Interview with David C. Korten
Conducted by University of Washington on December 16, 2000
Also available on the website of the University of Washington
Interviewee: David C. Korten
Affiliation: President and Founder of the
People-Centered Development Forum and Board Chair of Positive Futures Network,
publishers of Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures. Author: When
Corporations Rule the World and The Post Corporate World: Life After
Capitalism.
Interviewer: Jaelle Dragomir.
Date: December 16th, 2000
JD
David, you've traveled the world.
DK Yes.
Fran and I lived three years in Ethiopia setting up a business school at what
was then Haile Sellassie I University in the mid 1960s. We lived three years in
Nicaragua in Central America where I was the Harvard Business School advisor to
the Central American Management Institute. We also lived for ten years in the
Philippines and five years in Indonesia. During this time I was first with the
Ford Foundation and then an advisor to the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). I left USAID in 1988 to work fulltime with the NGO sector
and finally established The People-Centered Development Forum as my
organizational base.
JD
When did you write your book, When Corporations Rule the World?
DK I
wrote it while living in New York City, where we moved in 1992. It was released
in October of 1995 and a revised edition updating the discussion of corporate
rule and looking at the implications of the global civil society movements that
have emerged in opposition to it will be released in April 2001. Before moving
to New York I was devoting my life to dealing with issues of poverty in
low-income countries in the South. With time I came to realize that conditions
were actually getting worse for most people in terms of increasing poverty and
inequality, environmental destruction, and social breakdown. It seemed to relate
to the kind of development being promoted by most development aid agencies.
Fortunately I was able to take the time to step back to reflect on why
"development" was producing such disastrous consequences. This led me to look at
the institutional consequences of corporate globalization and how it was
shifting power away from people, communities, and governments to global
corporations driven solely by their own bottom line. Eventually my colleagues
from the Asian NGO community began telling me, "You know, we think you've really
got the analysis down. Now you understand our problem. The best way you can help
us is to go back to the United States and educate your own people as to the
incredible damage your country is doing to the rest of the world." So that's
what I did. In 1992, Fran and I moved to New York City, in the middle of
Manhattan, which is what we often refer to as the belly of the beast, right
between Madison Avenue (corporate advertising) and Wall Street (corporate
finance). That's where I found the inspiration to write When Corporations
Rule the World. Now, as the resistance to corporate rule and economic
globalization builds, many of us are recognizing that we have to move beyond
resistance to building awareness of the alternatives.
JD
That's your next book.
DK Yes,
The Post Corporate World: Life After Capitalism, which was released in
March 1999. It is what led Fran and I to get so deeply involved with
YES! magazine and to move to the Seattle area. Whereas Manhattan is the
belly of the corporate beast, the Pacific Northwest is the heartland of the
sustainability movement, so that was the proper setting and inspiration for our
next step.
JD In
The Post Corporate World, you say that it's the image that we have to
establish. We have to get a new image in our head and release the old image. How
do we do that?
DK That
isn't quite the way I would put it. The reference in The Post Corporate World
is to Kenneth Boulding's book, The Image, which had quite an impact on me
as a college student. Our image of the world shapes how we think about human
possibilities. This has implications at many different levels. One level is
simply getting in mind a different kind of economy that isn't dominated by
mega-corporations. At a much deeper level it has to do with our image of the
nature of material reality and of life. With time I've come to feel the global
capitalist system is a product of the image of a dead worldview that comes from
classical Newtonian physics. According to this image only the material is real,
life is an accidental outcome of material complexity, and consciousness is an
illusion.
JD Man
over nature.
DK Man
over nature is a piece of it, another piece follows directly from the Hobbsian
philosophy that since life is an accident there is no foundation for moral or
ethical behavior and the only rational human response is the pursuit of material
gratification without particular regard to the consequences. I sometimes think
of it as pursuing material diversions to distract ourselves from the terrible
pain alienation and loneliness that follows from believing that we live in a
dead and uncaring universe. And of course that basically is the values
foundation of capitalism, along with the Darwinian theory that tells us progress
comes from the survival of the fittest in a life and death struggle for
dominance. So if this is your image of reality, then the materialistic
competitive struggle of capitalism is a rational response. Whereas if one
embraces the vision of reality that is coming out of the new biology, the new
physics, and so forth, one has a picture of the unfolding of a deeply
intelligent and spiritual universe in which we are participants in an
extraordinary creative journey with breathtaking possibilities. This image of
reality leads naturally to a totally different sense of the kind of future we
could create and to a great sadness for what we are doing to ourselves and to
others.
JD And
the old image justifies destroying the earth.
DK Yes,
because if life has no meaning, its destruction makes no difference. Indeed, if
the destruction of life for immediate material gratification serves to distract
us from otherwise meaningless lives, fine. If some people are excluded, that is
of no consequence. In a Darwinian world there will always be losers. So that's
where the image has implications at a very deep level. For this reason, I
believe that change depends not only on a political awakening, but as well, a
spiritual awakening. Perhaps the most optimistic news one finds currently is the
evidence of a worldwide spiritual awakening. It is in part an awakening to a
different image of reality that allows us to break free of what we might look at
as a dysfunctional, brain dead cultural mythology that alienates us from the
underlying spiritual reality of life. The resulting anger plays into
capitalism's self-destructive competition, war, and all of that. It seems
humanity may be awakening from a kind of cultural trance, which to me is the
ultimate source of hope, because that awakening is essential if we are to change
course.
JD In
your last book, it seems you feel that the church bears a responsibility for
where we are today. Is that correct?
DK In
terms of the downside?
JD
Yes.
DK
That's true. It has been an important part of the problem. It is also an
important part of the solution. Just before the WTO meeting I was invited to
give a keynote presentation to a regional conference on economic justice
organized by the University Congregational United Church of Christ in Seattle.
In addition to myself, the main speakers were Marcus Borg, a well-known
Christian theologian, and Anaradah Mittal, from the Food First institute. In
preparation I read some of Marcus' books to understand his point of view on
justice as a Christian message. His best known book is Meeting Jesus Again
for the First Time, in which he tells the story of his growing up in the
Christian church and becoming disillusioned with the classical Christian
doctrine about an old man with the gray beard watching over everybody and
passing out rewards and punishments depending on who pleased him and who did
not. Marcus became so turned off that he moved away from the church until he
came across a wholly different interpretation of Jesus' message about
spirituality and the nature of God.
That interpretation is much the same as what Matthew Fox refers to as creation
spirituality. According to this interpretation, Jesus was a great prophet who
was in touch with the spiritual intelligence that is the ground from which all
creation flows. His central message was not that he was God or the Son of God
and that all who believed in him would be redeemed in Heaven. Rather his central
message is about social justice and our responsibility to honor the spirit by
creating just societies on Earth that recognize the sacred worth of all persons.
Marcus lays out how Jesus' social justice message became perverted through
conversion into a religious doctrine of a rule making God who lives apart in a
far place called heaven from which he rewards those who please him and punishes
those who incur his displeasure. This doctrine supports the arrangement of
humanity into a hierarchy of goodness or cleanliness corresponding to the
prevailing social hierarchy. Those at the top are presumed to be the most
favored in God's eyes--the clean and the worthy. The poor and powerless have
evidently displeased God and therefore deserve their fate. Thus the doctrine
that gives us the image of a personified God who rules from Heaven lends moral
legitimacy to the status quo of elite domination and exploitation. It is also
interesting how this same religious doctrine aligns with the materialistic,
reductionist worldview of Newtonian physics, which lacking any other explanation
for how the material universe came into being, suggested that the universe is a
great mechanical clockworks created by a God who set it in motion and then left
it to run down unattended. You might say that the main argument between
classical scientists and theologians was around the question of whether God
returned after he took his rest on the seventh day.
Either way, we are left with the
notion or image that spiritual intelligence--if it exists at all--is somewhere
out there far apart from the material universe, which is basically just a
mechanical clockworks winding down as the tension in its spring is released.
Together, the combination of the dead universe and the distant judgmental God
affirm the legitimacy of social hierarchy, materialism, injustice, and
exploitation.
By contrast, the image that all
of life, all of creation, is the manifestation of an intelligent spiritual
unity, communicates a very different message regarding our relationships and
responsibility to one another and the earth. If we start with the presumption of
a living universe--which is more consistent with more advanced scientific
findings and Borg's interpretation of the teachings of Jesus--it leads us to
reject the legitimacy of such a society based on social hierarchy, materialism,
injustice, and exploitation. Although I make no claim to being a religious
scholar, the evidence suggests to me that this is the message of the prophet on
whose teachings the Christian churches presume to build. A rediscovery of that
message through the writings of major Christian scholars like Marcus Borg and
Walter Wink could revitalize Christian churches by engaging them in the cause of
creating truly just, sustainable, and compassionate societies. For this reason I
find hope in the fact that Borg and Wink are among the most popular and widely
read of modern Christian writers.
Such rethinking could potentially
transform the church from an institution that predominantly legitimizes the
status quo to a rediscovery of the Christian mission of social justice. I see
signs of that. I wish the signs were stronger, but there's enough happening to
be a source of hope.
JD
The people in power won't want to give it up, so what can we do to change it?
DK Well,
there certainly are many power holders who will not want to give up their
privileged status. I'd be careful, however, about making a totally blanket
statement because I think there is potential for awakening in every person. At
the same time, I don't think the change is going to come from a sudden burst of
enlightenment on the part of power holders.
If change does come it will be through an awakening of the mass of humanity,
including an awakening to the fact that the institutions that are the agents of
the violence and oppression that threaten our collective future have only the
power we yield to them. It is a matter of recognizing that these institutions
are built on fraudulent premises and have no moral or ethical legitimacy. As
that awakening occurs and legitimacy is withdrawn from unjust and undemocratic
institutions, the power of those institutions will dissolve, just the way the
Soviet Union dissolved once it become clear to those involved it was not a
legitimate institution.
Take the case of the protests against the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. Some
people are focused on trying to reform these institutions, but there's a major
and rapidly growing group that says, "No, these are not legitimate institutions.
They're not useful institutions and reform is not the appropriate agenda. We
should delegitimate and ultimately decommission these institutions so that we
can fill the space they occupy with institutions that are in fact aligned with
human and planetary purpose.
JD
Create a vacuum?
DK Not a
vacuum. Space. That is different than the call for a descent into chaos, though
this may be where global capitalism is taking us. I do feel the institutions of
global capitalism will ultimately collapse under their own weight. The question
is whether their collapse will bring down the whole of humanity with them or
whether by that time we will have alternative values, structures, relationships
sufficiently in place so that we can move through the period of collapse without
the disastrous results that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's
why I'm keen to see us build alternatives to the global capitalist system at the
same time as we withdraw legitimacy from them. I think this relates to why armed
revolutions have so often failed to achieve the ends to which they are
presumably committed, because the focus is on violently capturing the
instruments of the state power, not transforming the nature of that power to the
end of peace and democracy.
A distinctive characteristic of
contemporary progressive movements is that they are not focused on capturing
state power through an armed revolution. Rather they seek to transform the
institutions and relationships of power. That's a fundamental shift and I think
it's extraordinarily important. This process can move ahead even though
corrupted institutions remain in place. Learning to relate in new ways that
share power is a part of our preparation to create and live in a more just and
democratic society. That's a lesson I've been learning from many young people
involved in the direct action against the WTO who organize the protests on the
basis of affinity groups and consensus decision-making. The idea that the
protest actions provide participants with a learning experience in radically
democratic decision-making is quite explicit in the thinking of those who lead
these actions. The goal is not simply to make things difficult for the powers
that be. It is also to build new ways of thinking and relating into the work of
those involved in the resistance. It's an educational process, preparing for a
different kind of society. I think that's both wonderful and extraordinarily
sophisticated.
JD So
what you're seeing around the world isn't anti-globalization but corporate
accountability?
DK
You're correct that the resistance is against corporate rule. It is not against
globalization as a process of increasing international communication and
exchange. Indeed, the resistance is itself possibly the most truly international
and inclusive movement in history. At the same time, the ultimate goal for many
of us is far more than simply making global corporations democratically
accountable. Our forefathers who fought to replace monarchy with democracy were
not simply looking for more benevolent and accountable monarchs. They sought to
eliminate the institution of monarchy as we know it. It is now much the same for
the publicly traded, limited liability corporation as an institutional form. The
larger goal is to eliminate it in favor of more democratic, market friendly
forms of business organization.
Actually I think it was a tactical error to allow the resistance movement to be
labeled an anti-globalization movement. It happened because the term
globalization, as used by corporate globalists, was a code word for a process of
consolidating global corporate rule. So we became the anti-globalization
movement. This was a dream come true for the propaganda machinery of the
corporate globalists, because to the general public the term globalization
simply means we live in an increasingly interdependent world with more
communication among people, more cooperation and increasing international
exchange. For most people, including most of those involved in the protests,
these aspects of globalization are positive. The issue is whether globalization
is going to be rooted in people and living communities or is going to be driven
by giant mega-corporations that are de-linked from any kind of human sensibility
or accountability. Many of us in the movement are becoming more careful to be
clear in our language that our opposition is to corporate globalization.
In fact, we oppose corporate globalization specifically because it is closing
the spaces available for the globalization from below that grows out of a shared
consciousness of the ultimate unity of life and humanity. That's an important
distinction.
With regard to corporate
accountability, the thinking is evolving. The first edition of When
Corporations Rule the World is focused on corporate accountability as the
alternative to corporate rule. Partly that is because in 1995 when the book came
out, the immutability of the corporation was taken so much for granted that the
timing wasn't right to directly challenge its very existence.
But I think there's a growing
sentiment, and certainly one I'm trying to encourage, that the publicly traded,
limited liability corporation is an inherently pathological institution that
stands in fundamental opposition to democracy. Not incidentally, it also stands
in fundamental opposition to a market economy and to an ethical culture. Like
the institution of monarchy it has no place in a just and democratic society,
because it is by nature a predatory institutional form designed to concentrate
power without accountability. That's just not a very good way to organize
things. Our longer-term goal must be to eliminate it. Some would claim this is
anti-business. For me it is actually a pro-business, pro-market position. If you
read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations you will see that Smith presents
something of a tirade against unaccountable crown corporations that created
monopolies and destroyed local markets and local enterprise even back in his
day.
JD
They took his ideas and turned them around.
DK Yes.
It's kind of like what the church did to the ideas of Jesus. There seems to be a
consistent pattern of taking the ideas of popular heroes who challenge hierarchy
and exploitation and twisting them into a defense of that which they abhor.
Another example is Adam Smith's invisible hand, which has been turned
into the idea that the unrestrained pursuit of greed will be automatically
converted, through the magic of the invisible hand, into a social good.
Therefore the revisionists argue, you should feel free to go out and trash your
neighbor because in the end this will be good for him as well as for you. When
you put the revisionist theory in such bald terms it's obviously patent
nonsense. Furthermore, it is not what Adam Smith said. First of all Adam Smith
wrote two books. In addition to The Wealth of Nations, he wrote The
Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is his examination of why it is that
people seem to have a natural inclination to care about the well-being of their
neighbor though it may yield nothing to themselves other than the satisfaction
of seeing it. It is also clear that this is the question that most fascinated
Smith, because he wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before The
Wealth of Nations and he kept revising it throughout his life, producing new
editions long after The Wealth of Nations was completed.
So one can assume that in writing
The Wealth of Nations, Smith assumed the presence of an ethical culture
as the underpinning of market activity. Indeed, in light of the free trade
ideology it is interesting to note that the only place in the thousand pages of
The Wealth of Nations where Smith refers to the invisible hand is in a
sentence that says because the entrepreneur has a natural preference to invest
in his community where he can keep track of his investments he serves the
general good of his community through no particular intent, as if guided by an
invisible hand. Now the way I interpret that, the real market economy is about
people finding ways to create their livelihoods through production and exchange
of goods and services. Adam Smith was pointing out that in the process of doing
so, in most instances the purpose is not community service. Rather it is to find
a way to live, yet in the individual's pursuit of his or her livelihood the
public good is indeed served. That is the magic of a market comprised of
individuals and small firms. A market dominated by globe spanning corporations
is quite another thing. Of course in Smith's vision, the pursuit of individual
livelihoods is assumed to occur against the backdrop of an ethical culture that
creates a sense of obligation to be fair and honest in one's dealings. This is a
wholly different thing than the idea that the entrepreneur serves the public
good by creating monopolies and trashing his neighbors in the pursuit of
unrestrained greed.
JD
That's not the same thing.
DK Not
the same thing at all. I've become acutely aware that in fact capitalism--which
by classical definition is a political, economic system in which the few gain
monopoly control of the means of production to the exclusion of the many,
including those whose labor makes the capital productive--is both anti-market
and anti-democratic. Capitalism is in fact a pathology to which a market economy
is subject in the absence of adequate governmental regulation and citizen
oversight. That becomes a very key idea in terms of understanding the range of
alternatives to the global capitalist system. Although some in the protest
movement come out of a classical leftist or socialist background, very few are
committed to the vision of a huge government owning all means of production in
the name of workers. Most think in terms of something that comes a whole lot
closer to a classical market economy in which ownership is widely distributed
and rooted in community. I see nothing in the idea of a market economy that
excludes worker owned companies, cooperatives, or even community owned
enterprises, all of which give people a real ownership stake in an enterprise
that serves their community in a variety of ways that go far beyond simply
extracting the maximum short-term profit for its owners.
JD If
people are just chattel what would be the purpose in not taking good care of
them?
DK Well,
in a global economy where you have massive unemployment, if you destroy the
health and psyche of one group of people, there are always lots more at the
door. It's exactly what happens in the Mexican maquiladoras where docile young
women are hired for three or four years until the working conditions leave them
with permanent disabilities such as carpel tunnel syndrome, kidney failure,
failed eye site and so forth. Once they are permanently handicapped and thus
useless to the company, they are discarded and replaced by the new workers who
wait in lines outside the company gate because all other means of survival have
been denied them and they have no choice other than to accept whatever terms of
employment are offered.
JD
According to some U.S. Americans that are doing good, they're making upwards of
$100,000 a year, they seem to be feeling that the economy is good. How do you
answer to them when they say, "I don't have to think about issues of the WTO or
the World Bank or IMF."
DK For
myself, I don't waste much time trying to convince people who have actively
closed their minds to the larger reality, because there are millions of
thoughtful people who are concerned, eager to explore and understand the issues,
and are searching for alternatives. This includes many people who are very well
to do. You may have heard of the organization, Responsible Wealth. It's
organized by United for a Fair Economy with an exclusive membership of people
who are in the top 5% of the population in terms of income and assets. Its
primary purpose is to lobby for legislation that reduces the tax advantages and
welfare payments to the rich in favor of a more equitable society. So it
organizes letter-writing campaigns to congress that say, "Us rich people are not
taxed enough. And what's this nonsense of doing away with the inheritance tax,
which is an essential mechanism of wealth distribution? We demand that you keep
the inheritance tax in place so as not to increase our already unfair advantage
over the rest of society." It gets attention because it is so far from the norm
of greed that we have come to take for granted.
This is just one example. My
focus in terms of strategy is to communicate with the people who are searching,
who have opened their minds to the need to create a more just world, because
there are already far more of those than I can talk to. They are where the
energy is. Those who are already questioning the status quo quickly come to
realize that simply pursuing material gratification diminishes one's own being
and in the end is self-defeating, because you get yourself on the treadmill of
chasing money ever faster to buy stuff that doesn't really give you that much
satisfaction. It just distracts you from more meaningful and satisfying ways of
using your time.
JD
Being rich is certainly easier than being poor.
DK Being
rich is easier than being poor. And there's no question about which I'd rather
be, but the real issues center on equity and economic security. Economic
security is so important that I believe everyone should have it. This leads to a
substantial focus on equity, as it is virtually impossible to have economic
security for all and significant inequality. The greater the inequality,
the more likely a rapacious few will use their power to expropriate the means of
livelihood of the weaker many. In the end, economic security is inseparable from
holding an ownership stake in the capital assets on which one's livelihood
depends. For this reason I often say that private property is such a good thing
that everybody should have some. This is different from the elitist idea that
property rights are absolute and that an individual has the right to acquire
property without limit, because it requires an equitable distribution of
ownership. Having an ownership share in the means by which you create your
livelihood--the assets on which your livelihood depends is essentially the same
thing as securing your right to live, to your means of living, through an
ownership right. It is also a foundation of real democracy, because in the end,
it is pretty near impossible to separate political democracy from economic
democracy. The further we go toward extremes of economic inequality, the clearer
it is that political democracy is rendered meaningless because of the power of
big money to bribe politicians to its own ends.
JD So
let's move to the WTO protests in Seattle a year ago. What was your part in
that?
DK You
may not know the story. I was very much a part of the lead up to Seattle. A lot
of people feel that When Corporations Rule the World made an important
contribution to the educational process that lead up to Seattle WTO protests.
Also, prior to the WTO meeting, the Church Council of Seattle organized
presentations in churches around the area. I was a presenter at a number of
those. We were trying to prepare people in Seattle for the time when
demonstrations would take place so that if they found themselves in the midst of
a demonstration, instead of cursing the demonstrators they would say, "Oh, hey,
yeah, these are the folks protesting in defense of democracy. I' going to park
my car and join the parade."
I was lined up to give eight
presentations during the WTO week. But the prior week I was in South Carolina
giving a presentation. The night before I was to get on the airplane to return
to Seattle, I came down with a terrible bloody nose that wouldn't stop. I ended
up in the hospital for more than a week and missed all of the WTO activities
except for my last speaking engagement on the final Friday. As many people said,
my spirit was there. But I was not physically there until the last day, one of
the great disappointments of my life.
JD
Before the WTO week you were trying to mobilize people?
DK I was
one of the thousands of people involved in the mobilization. The serious
organizers were people like Alli Starr of Art and Revolution, David Solnit of
the Direct Action Network, John Sellers of Ruckus, Mike Dolan of the Fair Trade
Campaign, Ron Judd of the AFL-CIO, Don Quigley of the Seattle Church Council,
and many, many others who did the serious mobilizing that was the foundation of
the success of the protest. Many of them traveled the country organizing events
to encourage people to turn out in Seattle. I was not involved with that level
of energy and had far less impact than those folks did. But I had my role in
helping people to understand the issues and I played a small part in encouraging
people to come. Everywhere I spoke, I emphasized the importance of the
demonstrations.
JD Did
you have anything to do with the unions?
DK
Actually, my wife, Fran, marched in the Friday afternoon demonstration, which
was a union event. The theme that day was ending corporate rule and I made a
presentation in the church that morning. But by the time the presentation was
over I was feeling so weak that it did not seem wise to join the march. Earlier
I participated in a number of events with Ron Judd who was a key player on the
union side. We became good friends. There's no question that the labor unions
had a very key role. One of the really exciting aspects of Seattle was the sense
of breakthrough toward the melding of progressive movements around a shared
agenda. Of course the press dismissed this melding as a cacophony of disparate
voices. You could see it that way if you had no understanding of what was
actually happening, which of course was the case for the clueless corporate
press. But the deeper reality was that people who came from an extraordinary
array of particular interests found common cause in the resistance against the
WTO. Labor unions, churches, youth, and environmentalists formed the core of it
and recognized that in many ways their many interests were one interest. The
religious groups were rediscovering social justice as a mission of the church.
Laborers were discovering that without an environment there would be no jobs and
environmentalists were discovering that if people don't have secure jobs there
won't be an environment. The youth were discovering that without all these
issues being dealt with they would have no future. So, there was an
extraordinary convergence. They were joined by peace groups and the women's
movement, gays and lesbians, small business people, small farmers, food safety
activists, and organic farmers, and on and on. It was a visible signal that
progressive groups are moving beyond identity and single interest politics to a
politics of the whole.
JD As
in the whole world.
DK
Exactly. This was one of the powerful messages of Seattle. I've spent a lot of
time reflecting on what it is that brought these people together. What is the
unifying issue for which the WTO is a symbol? I've come to conclude it's
fundamentally two things, one is democracy and the other is life.
JD
Democracy is?
DK
Democracy is full and meaningful participation by people in the decisions that
affect their lives--in contrast to corporate rule. By life I mean a shared
commitment to a society that values life more than money. Those two themes
pretty much cover everything else. If they are addressed, then you will likely
have justice, decent jobs paying a living wage, clean food, respect for nature,
and much else. It has a lot to do with the local versus the global, the idea
that economies need to be rooted in place and that democratic rights need to be
rooted in people who in turn are rooted in a place. This connection is the
foundation of environmental responsibility. It is essential to democracy.
One thing we have yet to address
is the question of how the movement names itself. Many of the protestors
embraced fair trade vs. free trade as a defining issue of the Seattle protests.
I think that was a tactical mistake. The distinction has little if any meaning
to those outside of the activist community. Furthermore, trade is not in any
sense the defining issue for most of us. It is similar to the mistake of
characterizing ourselves as anti-globalization movement, which makes us sound to
the broader public like a bunch of crazy, retrograde, xenophobia, no-nothings.
In fact the protesters, and especially their leaders, are among the most
informed and international people you will find anywhere. Making explicit that
our resistance is against corporate globalization is a step forward, but we must
go further. Ultimately we must name ourselves in terms of what it we are for,
rather than what we are against.
As I noted, the defining themes
if the movement are democracy and life. Vandana Shiva has noted that in India
the movement calls itself, "The Movement for Living Democracy." This is the name
that Frances Moore Lappe chose for her Living Democracy Institute. I find that
very attractive and expressive.
JD Was
Seattle the pivotal point for changing things or was that just the culmination
of several years of work before?
DK It
was an expression--an icon. In some ways it is curious that Seattle received so
much attention, because on the very day of November 30th, there were
estimates of upwards of a million people demonstrating simultaneously in various
parts of the world. There have been even larger numbers of people demonstrating
around the same issues in other nations before and since. Seattle probably got
such special attention because it occurred in the United States, which is where
most people in the world would least expect it. It did have a huge impact on
awareness among the American public. The fact that the business of the WTO was
effectively brought to a halt also attracted a lot of attention. In the end a
few broken windows and the police riot were what captured the press attention.
Of course the police riot alone would have gotten the notoriety without the
broken windows and it would have been much better, because the broken windows
obscured the fact that all but a few dozen of the protestors were committed to
nonviolence, in contrast to the police who went berserk. I'm sure I'm not the
only one who feels outrage every time I hear the press portray Seattle as though
the protestors were rioting and the police were simply responding. This is an
instance where the truth should have been self-evident even to the corporate
press, which raises the question of intentional bias.
JD
There was an economist at the University of Washington that said that the
breakdown of the WTO would have happened without the demonstrators because
Clinton didn't want it to continue nor did the UK.
DK I
think there is a case to be made that the negotiations might have broken down
anyway, but the claim that they broke down because Clinton and the UK wanted it
to breakdown strains credulity in the extreme. The U.S. was the foremost
proponent of the negotiations and the new round of trade negotiations that
Seattle was supposed to launch. There were, however, some serious misperceptions
even among some of the participants. I was in India shortly after the Seattle
demonstrations at the invitation of Vandana Shiva. We were told there that
India's trade minister had returned from the WTO meeting with a story that
Clinton had actually orchestrated the demonstrations to push his agenda for
putting labor and environmental standards into the WTO as a US protectionist
measure. The idea that Clinton orchestrated the demonstrations is absolute
nonsense, but at least one can understand, from the Indian Minister's particular
perspective, how he might misread the situation in that way.
There is a plausible argument
that the talks may have broken down even without the demonstrations, but not
because Clinton wanted them to. It wasn't just the demonstrators who brought the
meeting to a halt. It was a combination of demonstrators and a number of
official representatives, particularly from Southern countries, who were very
uneasy about some of the proposals being put forward, especially by the United
States. Some of my very well informed, plugged-in Third World colleagues believe
the demonstrations gave the Third World delegates the confidence and sense of
empowerment to stand up for their interests. If thousands of US citizens were
out on the streets protesting the actions of their own government, then they
felt easier about protesting too, from within. And so they began to get their
backs up and refused to play the usual game of rolling over and buying in to
whatever the US imposed on them. Of course you also had differences between the
US and Europe on such things as agriculture policy. That involved another set of
issues that hadn't been worked out ahead of time. So there were lots of barriers
to reaching an agreement. Now whether any one of these circumstances would have
been enough to destroy the negotiations by itself, we'll never know.
JD It
usually isn't that simple.
DK
Exactly. I believe it was the interplay of the demonstrations and dissident
officials. This has led some of us to recognize the importance of looking for
every opportunity to build alliances between the civil society movements and the
members of the G77. The intersect of interests between activists and the G-77
also came up with regard to the April 10, 2000 demonstrations against the World
Bank and the IMF in Washington DC. Spokespersons for the Bank and the Fund were
saying the demonstrators were spoiled children of privilege who are attacking
the very institutions that are working to end world poverty. It was a real
setback for the Bank and the Fund when representatives of the G-77 issued
statements from their meeting in Cuba saying that they supported the
demonstrators and their cause.
The G77 is the group of unaligned
or Southern countries. There's actually something like 120 country members, but
they still call it the G77. It turns out that there were very strong points of
convergence between the protestors' issues and the interests of G77 countries.
The demonstrations centered on calls for debt relief for Third World countries
and the elimination of IMF structural adjustment conditions that serve
international financial institutions and corporations at the expense of people
and the environment. It would be pretty hard to find a government of a Third
World country that is going to say, "We love the debt and these IMF
conditions."
Of course there are also
important points of divergence. Many civil society groups are talking about a
very deep economic transformation to eliminate the dominator model of society.
This kind of change is quite unattractive to most political and elites of Third
World countries whose interests are in general well served by the elitist agenda
of neoliberal economic theology. Some truly believe it will lead to prosperity
for all. The Third World grassroots groups are quite another matter. Many of
them were well versed in the destructive nature of the neoliberal capitalist
economic model long before those of more conservative backgrounds, such as
myself, came to understand it. They have become increasingly clear that the
institutional dynamics of corporate globalization do not work for Third World
poor, or for the poor and powerless anywhere. The awareness varies, but in
general it is growing.
It is also true, as some of my
friends in India point out, that it is very easy for poor people to buy into the
glitz and promise of the consumer society without realizing that it is an empty
promise that will remain forever out of their reach. The message of the consumer
utopia has a powerful appeal. The message is endlessly communicated through all
sorts of advertising media telling people that those who buy into the capitalist
system will have all these neat things they see Americans have on television.
They're quite unaware that even for a great many Americans much of what they see
on TV as a life of leisure and luxurious consumption is forever far beyond their
reach. Nor are they aware that the earth simply will not support extravagant
consumption for more than a small minority of the world's people because the
planetary life support system will collapse long before.
JD
Having just recently taught in Nepal, I saw people who were so desperately poor
that they struggled to feed their family each day and they couldn't possibly
think of the IMF or the World Bank, they probably haven't even heard of them
actually.
DK Well,
it's amazing how the word is getting around about the World Bank and the
IMF--even to places that don't have the Internet. (laughs) Literally millions of
the world's poorest people have taken to the streets over the past few years
protesting these institutions. Of course there are those who are so desperate
they can do nothing more than concentrate on getting through the day. There are
also those who have been captivated by the glitzy images of the consumer culture
communicated through advertising to the most remote villages. This is a terribly
insidious destructive process. The educational curricula of even the most remote
schools systematically depreciate the traditional local cultures and values in
favor of modern, industrial, materialism. I don't know if you're familiar with
the work of Helena Norberg-Hodge on Ladakh.
JD
Yes, I've interviewed her.
DK Then
you know that story she tells so well, including in her wonderful video
documentary.
JD In
the background is a huge Coca-Cola advertisement and the young man drinking.
DK Yes,
and the images of the youth of Ladakh buying into Western music and dress.
JD So,
what is it that in cultures that we look to be fairly entrenched in their
spirituality, that the youth look at US television and say "Yes, I want the car,
I want the girl, I want the clothes."
DK Well,
the rewards of spiritual experience are deep and enduring, but often subtle. The
rewards promised advertising messages of corporate globalization are more
visible and immediate. Also, no matter what the culture, there's a dynamic of
rebellion in adolescence. Power also plays a role. Youth in more traditional
cultures see Westerners on television, in ads, and as tourists. They all seem to
have so much power, so many things and freedoms that local people and cultures
don't have. It sends a strong message. Of course those to whom these messages
are communicated don't see the homeless and the slums, to say nothing of the
spiritual alienation and empty lives of those with a compulsive addiction to
consumption as their primary source of meaning.
JD You
seem very optimistic about the future.
DK Well
that would be a little misleading. I come at this not as a scholar attempting
to make objective assessments about future prospects, but as an activist
committed to creating a world that works. I do not believe the future is
foreordained, but rather is a matter of choice. So I'm dedicated to helping
people see what happens if we stay on the present course, as well as the
possibilities for taking a different course. I encourage people to make more
conscious choices. To do this, I must believe that change is possible, even as I
hope and pray that it truly is, that we still have time to change before social
and environmental collapse progresses to the point that our collective fate is
sealed. I certainly have my moments of deep fear that it's already over, but we
don't know for sure either way, so we must keep trying. Cosmic creation is
infinitely patient. There remains plenty of time for other evolutionary
experiments on planet earth should our own species prove to be an evolutionary
failure. Even at our worst, it is unlikely that humans will destroy the
potential for the future evolution of life on planet Earth. It may take a few
million years to recover, but in the cosmic scheme of things that's nothing. I
often put it in terms that we are facing a test as a species of whether we're
worthy of our privileged place within the web of Earth life. If we're unable to
find our place of service to the whole then the same thing will happen to us
that's happened to every other species that failed to do so. Still, I have a
certain attachment to the idea that it would be a terrible waste if we expire
along with the other failures, because our species seems to have so much
wonderful potential.
My own deep sense, to which I
make passing reference in The Post Corporate World, is that the whole of
creation started with an undifferentiated consciousness that had an incredible
urge to know itself by discovering what it could become. All that we know is a
manifestation of its unfolding being. Among the creatures we know, it seems that
the human consciousness has a distinctive quality, which it is our destiny to
learn to use to the benefit of the whole, yet exactly how that might actually
play out I do not know.
JD
Some would argue that Christianity came into our consciousness because we needed
to learn individuality, apart from the collaborative societies that then
existed.
DK I
gather you are talking about some version of the Protestant ethic and its
emphasis on individual achievement, which in my view is rather a distortion of
what Jesus actually taught. I’ve been rather more focused on the influence of
the reductionist or positivistic world view of Newtonian science, which
suppressed our awareness of our spiritual nature, and thereby led us to a
dangerously unbalanced focus on understanding material reality. This has
contributed to extraordinary technological advances, but has also led us to use
our technological powers in irresponsible and deeply destructive ways. If we
don't move on to a more holistic view that embraces both the spiritual and the
material dimensions of reality, we aren't likely to have much of a future.
JD
Back to WTO. Do you see alliances being formed?
DK Yes!
JD Can
you name some of those?
DK There
are many, not all of them formal. One is the Coalition for Jobs and the
Environment, which is comprised predominantly of steelworkers and the
environmentalists. Don Keegly, is a leading figure in that. He is a steelworker
with an exceptional commitment to both labor and the environment. He is at the
cutting edge of a new way of thinking that recognizes that there will be no jobs
without a healthy environment, and no environment without secure jobs. Churches
are also reaching out to labor, as are youth. You see the youth building
alliances across campuses focused on anti-sweatshop campaigns. One of the most
important youth alliances is the Direct Action Network, in which David Solnit is
a key player. DAN in turn is part of a growing network of international
alliances.
JD Is
there anything you'd like to share about the WTO or the anniversary of the WTO
that happened a few weeks ago?
DK The
street actions were an important expression of the energies building behind
change. But in a sense they are only one small part of a much larger whole,
including countless teach-ins, conferences, seminars and study groups. One of
the most important aspects of the WTO protests is the fact that they brought
together so many diverse groups. We've mentioned labor, environmentalists,
churches, and youth. But there were also groups concerned about civil rights,
human rights, women's rights, indigenous people's, food safety, peace, organic
agriculture, economic and social justice, small farms and businesses, and many,
many others that are coming to find common cause in the living democracy
movement.
As I mentioned earlier, a lot of
my energy is devoted to the Positive Futures Network, which has organized a
series of retreats that bring together people from diverse segments of the
movement to reflect together on what's happening in the world and where we best
direct our energy to advance the transformation from societies dedicated to the
love of money to societies dedicated to the love of life. Through dialogue and
the sharing of our hopes, fears, and experience, we strengthen relationships
that facilitate new alliance building, and create a common language that
increases the coherence of the whole.
For me, one of the most important
insights to come out of these retreats is the importance of building bridges
across the racial divide within the United States. The Seattle protests were
quite revealing in this regard. Overall there was considerable racial diversity,
but it came more from Third World participants more than from the participation
of color from our own country. I believe the diversity issue is really coming to
the fore in the thinking of many of the movement's leaders.
JD You
mentioned the other night at the dinner for YES! magazine, that we need
to understand what the issues are for people of color.
DK Those
of us from the white community who engage in protests against corporate
globalization and the WTO see the issues as broadly inclusive in the sense that
they bear on the well-being of every person on the planet, regardless of color.
Sometimes we feel frustrated that so few people of color from the United States
seem to be interested. What we often fail to realize is that people of color
have their own issues that are in many ways more immediate to them, like the
racial bias of the prison system, violence in the inner city, and a lack of
adequate housing. In the end these issues are also linked to corporate
globalization. However, if we want a solidarity of the whole it is the
responsibility of those of us who enjoy white privilege to reach out not with an
invitation to people of color to join "our" movement, but rather with an offer
of support for their issues. Solidarity of the whole will follow.
A very interesting thing that is
happening right now in relation to the 2000 election, which in some sense is
independent of Seattle, yet goes to the heart of the Seattle protests. This is
the energy building in the African-American community over the systematic
exclusion of blacks from voting by the Republican political machine of Jeb Bush
in Florida. Voting rights were the foundation of the civil rights movement. The
energy is building toward a major protest demonstration in Washington on January
20th for the Bush coronation. We are seeing the emergence of a
pro-democracy movement in the United States, with much of the leadership coming
African-Americans. Democracy goes to the heart of everything we are all
concerned about. If a U.S. pro-democracy movement emerges from the initiative of
Black leaders and the rest of us mobilize behind that leadership it will be an
extraordinary breakthrough.
JD Are
you going?
DK I
doubt that I will be in Washington D.C. on that date, but I hope that there is
something closer that I can join in. You know, I'm torn. Do I make my best
contribution to the movement by flying across the country to be present in
solidarity in a demonstration, or by focusing on my writing--in this instance
completing revisions on the second edition of When Corporations Rule the
World. In my writing and speaking I am increasingly drawing attention to
race related issues. We each participate where we can make our greatest
contribution.
It is interesting how Seattle
made many whites more conscious of an issue of concern to African-Americans. The
police riots exposed a great many young white Americans to the realities of the
so-called "justice" system in the United States. For a few hours they had a
taste of the kind of police brutality, bias, and lawlessness that many young
people of color experience on a daily basis. YES! magazine is only one of
the many progressive publications that have since focused on the racial bias of
American justice and prisons, which is understandably a potent issue for people
of color in the United States--an incredible blot on our country. That awareness
didn't all come out of Seattle, but I think Seattle helped many of us see the
reality that we live in a police state and that many of the constitutional
guarantees that we have taken for granted are a great deal weaker than many of
us had thought.
JD I
remember seeing the police in full regalia marching down the streets of Seattle
slapping their armor, it was terrifying. We're fortunate that we don't live with
that on a daily basis. But it could happen any day.
DK Well,
it's always there and now we know it's always there. Are you familiar with the
work of Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson on the Cultural Creatives? They've just
come out with a new book. Through survey research they have been tracking the
emergence of a new culture in the United States. Ray and Anderson conclude that
somewhere on the order of 50 million adult Americans embrace the complex of
social and environmental values shared by those who led the Seattle protests.,
There is a subset of this group, somewhere in the area of 24 million people, he
calls the core Cultural Creatives, who combine a strong social and environmental
commitment with a spiritual practice. The leadership of contemporary progressive
causes and initiatives comes almost exclusively from this group.
Paul and Sherry describe what is
happening as a kind of cultural awakening that they race back to the civil
rights movement, which awakened many of us to the fact that the relationships
between blacks and whites were historically defined by a cultural code that has
nothing to do with reality. The process of waking up to the consequences of this
aspect of our cultural conditioning opened our minds to recognizing that we have
been similarly captive to other cultural codes destructive of our humanity and
the well being of society. The women's movement awakened us to the fact that
gender relations have also been dictated by a cultural code based on false
beliefs. The same happened in relation to the environment, between straights and
gays, and now in our relations with corporations and the economy. In each
instance we take a look at a set of cultural prescriptions and suddenly it hits
us, "Hey, wait a minute, this isn't real. It exists only in our minds. We are
captives to an illusion that serves as an instrument of our own oppression. We
don't need to live this way."
I used to think about what Paul
and Sherry describe as a culture shift. More recently they've helped me see that
it is in fact an awakening of cultural consciousness. This is quite a different
thing, because once it happens--once a person recognizes the truth--it is very
difficult to reverse. The evidence seems to be that the awakening is spreading
rather rapidly. In the second edition of When Corporations Rule the World
I look in some detail at the implications. One implication is that the
foundation of the living democracy movement is far more cultural and spiritual
than it is political. Thus, the strategies for winning need to take the cultural
part very seriously, by which I mean cultural strategies that facilitate the
awakening and facilitate the processes by which participants in the awakening
recognize themselves and reach out to find one another. Because this phenomenon
is not reflected in the press or the political system, those who experience it
tend to feel culturally isolated.
JD
That's what Yes! magazine is all about.
DK
That's exactly what Yes! magazine is all about. Paul and Sherry have a
wonderful story in their book about how a young woman experienced this isolation
each time she participated in her family reunions where she found her values so
at odds with those of her family that it seemed she must be from another planet
.
JD I
know the feeling. (laughs)
DK I do
too.
Going back to the issues of the WTO, it's very important to remember that the
WTO is more a symbol of the dysfunctions of corporate globalization than its
cause. Indeed, the protests really aren't about the WTO. The WTO is one of a
host of destructive institutions of corporate rule. Even if it didn't exist, we
would still have much the same problem. Exactly how we deal with the
institutions of corporate rule is an issue still being worked through in the
movement. For example, the labor unions seem inclined to seek the reform of the
WTO by bringing in labor and environmental standards. Others of us believe this
is the wrong approach for at least two reasons. For one we believe that global
governance issues should be dealt with under the United Nations, which is better
positioned to balance labor, environmental, and trade interests. Second, we
believe that standard setting should to the extent possible be determined at a
national or local level where there can be more democratic participation, rather
than attempting to impose one size fits all standards from the global level.
This is the position of the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), of which
I'm a founding member.
As you may know, the IFG was
convened in 1994 by Jerry Mander under the auspices of the Deep Ecology
Foundation, right after NAFTA was implemented,. Founding members included
Vandana Shiva, Martin Khor, Lori Wallach, Tony Clark, Sara Larrain, Teddy
Goldsmith, Carl Pope, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Maude Barlow, Mark Ritchie, and
Randy Hayes. These were all people who were involved in one way or another with
the issues of trade and globalization at a time when those issues were totally
"off the screen" in terms of the general public.
We came together around the
opposition to these forces of corporate globalization, though did not then use
that particular term. In the early meetings we spoke of corporate rule and
economic globalization. Eventually a decision was made to form an organization
and begin a process of public outreach. The IFG first announced itself to the
world at a teach-in New York City in November in 1995. This was just after
When Corporations Rule the World came out. In fact the title was inspired by
a presentation at an IFG gathering by Tony Clark from Canada on corporate rule.
We'd been struggling for a title for the book and I said, "Hum, when
corporations rule the world." That could be the title for my book. We had a
party that night and Steve Piersanti, who heads Berrett-Koehler Publishers in
San Francisco, was there. I'd been working with Steve on the title, and I said,
"How about 'When Corporations Rule the World.'" He lit up and
said, " That's it! You've just doubled the sales of the book."
Anyhow, the first big teach-in
came in November shortly after the release of When Corporations Rule the
World. We were originally planning to have it at Columbia University. Our
hope was to draw as many as 450 people. But so many people signed up that at the
last minute the event was moved to Riverside Church. Even though it was a cold
November day with sleet and snow, we filled the church to its capacity of 1500
people and hundreds more were turned away at the door. It had the feel of an
historic event. This was the first of a number of magical IFG events that
generated incredible energy with great audiences and inspiring speakers. To many
of us that New York teach-in was the initial defining moment that led four years
later to Seattle. It was in New York that we realized corporate globalization
was an issue whose time had come. Corporate America had been creating a new
public consciousness by downsizing tens of thousands of loyal employees to get a
temporary jump in stock price, moving plants abroad, and giving CEOs outrageous
pay packages in the tens of millions of dollars while the wages of ordinary
workers stagnated. People were getting angry and they were looking for a way to
better understand what was happening. That is what the teach-in provided. It is
also what When Corporations Rule the World has provided for so many
people. The most common response to the book is "I thought something like this
was happening. You provided the documentation and the words to express it. Now I
have a framework that allows me to make sense of the bits of information I get
from the media each day."
The thing that is most surprising
to me, since When Corporations Rule the World presents an essentially
depressing message, is that so many people have told me they find it a source of
hope and empowerment. "What? Didn't you read it?" They answer, "Yes, but I
already knew things were pretty bad. Now I understand why and I know it doesn't
have to be this way. We can change it." The realization that things can be
changed is a source of hope and empowerment. That's why so much of my energy is
committed to helping people understand what is happening, because once they
understand it, they can direct their creative energy to the cause of change. The
new edition should leave people even more hopeful, because it has such a strong
message that change is not only possible, millions of people are mobilizing to
make it happen.
Now coming back to the issue of
reforming the WTO. The IFG came together around our shared opposition to
corporate globalization. Over the last couple of years we've been working
seriously on building consensus on the alternatives to global corporate rule.
One of the central issues is whether the Bretton Woods institutions--the World
Bank, the IMF and the WTO, formerly the GATT--should be reformed or
decommissioned. The emerging consensus within the IFG--and I think more
generally in the citizen movements--is that they should be decommissioned. The
argument for decommissioning begins with the fact that we have only one world,
but we've ended up with two systems of global governance. One is the Bretton
Woods system. The other is the United Nations system. The Bretton Woods
institutions are wholly undemocratic, closed, and ideologically committed to
corporate and big money interests. The rest is rhetoric.
JD And
they probably truly believe it.
DK Most
of their staff truly do believe that what they are doing will ultimately end
poverty and save the environment. It becomes an article of faith, even against
overwhelming contrary evidence. Once you deconstruct the ideological mantra,
however, you find it is all based on an insane illusion wholly delinked from
reality--a kind of collective psychosis.
JD
Sometimes when people put so much of themselves into something it is hard to
shift to see the reality.
DK It
also helps that those who work for these institutions are very well paid and
enjoy lavish benefits. They have good reason to not look too closely at the
reality of what their institutions are doing. There is also the fact that the
ideology is grounded in some of the most fundamental beliefs of Western society
regarding physics, philosophy, and theology. There's nothing like linking elite
self-interest with a legitimating ideology and worldview. Expanding the mandate
of such institutions by giving over to them the responsibility for environmental
and social health is really not very wise.
Although the United Nations has
all kinds of deficiencies, largely because the United States has withheld
funding and given all its support to the Bretton Wood institutions, it's far
more open, democratic, and holistic in its vision. It is also far more deeply
committed to the environment, human rights, labor, health, and education--all
the things that growth and trade should serve. By contrast the Bretton Woods
institutions treat growth and trade as though they were the sole purpose of
human life and they expect people and communities to line up in service to them.
This all seems to be obvious nonsense until you realize that the only certain
beneficiaries of growth and trade are global corporations--which are the real
clients of the Bretton Woods institutions. So, the idea is emerging among civil
society groups that we need to decommission the Bretton Woods institutions and
focus our attention on building an effective and democratic United Nations
responsible for the whole range of global governances functions, including
economic affairs--as the UN's founders intended.
When you step back to look at the
global governance functions appropriate to a just, sustainable, and
compassionate world, you find that in each instance what is needed is exactly
the opposite of what the Bretton Woods institutions actually do. Because it is a
bank, every action of the World Bank increases Third World debt. Now that's not
useful. We need instead to reduce and ultimately eliminate that debt. We need to
replace the World Bank with an International Insolvency Court that helps
countries work their way out of the debt--starting with the orderly repudiation
of odious debts that were never really legitimately contracted in the first
place--which means there should be no enforceable obligation to repay them.
The IMF is basically in the
business of prohibiting countries from managing their financial and trade
balances with the rest of the world. This is a total violation of trade theory.
It also leaves countries completely hostage to the excesses of financial
speculators who create financial instability and then demand that governments
bail them out when things go wrong to prevent monetary collapse. Then the IMF
steps in which money to limit the losses of the speculators. That isn't useful.
JD Not
useful to a lot of people.
DK So,
decommission the IMF and replace it with an agency that functions under the UN
mantel to help countries develop the capacity to keep their economies in balance
with the rest of the world and prevent the creation of international debt. The
assumption that international accounts are kept in balance is a foundation of
trade theory that goes all the way back to David Ricardo. If accounts are not in
balance, then the theory of comparative advantage does not apply and it cannot
be assumed that trade is beneficial to all parties.
The World Trade Organization is in the business of prohibiting governments from
imposing essential regulatory restrictions on global corporations and
speculators. What the WTO really regulates is governments not corporations.
Again, what the world needs is exactly the opposite. So decommission it and set
up a UN organization for corporate accountability that works with countries to
deal with issues of international anti-trust, corporate criminality,
de-chartering, enforceable codes of corporate conduct, rules about keeping
corporations out of politics and so forth.
When dealing with global
governance there is an important issue of whether the goal is to create an
international system that sets and enforces universal standards at the global
level or to strengthen the capacity of national and local governments to carry
out necessary regulatory functions. This is where civil society groups from
North and South sometimes differ. Northern groups are more inclined to seek
strong international regulations and enforcement. Southern groups fear that when
the rule making is global the strongest players will make the rules to their own
advantage and to the disadvantage of the weaker players. Long experience tells
us that such fears are well grounded. Thus, I believe the consensus is moving
toward support of the Southern position.
An emphasis on local rule making
is also consistent with the ideal of a radical democracy in which people have as
direct a role as possible in making the decisions that affect their lives. It is
extremely difficult to maintain democracy at a global level without democracy at
local and national levels. It should be clear to all following the outcome of
the most recent U.S. presidential election that we don't have national democracy
worthy of the name even here in the United States. We cannot expect to have
functioning democracy at the global level until we have it well established at
local and national levels. Democracy has to be built from the bottom up. Without
strong local democracy, there is no way that we will have strong global
democracy. Many of us thus embrace the principle of subsidiarity, which means we
call for strengthening democratic rule making at more local levels of society
and concentrate at the global level on creating a framework that supports the
localizing of rule making processes to the extent practical.
JD Thank you, David. It's been very illuminating.
DK My
pleasure.
