Forum 2000 Response

Forum 2000 was a fascinating conference, if not for the outcomes, then mostly for the processes that were taken, the dialogues that were initiated and the multiplicity of views that were represented. The fact that representatives from trans-national corporations, the international financial institutions and global civil society (mostly NGO representatives) were in the same room discussing very difficult issues was an accomplishment in itself. The issue of globalisation and the fight against international poverty was the umbrella issue that was being addressed - in particular, globalisation through the world economy, with trans-national corporations as principal actors of, and their impact on developing countries.

Although there was general consensus about the need to change the state of the world as it is, there was great divergence in the opinions of the framework in which to effect such change. The diverse representation of the conference gave rise to a diversity of voices from a diversity of ideological viewpoints. Sometimes, it felt as if the divide was too clear and too deep to be bridgeable. This was especially true of representatives that were unaccommodating in the expression of their views, and extreme in their solutions. It was particularly disappointing to watch representatives take pot shots at international institutions. Very often, it was questionable whether it was even possible to have dialogue when one side would call for the dissolution of institutions and actors that the other panellists represented. Pragmatic and practical policies were very hard to agree upon - precisely because of the inability to even reach a common concept of what the world should look like and how it should be governed. Yet, policy papers were presented as a product of surprisingly focused discussion - albeit with a few reservations about the substance of these.

I had several disappointments with the discussions, which could have been products of the insufficient representation from developing countries - which dictated the kind of agenda that was set. Despite the much proclaimed aim of "discussing things for the billions of people outside the room", international poverty was treated as a lofty goal that was largely ignored. The workshop that I attended on the gap between public interest and private profit making was a case in point. They spoke of trans-national corporation accountability, and about turning our economy into a more socially responsible one, taking into account environmental and social costs. Although these issues are pertinent to the developing world - they were not discussed in a manner that was. Instead they were discussed under the assumption of a functioning market economy, a rule of law system, and a stable functioning government. Even the civil society representatives made the same assumptions unfortunately, leading to a discussion that was largely American or Western centric. Whether wanting to reverse economic development or to create local economic communities out of global corporations, it is a luxury to "reverse" directions - that is a choice for those who can afford to abandon the global economy because they already have the resources to do so. How would one change governments without the power to, how to show the advantages of democracies to failed states without showing that people live better with the freedom brought from having the economic resources to choose how you want to live? Corporations have social responsibility and the power to provide these resources - although they are not the only ones - but it is important to harness all sources of aid and interest. I do think that it's impossible to imagine a world without the existence of the global economy or the corporations that have gained prominence in it. Corporations, precisely through the power that we are so afraid upon, can just as well convince governments about the importance of freedom and democracy as they can prop up rogue governments. The question is not to create a revolution - one that turns over the whole mechanism of allocating resources for the world, but to change it into an accountable, responsible mechanism.

It is then easier to move from here - we want an accountable, socially responsible market mechanism, and with that, we want accountable, socially responsible, transparent agents. The conference did result in policy suggestions that move towards that direction - internationally binding codes of conduct, the participation of consumers in telling the corporations how they want their goods made and sold… I only have one concern that all this again assumes an enlightened global society, and an enforcement mechanism for the international codes governing behaviour, which can only function on a national basis. I am concerned that this assumes that domestic publics in developed countries care about this issue - it assumes that they care more about these strangers they are supposed to protect, than fellow citizens - an assumption that has its flaws. What is to happen when domestic publics lose interest in these issues?

It was however comforting to see how concerned and open leaders of the corporate and financial world were. That it wasn't an issue that we all needed to work together to change things is a very important step. Despite my misgivings about the undemocratic nature of the IMF and the World Bank, and the unbridled power of the corporations that shape our world, I do think that reform is clearly on the agenda. Still, accountability and transparency are the most important issues in response to their problems. It remains the most important element of human life to have the freedoms to choose one's own destiny - including being able to rely on the government that you've elected to play an important role in making decisions about how it allocates the resources it has, and to remain true to their responsibility to their citizens.

And yet, what else can we do but sit down and come up with these hard hard policies? I believe in incremental steps that must be taken and built upon. At the same time, change cannot only be brought about by polite timid steps - there is a great need for determined leadership. Bold leadership in the business world, the financial institutions and the global civil society to continue communication and together reach compromises and through that effect bigger change. And most importantly, not to lose sight of the goal in all these, that international poverty should be fought against, and human suffering eliminated.