Re: Re: World Economic Forum
Well, this may be a little dire. I was at a conference of trade unionists at the WEF this afternoon. None were happy. Their remarks were pretty sharp, in fact, though the weakest came, not surprisingly, from John Sweeney. They felt ignored, bruised, sick with PR. My pal David Brooks of La Jornada asked a question we'd concocted together - what have you gained by being here, and do you risk being used to legitimate their agenda rather than having an influence on them? Sweeney gave a meandering, unparaphrasable answer, but afterwards, the others on the panel as well as a guy from the CLC surrounded us and began defending themselves - persuasively. One (non-USer) said, as unions, you have to talk to some scummy people - his union represented oil & chemical workers, and they're scummy. But you've got to talk to them. So they come to the WEF - there were 40 there this year - and make themselves heard. They lobby Moore (WTO), Wolfie (WB), Somavia (ILO). They didn't sound co-opted. As for Jones, this just came in: At 10:37 AM -0800 2/4/02, Institute for Public Accuracy wrote: >VAN JONES, (415) 305-8575, (415) 951-4844, (646) 336-6789, >[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.ellabakercenter.org >The World Economic Forum, meeting in New York City, has named Jones >as one of the "100 Global Leaders for Tomorrow." Jones, who founded >the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in 1996, said today: "I think >it is a grudging admission on their part that the growing movements >against corporate-led globalization and the incarceration industry >must be taken seriously. I will accept the award -- not for myself, >but for the thousands of activists and concerned community members >who will be locked out. The WEF meeting is essentially a gathering >of 3,000 economic royalists, who dominate decision-making for 6 >billion people around the world. They represent the opposite of true >democracy." And so social democratic politicians come to PA? That could be a measure of the movement's strength - they need to pay homage to the assembly to gain votes and credibility. That doesn't mean they're shaping the agenda. I must be getting old, since I'm tempted to say, don't be such purists! Doug Peter Dorman wrote: >Right, and meanwhile the politicians from mainstream social democratic parties >are hobnobbing with the World Social Forum in Brazil. What does it >take to some >real contestation these days? > >Peter > >"Devine, James" wrote: > >> today's L.A. TIMES op-ed column by Arianna Huffington (not available on-line >> yet) makes it sound like the WEF in NYC is just a talk-shop, co-opting some >> of the outsiders who had demonstrated against such meetings in the past. >> Forum organizers had disinvited Ken Lay but "invited community activist Van >> Jones, who was teargassed in Seattle protesting the World Trade Organization >> and hit by a police car in Washintone [DC] protesting the International >> Monetary Fund. In fact, they honored Jones as a 'global leader for >> tomorrow.'" >> >> Going along with such co-optation, I am sure, is a disappearance of any real >> power that may have existed for the WEF. If there were any substantive >> decisions being made in the past, I'd bet that they've shifted over to some >> much less public venue. >> Jim Devine
Re: World Economic Forum
Right, and meanwhile the politicians from mainstream social democratic parties are hobnobbing with the World Social Forum in Brazil. What does it take to some real contestation these days? Peter "Devine, James" wrote: > today's L.A. TIMES op-ed column by Arianna Huffington (not available on-line > yet) makes it sound like the WEF in NYC is just a talk-shop, co-opting some > of the outsiders who had demonstrated against such meetings in the past. > Forum organizers had disinvited Ken Lay but "invited community activist Van > Jones, who was teargassed in Seattle protesting the World Trade Organization > and hit by a police car in Washintone [DC] protesting the International > Monetary Fund. In fact, they honored Jones as a 'global leader for > tomorrow.'" > > Going along with such co-optation, I am sure, is a disappearance of any real > power that may have existed for the WEF. If there were any substantive > decisions being made in the past, I'd bet that they've shifted over to some > much less public venue. > Jim Devine
World Economic Forum
today's L.A. TIMES op-ed column by Arianna Huffington (not available on-line yet) makes it sound like the WEF in NYC is just a talk-shop, co-opting some of the outsiders who had demonstrated against such meetings in the past. Forum organizers had disinvited Ken Lay but "invited community activist Van Jones, who was teargassed in Seattle protesting the World Trade Organization and hit by a police car in Washintone [DC] protesting the International Monetary Fund. In fact, they honored Jones as a 'global leader for tomorrow.'" Going along with such co-optation, I am sure, is a disappearance of any real power that may have existed for the WEF. If there were any substantive decisions being made in the past, I'd bet that they've shifted over to some much less public venue. Jim Devine
WHY WE ARE NOT MAKING DEMANDS OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
WHY WE ARE NOT MAKING DEMANDS OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM Anti-Capitalist Convergence - New York City Some might find it strange that the ACC is not making any demands of the politicians, bankers and CEOs gathering for the World Economic Forum in New York. What, precisely, are we protesting, then? In fact, we not 'protesting' at all. The Anti-Capitalist Convergence is a gathering of collectives, affinity groups, and individuals inspired by the principle of direct action. Direct action means that if there are problems in the world, one does not go appealing to the authorities to solve them for us, one does not go begging - or even demanding - that those in power stop doing things that create those problems. Because those who believe in direct action do not recognize that authority, and wish to put an end to that power. Direct action means taking action for ourselves, either to create our own solutions - acting as if that power does not exist - or, if we must confront our rulers, by putting our bodies on the line to stop them from doing what they're doing. It is, at the same time, a form of action and a form of education, because we are acting in the world, but by doing so, we are also showing people everywhere that there is an alternative to passive acquiescence - that it is possible for communities to take power over their own lives, to intervene in history, and to do it in a form which itself provides a vision of the kind of world in which we would really like to live. Therefore we are not even saying "we demand the right to live in freedom and dignity", because freedom and dignity is not something our rulers can ever grant us. It is their very existence, as rulers, that makes freedom and dignity impossible. All this is only possible if we refuse to live in fear. As anarchists, we recognize that the power of our rulers can only be maintained by terror; both governments and terrorists are ultimately playing the same game: the manipulation of ordinary people's sense of fear and insecurity for political gain. We, on the other hand, stand in absolute rejection of any politics of terror. That is why we are taking action now, in New York City, despite the obvious risks. The WEF's choice to relocate to Manhattan is a blatant example of just this sort of cynicical exploitation of grief, fear, and terror - they know they are bringing disruption and probably violence into the lives of an already frightened and traumatized population, but they hope to exploit those emotions to make it easier for them to crush us. By standing up and taking action anyway, despite all the police and military force and manipulation of the press and public opinion we know are being marshalled against us, we are sending a message to the world that it is not necessary to be ruled by fear: we refuse to bow down to terror, just as we refuse to terrorize anyone else. What, then, do we want? We are anarchists because we believe it would be possible to have a society without rulers; one based on principles of self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid. We believe that capitalism cannot be reformed, and no system built on marshalling the powers of greed and fear to drive people to organize their lives around the endless production and accumulation of commodities, no society which measures its success by the total amount of merchandise it manages produce, could ever lead to human happiness - in fact, could ever lead to anything other than a world in which even the most successful are mired in loneliness and alienation and the vast majority of our fellow humans, destroyed by terror and despair. We believe it is possible, instead, for communities and individuals to take control over their own lives, and create a new world in which the desire for the endless maximization of profit could be replaced by a desire for the full self-realization of human beings: a world in which everyone can have the security of knowing their basic needs will be met, and therefore will be free to contribute to society as they see fit, in sustainable harmony with the earth and natural world; a world which would involve pleasures, challenges, and forms of joy and fulfilment that at present we could hardly imagine. And if that it is possible - (and can anyone say with certainty that it is not?) - could there be anything more important than working to bring that world in to being? Therefore we ask nothing more of the junketeers in the Waldorf than we would of anyone else. As individuals, they are of course invited to join us in the pursuit of a better world; if they are willing to abandoning their power and privilege we will be happy to treat them as equals. Or, if they are not willing to do that yet, we can, perhaps, provide one other suggestion. If those who have gathered to celebrate their wealth and power at the Waldorf would really like to make a "gesture of solidarity" with New Yorkers, as they
[PEN-L:1305] Russia: Weir on Primakov at World Economic Forum
From: Fred Weir in Moscow Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 For the Hindustan Times MOSCOW (HT) -- The Russian government will not abandon market economics but intends to make sweeping policy changes to escape the disaster left by years of misguided reforms, Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov said at the weekend. "Unsuccessful reforms have given birth to economy of distrust in Russia," Mr. Primakov told the World Economic Forum, which wrapped up in Moscow Saturday. "The toughest consequence of the crisis and the most serious lesson we must draw does not concern the fall in production or decline in the rouble exchange rate, but a total credibility gap, a crisis of confidence," he said. In a biting assessment of the country's worst post-Soviet crisis, Mr. Primakov told the assembly of 200 global corporate and banking leaders that Russia's economic potential has been drained by massive capital flight, its banking system is in ruins, the government is almost incapable of effective action and the people are running out of patience. Mr. Primakov put the blame on his predecessors, who built a huge pyramid of government debt, encouraged the growth of a parasitical banking sector and fumbled the task of revitalizing Russian industry. In August the entire house of cards came tumbling down, after the government was forced to default on its domestic debts and stop defending the national currency. The rouble plummeted to about a third of its pre-crisis value, and in recent days has been sliding dramatically again. Foreign investment has fled Russia, and even the International Monetary Fund suspended payments on a $22-billion bailout package after the August crisis broke. The IMF's chief, Michel Camdessus, concluded talks in Moscow last week with no indication of when, or whether, aid might be resumed. "There is no and there will be no isolation of Russia from international financial organisations," Mr. Primakov said. "We are interested in close ties with them. But the real market strategy in future must be Russian, based mostly on Russian resources." In the absence of foreign investment and credit, Russia's options are cruelly limited. The country must drastically slash its reliance on imported goods and find ways to protect and promote domestic manufacturing, he said. One idea is to declare an amnesty on Russian capital that fled abroad during the post-Soviet era -- which Mr. Primakov put at $15-billion per year -- in order to draw it back into the domestic economy. "This is a paradoxical situation where Russia, which does not have means for development of its own economy, finances development of other countries," he said. Another proposal would be to allow foreign banks to open retail branches in Russia, which is currently against the law. Russians have an estimated $40-billion kept in their mattresses, thanks to their extreme lack of faith in national banks. That skepticism proved justified, Mr. Primakov said, when most domestic banks failed in August, vapourizing the savings of millions of depositors. "The Russian banking system proved weak and artificial, able only to feed on the state budget," he said. Russian citizens, whose living standards collapsed with the rouble, urgently need to be given fresh hope, Mr. Primakov said. "Mistrust of reforms has spread far enough," he said. "The only way is to consolidate social accord." Mr. Primakov's warning was echoed at the weekend by another top Kremlin official, presidential aide Oleg Sysuyev, who urged Western countries to step in with major new loans to Moscow or risk social collapse this winter. "We must think of new credits to fulfill our government's major obligation, that of covering its social expenses, to bar a social explosion," Mr. Sysuyev said.
World Economic Forum Pontificates on Global Economy; NewCouncil on Foreign Rels. Book
We Need New Rules for the New Game International Herald Tribune Thu, Jan 29 1998 The Asia crisis raises the key question of how we are going to govern globalization. Does the Asia crisis vindicate the views of those who see in globalization the source of all evil? Certainly not. But it has highlighted a number of issues that need urgent attention. Globalization has heightened in an incredible way the pressure on govemments and financial institutions for rigor in the way economic decisions are made, in the way markets have to be supervised, and in the way regulatory frameworks have to ensure transparency. The margin of tolerance for any kind of economic or financial laxity has become nonexistent. Economic globalization creates a tremendous multiplier effect of a financial crisis as soon as it emerges in any sizable economy. Each crisis must be seen as having the potential for creating a devastating, fast-developing domino effect. In a global economy where fire walls exist no more, how will we deal with the next crisis? When the Mexico crisis erupted three years ago, everybody said it should not be allowed to happen again; mechanisms should be set up to provide advance warning of a crisis and establish ways to contain it at a very early stage. This proved to be wishful thinking. Quite simply, we do not yet master the way the global eco-nomy functions, and the chain of reactions in an environment marked by the exponential increase of capital flows. Another issue has to do with the volatility factor created by short-term capital flows. Of course, the first way to reduce volatility lies with sound economic governance and market transparency. But we have also seen countries with very sound economic fundamentals contaminated by the crisis. Different approaches are being proposed, from new controls on short-term capital to fiscal disincentives. It is clear that we are now at the very early stage of discussing this issue, which relates directly to the larger issue of global governance. What institutions and mechanisms are relevant and efficient in the new global environment? Do we need an international regulatory framework for financial markets? What role will the IMF have to play in the future as a lenderof last resort? Integration of China and the other emerging economies of Asia, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe into the world systems takes on even greater priority in the context of the Asia crisis. These emerging markets have been among the key beneficiaries of the process of globalization, at the same time that this process has increased their vulnerability to volatile financial flows. These emerging markets are now too important to the global economy to be considered peripheral. Most transnational corporations continue to integrate these markets into their strategies as the driving force for growth in the next decade. As the number of players continues to rise and the nature of the game changes, the rules have to be reassessed. We need an international debate on how to deal with the more stringent requirements that a global economy puts on national economic policies, on financial market supervision and transparency, and even on corporate and business ethics. Interdependence has ren-dered the notion of economic sovereignty almost obsolete. The need for a minimum consensus platform on the rules of the game is becoming more essential than ever. Klaus Schwab is founder and president of the World Economic Forum; Claude Smadja is its managing director. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. (Copyright 1998) _via IntellX_ Copyright 1998, International Herald Tribune. == New Book Lays Out Blueprint for a Comprehensive U.S. Trade Strategy for The 21st Century PRNewswire Wed, Jan 28 1998 MONTEREY, Calif., Jan. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The commercial implications of the East Asian financial crisis, the rising trade deficit and the lingering struggle over fast-track trade negotiating authority will preoccupy trade policy makers in the White House and the Congress in the months ahead. "Trade Strategies for a New Era: Ensuring U.S. Leadership in a Global Economy," a new Council on Foreign Relations book, published with the Monterey Institute of International Studies, released Thursday, January 29, 1998, at 10:30 am EST at the Foreign Press Center of the National Press Club, 529 Fourteenth Street, Room 898, Washington, DC. The book offers a strategy to build the necessary bipartisan support inside the United States for trade policy and to help U.S. companies gain access to foreign markets. Drawing on two years of research, the authors of this volume -- who include members of Congress, business leaders, and scholars -- focus on how to break down foreign trade barriers, provide educational and other assistance for those workers that are left behind by trade, and secure an int
