The last year will probably go down as one of those defining moments in
the history of the world economy, like 1929. Of course, the structures of
global capitalism appear to be solid, with many in the global elite in
Washington, Europe, and Asia congratulating themselves for containing the
Asian financial crisis and trying to exude confidence about launching a
new round of trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO).
What we witnessed, nevertheless, was a dramatic series of events that
might, in fact, lead to that time when, as the poet says, "all that is
solid melts into thin air."

For global capitalism, the year began a month early, on Nov. 30-Dec.  1,
1999, when the Third Ministerial of the WTO collapsed in Seattle.  It
ended earlier this month with an equally momentous event: the unraveling
of the Climate Change Conference in the Hague.

Seattle: the Turning Point The definitive history of the Seattle events
still needs to be written, but they cannot be understood without the
explosive interaction between the militant and unrelenting protests of
some 50,000 people in the streets and the rebellion of developing country
delegates inside the Seattle Convention Center. Much has been made about
the different motivations of the street protesters and the Third World
delegates and the differences within the ranks of the demonstrators
themselves.  True, some of their stands on key issues, such as the
incorporation of labor standards into the WTO, were sometimes
contradictory. But most of them were united by one thing: their opposition
to the expansion of a system that promoted corporate-led globalization at
the expense of social goals like justice, community, national sovereignty,
cultural diversity, and ecological sustainability.

Still, the Seattle debacle would not have occurred without another
development: the inability of the European Union and the United States to
bridge their differences on key issues, like what rules should govern
their monopolistic competition for global agricultural markets.  And the
fallout from Seattle might have been less massive were it not for the
brutal behavior of the Seattle police. The assaults on largely peaceful
demonstrators by police in their Darth Vader-like uniforms in full view of
television cameras made Seattle's mean streets the grand symbol of the
crisis of globalization.

When it was established in 1995, the WTO was regarded as the crown jewel
of capitalism in the era of globalization. With the Seattle collapse,
however, realities that had been ignored or belittled were acknowledged
even by the powers-that-be whose brazen confidence in their own creation
had been shaken. For instance, that the supreme institution of
globalization was, in fact, fundamentally undemocratic and its processes
non-transparent was recognized even by representatives of some of its
stoutest defenders pre-Seattle. The global elite's crisis of confidence
was evident, for instance, in the words of Stephen Byers, the UK Secretary
for Trade and Industry:  "The WTO will not be able to continue in its
present form. There has to be fundamental and radical change in order for
it to meet the needs and aspirations of all 134 of its members."

Seattle was no one-off event. Bitter criticism of the WTO and the Bretton
Woods institutions was the not-so-subtle undercurrent of the Tenth
Assembly of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD
X) held in Bangkok in February. Indeed, what brought an otherwise
uneventful international meeting to the front pages of the world press was
the pie-splattered face of outgoing IMF Managing Director Michel
Camdessus, who was on the receiving end of a perfect pitch from anti-IMF
activist Robert Naiman.

>From Washington to Melbourne Naiman's act helped set the stage for the
first really big post-Seattle confrontation between pro-globalization and
anti-globalization forces:  the spring meeting of the IMF and the World
Bank in Washington, DC.  Some 30,000 protesters descended on America's
capital in the middle of April and found a large section of the northwest
part of the city walled off by some 10,000 policemen. For four rain-swept
days, the protestors tried, unsuccessfully, to breach the police phalanx
to reach the IMF-World Bank complex at 19th and H Sts.,NW, resulting in
hundreds of arrests. The police claimed victory. But it was a case of the
protestors losing the battle but winning the war. Just the mere fact that
30,000 people had come to protest the Bretton Woods twins was already a
massive victory according to organizers who said that the most one could
mobilize in previous protests were a few hundred people. Moreover, the
focus of the media was on Washington, and the first acquaintance of
hundreds of millions of viewers throughout the world with the World Bank
and IMF were as controversial institutions under siege from people
accusing them of inflicting poverty and misery on the developing world.

>From Washington, the struggle shifted to Chiang Mai in the highlands of
Northern Thailand, where the Asian Development Bank (ADB), a multilateral
body notorious for funding gargantuan projects that disrupted communities
and destabilized the environment, held its 33rd Annual Meeting in early
May.  So shaken was the ADB leadership by the sight of some 2000 people
asking it to leave town that soon after the conference, ADB President
Tadao Chino established an vice presidential level "NGO Task Force" to
deal with civil society. Fearful of even more massive protests in 2001,
the ADB also shifted the site of its next annual meeting from Seattle to
Honolulu in the belief that the latter would be a secure site.

Chiang Mai had significance beyond the ADB, however. With a majority of
the protesters being poor Thai farmers, the Chiang Mai demonstrations
showed that the anti-globalization mass base went beyond middle class
youth and organized labor in the advanced countries. Equally important,
key organizers of the Chiang Mai actions, like Bamrung Kayotha, one of the
leaders of the Forum of the Poor, had participated in the Seattle protest,
and they saw Chiang Mai not as a discrete event but as a link in the chain
of international protests against globalization.

The battle lines were next drawn Down Under, in Melbourne, Australia, in
early September. The glittering Crown Casino by Melbourne's upscale
waterfront had been chosen as the site of the Asia-Pacific Summit of the
World Economic Forum (Davos Forum)  which had become a leading force in
the effort to put a more liberal face to globalization. The casino, many
activists felt, was a fitting symbol of finance-driven globalization. In
nearly three days of street battles, some 5,000 protesters were at times
able to seal off key entrances to the Casino, forcing the organizers to
bring some delegates in and out by helicopter, again in full view of
television. And again, as in Seattle, rough handling of demonstrators by
the police, many of them mounted, magnified the global controversy over
the event.

The Battle of Prague Later that month came Europe's turn to serve as a
battleground. Some 10,000 people came from all over the continent to
Prague, prepared to engage in an apocalyptic confrontation with the
Bretton Woods institutions during the latter's annual meeting in that
beautiful Eastern European city in the most beautiful of seasons. Prague
lived up to its billing. With demonstrations and street battles trapping
delegates at the Congress Center or swirling around them as they tried to
make their way back to their quarters in Prague's famed Old Town, the
agenda of the meeting was, as one World Bank official put it, "effectively
seized" by the anti-globalization protesters. When a large number of
delegates refused to go to the Congress Center in the next two days, the
convention had to be abruptly concluded, a day before its scheduled
ending.

As important as the protests in Prague was the debate held on Sept.  23 at
the famous Prague Castle between representatives of civil society and the
leadership of the World Bank and the IMF, an event orchestrated by Czech
President Vaclav Havel. Instead of bridging the gap between the two sides,
the debate widened it, since, in response to concrete demands, World Bank
President James Wolfensohn and IMF Managing Director Horst Koehler were
not prepared to go beyond platitudes and generalities, as if worried that
they might overstep the bounds set by their G-7 masters. George Soros, who
defended the Bank and Fund at the debate, said it all when he admitted
that Wolfensohn and Koehler had "performed terribly" and had blown their
most important encounter with civil society.

After Seattle, much talk about reforming the global economic system to
bring on board those "being left behind" by globalization was emitted by
establishment personalities like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair,
Kofi Annan, and Nike CEO Phil Knight. The Davos Forum, in fact, placed the
question of reform at the top of the agenda of the meetings it held for
the global elite.

A year after Seattle, however, there has been precious little in the way
of concrete action.

The most prominent reform initiative, the Group of Seven's plan to lessen
the servicing of the external debt of the 41 Highly Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPC) has actually delivered a debt reduction of only $US 1
billion since it began in 1996-or a reduction of their debt servicing by
only 3 per cent in the past four and a half years!

One year after the Seattle collapse, talk about reforming the decision-
making process at the WTO has vanished, with Director General Mike Moore,
in fact, saying that that the non-transparent, undemocratic
"Consensus/Green Room" system that triggered the developing country revolt
in Seattle is "non-negotiable."

When it comes to the question of the international financial architecture,
serious discussion of controls on speculative capital like Tobin taxes has
been avoided. An unreformed IMF continues to be at the center of the
system's "firefighting system." A preemptive, pre- crisis credit line at
the Fund (which no country wants to avail of) and a toothless Financial
Stability Forum-where there is little developing country
participation-appear to be the only "innovations" to emerge from the
Asian, Russian, and Brazilian financial crises of the last three years.

At the IMF and the World Bank, similarly, there is no longer any talk
about diluting the voting shares of the US and European Union in favor of
greater voting power for the Third World countries, much less of doing
away with the feudal practices of always having a European head the Fund
and an American to lead the Bank. The much-vaunted consultative process in
the preparation of "Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers" (PRSP) by
governments applying for loans is turning out to be nothing more than an
effort to add a veneer of public participation to the same technocratic
process that is churning out development strategies with the same old
emphasis on growth via deregulation and liberalization of trade, with
maybe a safety net here and there. At the Bank, strong resistance to
innovations that would put the priority on social reforms led to the
resignation of two reformers: Joseph Stiglitz, the chief economist, and
Ravi Kanbur, the head of the World Development Report task force.

Debacle in The Hague The protests throughout the year had a strong
anti-TNC strain, with the World Bank, IMF, and WTO regarded as servitors
of the corporations. A strong distrust of TNCs had, in fact, developed,
even in the United States, where over 70 per cent of people surveyed felt
corporations had too much power over their lives. Distrust and opposition
to TNCs could only be deepened by the collapse in early December of the
Hague Conference on Climate Change, owing to US's industry's unwillingness
to significantly cut back on its emission of greenhouse gases. At a time
that most indicators are showing an acceleration of global warming trends,
Washington's move has reinforced the conviction of the anti-globalization
movement that the US economic elite is determined to grab all the benefits
of globalization while sticking the costs on the rest of the world.

Assessing the post-Seattle situation, C. Fred Bergsten, a prominent
advocate of globalization, told a Trilateral Commission meeting in Tokyo
last April that "the anti-globalization forces are now in the ascendancy."
That description is even more accurate now. With the global elite itself
having lost confidence in them, a classic crisis of legitimacy has
overtaken the key institutions of global economic governance. If
legitimacy is not regained, it is only a matter of time before structures
collapse, no matter how seemingly solid they are, since legitimacy is the
foundation of power structures. The process of delegitimation is difficult
to reverse once it takes hold. Indeed, what we might call, following
Gramsci, as the "withdrawal of consent" is likely to spread to the core
institutions and practices of global capitalism, including the
transnational corporation.

2001 promises to be an equally trying time for the globalist project.

* Executive director of Focus on the Global South in Bangkok and professor
at the University of the Philippines.
 
 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Focus-on-Trade is a regular electronic bulletin providing updates and
analysis of trends in regional and world trade and finance, with an
emphasis on analysis of these trends from an integrative,
interdisciplinary viewpoint that is sensitive not only to economic issues,
but also to ecological, political, gender and social issues. Your
contributions and comments are welcome. Please contact us c/o CUSRI, Wisit
Prachuabmoh Building, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330 Thailand.
Tel: (66 2) 218 7363/7364/7365, Fax: (66 2) 255 9976, E-Mail:
admin@focusweb.org, Website: http://focusweb.org. Focus on the Global
South is an autonomous programme of policy research and action of the
Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute (CUSRI) based in
Bangkok.

City Announcement shows that Sexual Assault is almost Legal in Toronto
Warning Newsflash - Oct/99

   The city auditor announced today that only 4% of Sexual Assaults are probed by the sex-assault squad. This statement by Jeff Griffiths was portrayed as a victory for women in two major Toronto dailies. Griffiths called for more female detectives, and cops working longer hours to investigate more crimes. In total the auditor wants 57 changes to the way Toronto Police investigate sex assaults.

   The first dark side of this report is that the sexual-assault squad only looked at 70 occurrences out of 1,800 last year. Griffiths also said that while waiting to conduct an interview, we were very clearly able to hear a police interview with a woman who had been sexually assaulted. This showed that police had no regard for the dignity and the well-being of the woman involved. The report itself was commissioned after police used a woman as human bait in a bizarre plan to catch a rapist.

   Dark side number two is that about a million men in Toronto and Ontario had been assuming all along that if they raped a woman, they would be charged and jailed. Now thanks to the City, the police and the media we have been informed that if we choose a victim we know, we will likely get away with it and never even be questioned.

   Police Chief Boothby and police services board chair Norm Gardner were quick to oppose having the squad investigate more assault cases, saying this would put a strain on resources. Keep in mind that these guys, many other councilors and the Tory provincial government felt the need for helicopters to search for a lone sexual predator called the bedroom rapist. So why don't they feel the need to assign officers to investigate hundreds and hundreds of cases in which the identity of the suspect is known?

   Why do we have lots and lots of police to ticket squeegee kids, and why is Harris preparing to send out squads to force medication on psychiatric patients, when police would be better used in investigating cases of violent assault?

   Much as I hate to disagree with women's groups, I think that notifying a million men of how easy it is to get away with sexual assault is more of a loss than a victory.
--------

GREEN PARTY OF CANADA LEADER FILES COMPLAINT WITH CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (CSIS) COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Friday, January 29, 1999 -- VICTORIA, B.C. -- Today, Dr. Joan Russow, National Leader of the Green Party of Canada, filed the following complaint with the CSIS Complaints Commission:

Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Complaint Commission
By fax to: 613-990-5230
Attention: Sylvia MacKenzie
           Senior Complaints Officer
Regarding: Dr. Joan Russow, National Leader of the Green Party of Canada, complaint to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Complaint Commission
   During the November, 1997, APEC Conference I was placed on an APEC Threat Assessment Group (TAG) list. The inclusion of a national leader of a registered political party on a Threat Assessment Group list is in complete violation of the legislation that governs the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) which states the following:
"Threat to security DOES NOT INCLUDE LAWFUL ADVOCACY, PROTEST OR DISSENT, UNLESS CARRIED ON IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS (2) TO (D). 1984 C.21, S2" (see annex for paragraph 2)
   In November, 1997, I filed a complaint with the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission related to the pulling of my APEC pass. In response to my complaint, in August, 1998, the RCMP indicated that the reason my pass was pulled was what I lacked the appropriate accreditation and that "my request... had been handled according to policy". During the release of documents as a result of the November, 1998, RCMP PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION I learned that the reason my pass was pulled was that I had been placed with  photo ID on two different APEC Threat Assessment Group lists.
   Given the conflicting evidence related to the reason that the RCMP gave for pulling my pass and the reason inherent in being included in the APEC Threat Assessment Group list, I believe that I should be part of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission Inquiry currently under way or part of a separate public inquiry into the misuse of CSIS powers.
   Initially when I approached the RCMP commission in Vancouver last November, I was told by the then commission lawyer Chris Costadine that I would be included in the commission hearings. However, when I inquired recently about the revived commission which has begun Wednesday, January 27, I was told by a lawyer on contract with the commission, who refused to reveal his name, that my case had been dealt with separately and that I could not be
part of the RCMP Public Complaints procedure nor could I in anyway have a public investigation into my complaint. But I could ask for a review but I had no right under the Act to be part of or have a public inquiry into my case.
   I believe that a full public inquiry should be made into the reasons for placing a leader of a registered Canadian political party on a Threat Assessment List.
   In mid January, 1999, I spoke with a senior advisor to the Prime Minister of Canada and requested information about the following:
-  Why I was put on the list
-  Who decided that I should be put on the list
-  What was the reason for my being put on the list
   I have received no reply, and I contacted the Prime Minister's office again on Wednesday, January 27, 1999, and my call has not been returned.
   I note that in the Treasury Board Estimates for CSIS that the Prime Minister has signed the report and I presume that his office is linked in some way to investigations under CSIS.
   I expect that this complaint will be given your immediate attention.

   Yours very truly
   Joan Russow, Ph.D.
   National Leader of the Green Party of Canada
   Phone/Fax:  250-598-0071
------------------------
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (CSIS)

In the Act establishing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS),
"Threats to security of Canada" means:

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage;

(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person;

(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign states; and

(d) Activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government.

Lawful Protest and Advocacy
The CSIS Act prohibits the Service from investigating acts of advocacy, protest, or dissent that are conducted lawfully. CSIS may investigate these types of actions only if they are carried out in conjunction with one of the four previously identified types of activity. CSIS is especially sensitive in distinguishing lawful protest and advocacy from potentially subversive actions. Even when an investigation is warranted, it is carried out with careful regard for the civil rights of those whose actions are being investigated.

For further information, please contact:
Joan Russow (Ph.D.), Leader
phone: 250-598-0071
email: jrussow@coastnet.com
-----------------------------------

USA: Rough justice for women behind bars
* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International *
4 MARCH 1999

" My feet were still shackled together, and I couldn't get my legs apart. The doctor called for the officer ... No one else could unlock the shackles, and my baby was coming ... Finally the officer came and unlocked the shackles from my ankles. My baby was born then."
   ("Maria Jones" describing how she gave birth while an inmate of Cook County Jail, Chicago, 1998)
   The use of shackles on pregnant inmates is just one example of the cruelty and ill-treatment many women suffer in US jails and prisons, Amnesty International said today in a new report issued as part of its international campaign against human rights violations in the USA( United States of America. Rights for All. "Not part of my sentence" - Violations of the Human Rights of Women in Custody. AI Index: AMR 51/019/1999).
   As well as the use of restraints on pregnant and sick prisoners, Amnesty International's report -- "Not part of my sentence"-- details human rights violations including sexual abuse, lack of medical care and lengthy periods of confinement in so-called super-maximum units.
   Reports of rape and other forms of sexual abuse -- including sexually offensive language and male staff touching women's breasts and  genitals during searches or watching them when they are naked -- are widespread in US prisons and jails.
   "Cases of sexual abuse actually reported are probably only the tip of the iceberg as victims are often reluctant to complain for fear of not being believed or suffering retaliation," Amnesty International said.
   "The overwhelming majority of complaints concern male staff, reflecting the fact that many guards and other prison employees are male," the organization added.
   The number of women in US jails and prisons has been growing dramatically, largely as a result of the war on drugs. In 1997 the figure was at 138,000 -- a three-fold increase since 1985. This  amounts to about 10 times the number of women prisoners in Western European countries, which combined have a female population the same size as the USA.
   "Authorities around the USA have been spending large sums of money building new prisons and jails but have not provided adequate funds for the health, welfare and rehabilitation of the people they are locking up," Amnesty International said.
   As the world celebrates International Women's Day on 8 March, Amnesty International is calling on US federal, state and local authorities to make a strong commitment to implement the measures required to effectively protect the safety, health and dignity of all women in custody.
   Concerns expressed in the report include:
   ·Sexual abuse: rape of an inmate by staff is internationally recognized as a form of torture and violates US federal and state criminal laws, yet reports of rape and other forms of sexual abuse are common in US prisons and jails. Amnesty International is calling for female inmates to be supervised by female staff only, and for victims to be more effectively protected from retaliation if they report abuses.
·Medical care: access to a doctor is often conditional on permission by non-medical staff, who may underestimate the seriousness of the case  or be inclined not to believe inmates. In some cases, delays are reported to have had serious health consequences. In 1998 an inmate in an  Arizona Jail wrote to Amnesty International reporting that she had lost her baby -- and almost bled to death -- after her call for urgent medical attention was left unheeded for hours. Amnesty International is urging that all women in custody have access to free and adequate medical care.
·Mental health care: there are concerns about the use of psychotropic drugs and a reported lack of counselling. Amnesty International is calling for an inquiry into prison mental health services and for women suffering from severe mental illnesses to be transferred to mental health institutions.
·Use of physical restraints on sick and pregnant women: handcuffs and shackles are often used on women both during transport and in hospital even if they do not have a history of violence or escape. In the case of pregnant women, restraints pose a serious health threat. Amnesty International is calling for the use of restraints to be limited to cases in which the inmates' conduct makes them necessary.
· Super-maximum security units: some women appear to be sent to such units -- where conditions are particularly harsh -- for comparatively minor infractions. Some of the rules in those units -- such as the one requiring that prisoners be "in full view" all the time --violate the inmates' privacy and dignity, and their isolated nature can increase the opportunities for abuse.

Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street,
WC1X 8DJ, London, United Kingdom
http://www.amnesty.org/news/
------------------------------------------

50 Years Is Enough: U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice
OUR DEMANDS OF THE IMF AND WORLD BANK
March/April 2000
Demands to the International Monetary Fund/World Bank - April 3, 2000 Deadline

From: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>Sun, 12 Mar 2000
   This is a call for endorsements of demands that 50 Years Is Enough Network is making to the World Bank and IMF in relation to their semi-annual meetings in April. We encourage broad circulation and sign-ons by ORGANIZATIONS supporting the mobilization and/or who support global socio-economic justice.
   Please return it to: demands50years@yahoo.com <mailto:demands50years@yahoo.com>.
 

50 Years Is Enough: U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice
OUR DEMANDS OF THE IMF AND WORLD BANK
March/April 2000

On the occasion of the first meetings of the governing bodies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the 21st century, we call for the immediate suspension of the policies and practices that have caused widespread poverty, inequality, and suffering among the world's peoples and damage to the world's environment. We assert the responsibility of these anti-democratic institutions, together with the World Trade Organization, for an unjust world economic system. We note that these institutions are controlled by wealthy governments, and that their policies have benefited international private sector financiers, transnational corporations, and corrupt officials.

We issue this call in the name of global justice, in solidarity with the peoples of the Global South and the former "Soviet bloc" countries who struggle for survival and dignity in the face of unjust, imperialistic economic policies. We stand in solidarity too with the millions in the wealthy countries of the Global North who have borne the burden of "globalization" policies and been subjected to policies that mirror those imposed on the South.

Only when the coercive powers of the international financial institutions are rescinded shall governments be accountable first and foremost to the will of their peoples. Only when a system that allocates power chiefly to the wealthiest nations for the purpose of dictating the policies of the poorer ones is reversed shall nations and their peoples be able to forge bonds - economic and otherwise - based on mutual respect and the common needs of the planet and its inhabitants. Only when integrity is restored to economic development, and both the corrupter and the corrupted held accountable, shall the people begin to have confidence in the decisions that affect their communities. Only when the well-being of all, including the most vulnerable people and ecosystems, is given priority over corporate profits shall we achieve genuine sustainable development and create a world of justice, equality, and peace where fundamental human rights, including social and economic rights, can be respected.

With these ends in mind, we make the following demands of those meeting in Washington April 16-19, 2000 for the semi-annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund:

1. That the IMF and World Bank cancel all debts owed them. Any funds required for this purpose should come from positive net capital and assets held by those institutions.

2. That the IMF and World Bank immediately cease imposing the economic austerity measures known as structural adjustment and/or other macroeconomic "reform," which have exacerbated poverty and inequality, as conditions of loans, credits, or debt relief. This requires both the suspension of those conditions in existing programs and an abandonment of any version of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative which is founded on the concept of debt relief for policy reform.

3. That the IMF and World Bank accept responsibility for the disastrous impact of structural adjustment policies by paying reparations to the peoples and communities who have borne that impact. These funds should come from the institutions' positive net capital and assets, and should be distributed through democratically-determined mechanisms.

4. That the World Bank Group pay reparations to peoples relocated and otherwise harmed by its large projects (such as dams) and compensate governments for repayments made on projects which World Bank evaluations rank as economic failures. A further evaluation should determine which World Bank projects have failed on social, cultural, and environmental grounds, and appropriate compensation paid. The funds for these payments should come from the institutions' positive net capital and assets, and should be distributed through democratically-determined mechanisms.

5. That the World Bank Group immediately cease providing advice and resources through its division* devoted to private-sector investments to advance the goals associated with corporate globalization, such as privatization and liberalization, and that private-sector investments currently held be liquidated to provide funds for the reparations demanded above.

6. That the agencies and individuals within the World Bank Group and IMF complicit in abetting corruption, as well as their accomplices in borrowing countries, be prosecuted, and that those responsible, including the institutions involved, provide compensation for resources stolen and damage done.

7. That the future existence, structure, and policies of international institutions such as the World Bank Group and the IMF be determined through a democratic, participatory and transparent process. The process must accord full consideration of the interests of the peoples most affected by the policies and practices of the institutions, and include a significant role for all parts of civil society.

The accession to these demands would require the institutions' directors to accept and act on the need for fundamental transformation. It is possible that the elimination of these institutions will be required for the realization of global economic and political justice.

We commit to work towards the defunding of the IMF and World Bank by opposing further government allocations to them (in the form of either direct contributions or the designation of collateral) and supporting campaigns such as a boycott of World Bank bonds until these demands have been met.

*The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is a division of the World Bank Group. Also included is the Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency (MIGA), which insures private investments in Southern countries.

SIGNED:
50 Years Is Enough Network
Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC) - Cape Town, South Africa
Anti Debt Coalition - Indonesia
Campaign Against Neo-Liberalism in South Africa (CANSA) - Johannesburg, South Africa
Campaign for Labor Rights - Washington, DC
Ecumenical Support Services - Harare, Zimbabwe
Focus on the Global South - Bangkok, Thailand
Food First - Oakland, CA (USA)
Freedom from Debt Coalition - Manila, Philippines
Global Exchange - San Francisco, CA (USA)
Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project - Washington, DC
Jubilee 2000 Afrika Campaign - London, UK
Jubilee 2000 Afrika Campaign (USA) - Pittsburgh, PA
Jubilee 2000 South Africa - Cape Town, South Africa
Kenya Action Network - Washington, DC (USA)
Kenya Human Rights Commission - Nairobi, Kenya
LALIT - Port Louis, Mauritius
Nicaragua Network - Washington, DC (USA)
NICCA - Oakland, CA (USA)
Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt & Development - Harare, Zimbabwe
_______________________________________________

At The Edge of a New Dark Age:
The Corporate Takeover of Higher Research And Education

  By: John McMurtry Professor of Philosophy University of Guelph January, 2000

  Copyright © 2000 COMER Publications. All rights reserved. comer@comer.org http://www.comer.org/

   When I first began tracking the corporate models movement into public education in the late 1980s, I saw opportunistic administrators riding on the coattails of public relations newspeak. On digging more deeply, I realized the corporate agenda s objectives, methods, motivations and standards of excellence are not only different from, but the opposite of those of education. My book, Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market as an Ethical System, analyses why in its chapters on the "knowledge economy."

  In historical overview, an ancient pattern can be seen. Global corporate attacks on the worlds evolved civil fabrics resemble the barbarian attacks on western civilization around 17 centuries ago. A triumphal incapacity to think beyond the narrowed chinks of a furiously acquisitive mind-set, and the wanton and systematic destruction of any form of life that does, together propel the mindless horde. History is re-occurring, with tides of money-demand rather than war-horses the vehicle for stripping the world of its civil wealth.

  The place of economics, business and even science faculties in this invasion is to occupy the resources of higher education on behalf of reducing costs and increasing revenues for corporate investors, a final goal that is dressed in slogans of "efficiency," "scientific progress" and "national competitiveness." But there is a defining interest that is clung to while true believers trumpet the millenarian fantasy of "freedom from all barriers to capital and commodity movement."

  This interest was put starkly by a 1998 international summit, "The Canadian Education Industry" which glowed at the prospect of the public riches now accessible. "Last Year s summit introduced the $700 billion education growth industry. This education for profit industry will continue to grow." And certainly it has. Now backed by a recent World Bank manifesto on "world-wide education reform" and by proposed Articles on Services of the World Trade Organisation, the corporate agenda has moved to position itself for a control of not only classroom education, but academic research itself.

  • Here is what the World Bank now openly envisages for all education in its 1998 paper, "The Financing and Management of Higher Education: A Status Report on Worldwide Reforms." Education decision-making, it says, "will shift not only from government, but from higher education institutions — and especially from faculty — [and from] inappropriate curricula unrelated to the needs of the emerging economies. Performance budgeting will undoubtedly [be tied] to acceptance of principles of rational [i.e., self-maximising] actors who respond to [monetary] incentives."

  Students, the Report prescribes, are "customers" and should pay "the full cost" of their corporately modelled service, and borrow at "market-set bank rates." "Entrepreneurship on the part of institutions, departments and individual faculty," it concludes, "is [already] growing almost everywhere — adding revenue to institutions and benefit [sic] to society." Make no mistake. This is a plan for systematic takeover of public education and higher research, a bigger prize in net money value than past colonial occupations. The hidden pattern of our age is that the domestic public sector has replaced the external colony as the target for private capital occupation and growth.

  • Here is what the Canadian AgriFood Research Council s 1997-2002 "National Strategy" distributed by relevant Research Offices says to University researchers (emphases added): "Increasing competition for research funding — will demand that Canada identifies its rsearch strengths and capabilities to focus on those areas with highest value and return on investment. Priorities for applied research are set by the marketplace via partnerships eg. industry funds research that fits their priorities. Augmented private sector participation in research priority setting will ensure scientists have access to the appropriate market signals, are aware of the technology requirements of industry, and can focus their research appropriately." How, we need to ask, can such an agenda be compatible with the University s constitutional commitments to academic autonomy and to the search for truth free of interference by powerful external interests?

  • Here is what Professor Ann Clark reports in a recent paper to an October 1999 Conference of the Canadian Association of University Teachers in Ottawa: "At the University of Guelph from 1987 to 1997, provincial funding decreased by 69% [while] business/industry funding increased by 117% — government has channelised and harnessed the public research capability of Canada to the service of proprietary (industrial) interests. ‘Non-proprietary research — of the sort that benefits everyone — - is of no interest to industry sponsors." Dr. Clark identifies integrated pest management, organic farming, management-intensive grazing and small-scale producer co-operatives as complementary alternatives to factory-processed livestock and genetically-engineered commodities. But, she reports, that they have received "virtually undetectable amounts allocated to support." "Industry agendas," she observes, "are systematically inserted into permanent tenure-track and support positions at every level of Canadian academia. Thus the roughly $10 million (1998 figures) which industry invests to support proprietary research at Guelph allows it to leverage [by infrastructure use] a healthy chunk of the much larger (roughly $250 million) taxpayer investment at the university." This is a general strategy of the corporate war to control all publicly funded research.

  • Here is what Dr. Arpad Pusztai, whose research on genetically modified potatoes showed severe gastrointestinal tract damage to rats, said of the industry s treatment of independent research on genetically modified foods: "I can say from my experience if anyone dares to say anything even slightly contra-indicative, they are vilified and totally destroyed." Dr. Pusztai s research has since been vindicated by publication in the prestigious medical journal Lancet (16 October 1999). The co-author of this research has written me since that "this research was government funded and the work was potentially stopped by the highest authority in the country, although denied by 10 Downing Street."

  • As a member of the Animal Care Committee and Sub-Committee at Canada s and arguably the world s foremost bio-tech research institute, I worked to introduce one optional category of Purpose of Animal Use on experiment protocols which recognised the fact that many experiments are performed on animals to "reduce costs or increase revenues for private enterprises" as their "primary purpose." My supporting argument was that this category of choice was required so that university researchers did not misrepresent the justification of experiments on animals by concealing their primary purpose. No university researcher denied the reality of this primary purpose. Indeed a critic rejected the proposal on the grounds that no relevant research could be performed "unless there was a profit in it." Another researcher in the field observed that "there is hardly any studies done now that are not for profit." But after the motion was passed by the Committee, it was repressed by administrative decision. Agricultural-area researchers on campus report a widespread fear that the future funding of any of their work will be jettisoned if they ever question this steering of research grants, activities and priorities towards serving the for-profit interests of private corporations.

  Corporate control of publicly funded research is fuelled by a competitive grant scrambling for funds increasingly and exclusively tied to corporate profitability. Government research funding at all levels has been re-engineered to serve private marketplace interests, including foreign corporations, whose sole objective is to achieve maximum monetised returns to external shareholders. All rationalizations of this occupation process repress a basic fact — that the search for truth by the sharing of knowledge and the resources for achieving it is oppositely structured to the quest for monetised profit by for-profit corporations through private appropriation of knowledge and resources.

  But corporate slogans of "global competition," "accountability" and "performance indicators" mask the takeover — turning the objectives of the corporate agenda into the very meaning and vocation of public institutions themselves. Once you accept that the transnational right of corporations to overturn public laws is "free trade," and imagine that this "free trade" is truly more freedom for citizens, the mind has already collapsed into confusion. But this newspeak slogan is reproduced everywhere even by the most outspoken critics. "National survival" then comes to mean more rights to foreign corporations. "Greater efficiency and productivity" becomes lower wages and costs for our own labour and resources. And "rising prosperity" is more corporate monetisation of goods formerly free in nature and the civil commons.

  A Dark Age ultimately inhabits the mind. Education is its antidote. But the new Church of Higher Shareholder Value not only has the media as its pulpit and party governments as its puppet. It has become the selector of higher research itself. The last Dark Age had the excuse of an illiterate and dirt-poor population. This one does not. This mindlessness and inertia are in the end a breakdown of public capacities for intelligent thought and action. The good news is that the collapse of the WTO juggernaut first in Paris and then in Seattle may mean that this capacity of the civil commons is at last re-awaking from an induced slumber.

  John McMurtry
Professor of Philosophy
University of Guelph

  COMER, Vol 12, No 1, January 2000, page 14

  Copyright © 2000 COMER Publications. All rights reserved. comer@comer.org http://www.comer.org/

  COMER (Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform)