As the latest summit to discuss a post-Kyoto treaty continues in New York this week, the single most revealing statement has already been spoken: “We need to climate-proof economic growth”.  These few words, told to reporters by the UN’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, during the recent Vienna round of talks, define the blinded establishment approach to tackling climate change.[1]  Only if continued trade liberalisation and corporate profits are kept sacrosanct, remains the assumption, is it possible to consider even a broad agreement on future cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.

24th July 07 - Adam W Parsons, Editor ~ STWR

(This is an abridged version of a longer article with references that can be viewed here)

A renewed air of questioning is being felt in the movement for global justice.  Nongovernmental organisations are wondering what to do next after the campaigns for more aid, less debt and better trade are proving inadequate to counter the sheer scale of mass poverty, whilst activists raising awareness of climate change have never been more prominent and yet overwhelmed by the task ahead.  At the same time, despite more newspaper reports of intensifying conflicts and widening inequalities, there is evidence of a gathering recognition on the required direction for change.  Although long accepted that the demands for social justice must be led by civil society, there is finally emerging a crucial debate on how to unify the various campaigns with the global public on the same platform.

A recent report by the United Nations has revealed that not a single country in sub-Saharan Africa is on track to achieve the internationally agreed target for halving extreme poverty by 2015. This dire failure is unsurprising given the G8’s undelivered aid commitments, the inability of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to negotiate development-friendly trade rules, and the financial burdens imposed on many African countries by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank.

According to the report, published at the midway point in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) process, the number of people living on less than one dollar a day has barely changed over the past seven years, declining less than 5 per cent to 41.1%. As much of a concern is the increasingly slow rate by which the number of people living in extreme poverty is reducing.

7th June 07 - Adam Parsons, Editor ~ STWR

The modern world is increasingly defined by its mistakes, its myths, and its tragic misconceptions.  Never before have we witnessed so many conferences and plans for a fairer and more just society, whilst at the same time paying witness to so much unimaginable misery on an international scale.  The statistics have turned from truisms into slogans into brands for product marketing; the 50,000 people who die each day from poverty, the deaths from hunger every three or four seconds, the 2.7 billion who live on less than two dollars a day.  In three decades we have moved from the famous admonition of Margaret Thatcher – “There is no alternative!” – to the rallying cry of campaigners who shout “Another world is possible!” but hesitate to pose another sentence.

7th June 07 - Rajesh Makwana, Director ~ STWR

Whilst the world economy continues to globalise market forces, the basic needs of the majority world are still not being met and an estimated 50,000 people are dying each day having been denied access to essential resources.

In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human rights. All member states absolutely agreed that the universal provision of adequate food, water, housing, healthcare, education, political participation and employment must be the priority of all governments.

15th May 07 - Jeffrey Sachs, TIME magazine

What is the power of one when that one happens to be a John D. Rockefeller or a Bill Gates? If history is a guide, the answer is, quite a lot. I'm speaking not only about the power to reshape an industry like oil or personal computers but also about the ability to improve the world through philanthropy. Rockefeller proved that giving away money is much more than charity. It can be transformative. And if today's billionaires were to pool their resources, they could outflank the world's governments in ending poverty and pandemic disease.

A century ago, Rockefeller decided to put his vast fortune to public use, offering to endow a federal institution to fight disease, poverty and ignorance. Hotheads attacked him, claiming that he was just trying to buy a good name, and Congress demurred. So, instead, in 1913, Rockefeller set up the Rockefeller Foundation with two initial gifts totaling $100 million. No institution did more in the 20th century to further the cause of international development. It led the way in the eradication of hookworm in the U.S. South, helping pave the way for the region's economic development. It supported the Nobel-prizewinning work that created the yellow-fever vaccine. It helped Brazil eliminate a malaria-transmitting strain of mosquito. And perhaps most stunningly, it funded the Asian Green Revolution, the transformative agricultural success that enabled India and other countries to escape endless cycles of famine and poverty.

By Rajesh Makwana

In fact, corporations have been so productive in recent years that of the 100 largest economies in the world, 52 are now corporations and only 48 are countries. Unsurprisingly then, they have a significant impact on the global economy - seventy percent of world trade is now controlled by just 500 of the largest industrial corporations, and in 2002, the top 200 had combined sales equivalent to 28% of world GDP.

Most business people would applaud ‘economic globalization’ as it indicates the enormous potential of commercial activity to create wealth and prosperity. Economists would undoubtedly agree as growing profits prove that market forces are the most efficient means of distributing goods and services around the world. Politicians are basking in the light of the economic growth that these profits reflect. And the public? Well, those in the more affluent countries appreciate their access to an ever-wider choice of affordable goods and services.

These institutions enable neoliberal policies that favour corporations and rich nations to be forced upon developing countries. The resulting privatization and market liberalization in these countries drains resources away from them and leaves debt and financial instability in their place. Together, the IMF, World Bank and WTO have made the world a more unequal place. They have done little to reduce extreme poverty and deprivation.

In this article, STWR present an alternative strategy for economic governance. By sharing essential resources instead of allowing them to be controlled and traded by multinational corporations, poverty can be reduced, human rights secured and the privatization of resources can give way to global common ownership. By restoring regulatory control over the global economy to a democratic and representative UN body, the IMF, World Bank and WTO can be progressively dismantled.

Read more...