assets, mainly to American-led companies, and are now highly indebted with no further assets to count on. It was felt that what is now needed are new “home-grown, people-centered” policies to combat poverty, and countries such as Mexico need to rely on their own resources and human labor.

Local Conflicts: Some Specific Consequences
Local conflicts soon become world issues. This was evident, for example, in Somalia, the Sudan, Sierra Leone, East Timor and Bosnia. These are frequently magnified worldwide, feeding both support for assistance as well as prejudice, thereby creating greater intolerance for “the other” by certain groups. How reality is constructed can breed fear, violence and prejudice.

The Poor Need a Voice
Until the poor have a voice, the issues will not be confronted. The lack of democracy, human participation and broader involvement by underrepresented groups, especially women, has created a sense of vulnerability and lack of security.

Furthermore, it was pointed out that globalization is densifying interdependencies and concerns over a clash of civilizations are beginning to rise again.

Need for a New Framework for Development
There is no analytical framework for all people who want to work and want opportunity. Concern was also expressed regarding bi-lateral aid, emphasizing that private flows of money help the poor, but government-to-government aid corrupts democracy. While neither a bottom up nor a top down approach to poverty was believed to solve the problem, it was believed to be necessary to engage multiple sectors and multiple facets of poverty concurrently to have the greatest impact.

PRACTICAL ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION

The second half of the discussion focused on what practical actions the Commission on Globalisation could take up to promote the work on poverty reduction. Participants made the following general comments:

• The Commission has enormous convening power and high levels of experiences in its Co-Chairs and Commissioners. This great diversity and strength could create an inclusive dialogue process that could support initiatives already under way and working well. Additional commitments and recommendations are not necessary. The Commission could usefully take existing commitments and work on their implementation in cooperation with others already focused on this issue. Participating in determining the progress being made in attaining goals would also be useful in support of the work by Jeffrey Sacks, for example, on the UN Millennium Goals.

• National level action plans will be required to achieve the millennium goals. These should give greater priority to women and to women’s programs.

• The Commission could lead a campaign to keep poverty reduction and the attainment of the millennium goals high on the agenda of national governments and international leaders.

• Strategies and actions need to be multidimensional and should target the four levels of intervention: individual, regional, national and international.

• Focusing on creating an analytical framework, a vision for humanity, and accounting around commitment metrics, selecting one or two commitments and focusing on them, could add significant value and could be fundable.

• The Commission could align itself with the poor who are already taking action to improve their lives. Groups coming together to exchange ideas and information and possibly writing papers on the issue could amplify the voice of the poor. This could be an inexpensive way for the Commission to take action.

It was recognized by participants that the limit on the Commission’s means did not permit it to tackle the multiple issues inherent in globalization and poverty reduction. It was also felt that Commissioners and Co-Chairs could act individually or as subgroups, possibly even as a whole. Three types of initiatives emerged as feasible:

1. Supporting specific and significant initiatives by other international groups. The following were given as examples:

a. The decade of actions to create 500 million sustainable livelihoods for youth;
b. The micro-credit campaign aimed at making credit available to the poorest;
c. The global knowledge movement aimed at using information technology as a means of helping the poor to access education, health services, and commercial information to support other daily activities, etc.

2. Supporting the implementation of international commitments to poverty reduction. Ensuring, in cooperation with other groups, that the current commitments are fulfilled could also be a significant contribution by the Commission.

3. Identifying a few high leverage initiatives that the Commission could undertake. Such initiative(s) could be selected from areas already identified by the poor and the international community as essential in dealing with world inequality. The necessary range of support and actions required for trade to serve the poorest countries and poorest people’s interest was identified as an example of a practical, as well as high return area of work for the Commission.

REPORT TO THE COMMISSION

Huguette Labelle reported to the broader Commission meeting the following day by summarizing the previous day’s meeting on poverty. In looking at the issue of free trade and social equity, it is obvious that you can talk about free trade, but unless a number of other things happen simultaneously - and before - free trade will not benefit the poor or the countries in which they live. Without people having food, access to water, health care, education, roads to take their goods to market, or the assistance to provide quality products that can be sold on the international market, not much will change. And while many of the commitments of the last decade have the potential to bring about change, will those who made commitments live up to them?

Our history is in this regard is not great. In looking at social equity, it was suggested that the Commission could serve as a catalyst for a world movement to create caring societies. Greater personal and collective responsibility is required on the part of individuals, governments and multilateral institutions to share more with the rest of the world. The need for a new framework for development is also needed, one that would have the right incentives for human development and environmental sustainability; that would lead to healthier communities where more than GNP, economic growth or monetary return is looked at; and which includes multi-scope and multi-functional approaches. When governments have the will and can develop their capacity to deal with governance in a different way, supported by the world community, change can come about over time.

IV. BROADER MEETING REPORT

Click here for a .pdf file (658k) of the Inaugural Report.

V. PARTICIPANTS

Over 150 Co-Chairs, Commissioners and specially invited guests participated in the meeting, including:

CO-CHAIRS

Mahnaz Afkhami
Minister of Women’s Affairs, Iran
(1976 – 1978); President, Women’s
Learning Partnership

Lloyd Axworthy
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada
(1996 - 2000); Director, Liu Centre, University of British Columbia

Rebeca Grynspan
Director, Subregional Headquarters in Mexico, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

Craig Kielburger
Founder, Kids Can Free the Children

Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado
President, Mexico (1982 - 1988)

Pascoal Manuel Mocumbi
Prime Minister, Republic of Mozambique

Mary Robinson
High Commissioner for Human Rights,
United Nations (1997 – 2002)

Marian Wright Edelman
President, Children’s Defense FundCommissioners

COMMISSIONERS

Alicia Bárcena
Chief, Environment and Human Settlements Division, United Nations Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

Johannah Bernstein
International Environmental Lawyer, Environmental Law and Policy Consulting

Helga Breuninger
Chair, Breuninger Foundation

Charlotte Bunch
Executive Director, Center for Women's Global Leadership, Rutgers University

Paul Cappon
Director General, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

Alpesh Chokshi
Senior Vice President,
Strategic Planning and Business Development,
American Express Company

Nat Colletta
Founding Manager, Post Conflict Unit, World Bank (1998 – 2001)

Thais Corral
Vice President, Women’s Environment and Development Organization, Brazil

Clare Cowan
Venture Exchange Network

Susan Davis
Advisor to the Director General, International Labour Organization

Elizabeth Dowdeswell
Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (1993 – 1998)

Hans-Peter Duerr
Emeritus Director, Professor,
Max-Planck Institut für Physik, Germany

Peter Eigen
Chairman of the Board, Transparency International

Bo Ekman
Chairman, Nextwork AB, Sweden

Shepard Forman
Director, Center on International Cooperation,
New York University

Jonathan Granoff
President, Global Security Institute

Khadija Haq
President, Mahbub ul Haq
Human Development Centre, Pakistan

Hazel Henderson
Author, Futurist, Economist

Richard Hodapp
Chairman, The Mapping Alliance, Inc.

Adam Kahane
Managing Partner, Generon Consulting

Sam Keen
Philosopher, Author

David Korten
President, The People Centered Development Forum

Matthew Kukah
Secretary-General, Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (1996 - 2001)

Huguette Labelle
President, Canadian International
Development Agency (1993-1997)

Paola Melchiori
President, CRINALI –
The Free University of Women, Italy

Harriet Mouchly-Weiss
Managing Partner, Strategy XXI

Kumi Naidoo
Secretary General and CEO, CIVICUS

Michael Olmstead
President, e2k World

Berniece Patterson
Chairman, Pioneer Health Care Services
C.E. Patterson
President, MacKenzie Patterson, Inc.

Eduardo Ramos-Gómez
President, United States-Mexico
Chamber of Commerce

Douglas Roche
Senator, Canada; International Chairman, Middle Powers Initiative

Alison Sander
Manager, Boston Consulting Group

David Schneider
President and CEO, Nextera Enterprises

Gordon Smith
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada (1994 – 1997);
Director, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria

Tom Spencer
Executive Director, European Centre for
Public Affairs, UK

Steven Trevino
Chief Strategist Mission Assurance,
Booz Allen Hamilton

Kathryn Williams
Chairperson of the Board, KRW International

Xu Mingqi
Executive Council Member,
Chinese Society for World Economy Studies

*NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND UNIVERSAL CHALLENGES: Choices for the World After Iraq
Brussels, Belgium - June 18-20, 2003

I. INTRODUCTION

The Foundation in Support of the Commission on Globalisation, an independent non profit organization established as an affiliate of the Forum in Europe to cultivate greater European support for the Commission, hosted this special conference which drew specialists from around the world and from conservative and liberal perspectives to examine the phenomenon of U.S. power; the deepening fissures in the transatlantic alliance; and what can be learned from the development of the European Union.

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Moderators' Introduction

The Conference grew out of the previous work of the Commission on Globalisation with its interest in the dynamics of a globalising world and the search for institutions of effective global governance. The Commission on Globalisation, conceived in New York in September 2000, was formally launched in London in December 2001 in the shadow of September 11th. The arrival of the Bush Administration in Washington had challenged much of the previous consensus thinking on multilateralism. By the high summer of 2002, it was clear that a substantial shift had taken place in America’s sense of self and her role in the world. The organisers of this Conference were dissatisfied with the level of debate triggered by Robert Kagan’s article on ‘American Strength and European Weakness’. They conceived of a conference that would look beyond the merely Atlantic and would address the theoretical questions of the relationship between national sovereignty and the universal challenges faced by nation states, from the smallest up to the towering figure of the world’s sole hyper-power.

The Commission on Globalisation met in Mexico City in December 2002 in a world increasingly dominated by the probability of American action in Iraq. For the organisers of this Conference, the military action in Iraq, in the absence of UN approval, dramatised the choices facing the world both collectively and individually. There can of course be no definitive ‘after Iraq’ moment in a military or political sense. Rather the sub-title was intended to refer to ‘Iraq’ as the most dramatic manifestation to date of the new American doctrines of pre-emptive intervention and full spectrum dominance.

Having had the privilege of moderating the Conference, we believe that the consistent excellence of the speakers and the vigour of debate more than justified the ambitious aspirations of the organisers. All the participants spoke as individuals, knowing that they were on the record. They took full advantage of the absence of any need to agree a Conference communiqué. While each session had been designed to explore differences, a rough consensus emerged and the courtesies of debate were, almost without exception, observed. It is therefore with a sense of mission achieved that we offer this document as a record of a unique event and as a source for further thought in a new world.

We would like to thank the Speakers, Participants and above all, the team of Rapporteurs. Faced with the choice between early publication of the Conference Record, with its summaries of contributions, and the prospect of delayed publication of agreed texts, we have opted for freshness. If this leads to any misinterpretation, we apologise in advance. The participants and those who were unable to finally attend the conference, but who indicated a wish to remain involved in its deliberations, are in touch with each other by e-mail. They will no doubt choose to communicate any sense of grievance which we have inadvertently provoked in the spirit which they so elegantly displayed in the magnificent Bibliothèque Solvay.

July 4th 2003 Gordon Smith and Tom Spencer
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY & UNIVERSAL CHALLENGES:
CHOICES FOR THE WORLD AFTER IRAQ

“SIX THEMES” – AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BY: ALEX EVANS

Over the three days of the conference, presentations and conversations ranged far and wide, from WMD to CFSP and from America to Afghanistan. Whilst more comprehensive summaries of the event are set out in the conference record, breakout sessions record and selection of speeches from the conference, this brief summary aims to provide a flavour of the event by grouping some of the contributions around six themes.

What are the universal challenges?

Many speakers agreed on the need for broader agreement on exactly which global challenges are most urgent. Certainly, there was no shortage of issues raised during the conference. Among the list were climate change, unsustainable resource consumption and depletion, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, the North-South divide, human rights, labour rights, international financial reform, global public health challenges such as SARS or HIV, low intensity conflict, failed or failing states, migration, technological innovations such as GM crops, biotechnology and nanotechnology, and the generalised decline in trust in institutions of all shapes and sizes. Several participants placed particular emphasis on Africa as crucial, for reasons of security as well as morality: what would be the long term implications of up to forty million AIDS orphans and a workforce eviscerated by the effects of the illness?

One trend that was perhaps discernible among participants was a tendency for Americans to emphasise hard security issues, such as terrorism or WMD, whilst Europeans tended to emphasise ‘softer’ issues such as sustainable development or migration. Former CIA director James Woolsey made this distinction explicit through referring to ‘malignant’ problems – unintended consequences of decisions, such as climate change resulting from fossil fuel consumption – versus ‘malevolent’ problems that were the result of an intentional decision, such as terrorism. In his view, the EU is better at dealing with the former, and the U.S. with the latter. Tom Spencer, in dialogue with Woolsey, countered that policymakers can all too easily succumb to the temptation of prioritising the challenges that they think they can control rather than the most pressing ones. Prior to September 11, for instance, the U.S. had focussed almost exclusively on rogue states rather than Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

An interesting feature of this debate was the question of whether we face many challenges, or just one. Some participants felt that there were hazards in ‘over-aggregating’ global issues, suggesting that the key to success was ensuring that issues were dealt with separately so as to keep them manageable. Others, though, suggested that the reality of global interdependence meant that there were increasingly ‘no single issues’, and that a joined up, whole system approach was essential. Such an approach would perhaps need to be both horizontally integrated across different but overlapping issue areas, and also vertically integrated through involving all levels of governance from global to local.
U.S. foreign policy after Iraq and Afghanistan

Inevitably, much discussion about the United States began with the war on terror and the Middle East. Prince Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan noted that the U.S. had unfinished business in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, and observed that the Iraq Body Count campaign estimated that the civilian death toll in Iraq was at least 5,500 and possibly as high as 10,000. Both Prince Hassan and Tim Garden of King’s College London suggested that post-conflict management needed improvement, especially in Iraq; Garden underlined that the U.S. was under-resourced for this type of task, and Prince Hassan noted that 64 per cent of Iraqis saw the U.S. as an occupying power.

Many participants surmised that the intention of the U.S. was to recreate itself as an empire, or alternatively to be able to pursue unilateral strategies without reference to the rest of the world. Armand Clesse suggested that the U.S. was an “autistic megalosaurus” bent on “world domination”; many others expressed similar, if less colourful, views from the floor. Tom Spencer, Executive Director of the European Centre for Public Affairs, argued that U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan failed the basic test of effectiveness, and that Osama bin Laden might be well pleased at what had been achieved in the wake of September 11: the Atlantic alliance had been disrupted, American troops withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, recruitment to Al Qaeda increased and the Middle East more radicalised.

Spencer also suggested that the U.S. had a clear, logical and publicly available timetable for the disruption of multilateral institutions. Shock and awe diplomacy was being used around the world in order to maintain hegemony, he argued. This was evident in the marketing of the ideas of Robert Kagan, for example, or in the U.S.’s skilful use of European enjoyment of a carefully cultivated image of “US naivete”. He argued that Donald Rumsfeld, far from being the “bumbling yokel” perceived by some Europeans, was a sophisticated political operator; and that the Bush Administration was deliberately and successfully disrupting the EU through (for example) fanning anti-French sentiment. Spencer argued that this was unacceptable, and comparable to the portrayal of Europe as anti-semitic two years ago for criticising Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories.

Such charges were, perhaps unsurprisingly, rejected by many of the Americans present. American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene questioned that if America was truly an empire, then where was the evidence of this in either 1917 or 1941. He continued that the U.S. had long shown a tension between a desire to stand alone and a drive to engage with the world: George Washington had warned of “entangling alliances”, yet Woodrow Wilson’s Presidency had been all about America’s perceived ability to reshape the world for the better. Former CIA Director James Woolsey was similarly dismissive of the charge of empire: if it was, why would it have withdrawn troops at Turkish or Saudi requests, and how would ‘emperors’ Nixon and Clinton have been impeached?

American speakers were also emphatic that the world should understand America’s culture and history in order to make sense of its approach today. David Keene emphasised America’s long-standing willingness to fight to protect its core values (liberty, equality of opportunity rather than outcome, individual rights and so on). Macgregor Knox of the London School of Economics added that the U.S. had in a real sense been made by war: one in five Confederate soldiers had died in the Civil War. In today’s war against terror, in which “containment is dead and deterrence irrelevant”, the concept of “total war” was being dusted off to fight another day. Donald Devine of Bellevue University added that “conservative” opinion in the U.S. was nowhere near as monolithic as some Europeans appeared to believe; moreover Donald Rumsfeld was not a “neo-conservative” but rather a conservative of a more traditional sort.

Jim Garrison, the President of the State of the World Forum, countered that the war in Iraq had very little to do with Saddam Hussein; instead the U.S. had simply needed to “go out and clobber someone” after September 11. But at a deeper level, for Garrison, a “paradoxical antimony” lay at the heart of the United States. In one sense, it is a beacon of light and idealism. But it also has a “shadow”, which becomes manifest as a result of the inevitable corruption wrought by absolute power and its imperial ambitions (dating back at least to the 1870s, according to Garrison).

However, Garrison and others also looked forward to a time in the relatively near future when America would return to its light side – perhaps as a result of passing the moment of zenith in its empire. Garrison’s assertion that this zenith had already been passed was echoed by Hazel Henderson from the floor, who noted that for all the talk of hyperpower, the U.S. had a $400bn deficit (some 5 per cent of GDP), a zero savings rate, massive unfunded pension liabilities and Treasury Bill returns approaching zero per cent. In the longer term, the possible emergence of the euro as a second global reserve currency would only heighten pressure on the American economy.

Where next for the EU?

The war on Iraq had evidently provoked a considerable degree of soul-searching among European attendees. For some attendees, Iraq exemplified in stark terms the failure of the EU to pull together a coherent common line on foreign policy issues. Armand Clesse, the director of the Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies, argued that the Iraq had showed the “fundamental spinelessness” of the EU, which was a “faceless, volatile, frail, hapless political eunuch”.

For others, though – including, interestingly, many voices from the other side of the Atlantic – the EU had much to be proud of. From initially being considered a “madman’s dream” (as Georges Berthoin wryly observed), it had according to International Herald Tribune CEO Peter Goldmark “the most daring adventure in human co-operation anywhere in the world”, and the “new moral centre of gravity” in the world. Canadian Ambassador to the EU Jeremy Kinsman noted that whilst the tide of idealism that had marked the founding of the EU had abated in recent years, it might return with the arrival of the new entrant countries to the East.

At any rate, there seemed to be a clear consensus among many leading Brussels policymakers (notably European Parliament President Pat Cox and Pierre Defraigne of DG Trade) that the EU could and should improve its military capacity. Cox, Defraigne and Sir Tim Garden (a former Air Marshal now at King’s College London) emphasised that although the EU spends less than half the proportion of GNP on military expenditure spent by the U.S., it gets just a tenth of the benefit. There was considerable scope for improving economies of scale between member states on areas such as heavy lift capacity. Cox went further, to observe that the EU should avoid a position in which the U.S. leads military interventions and the EU follows in only when the fighting has ceased (or, as he put it, where “one cooks and the other cleans up”).

This still left open the question of exactly how Europe should relate to the United States at this crucial juncture. Cox won the prize for pithiness, suggesting that the EU should “avoid confusing alliance with allegiance”. David Calleo, a Professor at Johns Hopkins University, argued that the EU needs to be able to stand on its own, particularly in military terms – not as a competitor to the U.S., but based on a realisation that any successful partnership must be based on a balance of power if resentment on both sides is to be averted.

Whither the state? - Sovereignty in the 21st Century

The question of national sovereignty sat at the heart of most, if not all, conversations at the conference. Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, noted that the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia system of sovereignty had de facto been eroded by a host of factors, from moral limits on states’ limits of action to the increasing significance of actors at both supranational and sub-national level and the increasing interconnectedness wrought by globalization. Sovereignty is now being reasserted, he continued – above all by the United States. Yet today’s world is one in which borders have become an increasingly abstract concept. Neither people, goods nor capital are limited by borders; problems often affect many states simultaneously; and many problems are beyond the capacity of single states to solve.

Of particular importance, according to both Evans and Georges Berthoin, was the need to reconceptualise the idea of “the national interest”. As Evans observed, co-operation tends to breed more co-operation; this principle of reciprocity has been a basic principle of human relationships throughout history, but as yet has not been applied very successfully to international relations.

Donald Devine of Bellevue University countered that the Westphalian system had not been particularly successful in attaining its stated goal of peace and stability. With regard to the present day, he argued that international organisations are simply unable to govern other states: treaty regimes do not function well, and powerful states that do not wish to join treaties cannot be compelled to do so.

Former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy argued that security has now transcended the nation-state and become an individual concern: innocent civilians can be targeted precisely because they are innocent. As a result, sovereignty could now be re-interpreted as the ability of a state to protect its citizens; when a state will not or cannot do so, then intervention (or abrogation of sovereignty) is justified. This is particularly acute in the case of failed states, which can all too easily become breeding grounds for terrorism.

American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene noted perceptively that some participants appeared unsure whether sovereignty was ‘a good thing ‘or not. In the context of climate change, for instance, some participants felt that national sovereignty was an obstacle in the way of collective action; yet some of the same participants were also implicitly arguing in favour of sovereignty by suggesting that Iraq had been violated through being invaded by the U.S. without an authorising Security Council resolution.

UN reform and global governance

Many contributors expressed their belief in the need for either reform of the UN system or new global governance frameworks that could complement existing institutions and processes. Gareth Evans spoke at length about the current global governance system, agreeing that it was inadequate and incomplete.

There was general agreement that the UN system needs reform to make it less bureaucratic and more meritocratic, responsive and transparent. Other proposals included an expansion of ECOSOC to include civil society and business, and new ‘world taxes’ to allow expenditure on global issues (for example on oil production, arms exports or intercontinental transportation). Georges Berthoin also proposed that the UN Secretary General should have the power to make proposals in the common interest, similarly to the European Commission’s ability to propose new policy.

The need for representation at global level was returned to time and again. One idea that found support was the ‘e-Parliament’ to draw together national elected representatives through a global databases and virtual ad-hoc issue groups. Others suggested the need for the UN to include a formal Parliamentary Assembly. Some participants noted a possible trade-off between democracy and participation on the one hand, and effectiveness and speed of response on the other.

Jean-François Rischard, European VP for the World Bank, suggested that new institutions were the last thing the world needed in order to address global challenges; and whilst a world government might be an appealing idea, it was politically unfeasible. Instead, he suggested new ‘Global Issue Networks’: ad hoc groupings convened by international organisations to address a specific concern, which would first produce norms on the issue, and then implement these norms through increasing the breadth of participation in the Networks over time.

Paradigms and values

One of the most interesting features of the conference was that conversation was by no means limited to institutions, processes, policies and risks. Questions of worldview were also very much at the forefront of discussion: both of values, and also, more fundamentally, about paradigms and basic assumptions about the world.

Reginald Dale, editor of European Affairs, argued that a central issue in Atlantic relations was a straightforward difference in values between the EU and the U.S., for example over the death penalty or Guantanamo Bay. Despite this, however, both EU and U.S. did have overlapping interests: in a stable, peaceful world, for instance, with liberal trade, investment and energy flows, and without terrorism, crime, environmental degradation or disease.

Attitudes to global governance may also be dictated largely by values. Reginald Dale suggested that fear of global institutions in the U.S. may be driven partly by an Anglo-Saxon suspicion of utopias; David Keene made a similar point in arguing that the U.S. wants to be liked, but also wants to be left alone.

Yet as Mervat Badawi, the director of Kuwait’s Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development observed, perhaps there are global values after all: the Koran and the Old and New Testament are 95 per cent syncretic. One might take this allusion further and note that all of the world’s major religions are based in large part on the same core, which Leibniz termed the philosophia perennis. Juan de Costa offered a view that all ethical values – whether capitalist, anarchist or something else again – had something of value to offer. If Israelis could admire Palestinians for the integrity of their values, and vice versa, then perhaps we could really lay claim to having made a degree of moral progress.

III. CONFERENCE REPORT

Please click on the links below to view the various documents that make up the entire conference report:

Conference Executive Summary (208 KB Word document)

Breakout Session Summaries (pdf file)

Selected Speeches (pdf file)

Conference Program (pdf file)

List of Conference Participants (pdf file)

Speakers and Rapporteurs Biographies

Conference Background Papers (pdf file)

Conference Briefing Papers (pdf file)

Conference Record (161 KB Word document)

WORK OF THE COMMISSION

The Commission catalyzed, supported and/or assisted in the development of the following projects by various Co-Chairs and Commissioners:

Ethical Globalization Initiative (EGI) - Established in October, 2002, Realizing Rights: the Ethical Globalization Initiative (EGI) was founded by Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. A Personal Statement by Mrs. Robinson to representatives of the international press corps in Geneva on September 10, 2002 announced her plans. Realizing Rights: EGI was created as a partnership between the Aspen Institute (US), State of the World Forum (US) and the International Council on Human Rights Policy (Switzerland). The mission of EGI is to promote a rights-based approach to critical global challenges. After an intensive consultative process in late 2002 and 2003 with a range of experts and global leaders, including a gathering of the Steering Committee at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization in New Have, CT on January 14-15, 2003 with Ernesto Zedillo, Director of the Center; a first meeting of the Human Rights Policy Action Group at the Wye River Conference Center in Maryland on March 12- 13, 2003; and a second meeting of the Human Rights Policy Action Group in Aspen, Colorado on July 23-24, 2003, EGI announced the three issue areas it would address in 2004 and onward: 1) promoting more equitable trade and development policy; 2) promoting the realization of the right to health, especially responses to the HIV/AIDS pandemic; and 3) promoting a more human international migration policy. At the beginning of its operational phase in 2004, EGI established a formal advisory board and advisory council and formed a new partnership with the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the third partner in addition to the Aspen Institute and the International Council for Human Rights Policy. With a head office in New York, EGI also has offices in Geneva, Washington, DC, and Dublin. EGI’s major activities in 2003 and 2004 include a high level meeting with the World Bank and New York University entitled "Human Rights and Development: Towards Mutual Reinforcement," two meetings in partnership with the Center for the Study of AIDS at the University of Pretoria, South Africa and other partners on increasing access to prevention and treatment for women for HIV/AIDS, a series of meetings with senior pharmaceutical company representatives on the right to health, and a major meeting on global poverty with leaders from diverse sectors. For additional information and updates on EGI, please visit the EGI website at http://www.eginitiative.org.

G8 NePAD - Commissioners Gordon Smith and Barry Carin at the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria, Canada, in partnership with the Center for Africa’s International Relations at the University of Witwatersrand and State of the World Forum, undertook a project funded by the C. S. Mott Foundation and the International Development Research Centre to support the goals of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NePAD). The goal of the project was to develop specific programs that would contribute to integrating Africa more constructively into the globalization process. The approach was to work within the parameters set by the G8 Summit “Action Plan for Africa” and NePAD to provide examples of how to move beyond rhetoric and generalities and beyond articulating priority objectives. Detailed implementation “maps” were at the center of the project and were used to catalyze the effective implementation of specific concrete NePAD initiatives. The first phase of the project was developed during the "Emerging Global Challenges" conference at the Rockefeller Study and Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy, April 15-19, 2002 where the project design was finalized. Participants included representatives from donor agencies, noted experts on the various initiatives, and leading African personalities involved with the NePAD process. Phase II began with a meeting at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002 where a group of 30 individuals selected five initiatives to be mapped (blueprints that map specific approaches, actors, policies, and plans for an African development initiative) from amongst the long list of NePAD initiatives endorsed in the G8 Action Plan for Africa, along with African individuals to do the "mapping". The five initiatives targeted five sectors of the NePAD (identified in parentheses after the title of each initiative), and included:
• Establishment of an African Tertiary Institutions HIV/AIDS Consortium (Health);
• Resource Plunder Database (Peace and Security Initiative);
• An African Code of Electoral Norms and Standards (Democracy and Political Governance Initiative);
• Microfund pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest (Capital Flows Initiative);
• Creation of an Enabling Agency for the Expansion of Multifunctional Platforms in Rural West Africa (Poverty Reduction and Energy Initiatives).
A third meeting was hosted by the OECD in Paris October 23-25, 2002 to present action mapping techniques and best practices of peer review mechanisms. A final meeting, "Effective Strategies to Realize the NePAD: Mapping the Decision Processes to Implement Projects," was hosted by the UN Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on February 27-28, 2003 to critically review the five proponents’ draft Action Maps. These maps were presented to representatives from several UN agencies (UNFPA, UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNESCO, in addition to UNECA), representatives from the African Development Bank, the African Union, the President of the OECD Development Center, IDRC, officials of the Nigerian and Mauritian governments, a member of the French G8 team and diplomats from the Canadian and UK governments. In addition, participants representing interests from the African business and finance community and NGOs ensured the discussions were well rounded and focused on the diverse needs and goals of African societies. The intent of this meeting was to verify the research and the plan in each "map" and to authorize wider consultation with the large range of constituencies whose support was essential to their implementation. With the Action Maps now completed, efforts to elicit formal endorsement by the NePAD Secretariat, the African Union, and the UNECA, for all five initiatives, modified and improved as suggested by coaching at the Addis Ababa Meeting, is still underway. While to date there are mixed results on the attainment of objectives, there was a sense that it was commendable to have had as many as five projects ready for implementation, and that much had been learned that would be useful for future efforts. The Mott Foundation also felt that a lot had been accomplished in a short period of time. While NePAD was about Africa helping itself, it was also about creating partnerships with the G8 and other institutions and this project has demonstrated how that might be achieved. The process also offered insights into new approaches to managing globalization. The Centre for Global Studies, for its part, had until recently felt unsure about the outcome of the process. But upon greater reflection, has increased its optimism about what has been achieved and now believes that the lessons are of wider interest. Nonetheless, there remains a lot of work to complete what has been initiated.

Access - a partnership between Hewlett Packard, the Hewlett Foundation, Center for Global Development, Klaus Schwab Foundation, Medley Global Advisors, and State of the World Forum. Working for donors, in consultation with a number of highly respected international development research and grant-making organizations, this group seeks to explore the feasibility of a large scale social marketing, fundraising, and project finance/grant-matching initiative. This social venture enterprise was designed to match private voluntary donations and/or investments coming from civil society, the corporate sector and faith communities with small and medium scale sustainable development projects proposed by reputable, pre-screened non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), community-based organizations (CBO’s), private voluntary organizations (PVO’s), faith-based organizations (FBO’s), businesses and entrepreneurs, as well as local government agencies throughout the developing world. Global Giving was established for the purpose of raising billions of dollars annually, through private investments and charitable contributions, with the goal of significantly alleviating hunger, illiteracy, preventable disease, environmental degradation and poverty writ large for the world’s poorest communities. Access was organized under the auspices of an international consortium of highly respected civil society, private sector and faith-based organizations working together as an operating alliance, and seeks to achieve its goals and objectives by mobilizing the commitment and directing the resources of a broad-based coalition of actors. The organizers are continuing to conduct a series of consultations throughout Europe and North America to explore the efficacy of this proposal, with the intent of forming a community of founding collaborators.

Integral Governance Initiative (IGI) - The purpose of IGI is to bring together chief strategists from the corporate sector, in partnership with counterparts from government, academia and civil society, to research and analyze the "new global operating reality" in which predictability and risk are extremely difficult to gauge and in which understanding complexity and networks are essential to successfully navigating the global landscape. The project will also focus on innovative approaches to global problem solving. The mission of IGI is to better understand the integral nature of the new global operating reality and to catalyze global issue networks as innovative solutions to global problem-solving. The goals of IGI are to: 1) Convene senior decision-makers from business, academia, civil society and government to engage in cross-sectoral collaboration on the nature of the new global operating reality and the utility of global issue networks;2) Provide ongoing analysis and research on the nature of complexity and risk in the emerging world situation as well as on what mechanisms exist that can contribute to effective global problem solving; 3) Utilize innovative facilitation technologies to enhance decision-making and cross-sectoral deliberation;4) Develop new leadership and learning skills in diverse environments, leading to proactive collaboration across boundaries. IGI is Co-Chaired by Lloyd Axworthy, former Canadian Foreign Minister, and Maria Cattaui, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Commerce. Members currently include Alpesh Chokshi, Senior Vice President of American Express; His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan Bin Talal; David Hornbeck, President and CEO of the International Youth Foundation; Mohan Kaul, Director General, Commonwealth Business Council; Michael Kleeman, Fellow, University of California at San Diego; Kishore Mahbubani, Singaporian Ambassador to the UN; Surin Pitsuwan, Foreign Minister of Thailand (1997-2001) and current Member of Parliament. Informal Advisors, senior leaders with whom we are in discussion and developing collaboration, include Martti Ahtisaari, President of Finland (1994-2000); F. W. deKlerk, President of South Africa (1989-1994); Jean Francois Rischard, Vice President for Europe for the World Bank; Oliver Sparrow, Former Senior Researcher, Chatham House and current Director, the Challenge Network.

International Interfaith Investment Group (3IG) - with Commissioner Martin Palmer, The Alliance for Religion and Conservation (ARC) and representatives of religious communities within the eleven major faith traditions, who agreed to form the International Interfaith Investment Group (3IG) designed to promote faith compliant investing among the major faith traditions. This project was developed in an active collaboration with Citigroup, the C.S. Mott Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, the Pilkington Trust, State of the World Forum, and major religious institutions to develop common socially and environmentally sensitive guidelines for religious institutional investment. Two meetings of the money managers for the participating religious groups, led by the Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Druze and Zoroastrian organisations, were convened. The first meeting of the official Steering Committee took place on April 12, 2002 in London where a small group of Advisors, comprised of the lead faith communities, met to prepare for a larger meeting in June. On June 18-20, 2002, a second conference at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York was organized exclusively for faith leaders who manage funds for faith communities, investment specialists, and environmental professionals to formally establish the International Interfaith Investment Group after many years of ongoing development and planning. The conference moved through a series of presentations and discussions and adopted a formal agreement to establish the 3IG; appointed a Continuing Committee that ARC and its partnering organizations serviced; designed the necessary legal and financial structures; and continued to discuss new potential members. A Press Announcement, "Religions to Challenge the Definition of 'Good' Investments," was released announcing the meeting. In Istanbul in Oct 2003, agreement was reached to formally launch 3iG as a new independent organisation by April 2005. Religious organizations already in agreement to join 3iG will bring just over one trillion dollars worth of investments into potential play for socially responsible investing.

International Water Security - with Co-Chair Lloyd Axworthy, former Canadian Foreign Minister and then Director of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues, University of British Columbia, in partnership with State of the World Forum, this Policy Action Group focused attention on the critical issue of the governance of water and the need to develop greater community participation in decisions related to water distribution. The first planning meeting of this group was convened on April 10, 2002, as part of a broader conference, “The Environment and Security: Placing the Environmental Agenda in the Realm of Foreign Policy,” co-sponsored by the Liu Centre, the International Institute for Environmental Strategies and Security, University of Laval, and the State of the World Forum. Dr. Axworthy chaired this initial planning meeting during which nine water specialists from North America provided guidance about the areas in which the Policy Action Group could usefully contribute new insights. Participants in the meeting developed an outline for the initial terms of reference for a preliminary proposal on the topic, composition, and responsibilities of the Water Policy Action Group and suggested several areas that could be addressed. This proposal identified basic issues of water security in which policy-relevant research needed to be conducted and a method for specific governance and research activities. The resulting initial draft paper, titled "Water Security," was developed with the input of several water specialists, including Oscar Olivera who visited the Liu Centre during March 2002. The results of this consultative process led to the revision of the Draft Paper and its subsequent distribution to a wider, more geographically balanced audience for refinement. Based on this Revised Draft Paper, a follow up meeting at the Liu Centre was convened May 22, 2002 in which 17 water specialists participated. Critical competing interests for water were discussed, including rural vs urban needs, domestic vs agricultural vs other uses, affordability vs requisite incentives to attract investment capital, and the public good vs commodification of the resource. In tackling any of these challenges, it was agreed that the appropriate unit of analysis to be used in the research would be the "watershed". The discussion focused on the multi-stakeholder nature required by the work, the value-add that could result from this research, the criteria for target watersheds, and the composition of the advisory and research teams that would proceed. From this process, a funding proposal was developed to: (1) collect available research on best practices in watershed management; (2) apply these lessons to the study of five selected watersheds in various parts of the world to improve the resource management capability of those areas; and (3) in selected watershed areas, build a coalition of community groups that could work with local governance institutions to insure sustainable management practices are followed. During June and July, the proposal was reviewed by specialists from both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Later that year, ten Co-Chairs and Commissioners met in Mexico City December 4-7, 2002 during the second annual meeting of the Commission, to discuss the progress of this PAG. The initial results of the work were discussed at the World Water Forum in Kyoto in 2003, and a book on water is currently under development by State of the World Forum.

Learning and Education - with Commissioners Paul Cappon, Director General of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, and Helga Breuninger, Chair of the Breuninger Foundation, to formulate more effective educational and learning policies within the G8 commitments on education and the ongoing work of UNESCO. This Policy Action Group (PAG-L) critically reviewed and assessed the success of educational practices as they related to international and national governance, with the aim of proposing a reform agenda for learning which would build and complement the work of the G8 "Education For All" Task Force. With an emphasis placed on Africa, the work of the group concentrated on identifying practical international arrangements that would maximize the learning potential of individuals and their communities, the use of communications technology in education, and the dissemination and implementation of best practices. Seven themes were selected by the PAG-L for interest review and for recommendations to the international community. These were: 1) Information and Communications Technologies - The Silver Bullet for the 21st Century, or the Siren's Song?; 2) Defining the Roles of the Private Sector in Traditional and Non-Traditional Learning; 3) Overlapping Mandates, Differing Objectives, Blurred Lines of Authority - Sorting out the Roles and Responsibilities of the Major Actors; 4) Globalization, Cultural and Linguistic Preservation and the Promotion of Human Rights - Incompatible Goals or Mutually Supporting Factors for Real Peace?; 5) The Dichotomy Between learning for Sustainable Development and Learning as an Individual Intellectual Pursuit; 6) Life-long Learning, and Informal Learning - Convenient Platitudes, or Key Elements of the Future?; and 7) Learning Resources for the New Century. The PAG Steering Committee held its inaugural meeting at the Breuninger Foundation estate on Wasan Island in the Muskoka Lakes of Ontario, Canada, on July 6-10, 2002. This first gathering brought together members of the PAG-L Steering Committee to explore and develop strategies to broaden the work on the seven selected themes and two focus groups; and to critically review issues surrounding education and learning, as well as the impact of the forces of globalization, from a predominantly humanistic and holistic perspective. The meeting was also a key step in the process of producing implementable recommendations for learning on a global basis. An Executive Summary: Globalization and Learning - Putting Humanity First!, an Introductory Discussion Paper of The Policy Action Group on Learning was developed by the group. Attention was focused on a limited number of key conceptual and policy-making issues that have the potential for transforming the way education and learning systems are developed in the new century; and the need to heighten awareness among decision-makers worldwide of the necessity of perceiving education and learning as more than a simple function of the provision of schooling to those in need. Furthermore, the paper also mentioned the need to build an understanding among those same leaders that learning comprises more than “learning to work”. Efforts must be made to make it clear that true peace and human fulfillment can only be achieved when all of humanity can be afforded the opportunity to benefit from the four pledges reaffirmed in the Dakar Declaration. During the Second Annual meeting of the Commission, held in Mexico City December 4-7, 2002, this PAG convened two roundtable sessions on "Globalisation, Cultural and Linguistic Diversity and the Promotion of Human Rights," Chaired by Madeleine Zuniga and Helga Breuninger; and "The Appropriate Role of the Private Sector in Education and Learning," Chaired by Paul Cappon and Piera Gerrard. A second meeting of the Steering Committee was hosted by the Breuninger Foundation and also took place at Wasan Island, Canada, on July 9 - 12, 2003. The intention of this meeting was to brainstorm on future strategy, as well as to review and benchmark the progress that had been made on the project since the first meeting of the Steering Committee in July 2002. Paul Cappon, who will begin to serve as President and CEO of the Canadian Council on Learning in October 2004, and the Breuninger Foundation have continued to develop this project.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

*WASHINGTON, DC - COMMUNITY BUILDING MEETING
April 23, 2001 - Paul. H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC

I. INTRODUCTION

The Commission's first Community Building meeting was convened at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington DC, on April 23, 2001. The meeting served as a pilot to introduce the Commission on Globalisation to international civil society leaders and organizations in the U.S. and to solicit constructive feedback on the Commission's proposed organizational structure and activities. Consistent with the overall Commission commitment to multi-stakeholder gatherings, the Washington event brought civil society together with the business and government sectors in discussions about specific policy issues concerning globalization and global governance.

The meeting was designed to explore both the background of globalization and the goals of the Commission and its specific proposed activities. The strength of the meeting was enhanced by the participation of and statements made by Mikhail Gorbachev (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, 1990), John Sweeney (President, AFL-CIO), and Lori Wallach (Director, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch).

II. MEETING SUMMARY

Morning Introductory Session

Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (Prime Minister of Portugal, 1979) and Huguette Labelle (President of the Canadian International Development Agency, 1993 - 1997), two members of the Commission, moderated the meeting. Aruna Rao (President of the Association for Women's Rights in Development, India) served as the meeting's secretary.

Following a brief introduction and framing of the discussing by Jim Garrison, the President of State of the World Forum, each of the participants briefly introduced him/herself and stated why they were interested in globalization issues and the potential of a network such as the Commission.

Morning Speakers andDiscussion Session

Following this, the featured speakers presented their views on globalization and benefits of the Commission on Globalisation.

Mikhail Gorbachev spoke of his intention to see the State of the World Forum and, by extension, the Commission on Globalisation as the leading figure in the globalization debate. He related that his interest from the onset of the State of the World Forum was to bring together leaders to talk about issues important to the day and that, in his mind, globalization and its effects on the human community were the most important issue to discuss.

John Sweeney spoke on the importance of trade unions and the role they play in the globalization debate. He mentioned the AFL-CIO's strong presence in the protests during the third WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle in 1999, and the need to move beyond traditional protest and to work to influence decisions being made at the WTO level.

Lori Wallach spoke about her participation in the protests in Quebec City at the Summit of the Americas, April 20 - 22, 2001, and the need for the reform of global trade laws. Public Citizen's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Free Trade Area of the Americas and the World Trade Organization are based on what they view as the dominant voice business plays in these agreements with little consideration given to civil society concerns. Her criticism of Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) was based on the unfair implementation of these agreements as they related to indigenous knowledge. Drugs and other products could easily be developed and patented by foreign companies with little, if any, benefit gained by the communities who developed this knowledge over many generations.

Following these presentations, the meeting moved to lunch during which Lori Wallach further discussed her concerns about WTO rules and regulations with Barry Carin, Canada's High Commissioner to Singapore from 1996 - 2000 and currently the Associate Director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria. This discussion proved to be one of the most rich and informative of the day. Dr. Carin's previous positions in Canada's government provided him with an insider's perspective on how the WTO is governed and provided counterpoints to Ms. Wallach concerns. Johan Cavanagh, the Director of the Institute for Policy Studies, felt that this discussion alone was enough to declare the meeting a success.

Afternoon Group Discussion

Following lunch, the roughly 45 participants discussed the challenges to convening such a Commission. Angela Blackwell, the President of PolicyLink, spoke of the difficulties of the multi-stakeholder process and the need for individuals to come together in a spirit of respect for competing viewpoints. Gordon Smith, a former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and the current Director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria, described the Commission's proposed "White Paper" process and the need for multi-stakeholder input to bring validity to the work. The participants were also encouraged to provide perspectives about priority concerns facing humanity and individual societies from globalization's challenges, and to address the more important issues to be tackled by the Commission. Among these, the international role of women, a feminist perspective on globalization, and the plight of women around the world were especially pronounced. Mahnaz Afkhami, a former Minister of Women' Affairs in Iran will work with the Commission to ensure these issues continue to be covered by serving as the Chair of the Commission's Women's Advisory Council. Other issues recommended for the Commission's deliberations included human rights violations, poverty, the environment, reform of governing institutions and the creation of new governing bodies to deal with specific global challenges, organized international crime, and the role of religion for influencing fundamental change.

III. RESULTS

As a result of this meeting, the Forum Secretariat received 39 nominations for members of the Commission. Of these, 8 individuals, Nuno Miguel Teixeira de Azevedo, Monique Bégin, Betty Bigombe, Pregaluxmi Govender, Matthew Kukah, Dragoljub Najman, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, and Eduardo Viola have been invited to serve as Commissioners and have accepted. One person, Wangari Maathai, has been invited to serve as a Co-Chair.

Six individuals who took part in the meeting, Charlotte Bunch, Nat Colletta, David Korten, Michael Levett, Paola Melchiori, and John Sewell, have since agreed to serve as Commissioners. Additionally, representatives of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Development Programme and CIVICUS participated in the meeting. The heads of these organizations, Thoraya Obaid, Mark Malloch Brown, and Kumi Naidoo respectively, agreed to serve as Co-Chairs in the cases of Ms. Obaid and Mr. Malloch Brown (who has since resigned) or Commissioners in Mr. Naidoo's case.

This meeting also provided the Commission Secretariat an opportunity to further strengthen its relationship with the AFL-CIO and Public Citizen, two of the most prominent civil society actors in the United States and major organizers behind the protests at the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999.

*RIO de JANEIRO/SAO Paulo COMMUNITY-BUILDING MEETING
August 20th - 25th, 2001 - Rio de Janeiro & Sao Paulo, Brazil

I. INTRODUCTION

The second Community Building Meeting of the Commission on Globalisation was convened in Rio de Janeiro August 24 at the premiere Brazilian think tank, the getulio Vargas Foundation. As the economic engine for Latin America, Brazil plays a major political role in the region and in the interconnected world economy. The role of civil society in Brazil's development has been significant over the past 20 years. The opportunity to learn more about the issues and concerns of the region through the experience of academics, NGO leaders, and activist organizations was compelling and provided significant value to the overall diversity of views within the Commission.

Thais Corral, a member of the Commission's Steering Committee, and the REDEH organization coordinated the meeting in Rio and the broader trip which included Sao Paulo and remote villages. The Community Building Metting drew over 50 representatives from the various sectors to discuss an increasing role for civil society in the globalization debate. Meetings were also held with dozens of civil society leaders from Latin America, exploring local issues like privatization of water, the World Social Forum, and the Landless Worker's Movement. Progress was made toward developing a strategy for future collaboration in Latin America and seven new Commissioners were identified during the visit.

II. MEETING SUMMARY

Plenary Dinner and Local Perspectives

Thais Corral arranged a gathering of prominent local leaders for dinner and discussion on the evening of the 22nd at the home of Bebel Mendez de Almeida and Eduardo Martins, two long-time friends of Thais with a deep interest in globalization issues.

The dinner guests were educated and well-informed professionals with liberal political views and a serious concern about global issues that are having a significant impact on Brazil. We caught a glimpse of several issues that would emerge the following day in the larger group discussion. One educator expressed her love of Brazil and satisfaction with the quality of her children's secondary education. She indicated, however, that she intended to send them abroad for college. Her choice of countries for higher education had changed in recent years from the United States to England because of the increase in crime in American cities and on college campuses and the apparent U.S. disregard for quality of life in the developing world. This criticism of American lifestyles and attitudes was reflected in other conversations as well.

Three themes emerged through the evening of conversation: (1) a fear that World Bank (i.e., U.S.) policies in Argentina would lead toward the further collapse of that country's economy; that (2) the U.S. drug policy in Columbia was a prelude to U.S. military intervention in that country; and that (3) such policies would ultimately result in more repressive measures in Brazil with a possible economic crisis resulting from failed programs in Argentina. While these views are not yet substantiated by actual developments, they are indicators of a consistent perception that the current U.S. policies in the southern hemisphere are primarily based on self-interest rather than a more just and equitable approach to globalization.

It was clear that Thais and her staff had worked extremely hard to insure that this trip would be a success and further the development of the Commission in the region. It was effort well spent and justly rewarded.

Thais Corral

Jim Garrison and Thais Corral at the Community Building Meeting 

Thais Corral has been committed to education about gender and human rights issues for most of the past two decades. She has founded several organizations, including REDEH (Rede de Desenvolvimento Humano) and CEMINA (Comunicacao Educacao e Informacao em Genero), where she serves as Executive Director, to promote these issues in her native Brazil. She recently spent a year as a Visiting Professor at Harvard University with a focus on women and education. The Secretariat is discussing with Thais how best to use her network and broadcast capacity to educate and learn about globalization throughout Latin America.

REDEH (Rede de Desenvolvimento Humano)
http://www.mulher500.org.br (Portuguese)

REDEH (Rede de Desenvolvimento Humano), also know as the Human Development Network, was established in 1990 with the mission of fostering gender principles and practices in the public arena. The organization develops educational material and programs geared to strengthen and empower women's leadership roles in both government and non-government institutions. REDEH has actively participated in the discussions on conception and strategies for implementing Agenda 21, the platform of action for sustainable development. The organization has focused on the importance of strengthening women's participation in decision-making and civic engagement in sustainable development at the local level, including in the educational system. Through its Continued Teacher Training Program, REDEH has developed a kit of didactic material that introduces into the classroom themes such as gender, race, health, the environment, human rights and sexual guidance.

CEMINA (Comunicacao Educacao e Informacao em Genero)
http://www.mstbrazil.org (English)

CEMINA (Comunicacao Educacao e Informacao em Genero), also known as Communication, Information and Education on Gender, is a Brazilian NGO founded in 1988 with the mission of promoting communication and information on gender issues within Brazil. To reach the most marginalized sector of the female labor force, domestic workers, CEMINA established the award winning Women's Radio Network to support women's radio programs. The network supports over 350 radio programs for women throughout Brazil and published a newsletter as well as training manuals on specific themes related to gender and radio.

Meeting Discussion Highlights

August 23: The Community Building Meeting was hosted by the Getulio Vargas Foundation at their offices in downtown Rio de Janeiro. The Foundation is a well-financed Brazilian institute for social and economic analysis that works to advance the frontiers of knowledge in the Social Sciences. It trains and educates leaders in the private and public sectors and produces and transmits ideas and information that contribute to the socio-economic development of the country.

Forty-five individuals participated in the morning and afternoon discussions with lunch hosted by the Foundation. The day's discussion provided further appreciation for the ideas and concerns of the participants, all of whom are active in civil society or governmental institutions.

Summary Comments

From Left: Jim Garrison talks to Leonardo Boff

"The Commission is trying to create synergies between recommendations and reform. We are in one of the most complex historical opportunities in history in which people are in charge, but not in control. This can be the genesis of constructive social change if the right ideas can converge with the right momentum. The question is, how do you bring individuals of influence together for integrated thought and action?" - Jim Garrison, Commission on Globalisation

"Globalization cannot be addressed without addressing inequality." - Bendita da silva, vice-governadora do Estudo do Rio de Janeiro

Wania Santanna

"Brazil is a society that should be able to make a major contribution to globalization. This may say something about our capacity for sustainability of community." - Wania Santanna: Articulação Mulheres Brasileiras.

"We should start the conversation from the point of view of the majority, not those who benefit from globalization. We need a more humanized form of globalization that strengthens each nation's culture and tries to build society from diversity." - Marcos Arruda, Instituto do Politicas Alternativas para o Cone Sul

Cândido Mendes

"There are new stake holders who are social activists. We are willing to fund a meeting of the leaders from Seattle so people can show their hands and we can see their faces. We offer the hospitality of a Brazilian university." - Candido Mendes, Rector de Universidade Candido Mendes

"Environmental issues are more critical than any ideological issues and need to be studied in depth. We should rethink the whole way of using our planet. How will we use limited resources? We need an intergenerational commitment." - Beatriz Bissio, Editor, Cadernos do Terceiro Mundo

"We need to think in systematic ways about a world ethos that considers ecosystems and regards the earth as a living being, that creates a new pact between humans and nature that leads to a world based on an ethic of care." - Leonardo Boff, Theologian

Leonard Boff

Candid Grzybowski holding microphone.

"The feminization of globalization should not be ignored. There is also a movement toward the idea of care and duties of planetary citizenship." - Candido Grzybowski, IBASE

Jacqueline Pitanguy

"The relationship between international trade and human rights is important. Nothing can be done internationally if national efforts are not made." - Jacqueline Pitanguy, CEPIA

"We said no to privatization of potable water and we won through the power of the people. The people's right to serve cannot be taken away. We need to be concerned with organizers." - Oscar Olivera, La Coordinadora, Cochabamba Bolivia.

Oscar Olivera

Ruth Escobar: celebrated actress, cultural ambassador, State Legislature member(1982-1990)

Viviane Senna (2nd from the left), clinical psychologist and President, Ayrton Senna Foundation

"How can we make globalization more humane? Citizenship must be expressed through dialogue." - Ana Batista, Forum 21 RJ

III. BROADER BRAZILIAN JOURNEY

Landless Worker's Movement (MST)

Representatives of the Secretariat met with representatives of the Landless Workers Movement in the Sao Paulo headquarters on August 24th. During this two hour meeting, the fundamental structure and history of the movement was described and arrangements were made to visit a settlement the following day. This opportunity for a meeting with representatives of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) had been arranged through Dawn Plummer at the "Friends of the MST" office in San Francisco. "Friends of the MST", were instrumental in endorsing the Commission's legitimacy. The Secretariat truly appreciates the support that facilitated this brief but substantial engagement with the MST.

Background

The issue of land reform has dominated Brazilian politics for over two decades. A country initially colonized by beginning in the 16th century, its legacy of land ownership from early land grants is still evident today. Brazil is pressured by an overly skewed land distribution pattern; just 3% of the population owns nearly 66% of the nation's arable land. The country's largest farms (2,000 acres or more) comprise only 1.6% of the total of all farms but occupy 53% of the usable land. Of that farmland, an estimated 88% is permanently idle. In contrast, 30% of Brazilian farmers own just 20 acres or less. Overall, approximately 40% of Brazil's farmland lies fallow or is used only for cattle grazing, while 25 million peasants (15% of the population) struggle to survive in temporary agricultural jobs. And, though many leaders have promised land reform, little progress has been made to meet the needs of the peasant farmer. Furthermore, with increasing pressure by the World Bank for developing countries like Brazil to consolidate small farms into large agricultural holdings, the survival of the small farmer is in doubt.

It is within this context that the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra or MST) has emerged over the past 15 years to become the largest social movement in Latin America and one of the most successful grassroots movements in the world. The effort began in 1985 when, with the support of the Catholic Church, hundreds of landless rural Brazilians successfully established a cooperative on an unused plantation in the south of the country. They gained title to that land in 1987.

Since then, the MST has been organizing Brazil's rural poor to occupy and cultivate large tracts of idle agricultural land as "land reform from the bottom up". The strategy is straightforward: identify idle farmland and then, armed only with farm tools, occupy the land, develop a community there and cultivate the land until legal ownership to the property is granted. This strategy is consistent with the 1988 Brazilian Constitution that explicitly states that land must be used for the benefit of all society.

Since its founding, the MST has won land titles for 250,000 families in 1600 government recognized settlements across 23 Brazilian states. Currently over 70,000 families are in MST encampments throughout Brazil waiting for land titles. Beyond the acquisition of legal ownership, the organization provides it members with basic social services that the government is unwilling or unable to provide. Medical clinics and training centers for health care workers are established in every settlement. Twelve hundred public schools employ an estimated 3800 teachers serving about 150,000 children. Through a UNESCO grant, adult literacy classes are offered to 25,000 people. The MST has even established its own college and, where possible, provides some students with scholarships to attend other universities.

MST encampment near Sao Paulo

Of course, the MST is controversial and has been violently opposed by wealthy landowners and other elites over the years. The military police, private militias, and other Brazilian security forces have led raids on encampments and targeted individual leaders for reprisals, resulting in hundreds of casualties annually. In addition to these reprisals, government land reform policies, influenced by World Bank "structural adjustment" programs, have typically favored large plantation owners that produce food for export. At the same time, the government has distributed, to small farmers, millions of acres of land in recent years. Government officials concede, however, that such distribution would not have occured on such a scale without the grassroots pressure from the MST.

The success of the MST lies in its ability to organize. Its members have not only managed to secure land, thereby guaranteeing food security for their families, but they operate a wide range of mid-size agricultural cooperatives. This industry provides jobs for members and produce for MST consumption and sale to Brazilian and international markets. MST enterprises generate an estimated $50 million a year, most of which goes directly to member families with a share used to support the MST's social services and infrastructure. The movement emphasizes community values and environmental stewardship before profit making.

At last year's national congress, 1700 representatives from settlements throughout Brazil convened to determine the political platform to be followed over the coming five years. Each year regional meetings are held to assess the progress of the five-year plans. The success of this movement has inspired similar organizations to appear in other parts of the world. "MST support committees" are gaining strength in France, Spain, and Italy with less formal but similarly structured organizations developing in several other Latin American countries.

MST School Construction Site

A MST school under contruction.

With the labor of MST workers who come from settlements throughout the country, a school for MST children is being built on a several acre tract of land about 45 kilometers north west of Sao Paulo. The construction is supervised by a local architect and building contractor who volunteers his time for the project. The land was purchased by funds from the central MST organization.

After a communal lunch with the contruction workers, Jim and Andy were taken to an MST "educational settlement" approximately 75 kilometers out of Sao Paulo. This was a plastic tent city on a hilltop that could house up to 50,000 residents or 12,500 families. The approximately 5500 families currently in residence are participating in an initial training program that prepares the individuals for integration into an MST permanent settlement. The social structure of each community is well designed for efficient management

Oded Grajew and the Ethos Institute

Discussion with Oded Grajew

Representatives of the Secretariat met Oded at his downtown Sao Paulo office, the Brazil headquarters of Ethos Institute. They explored the variety of reform-based business initiatives that Oded has established over the years. The work of the Commission on Globalisation was clearly identified as being consistent with Oded's philosophy and pursuits. Given his significant commitments to these pursuits and his desire to spend more time with his family in the coming years, he agreed to examine closely the planned activities of the Commission. His involvement would depend upon identifying projects that would not intrude upon his existing commitments and would be additive to his efforts within Brazil. The discussion ended with an agreement to continue exploring an appropriate degree of engagement.

Oded Grajew

Oded Grajew is President of the Ethos Institute. He is one of Brazil's most highly respected entrepreneurs who has, for over two decades, utilized his connections in the business community to combat inequities in the Brazilian political and social sectors, oppose and reform child labor practices, and build a national organization of corporations dedicated to socially responsible business practices.

In 1972, Oded and four friends started the country's first educational toy company, called GROW, which, by the end of the 1980's, had become one of the largest toy companies in Brazil. As the president of the Brazilian Toy Manufacturers Association, he used the association's influence in support of the growing movement advocating human rights and opposing the military regime in the 1980's. In 1987, he founded an association of progressive business leaders to broaden the democratic opposition and strengthen the reform movement that led to democratic elections in 1989.

Three years later, Oded established the ABRINQ Foundation for Children's Rights which works with manufacturers throughout Brazil to ensure their products are child labor free and either operate and/or contribute to projects that benefit children, such as education and training. Building on this corporate involvement in social reform Oded, in 1998, founded the Ethos Institute for Business Social Responsibility, of which he is President. The mission of the Ethos Institute is to encourage Brazilian businesses to be more socially responsible and to educate these businesses about the social impact of their business decisions and practices. Today, this non-profit association has more than 270 corporate members - large, medium and small - from diverse economic sectors and regions of the country. The Ethos Institute is also a founding member of EMPRESA - a network of organizations throughout North and South America, which seeks to promote business social responsibility.

After conversations with several colleagues in early 2000, Oded approached his friend, the Mayor of Porto Alegre, about hosting a gathering of organizations in parallel to the World Economic Forum that annually convenes in Davos, Switzerland. This idea blossomed into the World Social Forum that convened, during the last week of January, 2001, over 12,000 people from around the world.

IV. Water Privitization in Cochabamba, Boliva

Oscar Olivera

Oscar Olivera addressing Bolivian water-privatization protestors at a rally in 1999

Oscar Olivera is a union leader from Cochabamba where he gained international prominence in a 1999 struggle to reverse the privatization of local water resources. A reserved and humble man, Oscar entered the workforce as a machine operator at age 16 and worked his way into the leadership of his union over the following 22 years. He is currently the Executive Secretary of the Cochabamba Federation of Factory Workers, an organization that includes over 50 unions and 6,000 workers among its members, and the Coordinator of the Coalition in Defense of Water and Life. Oscar is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Globalisation. For his leadership in the Cochabamba water issue, Oscar received the 2001 Goldman Environmental Prize, the world's largest award honoring environmental activists. He also received, in October 2000, the annual Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award on behalf of the people of Cochabamba.

The Water Issue

At the current rate of consumption, global water usage is doubling every 20 years, over twice the rate of population growth. World leaders are beginning to realize that this natural resource, traditionally regarded as a sacred right for everyone, is extremely finite, and experts predict that by the year 2025 two-thirds of the world's population will be living in conditions without access to suitable drinking water. Maude Barlow of the Blue Planet Project states the problem succinctly, "the story of the destruction of the world's remaining freshwater sources is one of the most pressing of our time; there is simply no way to overstate the nature of this crisis." In addition, this crisis is leading some world leaders, such as former World Bank Vice President, Ismail Seragelden, to conclude that future regional conflicts around the world will primarily be framed around possession of water resources, which will in turn lead to new ethnic, national and tribal wars.

The competition over possession of clean water sources has, in recent years, become evident in the privatization policies required by the IMF and World Bank in developing countries. This utility restructuring, as a part of lending conditions, promotes a slow but steady shift of water ownership from the public to private sector. Given the imbalance of political and financial strength between developed and developing nations, such water privatization policies usually transfer the water resources into the control of western multinational corporations.

The abuse of this water privatization policy in Cochabamba, Bolivia, led to a popular uprising in 1999 by a broad-based coalition of peasants, farmers and workers, and neighborhood associations who joined with unions, environmental, youth, and civic groups to fight an international consortium led by the Bechtel Corporation. This story is an example of how civic leadership emerges spontaneously in response to some of the inequities of multinational corporate globalization and the multilateral institutional lending policies that provide corporate access to the developing world.

It also highlights the challenges that have emerged in the aftermath of a successful de-privatization of the local water system by organized civil society action. This essential resource, now partially in the control of Cochabamba community leaders, can only be responsibly managed with the assistance of outside advisors who can provide the expertise required. This story suggests the need for reform of policies that blindly privatize resources for capital gain without appropriate consideration of its impact on local communities. These are two of the challenges currently under review by the Commission on Globalisation.

The Cochabamba Story

The Cochabamba saga is rooted in the early 1990's, with the World Bank's structural adjustment policies pressuring the world's poorest countries, including Bolivia, to privatize publicly owned industries, usually resulting in ownership by large foreign investors. Through private deals, the details of which have never been fully disclosed, Bolivia sold its airline, its electric utilities and the national train service. The public benefit from this privatization seems to have been minimal with increased unemployment, more expensive services, and an erosion of working conditions.

In 1999, World Bank economists told Bolivian officials that "no public subsidies" should be allowed to keep water rates affordable and the government subsequently put its water utilities up for sale. In Cochabamba, Bolivia's third largest city, government officials conducted closed-door negotiations with Aguas de Tunari and secretly signed a 40-year lease granting this private consortium, led by Italian-owned International Water Limited and U.S.-based Bechtel Enterprise Holdings, the exclusive right to distribute water in the region.

The newly privatized water company immediately raised prices, a move that resulted in household water bills equal to 20-30% of a family's monthly income. Water prices were set in dollars and annual rate increases were to be measured against the consumer price index of the United States, an economic structure impossible for the population to bear. Furthermore, the lease contract and attendant legislation to enforce it prohibited many of the traditional means of distributing water, including community water tanks that collected rain, personal family wells, and right of townships to determine where water wells could be located.

These conditions led to weeks of civil society protests in late 1999. Peaceful demonstrations against the government and corporations grew to 80,000 participants, representing all sectors of Bolivian society aligned in a concerted effort to reclaim their water privileges. On two separate occasions, a general strike and transportation stoppage brought the city to a standstill for days at a time. The government responded with police, tear gas, and bullets as well as the repeated detention of civil society leaders.

Peaceful demonstration against water privatization, Cochabamba 1999

Amidst the chaos and with repeated threats to his life, Oscar Olivera emerged as the principal spokesperson for La Coordinadora de Defensa del Agua y de la Vida (the Coalition in Defense of Water and Life), the citizen body that negotiated with the government and the private water company. Parallel to the pitched demonstrations and blockades against the Bolivian army, with many civilians arrested and injured and one death, Olivera led the negotiations with the Bolivian government that resulted in the cancellation of the contract with Aguas de Tunari and the reform of legislation that regulates the water services in the region.

Oscar Olivera, Coalition Spokesperson

Giving full credit for this victory to the people of Cochabamba, Olivera explained their motivation to the press: "In Bolivia we used to own mines, airplanes, and trains. Now all we own is the air and the water and they wanted to take the water away from us."

Today the people of Cochbamba are working diligently to develop a water services solution that is a successful alternative to privatization. Representatives from La Coordinadora have formed an uneasy alliance with the local government in the reconstruction and management of the local water company, SEMAPA. Currently the SEMAPA Board of Directors is comprised of two members chosen by the Cochabamba Municipal Council, one member elected by the union of SEMAPA workers, and two members chosen by La Coordinadora. While public sentiment is still very strongly in favor of La Coordinadora, opposition continues in certain government circles and business elites. SEMAPA and La Coordinadora have created an important opportunity to demonstrate a workable alternative to privatization as the only rescue from debt and inefficiency.

In the transition to public management, La Coordinadora is guided by three principles: popular participation in key decisions; transparency in the administration of the new water enterprise; and social equity, including subsidies to keep water prices affordable for the poorest water users. As a first project, consistent with the commitment to social equity, SEMAPA implemented a policy of attending first to the neediest. They did this by expanding water connections into the poor southern neighborhoods of the area and by bringing back into operation a number of pumps that were abandoned by Aguas del Tunari. Secondly, La Coordinadora and SEMAPA have instituted regular community meetings throughout the city and rural areas to identify pressing needs and find shared solutions to pressing problems. This has resulted in the activation of hundreds of new water connections and hundreds of meters of new sewage lines, all with existing SEMAPA resources. How well SEMAPA continues to serve its people and its government will not only shape its future but provide an essential model for a more equitable approach to economic globalization.

The Cochabamba story has made Olivera a popular figure among civil society activists and within other communities where similar situations exist. For example, The IMF, backed by the World Bank, currently has loan conditions on twelve of the poorest, debt-ridden African nations which include water privatization. The loan conditions are part of the IMF's recent Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility, which was designed to help pay off the debt of the world's most inflicted countries. As in the case of Bolivia, local civil society leaders are rising to challenge these policies with Cochabamba as a reminder of the potential for abuse of such loan terms and free trade policies. Olivera receives regular email and phone contact from such leaders in various parts of the world seeking advice and counsel on the way forward.

V. RESULTS

New Latin American Commissioners

The dynamic exchange of ideas during the Community Building Meeting created new and constructive relationships with several projects proposed for further Commission activities in Latin America. The following participants agreed to serve as Commissioners and assist in the further development of a Commission presence in Latin America:

Aspasia Camargo
Vice-Minister for Environment of Brazil
Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources and the Amazon
Special advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Yeda Crusius
Deputada Federal - RS, House of Representatives, Brazil

Ruth Escobar
Co-founder of the Brazilian Amnesty Committee
Founder of the Feminist Coalition of Women
Member of the State Legislature, 1982 - 1990

Rosiska Darcy de Oliveira
President, Women's Leadership Center,
President of the National Council on Women's Rights (1995 to 1999)
Co-chair of the Brazilian Delegation to the Beijing Women's Conference

Candido Grzybowski
Professor of Sociology
2001 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Principal Organizer
Director, Brazilian Institute of Socioeconomic Analyses (IBASE)

Jacqueline Pitanguy
Executive Director, Civil Society Forum in the Americas
Executive Director, Cepia, (Citizenship Studies Information Action)

Eduardo Viola
Full Professor, Globalization and Governance at the Department of International Relations, University of Brasilia, Brazil
Author

Opportunities for Collaboration

The Water Issue

1. SEMAPA, the local water company in Rio de Janiero, has forwarded to the Secretariat a description of four types of technical assistance required by the company for their continued effective management of water resources in the region. We are distributing this request to selected members of the Commission network who may be able to assist in meeting the SEMAPA needs. For SEMAPA to succeed, the company needs the volunteer assistance of experts who can provide advice based on their greater experience with developing water utility infrastructures.

2. The Secretariat plans to develop an on-line discussion group for La Coordinadora that can facilitate communication among the separate communities that face similar challenges of equitable water resource management. Such communication is essential to establishing the dialogue among various stakeholders that can help bring the benefits of globalization to communities throughout the world. As a result of the Community Building Meeting:

1. The Secretariat is working with Candido Mendes to organize a meeting between the principals of the Seattle WTO protests and Latin American civil society leaders to be hosted by a Brazilian university.

2. The Secretariat is working with Ruth Escobar to distribute environmental public service short films produced by the Hollywood based organization, ECO.

3. The Secretariat is working with Candido Grzybowski to involve the Commission in the activities of the World Social Forum, including several presentations on the Commission's activities at the 2002 Porto Allegre conference.

4. The Secretariat is working to establish a relationship between the Ayrton Senna Foundation and the State of the World Forum's Whole Child Initiative to collaborate in certain child education issues in Brazil. The non-profit Ayrton Senna Foundation in Sao Paulo is directed by Viviane Senna, the sister of the Brazilian world champion auto racer, Ayrton Senna. When Ayrton was killed in the 1994 Grand Prix event, Viviane established the Foundation with his sizable fortune to, in honor of her brother's wishes, assist underprivileged children in Brazil. The Foundation has become a leading force in encouraging private-sector support in health care and education for poor children throughout Brazil.

Brazilian Organizations

Empresa
Website: http://www.empresa.org

Forum EMPRESA's mission is to strengthen and help establish national and regional business organizations committed to social responsibility. We accomplish our mission by working with three principal programs:

1. Education and Information exchange

2. Networking and Collaboration

3. Technical Assistance

Ethos
Website: http://www.ethos.org.br (Portuguese)

IBASE
Website: http://www.ibase.org.br (Portuguese)

MST: Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurals Sem Terra (Landless Workers' Movement)
Websites: http://www.mstbrazil.org (English)
              http://www.mst.org.br (Portuguese)

The Brazilian Landless Workers Movement is the largest social movement in Latin America and one of the most successful grassroots movements in the world. Hundreds of thousands of landless peasants have taken onto themselves the task of carrying out a long-overdue land reform in a country mired by an overly skewed land distribution pattern. Less than 3% of the population owns two-thirds of Brazil's arable land.

While 60% of Brazil's farmland lies idle, 25 million peasants struggle to survive by working in temporary agricultural jobs. The Landless Workers' Movement (MST) is a response to these inequalities. In 1985, with the support of the Catholic Church, hundreds of landless rural Brazilians took over an unused plantation in the south of the country and successfully established a cooperative there. They gained title to the land in 1987. Today more than 250,000 families have won land titles to over 15 million acres after MST land takeovers.

The success of the MST lies in its ability to organize. Its members have not only managed to secure land, thereby guaranteeing food security for their families, but have come up with an alternative socio-economic development model that puts people before profits. This is transforming the face of Brazil's countryside and Brazilian politics at large.

Redeh: Rede de Desenvolvimento Humano (the Human Development Network)
Website: http://www.mulher500.org.br (Portuguese)

WEDO
Website: http://www.wedo.org

WEDO is an international advocacy network that seeks to increase the power of women worldwide as policymakers in governance and in policymaking institutions, forums and processes, at all levels, to achieve economic and social justice, a peaceful and healthy planet and human rights for all.

WEDO's program areas are Gender and Governance, Sustainable Development, and Economic Justice. By emphasizing the linkages between these sectors and by highlighting the critical role of women at the social, economic and political levels, across all regions of the world, WEDO seeks to:

• Advocate women's equality in economic and political decision-making.

• Seek development solutions that are sustainable for women, communities and the planet

• Promote economic equity for women and increase public awareness about the negative impacts of globalization on women, their families and their communities, and the environment.

World Social Forum
Website: http://www.worldsocialforum.com

The mission is to go farther than demonstrations and mass protests, looking for new and accurate answers to the definition of building of "Another World", in which the economy would be in the service of the human being and not the opposite.

*BUDAPEST COMMUNITY BUILDING MEETING
October 17, 2001 - Budapest, Hungary

I. INTRODUCTION

The third Community Building Meeting was convened at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary on October 17, 2001. This one-day symposium entitled, "Sept 11: Its Impact on the Effectiveness of Civil Society's Engagement in Global Issues," coincided with a larger conference, "Reshaping Globalization: Multilateral Dialogues and New Policy Initiatives" convened on Oct 17th - Oct 19th by the Central European University and the Warwick University. This opportunity was chosen to expand the Commission's reach in Central and Eastern Europe and to work more closely with Commission Co-Chair George Soros.

The Community-Building meeting debate was fresh, rich and surprisingly cordial. While there was general agreement that the September 11th events had fundamentally changed part of the world's psyche, the discussion highlighted the differences in regional perceptions of the same events. The lively debate spilled over into the larger conference and invigorated the more formal discussions over the following two days. Click here to view the Final Meeting Agenda.

II. COMMUNITY BUILDING MEETING PROGRAM

The workshop was initially meant to address the rise of civil society following the fall of Communism in the region but, by necessity, was changed to directly address the tragic events of September 11. Entitled "September 11: Its Impact on the Effectiveness of Civil Society's Engagement in Issues of Global Concern" the Commission brought together Walden Bello, Director of Focus on the Global South; Commissioner Hans-Peter Duerr, Emeritus Director of the Max-Planck Institut für Physik; Susan George, Vice President of ATTAC; Cho Khong, Chief Political Analyst of Shell International; Commissioner Marcello Palazzi, Founder and President of the Progressio Foundation; Commissioner Tom Spencer, Executive Director of the European Centre for Public Affairs; and GM Tamas, a former member of the Hungarian Parliament.

In two panel discussions, the participants explored how civil society can continue to play an active, if sometimes highly critical, role in shaping the globalization debate. A group of 25 - 35 individuals, ranging from members of the nascent civil society movement in Hungary to invited speakers and academics from the larger conference, took part in the rich exchange of ideas.

A recurring theme in the discussions was that the United States had joined the rest of the world; that terrorism, an all too common occurrence in many places in the world, had now touched the United States and that this had the potential to mark a turning point in U.S. foreign policy. Commissioner Tom Spencer noted that: "There have been similar moments in our lifetimes - 1968 in Czechoslovakia and 1989 in Berlin. 2001 will certainly rank with these other turning points. It has already changed American perceptions of the world, changed the context of the debate about globalization and, at least potentially, offered us a way forward to a new order in the world."

Another theme of the workshop was that the world was, somehow, a different place following the terrorist attack. While a substantial number of people agreed with this idea, dissenting voices pointed out that the only thing that was new was that people in the United States were more aware of terrorism. Shalini Randeria, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Munich, related that on September 11 she had been in one of the most poverty stricken areas of India. People there, of course, were un affected by the terrorist attacks in New York and openly questioned what about the world was different. A few days later she traveled to a more affluent area of the country where she encountered a completely different reaction to the events. Here, where many of the families had sons and daughters living and working in the United States, the feeling was that the world had indeed changed.

In fact, these differing points of view were both correct. The world in which the poor dwell has hardly changed at all. The world in which the more affluent exist, has been significantly affected by the U.S. response to the catastrophe. This theme, that even within countries attitudes toward the impact and meaning of September 11 are significantly different, was reflected in numerous comments during the larger conference.

Using the Commission's meeting as an introduction, the "Reshaping Globalization" conference began one hour after the meeting ended.

The conference's goal was, "to bring together a range of scholars, international policy makers (from both the public and private domains) and significant players from within civil society to look at how a constructive dialogue between globalization and its opponents might be developed." This was ably done: from the opening remarks by Ernesto Zedillo, a former President of Mexico to the closing comments by Gareth Evans, Chairman and President of the International Crisis Group and Former Foreign Minister of Australia. The conference was a first rate gathering.

Of special interest for the Commission was George Soros' panel discussion of his Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) proposal and a white paper on "Eliminating World Poverty" developed by Minister Clare Short, the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for International Development.

IV. RESULTS OF COMMUNITY-BUIDLING MEETING

As a result of the Commission's workshop and its participation in the "Reshaping Globalization" conference, we were able to further develop a number of important relationships. The involvement of Walden Bello of Focus on the Global Southand Susan George of ATTAC - the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens Strengthened the Commission's ties to key members of the civil society protest movement. ATTAC and Focus on the Global South will continue to provide important input to the Commission's work.

The Commission was also able to develop relationships with a number of the presenters at the larger conference. Being a mostly academic gathering, this provides important ties to academia. Shalini Randeria, a Professor at the University of Munich, has agreed to serve as a Commissioner and an initial meeting with Andrew Mack, who previously worked with Kofi Annan and now is Director of the Centre for Human Security at the University of British Columbia, could lead to further collaboration with him and his center.

Uwe Morawetz also agreed to serve as a Commissioner as a result of this meeting. His addition is not only important for the Commission but his work in Thailand and with the International Peace Foundation will also be valuable to the work of the Whole Child Initiative of the State of the World Forum.

Finally, as with previous gatherings, the Commission learned more about how to bring people holding different perspectives together for constructive dialogue. The "Reshaping Globalization" conference was, as mentioned earlier, primarily an academic affairs. The few members of the business community and protest movement added an important perspective to the gathering but, due to their minor representation, a limited perspective was heard. Cho Khong of Shell International was frustrated by some of the discussions and thought that the entire business community was being unfairly lumped together as a negative part of globalization when, in fact, there are a number of very conscientious members of business who are working to make globalization more equitable. Dr. Khong's frustration is important for the Commission to keep in mind as we convene diverse groups of people to talk about important issues. No particular group, whether academics, protestors, government officials or businessmen can fit neatly into one basic generality.

V. SPEECH BY TOM SPENCER DURING THE CONERENCE

"Bin Laden, Civil Society and Globalisation"
Speech delivered by Tom Spencer 17th October 2001
at the Central European University, Nador Street 9, Budapest.

What do the events of recent weeks mean for the debate on globalisation? Are these events all about America or are they about all of us? Let me start, as other speakers have done, by recalling my own experience on September 11th. As befits our global world, I was talking on the telephone to a Samoan friend in Washington DC who runs Counterpart, an ngo active in sixty countries. Half way through our conversation he was told that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. My telephone rang a moment later. It was American friend in Atlanta distraught that "America was under attack". I made some consoling and superior remarks about Europe being used to terrorist attacks. Then my wife called from London and sent me to the television. Only then did the cold, calculated horror of what was happening begin to sink in. This was an iconic attack, a televised public execution of thousands of people in circumstances designed to invite the watching world to put itself in the horror of their situation. It was brilliantly planned public relations and a public affairs coup de théatre. It was not accidental or irrational. It was designed to be one of those moments after which the world sees itself differently. It was designed to provoke a reaction, designed to create a chain of events leading to the radicalisation of the Arab world.

Walden Bello spoke this morning of the care which Osama bin Laden takes in shaping his image in the Islamic world as a latter day Robin Hood. We should recall that, in the story, Robin Hood was not a peasant. He was Robin of Locksley, a dispossessed nobleman. He took to the forest to live a simple life far away from luxury. After injustice he fought for the poor and for freedom. He took to life in caves because the legitimate representative of the state, King Richard I - Richard the Lionheart - was absent, imprisoned after crusading. The king's shadow brother, John, was abusing the state in his absence. Without pushing the parallel too far, we should remember that it was the struggle of King John against the Barons, which eventually produced the Magna Carta, the foundation of human rights in England. I have always been rather ambivalent about Robin Hood as my grandfather was Sheriff of Nottingham. Walden's remark took me straight back to a moment when my view of the world changed. I was an eight year-old in Nottinghamshire in 1956, experiencing the twin political crises of Suez and the Hungarian Revolution. I recall to this day my strong awareness that the British imperium was drawing to a close, at American insistence, by the Suez Canal. My sense of Europe was forever changed by listening to the appeals for help from the doomed radio station in Budapest. There are moments when the world changes. Good can come out of a time of troubles. There have been similar moments in our lifetimes - 1968 in Czechoslovakia and 1989 in Berlin. 2001 will certainly rank with these other turning points. It has already changed American perceptions of the world; changed the context of the debate about globalisation and, at least potentially, offered us a way forward to a new order in the world.

Let us first consider America. The attacks of September 11th were the first act of foreign, symbolic, political violence on American soil since the British burnt the White House in 1814. There has already been a loss of innocence and an end to the American sense of invulnerability. We are seeing an end to a unique twelve-year period of politics without the ever-present fear of death, which is the traditional human experience. Republican advocates of the minimal state have turned over night into the proponents of big government. Former unilateralists now understand that the situation demands co-operation on intelligence gathering, on banking and money laundering, on diplomacy and the fighting of the war against terrorism. I would sum it up by saying that America has rejoined the human race. It may or may not mark the beginning of the end of the American imperium. What is likely however is that U.S. attitudes to global governance will no longer be a zero sum game, in which every advance for global governance is seen as a defeat for American sovereignty. Such a change holds out at least the possibility of a global governance with more players, more structure, more substance and with a stronger ethical base.

What do these momentous changes mean for the debate about globalisation? Before September 11th it was already possible to see the outlines of a new synthesis on globalisation. Few any longer believed in the thesis of globalisation as purely beneficial and majestically irreversible. Equally few believed any more in the pure milk of the anti- globalisers' case. Any new synthesis must seek to place economic globalisation within a political and democratic framework. There must be a return to connectedness and a recognition that the governance of globalisation must be legitimate, transparent and accountable. I believe that this will mean the involvement of parliamentarians and the attempt to create at least an "analogue" democracy in the supra-national and global space.

One of the advantages of being a smoker in a non-smoking venue is that you occasionally go outside into the real world. Earlier today I sat on the steps of the Cathedral and marvelled at the recovery of Budapest. My reverie was interrupted by an old lady taking her doberman for a walk. As the doberman lunged towards me it occurred to me that maybe it was the doberman who was taking the old lady for a walk. Luckily for my calf the doberman was restrained in time. I found myself looking into the eyes of a very determined Hungarian grandmother, who had survived the traumas of the twentieth century. It is open to doubt whether the grandmother democracy is strong enough to control the doberman of globalisation. However looking into the stern eyes of my new Hungarian friend, I choose to see a sign that democracy is up to the challenge.

This conference workshop is devoted to examining the impact of September 11th on civil society and the argument about globalisation. It is my view that the conditions which gave birth and vigour to the anti-capitalist movement between Seattle and Genoa have now fundamentally changed. I am indebted to Professor Tamas for his observation that the anti-globalisation movement was "an exercise in revolutionary theatre with reformist aims". Let us examine the elements that gave the Seattle coalition its strength. It had the attention of the world's media, but the war on terror now produces better pictures than anti-globalisation and the media find themselves attacked as part of the greatest press story for years. The assorted anarchists, nationalists and skinheads, who brought a frisson of violence to the demonstrations, now find themselves dwarfed by the cynical violence of bin Laden. The old Left will continue but it has now lost the cover of the broad coalition within which they organised. The campaigning anti-globalisation ngos now find themselves competing for attention with old peace campaigners, and may well be divided amongst themselves into their American, European and Southern elements. The non-campaigning ngos, who were content for the anti-globalisers to raise their issues up the political agenda, must now be reviewing their options, as must the opportunistically protectionist trades union elements of the anti-capitalist movement.

What are the options for Professor Tamas's "independent, non-communist Left", whom he accused of having a distaste for dirtying their hands in bourgeois electoral politics and of endlessly playing around with new concepts. Power becomes real in a war situation. The state has returned with a vengeance. Surely these liberal, cosmopolitan intellectuals must now turn their attention to the creation of effective and functioning global institutions and away from the luxury of criticism and opposition. They, we, are charged with an historic responsibility. It is a responsibility bathed in a harsh light by the rediscovery that this is not a purely secular world. The liberal elites and the leadership of the faith communities now find a political spotlight turned on their most fundamental beliefs. Osama bin Laden is not ashamed to put his faith and spirituality into action, however detestable we may find its outcome. The best analysis that I have seen of his motivation stems neither from his dislike of globalisation, nor only from his dislike of America. His actions flow from a sense that his religion is under attack from a dominant cultural paradigm that is as much represented by Europe as it is by America. His video-tapes speak of the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and of the Caliphate and of eighty years of humiliation for the Arabs. This humiliation, like the crusades themselves, was led by the French and the English. We deceive ourselves if we believe that Europe can somehow stand on the sidelines, immune from bin Laden's attempt to trigger a clash of civilisations aimed at the radicalisation and re-organisation of the Arab world. Hans-Peter Duerr spoke movingly of the connectedness of all things and our duty to seek the paradigm of life. Let us hope that out of this time of troubles comes a renewed determination by all the Peoples of the Book to seek a new approach, not just to our relationships to each other, but to our relationship with nature.

*WORLD SOCIAL FORUM WORKSHOP: “Strengthening Civil Society’s Participation in Global Governance Through Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues.”
Sunday, February 3, 2002 - Porto Alegre, Brazil

I. INTRODUCTION

The World Social Forum convened it’s second annual meeting in Porto Alegre January 31-February 4, 2002, timed to coincide with the World Economic Forum, convened this year in New York.The Commission had members represented in both the World Economic Forum and the World Social Forum, pointing to the diversity of the Commission network. Between Porto Alegre and New York, the panoply of different perspectives were displayed for the world to hear.

On Sunday, February 3, State of the World Forum convened a workshop during the World Social Forum entitled “Strengthening Civil Society’s Participation in Global Governance Through Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues.” Commissioners Mark Ritchie, Tom Spencer, Maria Ivanova and Marcelo Palazzi participated, along with Jim Garrison.

The Commission was profiled in the Economist, National Public Radio, the BBC, and a number of other international newspapers and journals resulting from activities in Porto Alegre.

II. PARTICIPANTS

The following Co-Chairs participated in the World Social Forum:

Candido Grsyzbowski
Mary Robinson
Vandana Shiva,
Juan Somavia
Lori Walloch

The following Commissioners also participated in the World Social Forum:

Thais Coral
Aspasia Camargo
Maria Ivanova
David Korten
Paola Melchiori
Marcello Palazzi
Mark Ritchie
Tom Spencer

The myriad discussions in both events underscores the uniqueness and compelling importance of the Commission on Globalisation; namely, to focus on constructive engagement between the sectors to actually bring about reform in the global system. Dialogue is certainly important and a necessary factor. Under current world conditions, however, it is even more imperative that the global community come together to actually do something. Thus the Commission distinguishes itself in that it is engaged in both dialogue and action as a single integrated continuum.

III. ARTICLES BY COMMISSIONERS AT THE WSF

MARK RITCHIE

"Looking Back, Looking Forward"

World Social Forum, Porto Alegre, Brazil
February 5, 2002

Two years ago, when a friend from Brazil started talking about plans to organize a global gathering of social movements, it was impossible for me to imagine. Relying only on his passionate belief that now was the time for a World Social Forum and that Porto Alegre was the place, I agreed to come give one of the opening speeches. It was an event that transformed my perspective on the planet and on myself.

Tonight I am on the plane back home from the second World Social Forum, held in Porto Alegre with three times as many people as the first year. It was again transforming - but in entirely new ways.
The differences between the two years were not only in the turnout, but also in the nature of the participants and in the structure of the event. A closer look at both of these is a good way to get a flavor for this historic gathering.

According to Candido Grzybowski, who serves as co-chair of the World Social Forum, there were roughly 20,000 people attending last year and over 60,000 this year - with 10-15,000 young people involved in a special youth forum and camp. While most participants were from Brazil, there were very large delegations from the rest of Latin America, Italy (1600), France, Germany, and other European countries. Over 90 countries were represented. From the U.S. there were around 100 participants - a substantial improvement over the handful of us who attended last year.

Not only were there more people, but they were more diverse. Over the course of the week I met a number of European Conservative Party leaders from the UK, Germany and France who shared a deep concern for the environment and Third World poverty with most of the progressive activists who made up the lion share of the participants. There were three of the leading candidates in the upcoming French presidential elections and a large delegation from the ruling Socialist Party in France, including cabinet members, national parliament members, and many local and regional elected officials.

Mixed in with the politicians were leaders of local struggles from every continent, national presidents of trade unions and farmer organizations, academics and religious leaders, and a strong contingent of youth activists. Business owners working to promote socially responsible trade mixed easily with Indigenous leaders, feminist activists, and students.

A second change from last year was the emphasis by the organizers on concrete solutions to the problems being discussed. Anyone wanting to convene one of the major sessions had to commit to coming out of their session with concrete proposal and action steps. While this turned out to be much easier to say than to do, it was a signal to everyone that the World Social Forum was about solutions, not hand wringing, finger pointing, or endless speeches. I hope that next year's event will continue to press on this objective in new ways in order to build upon the limited but important successes in this area that were achieved this year.

IATP participated in the launching of two important international treaty initiatives at the Summit. The first, the Treaty to Protect the Genetic Commons, was launched simultaneously in Porto Alegre and New York, and will be push as a key item for discussion at the upcoming Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. The second, on the Right to Water, is part of a very broad global coalition looking at a wide range of water-related issues including dams, alternative energy production, and the increasing threat of privatization and monopoly-control of drinking water and attempts by the World Trade Organization (WTO) to assert global control over local water management.

The final statement of the Summit spelled out a broad range of shared concerns and issues that groups committed to working on including support for the Tobin Tax on global financial transactions, and democratic reforms at the World Trade Organization.

A third change was the curious mixture of seriousness and Carnival. The killing of a young activist by police in Genoa last year, the kidnapping and murder of several prominent figures and elected officials in Brazil in recent weeks, and the events of September 11th were are factors in bringing about a more sober climate from most of the sessions. There was plenty of music, theatre, dancing, and other cultural events along the way - but inside the sessions there was a renewed sense of urgency tempered with a newfound care.

A fourth change from last year was the movement beyond issue specific workshops to a number of sessions on globalization in general - especially on how to govern transnational corporations and how to tackle transborder environmental and social problems. Although there were a number of sessions looking at the problems being created by economic globalization only a few went so far as to explore how to govern at the global level. Hopefully next year will see further evolution along these lines.

Last year, no one knew what to expect. This year many people came prepared to use the Forum as a platform or launching pad for future work, like the launching of the two global treaty initiatives mentioned above. There were lots of side meetings to plan actions at other upcoming global summits, like the UN Financing for Development meeting coming up soon in Monterrey, Mexico, the Rome plus

World Food Summit, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development this August in Johannesburg.

One of the most important outcomes is the renewal and strengthening of many of the global networks of activists and leaders. With handshakes, hugs, and face to face meetings it was possible to reinforce the crucial relationships and connections that make these networks as powerful as many governments.

The difficulty of running sessions where it was necessary to translate into two and three language s continued to plague the forum, but overall the logistics and structure of sessions were much improved. Thanks to over $1.5 million in contributions from the City of Porto Alegre and the surrounding state of Rio Grande de Sul, there were excellent facilities for many of the 700 plus official workshops, seminars, and conferences.

In general, the media coverage in Brazil and other countries was very, very popular and supportive -- including excellent coverage from unexpected places like Voice of America - which can reach audiences of up to 90 million.

What was common between these two years was the warm welcome we received from everyone we met in Porto Alegre. There were a hundred or more temporary stalls and shops set up at the Forum site - selling everything from delicious local foods and artisan crafts to t-shirts, books and pamphlets promoting virtually every known political perspective and ideology. The strongest memory that I have coming away from this year's World Social Forum is that of a wonderful mercado - a marketplace where goods, services, and ideas from all over the planet were mixed and matched to create one of the most powerful and peaceful political gatherings ever held on this planet.

Near the end of the Forum I ran into WSF co-chair Grzybowski, who also serves on my board at IATP. Looking tired but happy he was clearly pleased with the success of this year's event. Next year they are planning regional gatherings in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and in Porto Alegre for the regional meeting for the Americas. I am booking my ticket now for the next chapter in this amazing story.

MARIA IVANOVA

"United but Not Unanimous:
Insights from the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre"

There is no one truth but a whole suite of approaches for tackling the urgent global challenges that demand immediate action. This is perhaps the only statement on which the 50,000 participants in the World Social Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil from January 31 to February 5 could unanimously agree.

Born out of the Seattle protest movement, the World Social Forum convened for the first time in 2001 in Porto Alegre. A direct counterpoint to the World Economic Forum, it provided a platform for ‘anti-globalization’ forces to express their concerns in an own forum rather than outside the iron fences surrounding elite economic meetings in Davos, Gothenburg, or Genoa. But in just a year, the ‘anti-globalization’ movement has matured from a congregation of protestors to a constructive social force.

Under the motto “Another World is Possible,” delegates from 119 countries united their intellect, energy, and spirit in an effort to think through possibilities and alternatives for a better world. Rejecting the notion that they were opposed to globalization per se, participants ranging from Lori Wallach, a radical trade lawyer from Public Citizen, which organized the Seattle protests, to Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for a different form of globalization – ethical globalization – with a social and environmental dimension and concerned with human rights.

Two major messages emerged from the four-day discussions in over eight hundred seminars and workshops – (1) a strong rejection of the current neo-liberal world order and the institutions that support it and (2) an urgent need for global rules, ethics, and accountability and institutions that promote them.

Globalization in its current form is perceived and experienced by the World Social Forum constituency as promoting unchecked operations of speculative global capital, unchallenged control of multinational corporations, and protectionist trade measures in developed nations. The World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO are blamed for perpetuating this unjust international system maintained solely by raw power and calls for their abolishment abound. Yet, this call is not for anarchy. “The G-8 countries, now fast becoming the G-1, must act immediately to build a new financial architecture that will regulate financial flow and have a mechanism to handle the kind of crisis that has hit country after country since 1995,” says Martin Khor of the Third World Network, a Malaysian-based NGO.

The creation of appropriate governance mechanisms and institutions for global justice, human rights, social concerns, and environmental protection is regarded as imperative to a new world order. Corporate and government power can only be curtailed through transparency and accountability. Economic and social injustice can only be rectified through functioning institutions at the appropriate level. And global collective action so urgently needed for the solution of a number of planetary problems from climate change to ozone depletion to persistent organic pollutants can only be attained in a truly global forum.

Despite the fact that the World Social Forum is acknowledged as a process and not an event culminating in a declaration or specific political proposals, a number of concrete propositions and initiatives emerged including implementation of the Tobin Tax on global financial transactions, a flat tax on multinational profits, a minimum lock-in period for foreign capital, and cancellation of developing countries’ debt.

Furthermore, a treaty on the water commons was discussed, proposing the establishment of a World Water Parliament to ensure that every human has access to water in quantity and quality sufficient to meet basic social and economic needs. Opposed to the privatization of water, NGOs called for the recognition of the right to water as a human right and the need to establish common control over water resources. Under a similar slogan, “life is not for sale,” activists in the biotechnology field, advanced the text of the Porto Alegre Treaty to establish the planet’s gene pool as a common property to be administered as a trust and reject the patenting of all life forms.

Ultimately, to be effective, the World Social Forum would need to find the commonality in the multiplicity of ideas and craft alternative solutions to problems where governments still command the power of decision. Thus, the next step in the evolution of the social movement should include a structured and sustained effort at deliberation with all stakeholders.

The Commission on Globalisation, an international network of leaders from civil society, business, governments, and international organizations, presented itself in Porto Alegre as the forum where grassroots concerns will be brought to the attention of governments for joint solution. A bridge between the disparate attempts of business, governments, and civil society to solve global problems in separate international fora, the Commission believes that nothing short of genuine collective resolve and commitment will suffice for the creation of a just and equitable world order.

In the words of Juan Somavia, the Chilean Director General of the International Labor Organization and one of the founders of the Commission, “we need a system that can regulate the global economy in such a way that production and commerce, investment, migration, and other key components fueling globalization are coherent with human rights, people’s security, and employment. To achieve this.... social dialogue is fundamental.”

TOM SPENCER

"The Challenge of Interdependence"

Speech delivered by Tom Spencer
At the SOWF/Commission on Globalisation Workshop In Porto Alegre
Sunday 3rd February 2002

I speak this afternoon as a politician in the Conservative tradition, who might be thought to be out of sympathy with the aims of the World Social Forum. However during my fifteen years in the European Parliament my work on Trade and Environment, Climate Change and subsequently as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, gave me ample evidence that the world as we have it just does not work. On leaving the European Parliament I have devoted myself to the study of globalisation and global governance. In that context I am pleased to note an evolution of slogans. We have moved from ‘no to globalisation’ to ‘no to corporate globalisation’. One of my favourite banners in Genoa read ‘replace globalisation with something nicer’.

Now here in Porto Alegre we are invited to assert that ‘another world is possible’. My interest is in what are to be the institutions of that alternative world? I think it is common ground that there will need to be institutions, if we are to have a world where human rights are respected and which offers no hiding place for torturers or dictators. A world with a functioning International Criminal Court that offers no tolerance of genocide. A world with a strengthened regulation of transnational corporations, where corporate lobbying cannot disrupt Kyoto and progress toward climate sanity.

The question is how do we get to that alternative world. I don’t believe we can get there just by abolishing the WTO. Distaste for the functioning of the existing system should not blind us to thinking about the necessity of global governance. We will arrive at Another World by pruning some institutions, by strengthening others and by creating some new ones. They will all have to reflect the trinity of legitimacy, accountability and transparency if they are to have credibility in the world of today. Such a need is most urgent when one examines the environmental challenges which we face. Whatever the limitations of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg is the best opportunity we have to make progress.

I want to argue the unfashionable reality that environmental disruption must be our over- riding concern. Two days ago I listened to my friend Vandana Shiva describe with her customary clarity an Indian village untouched by world trade, where the water was clean, the children healthy and the population living in a sustainable relationship with the forest. They are unaware of their statistical place as part of the poor of the world, living on less than one dollar a day. However Vandana must realise that we are not starting from a clean sheet. Even her pristine village will have its climate disrupted and its monsoon fail. Its inhabitants already contain within their bodies unacceptably high levels of persistent organic pollutants and endocrine disrupting chemicals impacting on their genetic inheritance. They may be unaware of global power struggles over the environment, but they cannot escape the impact of our inability to take global action.

‘Another World’ will not be a Utopia, but a world still alive with the problems and injustices of all the failings of humanity. What it must not be is a world built on the lie of endless growth entwined with human hubris. The sweet scent of solidarity in this southern summer is no excuse for us to revert to old and failed ways. It is no excuse for us to abandon creativity. It is no excuse for us to be exclusive in the name of the excluded and to ban from our councils those who could genuinely help, such as the current prime minister of Belgium.

Interdependence is a tough business. It is more than an alliance of the good guys. It is more than Marcuse’s rainbow coalition of the oppressed. Interdependence is not just with our friends, it is with our opponents. It is not only about singing our own solos beautifully, for that way lies cacophony. Rather it is about striving to take different songs and blending them into a meaningful harmony.

The Commission on Globalisation is a manifestation of this aim. It is not a bridge between Porto Alegre and Davos, rather it is a safe space. It is not a slogan, but a frequency on which all those concerned about a ‘world that works’ can meet.

Living with interdependence is not about selling out or buying in. It is not about ignoring the events of September 11th or treating the outrage of Enron or the tragedy of Argentina as some cheap counterpoint to the consequences of bin Laden. It is not about opposing neo-Liberalism with neo-Socialism. It is not about the politics of anger, the politics of fear or the politics of hate. It is quite simply about collectively finding our way to a world that works. It is about mining ideas and not minerals. It is about trading knowledge not trees. Above all it is about winning wisdom from our differences.

It is supposed to be a sign of genius to be able to hold two incompatible ideas simultaneously. To hold these ideas and to wait for the flash that reconciles them at a higher level of understanding. The Commission on Globalisation holds these incompatibilities and is prepared to be the lightening conductor for the flash.

PAUL van SETERS

"Globaliseringsdebat Moet Anders"

Article by Paul van Seters
Hoogleraar-directeur Globus (Instituut voor Globalisering en Duurzame Ontwikkeling), Universiteit van Tilburg
18 maart 2002

De strijd tussen de voorstanders en de tegenstanders van globalisering verkeert in een impasse. Zeker, er is genoeg theater, niet altijd even onschuldig of vermakelijk overigens, zoals de schermutselingen tussen demonstranten en politie het afgelopen weekeinde in Barcelona opnieuw lieten zien, maar van een serieuze gedachtewisseling tussen de neoliberalen en de antiglobalisten, laat staan van een creatieve dialoog, komt het veel te weinig. Dat is het beeld dat zich opdringt niet alleen na Barcelona, maar vooral na de twee recente “wereldconferenties” van begin februari, die van het World Economic Forum (WEF) in New York en die van het World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre (Brazilië). WEF en WSF zijn natuurlijk in allerlei opzichten elkaars tegenpolen, maar zij hebben daarnaast toch ook verrassend veel met elkaar gemeen. Aan die raakvlakken gaat de publieke discussie echter grotendeels voorbij, gevoed door de onproductieve polemiek en het retorische geweld waarmee steeds opnieuw de verschillen worden benadrukt.

Het WEF is een gevestigd instituut. Het komt jaarlijks bijeen, vorige maand alweer voor de tweeëndertigste keer. Gewoonlijk speelt het WEF zich af in het mondaine Davos in Zwitserland, maar nu was gekozen voor New York City, als symbolische steunbetuiging aan de stad die op 11 september van het vorig jaar werd getroffen door een terreuraanslag. De conferentie vond plaats in het Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, qua uitstraling niet minder mondain dan Davos. Er waren 3500 deelnemers, voornamelijk mannen, bijna zonder uitzondering vertegenwoordigers van de economische en politieke elite van de (Westerse) wereld. Het WEF wordt algemeen gezien als bolwerk van de neoliberale voorstanders van globalisering.

Op alle hier genoemde punten is er een wereld van verschil tussen WEF en WSF. Het WSF hield vorig jaar pas zijn eerste en dit jaar zijn tweede conferentie, beide malen in Porto Alegre. In 2003 zal Porto Alegre voor de derde en voorlopig laatste maal worden aangedaan; voor 2004 wordt gezocht naar een locatie in India. Er waren 80.000 deelnemers, opmerkelijk gelijk verdeeld over jong en oud en over man en vrouw. Het overgrote deel hiervan vertegenwoordigde maatschappelijke of niet-gouvernementele organisaties. De conferentie werd geopend met een massale “mars tegen het neoliberalisme”. Overigens speelde de conferentie zich af op het terrein van de Katholieke Universiteit en op enkele andere locaties in deze door de Braziliaanse arbeiderspartij bestuurde stad. Het WSF is veruit de belangrijkste manifestatie van de antiglobalisten.

De strijd tussen de neoliberalen van het WEF en de antiglobalisten verenigd in het WSF woedt in alle hevigheid sinds de mislukte conferentie van de WTO in Seattle eind 1999. Het zou eenvoudig zijn om de hier geschetste tegenstelling tussen WEF en WSF exclusief op te hangen aan die strijd. In hun respectieve namen alleen al drukken de twee organisaties uit waar het om gaat: het World Economic Forum is pleitbezorger van de wereldwijde invoering van vrij economisch verkeer; het World Social Forum bekommert zich om de sociale gevolgen van dit economische neoliberalisme. Bij nadere beschouwing zijn dit echter niet zozeer posities pro of anti globalisering, maar standpunten die aandacht vragen voor verschillende aspecten van het uiterst complexe proces van globalisering. Voor het WEF is globalisering onvermijdelijk, en de onmiskenbare voordelen hiervan (vergroting van de welvaart) zouden niet beperkt moeten blijven tot het rijke Noorden, maar evenzeer moeten toevallen aan het arme Zuiden. Voor het WSF is globalisering in feite even onvermijdelijk, alleen geeft men daar prioriteit aan het verhelpen van de (vaak onbedoelde) negatieve gevolgen van globalisering. Met andere woorden, WSF staat minder voor antiglobalisering dan voor een ander soort globalisering.

Het voorgaande komt aardig tot uitdrukking in de bekende slogan van het WSF: “Another world is possible”. Maar dat is hemelsbreed niet zo heel ver verwijderd van het thema waarmee het WEF dit jaar afsloot: “Creating a real global community”. Immers, die “globale gemeenschap” van WEF zal er niet kunnen komen zonder aandacht te besteden aan de vraagstukken van rechtvaardigheid en duurzaamheid die nu juist centraal staan bij WSF. Sterker nog, hoe men ook maar vanuit WEF invulling zal willen geven aan dit ideaal van een wereldgemeenschap, zonder de actieve betrokkenheid van de global civil society, met vele tienduizenden aanwezig bij WSF, zal dat niet gaan. Omgekeerd geldt natuurlijk hetzelfde: de “andere wereld” waar WSF voor pleit zal niet gerealiseerd kunnen worden zonder de inzet van het (transnationale) bedrijfsleven en van (internationale) overheidsorganisaties, dat wil zeggen zonder de krachten waar WEF op steunt. Problemen die te maken hebben met het naderbij brengen van de andere wereld van WSF en de wereldgemeenschap van WEF zullen slechts opgelost kunnen worden door een gezamenlijke inzet van alle drie deze sectoren: bedrijfsleven, overheid én civil society. Door samenwerking vanuit die drie sectoren ontstaan wereldwijd nieuwe vormen van bestuur (new governance). Wereldconferenties zoals WEF en WSF moeten dan ook meer nadrukkelijk afgestemd worden op de dialoog tussen die sectoren, en zich niet fixeren op de woordenstrijd van neoliberalen en antiglobalisten. Dat inzicht bepaalt de gemeenschappelijke grondslag van WEF en WSF. Er ligt nog steeds een wereld van verschil tussen Davos en Porto Alegre, maar er valt daar ook een wereld te winnen.

CANDIDO GRYZBOWSKI

"Uma Nova Agenda Global em Construção"

Article by Cândido Grzybowski
Sociólogo, Diretor do Ibase
Rio, 17.02.02

Quem diria! A proposta única da globalização pelas grandes corporações econômico-financeiras através dos mercados, tendo como concepção legitimadora o neoliberalismo, após duas décadas de hegemonia, vê-se contestada por poderoso movimento de opinião também global. Revertem-se as expectativas rapidamente. Em muito pouco tempo, a crescente e desordenada insatisfação social com os rumos da globalização acabou decantando coalizões e redes com grande capacidade de aglutinação e mobilização, forjando uma nova onda de aspirações e ideais coletivos, em confronto direto com a proposta de tudo pelo mercado.

O Fórum Social Mundial é parte deste processo. A sua curta trajetória é reveladora da mudança de expectativas em curso quanto à globalização. Como Fórum, o seu objetivo é exatamente permitir a construção da agenda global no diálogo entre a diversidade de redes civis, campanhas públicas, alianças e coalizões que, em suas especificidades e diferenças, se contrapõem à globalização dominante. Oportuno para isto foi se constituir como anti-Davos, contra as idéias e perspectivas que emanam do Fórum Econômico Mundial. Assim foi em 2001, no I Fórum Social Mundial, em Porto Alegre, que surpreendeu pelo novidade e potencialidades. Agora, de 31 de janeiro a 5 de fevereiro, no II Fórum Social Mundial, novamente em Porto Alegre, a adesão à idéia do Fórum e o grande impacto na mídia em termos mundiais acabam invertendo os coisas. Apesar de apenas existir há dois anos – quase nada em relação aos 32 do Fórum Econômico Mundial de Davos – o Fórum Social Mundial de Porto Alegre parece estar ditando a agenda. Quem precisa ser contra agora – anti-Porto Alegre – são eles, os de Davos...

Gostemos ou não, o fato é que o Fórum de Porto Alegre virou referência global para uma emergente perspectiva de que “outro mundo é possível”. Isto é pouco? Suficiente certamente não é. Mas passar a acreditar coletivamente que não estamos condenados a virar um grande cassino, nas mãos de grandes corporações econômico-financeiras que mercantilizam a vida e especulam sobre seres humanos e povos inteiros, desperta enormes energias criativas. Mais, numa conjuntura reconhecidamente difícil, recolocamos no centro dos debates mundiais a globalização em si, saindo da armadilha da lógica do terror e da guerra, a que fundamentalistas religiosos e mercantis estavam nos levando após o fatídico 11 de setembro de 2001. Uma contundente resposta à globalização dominante pelo Fórum Social Mundial foi demonstrar que expressões diversas de cultura, de canto e de dança, com muita emoção, são constitutivas da globalização que queremos., fundada nos princípios éticos da solidariedade humana, com liberdade e igualdade, na diversidade de culturas e situações em que vivemos.

Cobram-se propostas concretas a este movimento contestador da (des)ordem mundial vigente. A sua primeira e fundamental resposta é construir uma nova perspectiva, uma nova agenda. Trata-se de negar legitimidade às prioridades economicistas impostas pela lógica da globalização econômico-financeiras, fazendo propostas que simplesmente corrijam seus malefícios sociais. Estamos engajados na construção de uma perspectiva social, democrática e sustentável, da economia e da globalização que sirva para promover a liberdade e dignidade humanas. Não ao direito absoluto do comércio e dos mercados! Estamos diante da necessidade de radicalizar a perspectiva de todos os direitos humanos a todos os seres humanos, como fundamental prioridade capaz de dar conta da nova consciência de humanidade. Romper o divórcio entre economia e sociedade, entre economia e natureza, entre natureza e sociedade, são tarefas centrais na construção de uma agenda global promotora da cidadania planetária.

O Fórum Social Mundial, como um dos pilares na construção de uma nova agenda global, está começando a dar a sua contribuição. A ampla adesão obtida – mais de 15 mil delegados de mais de 5 mil organizações da sociedade civil, de mais de 130 países, além dos mais de 35 mil participantes ouvintes – é reveladora da sua potencialidade. Iniciamos uma amplo mapeamento de questões, de análises, de propostas e dos sujeitos coletivos seus portadores, nos mais diversos domínios da atividade humana. Estamos reconhecendo quem somos, o que fazemos e como agimos.

Os desafios estratégicos que temos pela frente são de monta. A agenda global e cidadã que queremos ser portadores depende exatamente da força da diversidade social e cultural e das múltiplas respostas que dela emanam como contrapropostas aos pensamento único da globalização dominante. A especificidade do Fórum Social Mundial reside exatamente na capacidade de constituir o espaço necessário de encontro, diálogo e troca entre redes e movimentos globais, fundado no respeito e fortalecimento da sua própria diversidade e autonomia. O maior desafio é a construção das pontes de convergência na diferença. Isto estamos apenas começando a inventar. Mas os resultados e impacto não vê quem decididamente está de outro lado da trincheira ou, pior, é dos que não crêem na diferença que faz a sua participação cidadã na definição do rumo que o mundo toma. Estar entre os que acreditam que outro mundo é possível já é muito gratificante e estimula a gente a por o melhor de si para ver a onda crescer.

For further information on the Commission and its initiator, State of the World Forum, please visit the Commission and Forum websites.