Spinning the big picture into silk realities

What use is there in bringing diverse people from all over the world to one location to openly discuss the status of the world? It sounds just "too big a picture" stuff, when seemingly it is impossible for us to make a difference. This was the impression I had when I first walked through the doors of Municipal House in central Prague, where such a theme was on the table. A mere 48 hours later this was clear: We had better get our collective consciousness together. We witness daily the dangers hovering over contemporary civilization, and we can and must all play a part in bridging the gaps in today's globalizing world or risk losing it all.

Of course I write this as a Westerner, a rich one on the scale of global wealth, where the norm is a struggle for food and clean water, health, education, and a longer life without suffering and struggle. That is the reality in most of Africa and in many parts of Asia and South America.

Fortunately there are people who do care and have the public profile that others do not to push causes. People like Valav Havel, a king among men; Yohei Sasakawa, president of the Nippon Foundation; Nobel laureate F. W. de Klerk; and philosopher Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan.

As the founding father of Forum 2000, Havel has always sought to bring together people from different backgrounds and who hold different viewpoints to jointly discuss and look for solutions to the pressing global issues in a neutral setting. "The people that meet here are in a certain way trying to cross the horizons of their professions, of their scientific fields, of the locations they come from, of their religions, and they attempt to jointly contemplate what is behind all that, what cannot be grasped by all that, and to find a kind of common language, or common minimum basis, something on which they can always agree," commented Havel. "It seems to me that this is a very important activity, as it is a reflection, and a reflection always precedes and has to precede any conceivable remedy. None of us knows how this world will end up, but it seems to me we all should do everything that we are able and have the power to do in order to prevent civilization from overwhelming us, to prevent this creation of ours from overpowering us. . . . And all this requires that we meet and discuss things openly."

"Forum 2000: Bridging Global Gaps Conference"

I was particularly taken by observations Sasakawa made on the opening day of Forum 2000. He recounted the words of Visalo, an eminent Buddhist monk from Thailand, who said: "In the world we are eating a lot of ice cream, and its market is as big as US$11 billion a year. We are also consuming a lot of perfume --$12 billion. But it is estimated that with just $6 billion we would be able to give basic education to all the children around the world."

What a pity that we, even as less-than-public global citizens, cannot make an effort occasionally. What I refer to are the hundreds of millions of wealthy globalites, the so-called urbane people of the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the rest of the northern sphere, who safely embrace prosperity from inside the protective shield of their heated homes, and in upmarket coffee shops and ritzy restaurants. I wonder how often they think about the big picture. Are they, are we, making a contribution?

"It seems to me that modern society has been striving for the realization of a world where all people are accepted as equal," said Sasakawa. "On the other hand, globalization has also been widening and solidifying the gap between those who have and those who do not. We can't tolerate these inequalities."

Of course, there are plenty of other things we should be thinking about: On the one hand, while globalization and the advances of science have improved our health and made our lives longer, on the other hand this phenomenon has probed our fears and anxiety and opened doors to the knowledge that we can do something -after all, we could not have imagined even half a century ago that we could today be addressing such issues.

Globalization has shaken our beliefs and challenged us with the real issues facing our culture. Some of us, the affluent ones like me, just see the obvious -more drugs, communication toys, and television, new cars and engineered foods, and less news about the fundamental building blocks and great, beautiful vistas that are our fragile world.

The urgency is to reestablish the fundamental position: Globalization has brought us more knowledge and information -let us use it. We must play a role in forming plans to resolve social inequality. I hope rationality will triumph. But you cannot count on it -maybe we have lost the primacy of reason.

So, against this rather somber backdrop Forum 2000: Bridging Global Gaps Conference as held. It set about to elaborate on the issues of international trade, issues of corporate accountability and responsibility, debt management and global public goods.

The conference consisted of plenary sessions and four expert discussions in workshop format, each addressing one of these aspects. At the end of each expert discussion, the participants summarized the key points of their discussions and formulated proposals on how to tackle some of the dilemmas facing us today.

The issues under discussion were:

1. Trade and Agriculture: Current Debates and Controversies

Moderated by Frederik Willem de Klerk, Former President, Republic of South Africa

Agreement was reached that the multilateral negotiation process in the WTO following the Cancun fiasco should be re-started as soon as possible. The group called upon the EU and the USA to join the genuine effort to revive the negotiation process. The panel asked the Director-General of the WTO to establish direct contacts between the representatives of developing countries and the EU and the USA in order to reconstruct the negotiation process. Some considered Cancun a "big disaster" for developing countries, while others saw it as a "big victory" for developing countries.

Commenting on the formation of the 'G-22' Forum 2000 welcomed the emergence of new coalitions of developing countries as a positive development that can enable the multilateral process to commence.

The panel agreed that dumping of subsidized products on foreign markets must be stopped and while it agreed that completely free trade in agriculture is not feasible, more free trade on the part of the rich nations is required. As well there was general concern that the misuse of health and safety standards can act as new protectionism in disguise, with a potential to wipe out all that is achieved in market access through tariff reduction.

A major solution to the falling commodity prices is to end overproduction in the rich countries by cutting the production subsidies. We also agree that this is not a sufficient answer to ending oversupply.

2. Transnational Corporations: Sustainability, Accountability and Partnership

Moderated by Tom Spencer, Executive director, European Center for Public Affairs, UK

The group recognized that questions of accountability, transparency and legitimacy are complex. Whatever the case, these issues had to be dealt with as a matter of serious urgency.

Some panelists felt that a new positive corporate focus on sustainable development is emerging as part of a new business model. A greater interest was identified by others on the part of corporations in developing a balance between sustainability and profit.

Others in turn emphasized what they saw as opportunities to develop international legal remedies to cope with the supranational status of TNCs and their impact upon human rights, the environment and democratic accountability. Many also viewed as crucial the development of the capacity of civil society.

There was a general acceptance that the role of governments needs to be strengthened particularly the need for greater involvement to drive the sustainable development agenda, but doubts were expressed to their ability to create such a framework.

Some also felt that corporations or other interest groups should not be financing political parties and electoral politics, and their lobbying practices should be transparent.

Participants considered that there is a need for this debate to be anchored in the broader debate in the creation of a broader global value system.

Some form of mixed public policy framework designed to ensure progress towards achieving these goals is necessary. A key question in developing this framework is how to balance legal and voluntary approaches. How to ensure that excessively mechanistic regulation would not hinder the development of flexible methods of integrated responsibility within corporations? How to ensure that real, tangible progress is achieved, and that rhetoric does not substitute for actual achievement?

The role of the UN will be important, especially given the UN Sub-Commission recommendations on corporate accountability, but the roles of other international institutions also have to be considered.

3. External Debt: Issues of Sustainability and Legitimacy

Moderated by Jugen Kaiser, National Coordinator, Jubilee 2000, Germany

Iraq with a total debt of approximately USD380 billion, but with a GNP of USD25b is a classic amongst the global community of not just an unsustainable burden, but also of highly questionable claims by creditors who financed the dictator's military buildup and affluent lifestyle.

As such the need for a comprehensive workout mechanism for unsustainable foreign debt is undeniable. However, the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism proposal didn't receive the necessary supermajority of 85% to be approved by the member states of the IMF.

And our Millennium Development Goals cannot be reached without having more resources available via debt relief and additional aid.

If democracies were lending irresponsibly to illegitimate governments, the tax-payers should assume the burden of such mismanagement. However, in cases where the lending government cannot be considered legitimate itself, a new standard of accountability needs to be established.

Participants in the discussion said the current definition of debt sustainability has to be redesigned and must include a broader range of use from non-creditor institutions to reflect better the real impact of debt cancellation on poverty reduction.

The participants couldn't agree in what form the multilateral lenders (IMF/WB) should be financially responsible for their mistakes or even culpable for them; whether it is feasible at all to approve and implement a worldwide insolvency framework; or whether additional international financial institutions write-offs could be financed out of the institutions reserves without endangering in the short term their financial standing.

It was recommended by the panel that the legitimacy of debts inherited from oppressive regimes has to be evaluated and governments should cooperate in providing all the necessary documentation to both official and independent assessors.

To ensure transparency, accountability and to have a better picture of the legitimacy of debts, independent forensic auditing should be used as much as possible to assess the validity of debts.

All market participants as well as civil society should be encouraged to work on further proposals regarding an independent debt workout mechanism which would comply with standards of the rule of law.

4. Global Public Goods: Ambitious Approach or Impossible Ideal?

Moderated by Lord Desai of St Clement Danes; Director, Centre for the Study of Global Governance, London School of Economics

Global Public Goods (GPG), while an emerging and disputed concept, were approached as goods central to the well-being of everybody that cannot be efficiently provided for by market processes and national policies alone.

Under current conditions of globalization, people and finance are mobile, spreading volatility and the crucial recognition that problems transcend the boundaries and collectivities of nation-states. The recent SARS crisis emphasizes that well-being must be protected and enhanced globally.

The workshop panelists agreed that there is a need for a forum - that is inclusive of all stakeholders - to research and formulate priorities for concerted action on GPG. This broadly multilateral body will have the function of persuading stakeholders of the benefits of a global public goods approach and providing consensus-building mechanisms.

The top priorities are: Clean drinking water and emerging tensions surrounding water as a resource; global health issues, for example TB, Malaria and HIV/AIDS; Environmental challenges, such as climate stability and high-seas biodiversity; Financial stability where controlling excessive financial risk in order to prevent crises.

Disagreement emerged on the priorities, the modalities of financing GPGs, and appropriate and possible loci of decision-making.

The main recommendation of this workshop was the setting up of a Forum for establishing GPG priorities in relation to the ongoing work of existing knowledge and professional communities. A further function of this forum would be to identify where gaps exist in the present structures of institutions and initiatives. Each priority issue may require a different process of participation, consultation, research and financing.

The workshop called on policy-makers, citizens, businesses and civil society to recognize that GPGs are central to the well-being of everybody, but that significant awareness-raising is crucial to re-direct existing resources in a more efficient direction.

For further information on participants, program and transcripts of the Forum 2000 Conference 2003, please visit http://www.forum2000.cz/en/projects/forum-2000-conferences/2003/