THE DELIBERATE GLOBALISATION OF DEBT AND ITS DIVIDEND OF RUIN

The central component of what has been widely defined as \'\'globalisation\'\' is the transformation of the global economy into one of unsustainable debts in which the finance sector plays a dominant role, writes Anne Pettifor, director of The Jubilee Research programme and former director of Jubilee 2000 Coalition UK. In this article for IPS, the author argues that this transformation was the intended result of government action. The US trade deficit had to be financed, and the US was determined to finance it without lowering living standards or ceding its policy autonomy to foreign creditors. Capital controls had to be lifted so the US could access foreign capital markets. The City of London, backed by the UK government, was only too happy to broker financing for the US deficit, first through the \'\'stateless\'\' Eurodollar market based in London. We should be prepared for the economic, environmental, and social degradation associated with destruction of the \'\'credit bubble\'\', in particular widespread depression and deflation. However, we cannot do so if our analysis of the forces at play in the global economy is wrong, or if we play into the hands of the finance sector by ignoring it. Above all we should be prepared to shape the alternative: a world in which the finance sector and markets in general are once again subordinated to environmental, social, and political priorities, determined locally and democratically.

THE OFFENSIVE OF THE EMPIRE AND THE REACTION OF THE PEOPLES

The upcoming Third World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, will take place in a world marked by growing militarisation, a military-economic offensive by the US, and servility on the part of the international organisations. The consequences of this for all humanity are tragic, writes Joao Pedro Stedile, leader of the Movement of the Landless (MST) and Via Campesina-Brazil and Member of the organising committee of the World Social Forum. In this article for IPS, Stedile writes that the objectives of the US and its business class are clear: to maintain their imperial power at any cost. They want to find a way out of the capitalist crisis, shifting its costs onto the peoples of the Third World,and monopolize access to energy sources and restore profit levels. The US also wants to push through a Free Trade Area of the Americas, with which they could obtain comparative advantages that would help them emerge faster from the current crisis and be better positioned to face their competitors in Europe and Asia. Fortunately the people are waking up. A powerful and unified continent-wide movement against the FTAA is gathering strength. Recent elections in the region have gone decidedly against liberalism and US proposals. This was the case in Ecuador,Brazil,and Bolivia and will be so in Argentina and Uruguay this year.

OLD AND NEW EUROPE

Just when the leadership of France and Germany was commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Elysee Treaty, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, irritated with Paris and Berlin for their opposition to war against Iraq, lashed out at the Franco-German position as simply coming from the \'\'old Europe\'\', writes Joaquin Roy, Jean Monnet professor and Director of European Union Centre at the University of Miami. In this article for IPS, Roy writes that to believe that Lithuania, Slovakia, or even Poland, because of their fast conversion from satellites of the Soviet Union are today the true representatives of Europe is preposterous. In the post-September 11th world, the \'\'old Europe\'\' is the one formed around the nucleus forged by two nations tragically mangled by self-inflicted wars that ended in near suicide (Germany) and humiliation and occupation (France) in World War II. Their leaders concluded that the only way to end their tendency to bloody conflict was to place the means of war under the control of common institutions. The grave danger raised by Rumsfeld\'s remark is that the US might persist in considering the European doubts irrelevant. The risk is that the US will decide to carry out the war by itself and believes that others will follow. Only when the cards are down on the Security Council table or the first shots are fired over Iraq will we know the truth. Until now, fortunately, only words and pots of ink have been launched. It is an improvement, given past experience.

STARVING THE POOR TO FEED THE CORPORATIONS

There are two paradigms vying for the future of food and farming: one is based on non-sustainable production on large-scale industrial farms with costly hybrid/genetically modified (GM) seed and agrochemical inputs, the other on small farms, ecological /organic internal inputs/systems which are low cost and accessible to poor producers, writes Vandana Shiva, an author and international campaigner for women and the environment. In this article for IPS, the author writes a deceptive productivity calculus has then been used to sell the bogus claim that without industrial agriculture, pesticides, and genetically- modified organisms (GMOs), the world cannot be fed. Quite to the contrary, the solution to hunger and poverty is the promotion of ecological, organic, biodiverse small farms which use less energy and fewer natural resources, reduce the costs of inputs, and produce more nutritional output per unit acre. While the conditionalities imposed by global trade and financial institutions are preventing the government from supporting the poor\'s access to adequate and nutritious food, they are promoting the diversion of subsidies from people to corporations. If we are to build food security upwards and outwards from the household to the community to national and global levels, the principle for trade and distribution must be localisation, not globalisation.

GLOBALISATION

Globalisation is a double-edged tool, writes Jose Maria Figueres, managing director of the World Economic Forum and former president of Costa Rica (1994-1998). We can take advantage of it with sound national strategies designed to increase the well-being of our citizens. Or we can cross our arms and do nothing and allow globalisation to take advantage of us. Thus we have the possibility to decide and build our future, but no one will do it for us. The responsibility is ours. Globalisation is more than a simple process of economic opening and tariff reduction. Taking advantage of it requires clear policies and that at the same time reinforce macro-economic health, strengthen strategic social investment, and promote responsible use of natural resources. Convinced that business has responsibilities to society and can play a positive role in areas relating to development, the WEF supports programmes that work in this direction. Many governments and many grass roots organisations share this understanding. Today it is more important than ever to join forces and move forward. The World Economic Forum and the World Social Forum share the obligation to explore their common goals and work towards them rather than accentuate their differences.

OPEN MARKETS OR OPEN PLUNDER ?

Once upon a time, empires were built through direct conquest. These days the equivalent gains are routinely achieved through different, and more efficient, means, which those in power prefer to call not open theft but \'\'open markets\'\', writes Anuradha Mittal, Co-Director of Food First (Institute for Food and Development Policy). The question is, open for whom, and for what? the author writes in this article for IPS. US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave the clearest possible answer: \'\'Our objective with FTAA is to guarantee North American companies the control of a territory that goes from the Arctic Pole all the way to Antarctica, free access to the whole hemisphere without difficulties or obstacles for our products, services, technology, and capital.\'\' Resistance to such domination is strong and growing stronger. Since January 7, 2003, Mexican farm leaders have been on hunger strike as many demonstrations have been held. These protests are part of a worldwide opposition to free trade in agriculture that will be present at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. It advocates alternatives to corporate agriculture, rallying around the battle cry,\'\'Food sovereignty is a fundamental human right.\'\' To make this vision a reality for farmers around the world, the corporate elites are being put on notice -- the World Trade Organisation, NAFTA, FTAA, and other trade agreements must get out of agriculture; there must be a complete moratorium on GE crops and no patents on living matter.

GLOBALISING JUSTICE

The world has seen the globalisation of capital and communications but not of justice, solidarity, respect, and tolerance because the forces that unilaterally drive globalisation have not permitted it, writes Rigoberta Menchu, recipient of the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize. In this article for IPS, Menchu writes that these forces have opened up the markets of countries that produce raw materials for their own products while blocking these countries\' access to many of their own markets. They have used security as an excuse to create obstacles to migration. And they have made war into their economic engine. Popular demonstrations against a discredited international system and events like the World Social Forum represent the legitimate endeavour to give globalisation a human face, to transform it into a process that takes into account the interests of the people and not just of giant transnational corporations. Menchu calls for reform that breaks the system of exclusivity that until now has transformed government representatives into servants of the major corporations, corporate mafias, and supranational interests. Such reform must open the way for the participation of social actors that thus far have no representation in the existing institutional systems.

GLOBALISING CONFUSION

In the last few years, globalisation has forced traditional capitalist thinking to reposition itself in relation to both the market and society, writes Michel Ogrizek, director of communications for the World Economic Forum. In this article for IPS, the author asserts that the result has been the proliferation of numerous and often paradoxical interpretations by technocrats which have been hijacked by various popularity-seeking groups. A generally distorted perception of what globalisation is has been aggravated by simplistic behaviour from some political and business leaders, contradictory economic data, social and cultural side-effects, and extreme adverse psycho-sociological reactions. The global smoke screen, generated by the actors on centre stage today, hides not only the real nature of the risk but also the potential positive impact. Should we see globalisation as the Trojan Horse for a new worldwide order? I don\'t think so, for the simple reason that the same communications technologies which are the driving force make it impossible to carry out such a supposedly imperialistic project.

THE KOREAN PENINSULA: A TRANSCEND PERSPECTIVE

German poet Goethe once said: \'\'People behave the way you treat them.\'\' To a large extent, this applies also in international relations, write Johan Galtung, Professor of Peace Studies and Director of TRANSCEND, a peace and development network, and Dietrich Fischer, Professor at Pace University and Co-director of TRANSCEND. In this article for IPS, the authors write that Bush\'s inclusion of North Korea with Iraq and Iran in the \'\'axis of evil\'\' made North Korea more belligerent, as even the US government now seems to recognise. The hawk/dove balance in North Korea can be tilted by the hawk/dove balance exerted by the US, South Korea, Japan and China, and to some extent by Russia. Fischer and Galtung recommend five steps to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula: Continuation of Sunshine Policy; Regime change in North Korea, like in China, heading for more democracy and human rights; a One nation/two states Confederation on the Korean Peninsula; a Conference for Security and Cooperation in Northeast Asia; foreign troop withdrawl from the Korean Peninsula. What helped end the cold war in Europe was a gradual mutual opening to the flow of ideas, goods and people. The same policy can work in Korea.

BUILDING UTOPIA

The World Social Forum grew directly out of the economic, social, and political conditions of the opening of the 21st century, writes Candido Grzybowski a sociologist, director of IBASE (Brazilian Institute for Socio-economic Analysis) and member of the organising committee of the World Social Forum. Vast numbers of people remain trapped in profound desperation, in the deep crisis of a global capitalism that in its neo-liberal form is even more savage and destructive. Others face the even worse prospect of bombs and death, the fruits of a logic of terror and war. While it isn\'t yet clear how we can exit this crisis, what is clear is that it is time to act, the author writes in this article for IPS. The WSF is an initiative designed to overcome neoliberal globalisation and bring about a globalisation based on solidarity, democracy, and sustainability. It establishes that political action is the responsibility of each individual and the coalitions they form, not an attribute of the forum.

A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM

The World Social Forum (WSF), to be held January 23-28 for the third year in Porto Alegre, Brazil, has become the prime organisational expression of a surging movement against corporate-driven globalisation and, this year, US plans to launch a war on Iraq, writes Walden Bello, professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines and executive director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South. This year\'s meeting will be the culmination of an exciting year-long global process, including Porto Alegre-style social forums in a number of cities, including Buenos Aires and Caracas, and regional social forums: the European Social Forum in Florence, Italy, on November 6-9, 2002, and the recently- concluded Asian Social Forum (ASF) in Hyderabad, India. Since Seattle, the anti-corporate globalisation movement has attained critical mass globally, in the sense that its ability to mass forces at significant junctures, such as the December 1999 Seattle WTO ministerial and the July 2001 Genoa meeting of the Group of Eight, enabled it to effect international developments and acquire a high ideological and political profile globally. Not surprisingly, many of those at the WSF will be coming with one question uppermost in their mind: What can the victory of Lula and the PT teach us about coming to power in our countries? And this year\'s WSF will be, in many ways, a celebration of a movement that, by achieving a remarkable measure of political unity amidst diversity, has changed the face of Brazilian politics.

A BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE

There is promising evidence of a growing consensus among those of us working in international agencies, and leaders in government, business, and civil society, that we can begin to solve the world\'s problems only if we forge a new development path linking economic growth to social and environmental responsibility, writes James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank. In this article for IPS, the author writes that without social equity, economic growth cannot be sustainable. Without enlarging the real opportunities available to all citizens, the markets will work only for the elites. This means providing everyone with access to education, health care, decent work, and -- as the new Brazilian president Lula has pointed out -- with at least 3 meals a day. The events of September 11, 2001, helped drive home the message to people everywhere that there are not two worlds - rich and poor. There is only one. We are linked by finance, trade, migration, communications, environment, communicable diseases, crime, drugs, and certainly by terror. Poverty anywhere is poverty everywhere. Our collective demand is for a global system based on equity, human rights, and social justice. Our collective quest for a more equal world is also the quest for long-term peace and security.