What came out of the first draft of the hemisphere-wide trade treat was a skeleton "that gradually will be fleshed out".
Walking down my street, where almost nothing even happens, I counted 58 dead beetles in just fifty meters. As we don\'t see ourselves in these our smaller brothers and sisters, we step on them and run them over with our cars. Were Saint Francis still alive he would weep with compassion, writes Leonardo Boff, a writer and theologian. In this article, Boff tells a myth of the Maue indians of Brazil. When the world was created there was no night. There was only day and light penetrated every space. The Maue, as much as they wanted to, couldn\'t sleep. They were always tired and their eyes hurt from too much light. One day, one of them got up his courage and went to talk to the Great Cobra, the sururiju, completely dark, which was considered the high master of the night. The Cobra agreed to make a deal: you give me poison and let me distribute it to my defenceless little relatives. This way you will watch where you\'re going and not step on the little creatures. They will be able to defend themselves. And in exchange I will give you a coconut full of night.\'\' In the end they lived peacefully together and in mutual respect. Why is it that we big creatures don\'t look out for the small creatures?
The Montana Exploradora mining company, a subsidiary of the Canadian Glamis Gold, will begin extracting gold in late January in the eastern Guatemalan department of San Marcos, despite the opposition of environmentalists.
Some 271 families of the Rio Platano biosphere and the Tawahka Asagni reserve, along the northeastern Honduran Atlantic coast, are leading projects to preserve one of the main stretches of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.
A law to regulate the use and conservation of Nicaragua's fishing resources, frozen 10 years ago in the nation's Congress, could be approved once the lawmakers convene this year, now that political consensus has been achieved in the parliamentary commission on the environment.
The Costa Rican Center for Cleaner Production will this year present a proposal for the wide-scale production and use of biodiesel, fuel created in part from natural oil sources, such as the African palm.
The city government of Puno, in southern Peru, is to build a wastewater treatment plant in order to fight the serious contamination problem afflicting Lake Titicaca.
On Jan. 1 a law on solid waste took effect in the Mexican capital, requiring residents to separate organic matter from other materials. Mexico produces nearly 12,000 tons of garbage each day.
With an investment of 6.6 million dollars over the next five years, the Colombian public works agency EPM will reforest 5,000 hectares of forests in the watershed areas of the northwestern department of Antioquia.
UN Resolution 1373 required UN member states to pass laws banning every type of terrorist action and to ratify various international treaties: the question is whether governments will enforce them, writes Inocencio F. Arias, Spanish Ambassador to the UN Security Council and president of the UN Committee Against Terrorism. In this article for IPS, Arias argues that the Committee against Terrorism created by 1373 must have the means to verify enforcement and denounce cases of voluntary failure to the Council and the international community. Globalisation, technological progress, and the proliferation of suicide strategies has made terrorism potentially devastating. The possibility of terrorists gaining access to weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, or biological, is neither science fiction nor a movie plot. Sooner or later, science fiction will become reality. The UN must use the instruments available to it to minimise this possibility. The efficiency of the organisation\'s efforts in this area will reduce the unilateralist temptations of the powerful to impose their own solutions and will alleviate human suffering.
Since September 11, 2001 shook the world, the commitments which ushered in the new millennium have been overshadowed by the threats of terrorism, fears about the future, and questions about the viability of open societies joined by international norms and values, writes Mary Robinson, executive director of The Ethical Globalisation Initiative, former president of Ireland, and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. If we want real human security, instead of putting up walls of fear and resorting only to power politics, we should seek ways to focus on promoting in practice the values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect, and shared responsibility which can unite rather than divide. We should also remember that 9/11 did not, in fact, change much in the lives of most people on the planet for whom human insecurity was and is a daily reality. The world\'s economic system has operated largely in isolation from human rights, both at an institutional level and in intellectual terms. The first step to addressing the apparent conflicts between the values of the market and the values of human rights is to recognise that the objectives of international human rights and international trade in fact have much in common. This column was adapted from a lecture given by the author at the Aspen Institute and approved by her in this form.
In today\'s world, security and prosperity have become two sides of the same coin, writes Jose Maria Figueres, co-CEO of the World Economic Forum and former president of Costa Rica. In this article, Figueres writes that we all deserve to live and work in a secure environment. And technology has advanced to the point were if we set our minds - and hearts - to the task of effectively combating poverty, we can succeed in improving the living conditions of millions. It will of course take a determined effort by all of us to make this possible, which is why at the World Economic Forum we chose \'\'Partnering for Security and Prosperity\'\' as the theme for our Annual Meeting 2004. I would hope we could all agree on the need for action to address the underlying causes of our problems, and this is where partnerships come in. The World Social Summit taking place in India has come a long way from its first session in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2000. From constituting an opposition to the present wave of development, it has moved to proclaiming that \'\'another world is possible\'\'. We salute this transition, and welcome even more interaction with Porto Alegre.
The World Social Forum (WSF) has headed to India. Mumbai will be the epicentre of the annual global encounter of the planet\'s emerging citizenry that opposes neoliberal globalisation and the logic of domination that feeds it: imperialism, terror and war, writes Cándido Grzybowski, sociologist, director of Ibase and member of the International Committee of the World Social Forum. What exactly is the force that drives the Forum? What is its secret? What does it mean to be a part of it? The answer perhaps is simply to dream of what is possible, to act with faith in the potential of action itself, to seek with others, in the equality of our numerous differences, the possibilities of changing the relations, processes and structures that oppress and exclude. The most radical experience of participating in the WSF is to feel that one is in a space of freedom to think, to speak, to propose, to be heard -- and to be respected for this. It is a joyful, colourful and boisterous forum for thinking about the actions we will develop in the places we live, making us part of a powerful global movement of citizens. That said, we should take a closer look at the principal challenges of the WSF today. To be global, the Forum must galvanise the world, feed itself on the most vital strengths of the different civil societies, in the framework of the Charter of Principles, maintaining the goal of re-creating globalisation on radically democratic and sustainable foundations. Beyond being against neoliberal globalisation and getting involved in imagining a different possible globalisation, another world, it is essential to recognise the major deficits in the WSF process.
While globalisation has generated great hope for much of the world, it has also given rise to numerous threats, writes Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1992-1996. The author writes that we must democratise globalisation before globalisation denatures democracy. To begin with, the UN system itself needs to be more thoroughly democratised, specifically the Security Council, which remains Eurocentric and does not take into account the emergence of new major powers over the last 50 years. The push to democratise risks undermining the logic that drives it if it results in the location of global power beyond the reach of the states, and if the new sites of power do not operate according to democratic principles. Only a new conception of solidarity can prevent or at least attenuate the inevitable exclusions that global society carries within itself. But solidarity cannot be decreed. It must arise out of a collective engagement, that is, the participation of states as well as the non-state actors of contemporary international society.
Neoliberalism, the economic dogma that has been the rage for the last few years, has clearly failed to solve the world\'s problems, writes Mario Soares, president of Portugal from 1986-1996. Whether in the US, Europe, or Japan, or particularly in emerging economies, the sanctification of the market, particularly as practised in the 1990s, gave what it had to give and sank the world into what Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz described as \'\' the first major planetary crisis of globalisation\'\' , Soares writes in this analysis. Especially in the Third World, the free market, when untempered by any governmental regulation, leads to the creation of deep social injustices, systematically refuses to respond to the undeniable ecological needs of our day, and in the current phase of speculative capitalism has led to grave vices, as seen today in the scandals of Enron, Vivendi, etc. Bush has crowed that since the invasion of Iraq \'\'the world is much safer\'. All we need now is for him to abandon Iraq to its sad chaos and the world to an unprecedented economic crisis. Speculator-philanthropist George Soros was right to commit a large sum to the fight against Bush\'s re-election.
Few seem willing to question what seems unobjectionable, namely that the US, victor of the Cold War, is now the single global superpower, writes Augusto Zamora, professor of international public law and international relations at the UAM. However, is the US in fact the only pole of power, or does its hegemony rest on an array of circumstantial facts that will disappear in the years to come? the author asks in this article. The danger of today\'s militaristic whirlpool is that to hold onto power the right-wing that rules the US will have to keep the country and the world in a continuous state of war, in the purest Orwellian sense. Europe (and the world) should understand that guaranteeing any more of Washington\'s military imperialism could generate an interminable conflict combining religious fanaticism, 19th century geopolitics, and lite fascism. As Henry Kamen said, \'\'The preservation of the Spanish Empire was due to the general passivity of all other powers.\'\' The same holds true for the hyperpower of the US. But as with Spain its hegemony will be ephemeral. Questioning the heretofore unquestionable power of the US is the price humanity will pay for a safer, multi-polar world.
The current process of globalisation is incomplete, unequal, and characterised by a deficit in democratic governance, writes Erkki Tuomioja, foreign minister of Finland. Tuomioja writes in this analysis that as with elections, it is not enough that trade is free: it has be fair as well. In many developing countries the formal economic sector constitutes a tiny part of the society, the majority of which is either left out of the globalisation process or experiences only its negative effects. Most of the world\'s population lacks protection of the law or social security. It is necessary to expand the space for local initiatives and solutions as a way of limiting the negative effects of globalisation. But this can be done effectively only through multilateral support and rules. We need global social and environmental policies. We have to ask how to democratise the global governance and how to redistribute global assets.
Jumping from crisis to crisis is becoming unbearable for the people in the Horn of Africa, for the humanitarian community, and for donors as well, writes Martti Ahtisaari, the president of Finland in 1994-2000. As a result of failed rains in 2002, both Ethiopia and Eritrea face serious food shortages and the humanitarian consequences of increased destitution among the most vulnerable segments of society. Between six and ten million people will require food and other forms of assistance this year. We are entering a period in the Horn of Africa in which the underlying causes of these problems must be addressed urgently and properly, the author writes in this analysis. It is generally agreed that the time has come for the World Bank to take the leading role in the long-term development efforts and for the international donor community to concentrate its efforts in the Horn of Africa. It will be much more cost effective if we manage to shift the development towards increasing independence in the production and food security.
At its January meeting in Mumbai, India, the World Social Forum (WSF) will reach its maximum expansion, writes Roberto Savio, founder and president emeritus of the IPS agency, and member of the International Committee of the World Social Forum (WSF). Each of the preceding three Forums greatly exceeded all expectations raised when the decision was first taken to hold in Porto Alegre, Brazil.. The numbers tell the tale: 10,000 were expected to attend in January 2001; 50,000 came. Attendance rose to 75,000 the next year and to 100,000 in 2003. More important than the number of participants was the galaxy of organisations of every type and level that came together to assert that \'\'another world is possible\'\'. The Forum provides an occasion of enormous gratification for its participants. The days are full of intense debate where no differences separate the rich and poor, farmers and intellectuals, men and women, and a stunning range of political positions are presented and countered. All leave with their commitment to idealism strengthened and deepened. And yet none of this succeeds in producing an impact on the political world and the international institutions.
A small gesture of national dignity set off a raging scandal early this year: Brazil required of US visitors what the US required of Brazilian visitors: to obtain a visa and have their picture and fingerprints taken at the border, writes Eduardo Galeano, Uruguayan writer and novelist and author of \'\'The Open Veins of Latin America\'\' and \'\'Memories of Fire\'\'. In this article, Galeano writes that everything was explained by September 11, which President Bush continues to use as a shield of perpetual impunity. However, though no Brazilian had anything to do with bringing down the World Trade Centre, the most serious terrorist act in Brazilian history, the coup of 1964, took place with the political, economic, military, and media participation of the United States. It is inconceivable for us to imagine the story the other way around. What would have happened, Galeano asks, if Iraq had invaded the US on the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction. Or if the Venezuelan embassy in Washington had pushed and applauded a coup against George W. Bush? And what if the countries of the South refused to accept a single condition imposed by the IMF and World Bank unless they began imposing them on the US as well, the major debtor of the planet.
The World Economic Forum has designed a world centred on capital and the men and corporations who control it, writes Vandana Shiva, author and international campaigner for women and the environment who received the Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) in 1993. In this column, Shiva writes that the rise of religious fundamentalisms, the growth of terrorism and violence, and militarisation and war, are inevitable consequences of an economic system which discounts peoples\' fundamental human and democratic rights, basic needs, and ecological security. The message of people to power is peace and non-violence. Violence is the means and end of an economy based on greed, economic dictatorship and militarism. Non-violence in both means and end is the choice of the people. Corporate globalisation needed militarism, explicit or implicit. When 25,000 Indian peasants are forced to commit suicide, when Korean farmer Lee sacrificed his life in Cancun saying \'\'WTO kills farmers\'\', globalisation is exposed as war by other means. When Halliburton and Bechtel emerge as the real winners of the Iraq war, it becomes clear that war is globalisation by other means. The struggle between people and capital is now an epic struggle between life and death. And it has just begun. This is the beginning of a new chapter of human history -- not \'\'the end of history\'\'.