Global vs. Regional vs. Local

Satya Sivaraman

On the last day of conferences at the WSF at Porto Alegre some of the top ideologues of the worldwide opposition to neo-liberalism and corporate-driven globalisation tackled some sticky questions facing the movement.

Reflecting the diversity of forces driving the WSF process, some deep differences emerged between them over how to handle institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organisation, the feasibility and desirability of a world government, and even over the use of the term 'anti-globalisation'.

'A world government would be a negative utopia which would require an undesirably high degree of uniformity around the globe,' said Peter Wahl, executive director of the Germany-based World Economy, Ecology and Development Information and Service Office.

At Monday's panel discussion on 'International Organisations and Power: World Architecture', he said that only a few issues, such as curbing climate change, would require action at the international level. All other activities should be confined to the local and national levels, he said.

Countering Wahl's opinion on the subject, well-known Canadian activist Maude Barlow pointed out that there were a host of local issues, such as control over water resources, which would have to be tackled at both the local and global levels.

'By the year 2025, two-thirds of the world will not have access to freshwater if nothing is done to make water a common good internationally and share the resource equally among all world citizens' she said.

And according to Walden Bello, head of the Thailand based policy research NGO Focus on the Global South, it is too early to talk in terms of a feasible 'world democracy' because the social, economic and political conditions were not right.

'What we should focus on is the democratisation of the globe from the international to the local levels,' he said pointing out that there were too many battles yet to be fought locally and nationally before talking of a world government.

Roberto Bissio of Social Watch, Uruguay, said that in a world in which six percent of the people controlled over 80 percent of the resources it is meaningless to talk of a world government until the underlying structural injustices are addressed.

The deep economic and political divisions between countries of the North and the South, he said, posed a major barrier to implementing any meaningful democracy at the international level.

Calling for a new paradigm of governance, Susan George, noted writer and vice-president of the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid
of Citizens (ATTAC), said that given the size and complexity of the world any government structure imposed on it would fail to function efficiently.

'It is better to concentrate on things we can develop more easily at the local level,' she said, pointing to the participatory budget process adopted by the Porto Alegre municipal government as an example of how citizens' power can be built from bottom-up.

Panellists also discussed the need for profound reforms at the United Nations, which is the only truly global institution capable at some point of time of becoming the starting point for a world government.

'The UN is still a front for governments and nation-states and needs much greater participation from popular organisations,' said Peter Wahl.

On the issue of whether to reform or replace the IMF, World Bank and the WTO there were sharp differences between Wahl and Bello with the former saying that these were institutions like any other and amenable to radical reform, while Bello felt that they were too imprisoned by their own rigid structures and paradigms to be changed.

'Just in terms of sheer efficiency it would be better to replace the IMF, World Bank and WTO than to try and reform them,' Bello said.

The most curious debate, however, was one provoked by a question from the audience about whether it is justified to label the activists gathered at the WSF as the 'anti-globalisation movement' as is often done by the media.

'We are pro-globalisation, but according to our rules, not those set by the corporations and multinationals' said George. The notion that those opposed to neo-liberalism wanted to go back to some kind of localised, isolated existence is a 'fantasy' promoted by the media, she added.

But according to Bello, although the media had certainly used the term simplistically, the anti-globalisation label is justified because in the eyes of ordinary citizens all globalisation is seen as being driven by powerful corporations and therefore discredited. There is also virtue in a truly de-globalised world with multiple power centres, whether in the form of regional associations or the nation-state, which give the weaker, developing countries more space to survive in, he said.

One point of complete unanimity among the panellists was their notion of what the response of civil society organisations should be regarding the UN-sponsored conference on 'Financing for Development' next month in Monterrey, Mexico.

ATTAC's George summed up the feeling: 'It is going to be one more UN waste of time with old formulas of free market and economic liberalisation pushed by the US government and the multilateral financial institutions' she said, and urged NGOs to protest at the venue of the meeting.