---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:14:18 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:26 PM Subject: What is WEF? > > This is kinda long and, frankly, it's not exactly Dostoyevsky > (sorry), but it does pretty much cover the bases, I think. It's > adapted from an Australian website that was used to organize around > a previous regional WEF meeting, and it's probably stuff we all > need to know before we go screaming our heads off in front of > the national media. > jTuba > > > What is the WEF? > > > "As the world around us has become smaller, the Forum has grown > in both size influence." > > > >From Jan. 31-Feb. 4, the World Economic Forum (WEF) will be meeting > at the Waldorf-Astoria in Manhattan for it's annual summit. Alexander > Downer, who attended the 1998 Summit, describes the Summit as > the world's 'Business Olympics'. The yearly meeting, usually > held at WEF headquarters in Davos, Switzerland, was rescheduled > to meet in New York as a token of support for the injuries our > city sustained on September 11th. > > The WEF is, in a way, a big cocktail party for the global corporate > elite. As an organization, it has no power to actually set policy, > but it creates a space in which international "leaders" can hash > out their vision for the rest of us. In their own words, "they > are fully engaged in the process of defining and advancing the > global agenda." More specifically, it's our globe, but it's their > agenda. > > The Forum was born in 1971 as a yearly 'European Management Forum' > of Euro-corporates. It was funded by the European Commission until > 1987, when it became the WEF and started to claim global reach. > Its membership reflects its class orientation, and includes the > most prominent transnational corporations, 1000 of which make > up the WEF 'Foundation Members'. In addition, there is a club > of 'Global Growth Companies'; 300 'Industry Governors'; 300 Global > Leaders of Tomorrow'; 'World Economic Leaders' from both politics > and business; 'World Media Leaders' from 100 media groups; 100 > 'World Cultural Leaders'; and 'Forum Fellows' from academia and > the heads of national economic research organizations. > > The WEF aspires to be an agenda-setting Forum. It is, in its own > modest opinion, 'the foremost global partnership of business, > political, intellectual and other leaders of society committed > to improving the state of the world'. With the diffusion of neo-liberalism, > and consequent advances in corporate globalization from the 1980s, > the WEF has taken on an unprecedented role as a rallying point > for global elites, and as a vehicle for class power. Clearly the > WEF can't set the agenda and certainly can't determine the outcomes > - it is not a conspiratorial cabal standing over society. Rather, > it is a class grouping, fully embedded in social relations, that > self-consciously takes on the role of planning for collective > class interests. It seeks to influence the political agendas and > respond to the prevailing challenges - and in this respect, as > Kees van der Pijl argues, it is the first 'true International > of capital'. > > The Forum has been remarkably successful - since 1971 the 'state > of the world' has dramatically improved for many of the participating > corporations. WEF strategizing drove the neo-liberal agenda in > the 1980's, bringing together politicians from the 'pretender' > states of the newly industrializing world, as well as from the > OECD states, to map out an agenda with transnational business > executives. It offered a proactive forum, removed from the public > gaze, and played a central role in diffusing neo-liberalism. The > model was presented as the solution to the crises of accumulation > experienced in the 1970s and early 1980s, and was highly effective > in extending the reign of the market. > > This success has come at the price of built-in uncertainty and > instability. Globalized neo-liberalism had led to a dramatic redrawing > of the boundaries of capitalism (or rather, an unbounding of capitalism > altogether). Temporal boundaries have melted away with the speeding > up of circulation; spatial boundaries have been superceded with > the growing transnational reach of corporations; even socio-psychological > boundaries have lifted, with the increased commodification of > life. A newly empowered transnational capitalist class has emerged > triumphant, presiding over the new landscapes of accumulation. > But class hegemony is by no means assured - uncharted territory > imposes incalculable risk. Speeding circulation compresses business > cycles; confidence rests on ephemera; ideological symbols are > presented as so-called 'fundamentals'; frenzied speculation rules. > Corporate transnationalism exhausts social and physical environments; > deeper commodification disassembles social solidarity and generates > powerful imperatives for cultural survival, often carried through > the new modes of social communication. > > As a result, since at least the mid 1990s, neo-liberal prescriptions > have been widely discredited (just look at the present crisis > in Argentina). Exponential rises in executive salaries, and in > corporate accumulation, along with a dramatic concentration of > economic power across all sectors, offer clear evidence of the > success of neo-liberalism as a class strategy. But neo-liberal > globalization has also brought unprecedented levels of global > inequality, and undreamed-of degrees of financial instability, > environmental exhaustion and social dislocation. The neo-liberal > triumph has created new sources of opposition, the impacts and > responses have been unrelenting, and advocates have been forced > to go on the defensive. The high water mark was 1995, when the > OECD declared it was marking out a 'global vision for the year > 2020, a New Global Age'. But already a political revival, inspired > by social democratic ideas, and expressed in a new form of social > liberalism sometimes described as the 'Third Way', was sweeping > the OECD. > > As neo-liberal prescriptions have unraveled, there has been an > urgent revision of the WEF's neo-liberal project. The WEF has > left behind its market fundamentalism, and now is charting a new > agenda for corporate globalism, one that embraces rather than > rejects 'the social'. The massed ranks of analysts, consultants > and advisers, from credit ratings agencies, management consultancies, > inter-governmental institutions and non-government organizations, > have entered the fray, battling to define the new accumulation > paradigm. There are continuing efforts to enhance 'market discipline', > to suppress the advancing crises, to institutionalize transnational > class power, and render neo-liberal globalism irreversible. Yet > there is also deepening dissent amongst policy-making groups. > There is a rethinking of neo-liberalism even amongst the most > elite institutions: as Hans-Peter Martin and Herald Schuman demonstrate, > many of the most powerful players in global capitalism are questioning > the 'dictatorship of the market'. Primary advocates and beneficiaries > of neo-liberal globalism, such as George Soros and Ted Turner, > both of whom had embarked on paternalist interventions - the imaginatively > branded 'Soros Foundation' and 'Turner Foundation' - began expressing > sincere regrets at the social costs of neo-liberalism. Other elements, > as van der Pijl highlights, went further and increasingly have > been rethinking and explicitly 'mobilizing against yesterday's > prescriptions'. These have much wider ramifications, potentially > enabling 'a deepening of democracy, a reappropriation of the public > sphere by the population, and eventually a more fundamental transformation > away from class society'. > > Recent developments have only strengthened the leverage of this > dissenting segment. Institutional crises of legitimacy have accumulated, > with the OECD shelving its 'Multilateral Agreement on Investment' > in 1998, the temporary ditching of the World Trade Organization's > 'Millenium Round' in 1999, and the advancing crisis in the International > Monetary Fund's global regime of 'structural adjustment'. Add > into the equation the continuing crisis in 'transitional' post-communist > societies, especially Russia, and the severe jolt delivered to > the 'Newly Industrializing countries' of East Asia by financial > 'contagion' in 1997-8, and the impending bursting of the infotainment > bubble, then the challenges to neo-liberalism begin to seem irresistible. > Expressing this, there have been the dramatic public explosions > against neo-liberal globalization: Geneva 1996, Cologne 1998, > Seattle 1999, Washington 2000, Montreal and Genoa 2001. > > For the first time in many years, 'anti-capitalist' protest has > returned to the capitalist heartland, and to the global stage. > These protests open up the ideological space for the articulation > of alternative guiding principles, putting on the agenda the possibility > of transformation away from the current malaise. As the promotion > of capitalist discipline is questioned, protest targeted at the > agents of neo-liberal globalization gains remarkable political > leverage. In this political climate WEF meetings start to take > on a special significance. Since 1996 the WEF has attracted increasingly > militant opposition, and it has responded by attempting to re-chart > the neo-liberal project. The WEF response is to deliberately avoid > the appearance of backroom strategizing, and instead to seek a > higher public profile, attempting to reground its legitimacy by > being seen to engage with prominent advocates of the emerging > alternatives. The WEF is thus placing itself at the center of > debates about the revision of neo-liberalism, asserting that it > can play 'important role in forging the new geometry'. > > Reflecting this, the WEF has reached out to those 'excluded' by > neo-liberal globalization - notably non-OECD governments, such > as Mexico and South Africa, and critical Non-Government Organizations, > such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). > At Davos in 1998 Hillary Clinton argued the role of NGOs and other > representatives of 'civil society' had to be enhanced, while John > Sweeney, from the AFL-CIO, focused on issues of distribution, > arguing markets had to 'work for the majority and not simply for > the few'. In 1999 Vice-President Al Gore appeared with Kofi Annan, > who appealed for a 'global compact' between business and the UN > founded on 'core values in the areas of human rights, labor standards, > and environmental practices'. In 2000 President Clinton shared > the Millennial limelight - somewhat blurred by Seattle - with > Tony Blair. Davos policy debates are now couched in terms of 'institutional > accommodation', 'corporate responsibility' and 'global dialogue', > with sessions in 2000 on 'responsible globality', 'inclusive prosperity' > and 'sustainable development'. Perhaps most cynically, the WEF's > 'World Competitiveness Scorecard' - a yearly league-table of 'how > national environments are conducive or detrimental to the domestic > and global competitiveness of enterprises' - was supplemented > by an 'Environmental Sustainability Index' at Davos 2000. At the > same time, as Jane Kelsey highlights, a new 'World Economic Community' > internet link-up between 10,000 key economic decision-makers - > an internet 'hotline' for concertizing corporate responses - is > being constructed. > > The contest is on to establish a revised normative and institutional > framework for the global economy. The WEF is claiming a central > role in shaping the agenda, and some, such as the ICFTU, are participants > in the process, taking heart in the WEF's apparent willingness > to become an advocate of 'globalization with a human face'. But > the key question is whether the WEF should be permitted to drive > this agenda. Should a forum that is dominated by corporate interests > be encouraged to take on the role of mapping out future frameworks > for global governance? Should it be granted recognition and legitimacy > in this agenda-setting process? Or, rather, should its role be > challenged, and alternative sources of legitimacy be asserted? > > There was a telling moment at Davos 2000 when the assembled executives > refused to vacate the conference chamber to enable a security > check before Clinton's speech. The US President's Security Service > was forced to back down after a corporate 'sit-in'. Clinton's > speech went ahead: even the President of the US has to respect > the wishes of the corporate club. Perhaps he should have joined > the 1000 protestors outside the conference venue, and joined the > democratic movement against corporate power. > > There will be similar protests outside New York summit of the > WEF later this month. In 1999 the summit lobbied for regional > governments to back the coming WTO 'Millennium Round', arguing > that trade liberalization was inevitable and needed to be extended > into 'free and fair competition, protecting intellectual property > and foreign investment'. In > 2002 we can expect much rhetoric about inclusiveness and sustainability. > There will be plenty of ironic moments and opportunities to politicize > globalized neo-liberalism. > Information on the anti-WEF protest is available at http://www.s11.org > > Sources: > Kelsey, Jane, 2000, Reclaiming the Future, Bridget Williams Books, > Wellington; > Martin, Hans-Peter and Schumann, Harald, 1997, The Global Trap, > Pluto, Sydney; > Kees van der Pijl, 1998, Transnational classes and international > relations, Routledge, London. > The website of the World Economic Forum: http://www.weforum.org > > James Goodman, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University > of > Technology Sydney (UTS), PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia, > > Tel: 9514 2714, Fax: 9514 2332, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Website: http://www.uts.edu.au/fac/hss/Research/protglob > > > > > > > Destroy it. > Enjoy it. > -slits > > > __________________________________________________ > FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. > Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com >