-Caveat Lector- The World Summit on Sustainable Development has been described as �deeply disappointing� and �a missed opportunity� by environment groups. In this article, the third in a series on the WSSD by independent media writer Rodney Vlais, the outcomes of the WSSD will be summarised after considering the wake left behind by the previous UN environment summit ten years earlier. Most attention, however, will be drawn to the visions for a sustainable future that emerged from the numerous alternative gatherings in Johannesburg, involving some of the most grounded doers, thinkers and feelers from across the globe.
ANOTHER WORLD IS EMERGING: VISIONS OUTSIDE THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Rodney Vlais, 5th September 2002 The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 was cast with a buzz of hope and expectation. It signaled a new era of dialogue between nations of the industrialised and non-overdeveloped world, and between the United Nations and non-government organisations (NGOs). It captured the attention of a world that was ready to take a serious look at our common future in the midst of overwhelming environmental crises. While failing to address some significant issues that were to prove the death-knell for many of the Rio outcomes, the Earth Summit produced some notable agreements. It began a commitment to address climate change (though no agreement was reached on specific targets due to pressure from the U.S. delegation, this having to wait until the Kyoto Protocol five years later), and a Convention on Biodiversity was launched. Agenda 21 was written as a comprehensive guide that local governments and other institutions could use to promote ecological sustainability. The industrialised nations made promises to transfer their technologies of sustainability to more impoverished nations with less capacity to purchase them; to provide 25% of the 600 billion dollars required for a global commitment towards sustainability; and to increase their overseas aid to 0.7% of their Gross Domestic Product. Two crucial principles also arose from the Earth Summit process. The Precautionary Principle stressed that industry and government had a responsibility to postpone or stop the introduction of a new technology or development if the environmental impacts are uncertain. The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility acknowledged that while everyone has a role in working towards a sustainable future, those nations and sectors which have been causing the most environmental damage must take particular responsibility for making changes. The hopes and expectations arising from the Earth Summit have unfortunately been betrayed. Powerful forces were unleashing at the time of the Summit that most environmental and human rights negotiators had not taken into account. Set in motion almost twenty years earlier by the World Economic Forum and the Trilateral Commission, the transnational corporate elite was quietly plotting for an era of corporate globalisation to emerge from the heels of the market fundamentalism that they instigated in the late 70�s and 80�s. The emergence of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 1st January 1995 reversed many of the processes emerging from Rio. The Precautionary Principle became superseded by the unaccountable and non-transparent tribunal process of the WTO. Rather than needing to prove that a development or trading transaction would not have harmful environmental effects, the onus came on nations to water down environmental protections for fear that these would be considered barriers to trade. The formation of the WTO gave trade considerations precedence over multilateral and local environment agreements, subsuming environmental considerations to the global reach of capital. Environmental negotiators also did not anticipate the future impact of patent laws and intellectual property rights that became enshrined in the WTO. While General Electric was given the first patent on a life form eleven years prior to the Earth Summit, few would have predicted the surge in patenting plant, crop, animal and human life elements since the summit. This has made a mockery of the Convention on Biodiversity, as the WTO�s international governance powers has given full rights to property owners of the patents, and no rights to the local communities that have been sustainably using their biodiversity for hundreds and even thousands of years. Indeed, Rio�s failure was based on its inability to foresee these emerging global trends. No support was given to placing limits on corporate power or to even hold them accountable for environmental destruction � not surprising given that Summit chairperson Maurice Strong had spent considerable time courting big business as a means of financing development. Furthermore, the massive effects of debt enslavement and financial speculation on the economies of impoverished nations were not linked to their abilities to meet environmental and poverty alleviation goals. Governments from the industrialised nations also simply ignored the promises that they made at Rio. Foreign aid as a percentage of GDP has been significantly declining in most of the overdeveloped world, and the promise of $150 billion dollars for funding sustainability is now never mentioned. Negotiators from the U.S., Japan, Australia and other nations have used their industrial muscle to weaken the agreement on climate change, and to enforce market principles as the main means to reach the hopelessly inadequate targets � allowing industries to continue their pollution through purchasing carbon credits from under-polluting nations or by growing trees. The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility has been replaced with the taking of no responsibility at all. FROM RIO TO JOHANNESBURG It is not surprising, then, that expectations of the World Summit on Sustainable Development were not high. That the WSSD was given a title without mention of the environment signaled to many the inadequate paradigm underlying it � that we cannot afford to think of the environment when considering the development needs of the poor. This trade-off of �environment versus poverty alleviation� was seen by some as just an excuse to promote the types of �poverty alleviating� developments that would make saving the world even more of a profitable business for the owners of capital. The WSSD did not rise above these low expectations. It has produced some useful outcomes, notably a pledge to phase out chemicals harmful to human and environmental health by 2020 (despite strong pressure from China), and a set of fishery agreements designed to reverse the terrible deterioration of most of the world�s fisheries. There was even a thread of environmental justice in the latter agreement, with the rights of small-scale fisherfolk from impoverished nations affirmed at the expense of the major industrialised fishing industries from elsewhere. However, most outcomes were disappointing, both in terms of the agreements that were reached, and the considerations that were again omitted. Under heavy pressure from the U.S. delegation, oil companies and from some non-overdeveloped nations, amazingly no targets were set on increasing the use of renewable energy. The climate change outcome consisted of a simple encouragement for those nations (including the U.S. and Australia) who have not signed the Kyoto Protocol to do so in a �timely manner�. Furthermore, while an agreement was reached to reduce by half the number of people with inadequate sanitation by 2015, a series of more comprehensive goals concerning human suffering had already been set through the UN�s Millennium Development process � targets that the industrialised world have backed up with few resources. As expected, the WSSD did not tackle what many groups for years have seen as the fundamental causes of unsustainable development. While at Rio there was some concerted attention to issues of sustainable consumption (dampened by President Bush Snr�s decree that the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation), there was little mention of this at Johannesburg. Corporate accountability and the crippling affects of Third World debt were also not on the agenda. Also as expected, the summit attempted to further legitimise the role of �free� trade in meeting the development needs of the poor. The influence of the outcomes of the previous WTO ministerial in Doha last November on this summit was sickening. Furthermore, by not calling into question the whole paradigm of corporate-led globalisation and growth-based economics, the summit will do nothing to arrest those processes that are destroying people�s livelihoods and the natural environments on which we all depend. CORPORATE CONTROL The WSSD was plagued by problems of lack of access to the negotiation processes by civil society. The official NGO forum was held approximately 30kms to the south of the main summit venue, and had practically no input into the main negotiations. Despite expectations that over 45.000 members from civil society worldwide would attend (less than 20,000 eventuated), there was generally room for only 1,000 to enter the main complex where the negotiations were being held. The vast majority never got a look-in, and had the experience of networking with other groups and holding workshops and seminars as part of the civil society forum � but with no influence on the official proceedings. Given this and the grossly inadequate outcomes arising from the summit, major environment and other NGOs on the 2nd of September considered walking out on the whole summit process � deciding at the end to stay in a spirit of silent protest. Unsurprisingly, there were no such problems of access for corporate lobbyists. The UN Secretary-General made it quite clear during the summit that, in his view, sustainable development is not possible without the clear involvement of transnational corporations. With governments reneging on their responsibilities to finance development, the void has been left open for corporations to wave their immense capital as bait. The significant corporate influence on the WSSD is embodied in the principle of partnerships between corporations, governments and civil society in providing programs for development � the so-called Type II agreements meant to complement those reached between government-level negotiators. As Kenny Bruno from CorpWatch emphasised, however, a successful partnership can only occur between parties having similar goals. One cannot see how this could happen between the United Nations and corporations, with the latter actively trying to weaken the multilateral environment agreements of the former. It also does not need stating how the corporate goal to maximise profit is at odds with the needs of civil society to ensure sustainable access to the uncommodified essentials of life. The problems associated with these partnerships are perhaps most clearly exemplified in the area of water. The extent of the water crisis is astounding: water use is doubling every twenty years, and at current rates by 2025 two-thirds of the world�s population will not have reliable access to water, and one-third will be severely water-stressed; underground aquifers are being drawn at such unsustainable rates that the international export of water is becoming a huge business; and 100 billion litres of bottled water were consumed last year, increasing annually at a rate of 20%. Two massive corporations, flanked by several others wishing to increase their market share, are capitalising on this crisis by providing water under the �user pays� principle � a principle that saw a 300% increase in water rates for Bolivian peasants after privatisation. Corporations have taken advantage of a UN weakened by inadequate financing from governments (most notably the U.S.) to bluewash their companies as �good corporate citizens� through association with the UN. Companies with some of the worst environmental records are involved in this process. UNICEF, for example, has accepted sponsorship from McDonalds, an unimaginable irony given the health problems caused by the regular consumption of its food. It is truly sickening, and as expressed by Kenny Bruno, one hopes that another UN is possible. VISIONARY GATHERINGS OUTSIDE THE WSSD These last two weeks in Johannesburg have been remarkable, however, for alternative forums involving some of the most wonderful doers, feelers and thinkers who are acting towards a sustainable Earth community. It is worth spending considerable time relaying their experiences, ideas and hopes for how we can shape our lives and societies into the flows needed to reduce the immense suffering that is so widespread on our planet. Some forums were intensely local with a view to wider global implications. Others were based on Africa�s future in the context of economic and biological neocolonialism expressed through NEPAD (New Partnerships for Africa�s Development, a blueprint to further impoverish the continent to the relentless drive of global capital to find new investment opportunities). Some were predominantly global in scope, such as the two-day teach-in organised by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), and the People�s Earth Summit that launched a decade of living democracy. Specific workshops were held on issues ranging from the privatisation of water and energy to campaigns to delegitimise the World Bank. The spirit of these gatherings was upbeat, determined and informative. For those that involved a presence by black South African activists, passionate and harmonic song broke out at all sorts of times during the gatherings. Songs emphasising the continuation of the struggle, the power that rests with the people, and the tremendous suffering experienced by people trying to provide the basic necessities of life. While analysis and talk of the problems did predominate over detailed discussions of potential ways forward, a range of visions were discussed, some of which will be presented below. A common theme threading through many of these was a determination to do more than act from a reactionary space against corporate-led globalisation. It was felt among some that we can set the agenda according to our own principles, values and analyses of political economy, and that over time we will be able to increasingly demand that those with capital and political power react according to our (living and fluid) agendas. The likely inability of the global capitalist system and its institutions (WB, IMF, WTO, transnational corporations, etc) to do so will then make it obvious that major changes will be required for them to exist within the Earth community. The need for their abolishment and transformation would then appear undeniably logical and obvious. LOCALISATION Several activists referred explicitly or indirectly to localisation as a way forward. Connecting consumers with local food producers, supporting small scale farmers, community banks, local currencies, community-land trusts that place land in common custodianship, ecovillages and housing co-operatives are some of the numerous ways in which we can de-globalise away from economic centrism. Supporting and defending local food sovereignty, small farmers and the diversity of local food varieties from invasive monocultural production systems was emphasised as an important core of localisation. The focus on localisation as an antidote to globalisation � or at least as a counter-balancing force to weave together with globalisation - is not new. Economic writers from E.F. Schumacher in the 50�s to Richard Douthewaite in the 90�s have stressed the virtues of such an approach. What is new about the debate is the realisation that localisation won�t flower through the simple act of nurturing the shoots of the elements of small-scale economic systems. The treaties, rules and privileges (including massive economic subsidies) that extend the depth and breadth of corporate-led globalisation make the survival of these shoots very difficult. So much time, energy and money is captured within the global capitalist system, and so much natural abundance is commodified and dismembered from community-based use, that the climate and terrain is quite difficult for those wishing to expand the scattered examples of community banks, local currencies and housing co-operatives into the scale required to seriously wither the might of the global economy. Consequently, some proponents of localisation are rallying around the theme that is summed up by a movement commenced by Colin Hines � Protect the Local, Globally. Included in these measures is the re-introduction of protective barriers against over-reliance on international trade, regulating financial flows so that money stays in the region where it was first circulated or produced, and taxing energy rather than labour to reduce environmental damage. These and other measures are designed to invert the current reality where most economic and political power resides with international capitalist institutions, and most of the rest with the nation-state � leaving only crumbs for local communities. They would require international economic agreements and institutions very different from the World Trade Organisation, in order to regulate corporations and to put supportive relocalisation infrastructure into place. Others spoke of a moral and legal imperative to protect the local. In recognition of indigenous spiritualities throughout the world, Vandana Shiva�s principles of an Earth democracy are designed to provide the moral basis for privileging the rights of communities to have direct custodianship over the commons of water, land, air and local biological and cultural diversity� and to make it immoral for capitalist systems of patents and other forms of property rights to �own� them from afar. Cormac Cullinan talked of an earth jurisprudence that would result in human societies acknowledging the inalienable rights of natural living systems above the artificial rights of corporations. Wolfgang Sachs spoke of the need for an international convention for community resource rights. Whether it be through economic, moral, spiritual and/or legal means, protecting the local globally raises questions of power. The development of re-localised economic policies or an earth jurisprudence would require a massive redistribution of political power away from the capitalist owning class. How this is to be achieved was not widely discussed (not surprising given the need for the various forums to accommodate a wide range of speakers, each with limited time to raise issues). While Marxism poses one pathway, there is some concern over whether the centralisation of power involved in a socialist revolution would result in the maintenance of hierarchical and patriarchal forms of power, and that issues of race, gender and spiritual ecology can tend to be subordinated to class. If international agreements are to be developed that privilege the local, the question is raised of who should be given the right to take roles of visionary guidance or �leadership�. While horizontal assemblies can work at the community or village level, this has not been extended to the scale of a whole nation, let alone the whole world. It is the view of this author that any attempts to channel political power into centralised agreements that privilege the local should be guided by those who have demonstrated the most integrity in living locally, and in addressing inequalities assigned to people based on race, gender and class. These people and networks should also be those who have lived the most integrity in respecting the processes involved in a living, earth democracy. In this view visionary power (as opposed to decision-making power which would ideally be decentralised and bottom-up) should be, initially at least, channeled most by grass-roots groups who are largely operating outside of the global capitalist system � particularly those that have been so marginalised by the system that they have taken upon their own initiative to reweave community custodianship over the commons. The large and medium-sized NGOs that are generally considered to be synonymous with civil society are not always in a sufficient position of integrity to be the vision-holders in this sense. While having much to contribute, many are still too embedded within the system to be given the responsibility of too much power. Although translation from the local to the global can be deeply problematic, it is those groups that have developed another world within their own communities (based to various degrees on indigenous traditions) that are in the best position to be the visionary elders for global movements to protect the local. The increasing international profile of localised grass-roots movements such as the Bolivian Coordination for the Defense of Water and Life, the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee and the Earth Democracy movements of India sets the stage for NGOs and civil societies everywhere to learn from their integrity. As such groups begin to show solidarity with each other and learn of each other�s struggles, the challenge is for the more centralised organisations in the broader change movement to not stifle this bubbling up of living democracy with their own ideological fundamentalisms. Concern was expressed by some about the fundamentalism that can be attributed to the localisation agenda. Those with a predominantly socialist perspective felt that localisation guarantees neither ecological sustainability nor pro-poor development, in that the ascription of property rights under the capitalist system can still create inequities in small-scale networks. There was some concern that localism could replace globalism as another fundamentalist political ideology that distorts the map of reality to the map of one�s theories of how things should work. While simplistic as the solution to corporate-led globalisation, there was considerable agreement that shifting economic, social and cultural power to the local is an important part of a way forward � if combined with other elements such as earth democracy, self-determination, freedom from political and ideological fundamentalism, and the subsuming of property rights under community-based custodianship of the commons. EARTH DEMOCRACY At both the People�s Earth Summit and the IFG teach-in, the Indian physicist Vandana Shiva spoke of the principles of an earth democracy. She stressed how corporate globalisation involved the stripping of community rights over local biological and cultural knowledge, and their transfer to corporations based on intellectual property rights. The natural biological material of plants and animals is increasingly being �bioprospected� in similar fashion to the prospecting of minerals from the ground. Vandana stressed that no one has the right to own life, and that the biodiversity of expressions of life (diverse grains, water, clean air, etc) are best protected by community rights that attribute, first and foremost, sustainable rights of sharing among its members. For Vandana Shiva and others, we are facing nothing less than a war on life itself. Andrew Kimbrell in Resurgence magazine (edition 214) writes of attempts by technocratic capitalists to transform the very nature of life so as to more closely mimic evolving technological systems � genetic engineering, human cloning, nanotechnology and other processes are all concerned with manipulating and mass manufacturing expressions of life for commercial profit. While many of us would think that the most appropriate way to heal the increasing separation between humans and nature would be to place reigns on the rapidly expanding technology milieu, for corporate globalisers more money is to be made from adjusting life to fit the capitalist machine of biotechnology. In this edition of Resurgence, Vandana outlines eight principles of an Earth democracy that can be summarised as: ** We are all members of the Earth community, and as such humans have no right to dominate the ecological space required for other species. ** All manifestations of life have intrinsic value to be treated as subjects in their own right, not as objects to be owned under patent systems and intellectual property rights. ** Biological and cultural diversity is an end in itself that must be defended. ** All members of the Earth community have rights to natural means of sustenance such as water, nourishing food and sufficient ecological space � these rights cannot be ascribed nor taken away by corporations, as they are the basic birthrights of life itself. ** An Earth democracy requires sustainable, diverse, pluralistic economic systems that respect the rights of life. ** Local economies are in the best position to support Earth democracy. ** Earth democracy is based on local living democracy, with local communities organised on principles of inclusion, diversity and ecological and social responsibility having the highest authority on decisions related to the environment, natural resources and the sustenance and livelihoods of people. ** Earth democracy is based on earth-centred and community-centred knowledge systems that cannot be owned and patented �they belong collectively to communities that create them and keep them alive, to maintain and renew living processes in ways that contribute to the health and well-being of the planet. ** Earth democracy connects people in circles of care, co-operation and compassion, instead of dividing them through competition, control and conflict. Earth democracy is a living movement in that many communities have been putting its principles into practice for dozens of generations. Proponents argue that it provides the experiential, moral and spiritual base to resist corporate globalisation and to renew communities towards decommodifying the commons. Vandana argues that Earth democracies are resilient systems that are best suited to providing security in the current climate of economic and political instability. She suggests that despite the prevalence of Western individualism, Earth democracy is likely to be a thread in the way forward � as humans cannot survive without community systems of support. Earth democracies replace Pubic Private Partnerships with People People ones. Vandana and others organised the Children�s Earth Summit as a parallel activity to the WSSD, as a way of children learning and sharing experiences of what Earth democracy could mean and has meant in their communities. Some 200 children from across the globe came together to discuss ways of re-weaving the future, and to set the context for children to inform each other of the value of local biological and cultural diversity. The Earth democracy movement faces similar challenges as relocalisation in terms of how to create spaces against the tide of the overwhelming privilege given to property rights ascribed by the capitalist system. Movements towards earth justice through systems of law that support the earth�s democratic rights form one suggestion in this respect, but even here the question remains of how to combat the prevailing laws based on the pre-eminence of property rights. One can see, however, that the grace and amazing beauty and complexity of biological and cultural diversity can be a major force for change in this respect. Corporate globalisation has existed in some form for only 400 years, and in a globally dominant form for much less than this. The planet�s numerous systems of biological and associated cultural diversity have evolved over a far greater period, and from this comes a profound ally for change in the form of life itself. SELF-DETERMINATION As stressed by many activists and speakers at alternative forums to the WSSD, corporate-led globalisation is creating an increasing underclass of people and communities who have neither the capital nor investment opportunities for neoliberal governments and corporations to be interested in their welfare. Unless required as a source of cheap labour, these communities are discarded and are often the most exposed to toxic waste and polluting industries, and have the least affordable access to the basic essentials that nurture life. In the words of Naomi Klein, capitalism erases or �economically disappears� these people. Yet one of the greatest sources of inspiration in global evolution towards a better world lays in these communities. In the process of fighting for survival and basic dignity, these communities are taking control over their lives in situations where neither governments nor corporations care. In two earlier articles I outlined how grass-roots South African networks are reconnecting their communities to electricity and water, after millions of homes have been cut off due to the inability to pay increased rates caused by privatisation. Communities in Argentina have established horizontal assemblies without leaders to provide the means for survival after the country�s economic collapse � assemblies that do not just meet around the table, but which reclaim factory spaces to bake communal bread and provide other services. The Zapatistas in the Chiapas of Southern Mexico have developed semi self-sufficient autonomous zones, while Bolivian anti-privatisation groups are now developing their own water provision projects to provide for the community. In these and other examples, communities of protest and communities of renewal are one and the same thing. Fighting against the institutions and systems that deprive them of dignity go hand in hand with taking autonomous responsibility to provide for themselves. As Oscar Olivera of the Bolivian La Coordinadora de Defensa del Agua y de la Vida (Coordinator for the Defense of Water and Life) stressed after they overturned the government�s water privatisation plans, �We regained dignity as people, to speak and make decisions for ourselves. We broke vertical hierarchy and didn�t need to ask permission from government, judges, police or the military.� As global capitalism economically disappears more and more communities, the potential for a global web of community-based resistance and renewal is strengthening. It is being joined by a growing number of autonomous groups in the industrialised nations, who are also providing basic services through social centres and other means without the involvement of governments or corporations, while simultaneously protesting against the forced detention of asylum seekers, environmental injustice and other issues. Communities that combine renewal and resistance are beginning to connect with each other in systems of inter-solidarity where, for example, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty is well aware of the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign in South Africa, and has organised a solidarity event timed to coincide with the WSSD. These systems of inter-solidarity are relatively recent phenomena in the main. Seven years ago, one looked mainly to the Zapatistas as an autonomous community weaving resistance and renewal against the forces of corporate-led globalisation. Now numerous examples are emerging � not only because of the increasing destructiveness of global capitalism, but also because of the positive elements of globalisation in fostering a sense of earth citizenship (among those willing to accept this responsibility). This global citizenship, threaded together by communities of shared interest, is making the amazing efforts of marginalised communities more visible to a wider audience. Numerous questions again remain. In what ways can these horizontal assemblies and autonomous zones remain free from forms of political and ideological fundamentalisms that could destroy their grounding in living democracy? As systems of inter-solidarity widen and strengthen, what will be the processes through which this becomes infectious for people in other communities to take more direct control over their lives? What forms of organisation will bubble-up out of these systems of inter-solidarity, in order to protect the local globally? AFRICAN VISIONS Given the location of the WSSD, at least some mention must be made of what African groups are doing to emerge a better world for their continent. In addition to the African Social Forum, which will hold its next conference in Addis Ababa in December, a wide variety of groups were represented in Johannesburg to fight against economic neocolonialism. Whether campaigning against NEPAD or the debt crisis, there was consistent reference to corporate globalisation and institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO as enforcing the means with which transnational corporations were continuing the enslavement of their continent. Groups focusing on the debt crisis issue called for reparations from the World Bank based on the social and environmental destruction caused by its projects. This is a campaign that could easily be tied to calls for the industrialised nations to pay ecological debts that should be owed to the non-overdeveloped world in terms of the massive rape of their ecological spaces, including through the process of resource extraction. In the theme of emphasising both renewal and resistance, however, African groups were also demonstrating self-reliance in directing their own futures. A project under the umbrella of the Malawi Economic Justice Network, for example, is linking farmers struggling to grow sufficient food with others who are having more success. The objective is not for the project to instruct farmers in �best practice�, but to encourage the dissemination of information concerning what works best in specific contexts, from farmer to farmer. In more general terms, there was a call from several farming advocates to reduce over-reliance on maize, a crop introduced to Africa by the Portuguese, and to expand the cropping of indigenous grains such as millet and sorghum. As Vandana Shiva emphasised, corporate globalisation and consumer monoculturalism has introduced a form of agricultural racism where white grains such as rice, soy and maize are preferred over the more numerous and darker indigenous grains of Africa and south Asia. This has major implications for famine in Africa, as some indigenous grains are more resilient to harsh conditions, and again underlays the danger of monocropping. In this context Ethiopia presents a success story of an African nation developing local food security. In stark contrast to the mid-80�s scenes of massive starvation, and despite the deleterious effects of its war with Eritrea, Ethiopia is self-sufficient in food without reliance on genetic engineering or large-scale agribusiness. Indeed, in the IFG teach-in, an Ethiopian who is effectively the minister for the environment gave a lecture celebrating the virtues of organic food growing and permaculture-type processes. THE FIGHT CONTINUES AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL CAPITAL Although numerous activists from across the globe agreed on the need to set our own agendas to work towards a better world, the fight against the structures of global capitalism was still considered essential. September 25 to 29 will see massive street protests against the World Bank and IMF at their annual general meeting in Washington DC. Planned actions include a mass quarantine of the meeting and a people�s strike to shut down the city (see www.abolishthebank.org and http://sept.globalizethis.org/). This will be a crucial summit protest just over a year since s11, with some of the larger and less radical anti-globalisation NGOs rejoining autonomous anti-capitalist groups to further delegitimise these institutions. In Johannesburg, a World Bank Boycott campaign meeting heard testimonies from numerous African countries on how World Bank policies and projects had destroyed or significantly affected the livelihoods of literally millions of people. The campaign was having success in persuading some local governments and institutional investors in the industrialised world to get rid of their World Bank bonds � the World Bank achieves 80% of its finances through selling these bonds on the market. I heard not one call for the World Bank to be reformed � there was clear insistence on it to be abolished. Michael Goldman highlighted the lack of change at the bank by showing that over the past 58 years, 60% of the money leant out by the bank flowed back to corporations from just five industrialised nations � and that this proportion was exactly the same in 2001. Martin Khor warned of the powerful forces about to be unleashed at the next World Trade Organisation ministerial in Mexico next September. Part of the agreement during the fifth ministerial last November in Doha was for negotiations to commence for agreements in three new areas at the next ministerial: competition, investment and government procurement. These new agreements are likely to incorporate some of the aspects of the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, where governments will be forced to give equal rights to local firms and overseas corporations when bidding for contracts. Such provision of equal rights to the small/local and the gigantic/global is a recipe for the destruction of local service providers. Martin emphasised that a concerted campaign to influence the negotiating positions of non-overdeveloped nations is vital in the lead-up to next year�s WTO ministerial. While trade representatives from several non-overdeveloped nations are likely to support these new agreements � including South Africa � the experience of the Seattle ministerial demonstrated their potential power when collectively resisting the arm-twisting tactics of the industrialised nations. Unfortunately, non-overdeveloped nations gave in at the last moment at last year�s ministerial, and consequently an intense international campaign is required to support a stronger position next year. Given the location of next year�s ministerial � in a heartland of resistance to corporate globalisation, with millions of people in nations to the south and to the north angry at the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas - the potential for a repeat of the WTO�s failure at Seattle is ripe. TURNING POINTS In her speech at the IFG teach-in, Naomi Klein stated that we have already won the war of words against global capitalism � but that the improvement of people�s lives and the ultimate defeat of the system will only be achieved through mass struggle. Summit protesting is important � provided it isn�t done religiously without consideration of the potential costs. Yet as Naomi emphasised, mass struggle involves much more than personing the barricades. While summit protests take much of the attention, perhaps the greatest weight of mass struggle is occurring in numerous communities throughout the world, in the creative fight for basic human dignity and earth democracy. These are living, breathing examples of how re-localised economies, reverence for biodiversity, culturally rooted knowledge and community custodianship over life-nurturing commons are creating spaces of renewal and resistance that deeply challenge global capitalism. These are the multiple turning points upon which communities everywhere can learn from their practice, adapted and rooted in their specific cultural contexts. For although many of us are fighting the common factors of capitalism, racism, nationalism, hierarchy and patriarchy, we are not all fighting the same fight. It is up to each of us, both as individuals and communities, to understand our particular struggles free of ideological and political fundamentalisms. Once deeply rooted in our own contexts and struggles, we can act in solidarity with others and discover the commonalities based in lived experience as opposed to blanket ideologies. This is not a call to address the local before we look globally. We need to think and act, and struggle, both locally and globally � and to come together against the international institutions of global capitalism even if confused about the meaning of own particular struggles. However, in translating local efforts into global webs of resistance and renewal, we can look most of all to the integrity and creativity of those who have had no choice but to live the possibility of another world. This is the story that I take with me as I leave Johannesburg after the summit. No doubt it will change as I reflect back on my experiences from future and different vantage points, and that others will have different conclusions to draw based on their experiences here. What I won�t forget is how much South Africa is a land of love. Despite the culture of violence in some parts, happiness is often expressed in how well people can provide nurturance for their family and for others who they come across. It is truly heartbreaking, then, to see how mothers and grandmothers struggle in the townships to provide the basic necessities of life for their families. And it is no less heartbreaking to feel the anger of young men who tire at seeing their parents struggle in some tiny shack of cobbled together sheets of tin. It is from this and many other heartbreaking situations across the globe that people are creating a world of renewed dignity and hope for our common future. ------------------------------ ... let the beauty we love be what we do {Rumi} ... and let our sacred spaces and mental environments be free from intrusive advertising that diverts us from earthened enLivedness _____________________________________________________________ To subscribe to MAL-globalisation, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
