From the Archives: Global Governance 02
Collective Alignment from the Bottom-to-the-Top
By Carl Teichrib
Occasionally I’ll pull out articles and reports from the past that are worthy of reconsidering, as they may give the reader a broader understanding of historical and contemporary developments. This is one such report.
Back in 2002, I attended the Global Governance symposium in Montreal. Afterwards I wrote about the experience using a pen-name, Jamie Brendan – something my editors felt important, as I had traveled deeply into the realm of world federalism and United Nations restructuring. Now, many years later, I’ve taken the time to re-examine some of the materials from that era and have freshened the text.
Basic Data:
Conference/Event Name: FIM Global Governance 2002.
Event Theme: Civil Society and the Democratization of Global Governance: Redefining Global Democracy.
Conference Acronym: G02.
Place: Palais des Congrès, Montreal, Que., Canada.
Date: October 13-16, 2002.
Host Organization: Forum international de Montréal (FIM).
Approx. Number of attendees: 475.
Event Audience: NGOs, academia, governments, multilateral organizations.
Cocktails and fancy hors d’oeuvres, expensive suits, interpretive dancers, and the quest to reshape the world. I had come to Montreal to observe a gathering of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) – civil society actors – working alongside government players and representatives from the United Nations. Pushing past the posh and polish, this assembly demonstrated an important development within the context of global governance; that is, an intentional alignment between what appeared to be bottom organizations energized by top-tier institutions, and together, advancing a collective agenda.
I had witnessed something similar two years earlier. In May 2000, I attended the United Nations Millennium Forum as an accredited participant (see my book, Game of Gods, for more on this). There, hundreds of civil society organizations – approximately 1,800 registered to attend – met with UN leaders at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. It was essentially a bottom-up, top-down alliance of sorts, happening on a common platform with official support – a convergence set in motion by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan back in 1997.
Now, in Montreal – a bit more than a year after the Twin Towers had collapsed – this collective mood was once again palatable. And what was our task? To build on the vision of international management, à la global governance.
FIM And Global Governance
A question must be asked: What is Global Governance?
Jan Aart Scholte, a political professor and associate of the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick, offered this explanation,
Like “global-speak,” talk of governance is a new addition to the vocabulary of politics. The contemporaneous advent of the two terms is not accidental. Globalization – a reconfiguration of social space – has gone hand in hand with a reconfiguration of regulation. Where we used to speak of government, it is now suitable to speak of governance.1 (italics in original).
In the mid-1990s, the United Nations established a special committee entitled The Commission on Global Governance. Their landmark report, Our Global Neighborhood, outlined a rules-based system with an empowered UN as the cornerstone. To that end, the report suggested the United Nations should be equipped with its own taxation regime and funding mechanisms, its own military force and judicial system, and the ability to make laws enforceable at the international level. Would this be world government? No, the report stated upfront, it would be governance not government – that is, a consensus arrangement instead of a top-down singular authority.
But its own security force, its own taxation powers? Governance implies management, and it would certainly be organized around a common values system, with nation-states acting “in the interests of all.”
“The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet, and that process will always be going on. Our work is no more than a transit stop on that journey. We do not presume to offer a blueprint for all time.”2
“Nor, at another level, does the world’s becoming a neighbourhood mean that the nation-state is no longer relevant. But states, as well as peoples, are challenged to devise ways to manage their affairs — to develop new approaches to governance for the global neighbourhood in the interests of all.”3
Global governance, when stripped of its verbal mask, reveals the face of a new collective order – a common system of enshrined values with nations aligning their domestic policies to its service, and the people re-molded as global citizens.
The FIM Global Governance 2002 (G02) conference – funded by the Government of Quebec, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations – smacked of “world government.”
Eyes Wide Open
The opening session on Sunday, October 13, was a time of mingling, making acquaintances, and re-establishing contacts. Between opening statements, appetizers and cocktails, and two very talented interpretive dance troupes, FIM organizers and participants mingled and greeted and networked.
While at first this doesn’t seem that important, keep in mind that it is in these types of setting wherein one can observe interpersonal dynamics – who receives recognition, who is the center of attention. Stand back and watch, and you’ll gain insights into who’s who, and whose agenda will likely rise to the surface.
Of particular interest was Bill Pace, who was obviously a central figure. Pace is noted for his role in two linked organizations: he’s the Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement (WFM) – the largest pro-world government lobby group – and the Convenor of the NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Both entities played paramount roles in the creation of the International Criminal Court, and many of the organizations present at G02 had partnered in the ICC campaign.
Observing how NGO leaders and FIM organizers responded to Mr. Pace’s presence, it was clear he demonstrated a measure of influence within the global governance movement. In speaking with one of the participants, it was noted that in the past the WFM was viewed with skepticism – this uncertainty, I’m sure, stems from the WFM’s long-standing work towards world government, a project that many political realists have viewed with incredulity. However, because of its role in numerous UN events and its successful promotion of the International Criminal Court, the WFM has gained respect and recognition.
By careful observation during the opening meet-and-greet, it was possible to gain an insight into the direction of the event – to see water cooler diplomacy in action.
G02 Tracks
G02 was structured around nine working tracks. For additional insight into the flavor of the conference, I’ve included quotes from the session descriptions posted on the G02 webpage,4 along with a downloadable background paper.
1) United Nations: A More Democratic and Stronger UN.
…democratic global governance will only be possible if agreements and targets agreed upon in the more democratic and inclusive multilateral frameworks like the UN institutions, are ultimately implemented.
2) Human Rights and Global Governance in the 21st Century.
Although we now realize that the world is not as safe as we may have once believed, we must not allow fear, suspicion, prejudice and military might to be the defining features of international relations. Rather, we must redouble our efforts to create optimal conditions for lasting international peace and security; namely, respect for human rights, democracy, justice and the rule of law.
3) The Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in Global Governance.
…the fundamental question that arises with regard to the governance of societies and to global governance is the following: what will be the democratic nature of the governments of tomorrow, and how much hold will individuals, citizens and their many associations, which constitute the fabric of civil societies, have over the decision-making process and over those who control them?
4) Trade and Global Governance.
In a series of discussions, experienced diplomats, young activists, academics, private attorneys, WTO Secretariat staff and NGO leaders will answer tough questions like:
Are we dealing with human capital or human beings?
Are economic growth and ecological sustainability really compatible?
What about intellectual property "responsibilities"?
What is the jurisdiction of the United Nations?
Is there a role for the International Court of Justice?
How should oil, drugs, guns, slaves and sex trafficking be regulated?
How can trade be managed fairly? Is there a role for the WTO?
5) Global Corporations.
What is the nature of the relation between transnational corporations and the UN system? Is their collective mission compatible with the UN mission?
6) Local Government.
The globalization of the planet is occurring faster than the capacity for adaptation of governance structures… A multi-headed global civil society — an expression of the growing 'people's multilateralism' — is increasingly influencing the international agenda… World democratic governance need to include structures and institutions that are accountable to the electorate, to the people, to all…
7) Transnational Civil Society.
…a structured conversation between representatives of transnational civil society, global financial institutions, the UN, multinational corporations, governments and local bodies.
8) Non-Dominant Groups: The Influence of Non-Dominant Groups on Global Governance - The Case of La Francophonie.
For many participants, even with the use of simultaneous interpretation, the language barrier remains as an obstacle to full and equal participation… How does this deter global civil society from exerting maximum influence in global meetings or international organizations?
9) Financial Flows: Ungoverned? Ungovernable?
Can the power of financial markets be maintained if we are to construct a more democratic world order?
G02 Highlights
The following are three key topics I took note of.
International Criminal Court: Already alluded to, the background work of the World Federalist Movement/ICC Coalition was a focal point. Many of the working sessions acknowledged the ICC as an institution for global change, upholding it as an essential component of global governance. Moreover, as the ICC was launched only a few months earlier — July 1, 2002 — the mood at G02 was both celebratory and visionary. Great things are expected of the ICC, and with it, the advancement of world law.
World Taxation and the new economic order: There was broad support for the Tobin Tax, an international taxation scheme whereby foreign currency transactions and trans-border monetary flows would be charged a small levy — translating into enormous sums. The money raised, it was hoped, would go into UN coffers.
The notion of a Tobin Tax has been circulating in recent years. France and Belgium have debated its feasibility, and the “Finnish Government favours in its coalition agreement the taxation of currency transactions.”5 In 1999, Canada’s House of Commons passed Motion 239, giving the tax a nod. The year previous, Member of Parliament Lorne Nystrom introduced the idea by saying,
If there were a 0.1% Tobin tax on foreign currency transactions, that would raise, in 1995 dollars, $176 billion U.S. That is a lot of money. A Tobin tax of 0.003% would be enough money to fund United Nations peacekeeping around the world…
One of the consequences would be the establishment of a global village which would have a common good amongst all nations of the world. There would be a strengthening of international organizations. The United Nations would become a meaningful world government and would share things with national governments around the world. There could be permanent international peace-keeping forces. There are many things that could be done.6
Civil society organizations at G02 were encouraged to continue lobbying politicians, and US lawmakers in particular, in the hope that the industrialized countries would begin this taxation program between themselves. If major democracies would implement the tax, it was then believed other countries would be forced to join under pressure — in other words, coercion for the greater good. Doing so would give the United Nations the funding it needs to break from limiting national constraints.
Furthermore, it was noted, if the major institutions of economic global governance — the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization (WTO) — could be re-aligned within an empowered United Nation, then a new social contract would unfold wherein financial powers would serve the planet.
World Parliament: In 1997, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan outlined a reform agenda for the United Nations, hoping to see it become a “common instrument of global service.”7 To the excitement of pro-UN groups and World Federalist organizations, his report acknowledged civil society as a powerful dynamic shaping global discourse: “Virtually no area of United Nations involvement, at either the policy or operational level, has been left unchanged by the process.”8
For those NGOs and civil society networks that had contributed to this overall development, Annan’s message was a clear signal to move forward faster. Considering this, one long-running idea was reinvigorated, that of a democratically elected Global People’s Assembly or “people’s congress.”
Only a world parliament can solve global problems, so the argument goes. Thus, civil society – which Annan recognized as bringing transparency to the international community – must become a collective force to bring this about, influencing its creation and possibly framing how it operates. Serious conversations to that end had already occurred, including at the UN Millennium Forum.
As “redefining global democracy” was central to G02, this prospect of a People’s Assembly was embedded in the discussions. Should this be a stand-alone body that gives council to the UN, or should it be a formal organ of the United Nations? How about the WTO? Could a People’s Assembly act as a moral voice within economic globalization? During a question-and-answer period with Bill Graham, the Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (the equivalent to the US Department of State and Collin Powell), Mr. Graham said he favored a WTO parliamentary structure.
And what about national sovereignty? Would this be redefined?
Andrew Strauss, professor of international law and a G02 participant, explained in the Stanford Journal of International Law that a Global People’s Assembly/world parliament would “at the most general level, challenge the traditional claim of states that each has a sovereign right to act autonomously.”9
Conclusions Of Global Governance 2002
G02 demonstrates the ongoing role of civil society within the global community; that special interest groups, partnering with the United Nations, act as a visioning agency or engine-of-change. They exist as a progressive force to frame narratives, suggest options and engineer campaigns, and engage in advocacy to influence policy-making and cultural acceptance.
To that end, G02 participants will take the call of United Nations empowerment back to their home countries and regions. They will petition and advise governments while building networks to enhance global governance — supporting new developments like the International Criminal Court and pressing lesser-known initiatives such as a global assembly and international taxation regime. Time will tell where this lands, but the fact remains that these ideas have been circulating for decades within civil society, and will continue to recirculate until something sticks.
Many of the government officials who attended will also inculcate the message, infusing the worldview of global oneness within their agencies and programs. Participating UN officials will have strengthened alliances, potentially gaining new allies, while firming up common narratives.
For the record, it must be noted that not all agreed. I talked to a couple of government officials and one professor who had problems with what was being proposed. Moreover, a handful of NGO representatives seemed broadsided by the discussions; evidently these individuals had been sent by their organizations but were not informed regarding the larger context. For the most part, however, those who attended supported a global governance regime spearheaded by an empowered United Nations.
For you and me, the G02 symposium gives us a glimpse into designs for world order. We can see movements such as this as being more than just theoretical constructs, but as incubators for ideas that potentially have real-world consequences. If anything, it represents lines of demarcation between assumptions of sovereignty and authority, autonomy and organization, freedom and collective visions of management. ■
Endnotes:
Jan Aart Scholte, “Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance,” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, Volume 8, Number 3, July-Sept., 2002, p.287.
Our Global Neighborhood (Oxford University Press, 1995), p.xvi.
Ibid., p.43.
The G02 webpage is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20020811201007/http://www.fimcivilsociety.org/g02/english/index.html.
Peter Wahl and Peter Waldow, Currency Transaction Tax – a Concept With a Future (World Economy, Energy and Development Association, Working Paper, 2001), p.4.
House of Commons Debates: Hansard, Volume 135, Number 144, 1st Session, 36th Parliament (October 28, 1998), p.9543.
“Secretary-General Pledges ‘Quiet Revolution’ in United Nations, Presents Reform Proposals to General Assembly,” United Nations Press Release, SG/SM/6284, GA/9282 (https://press.un.org/en/1997/19970716.sgsm6284.html). See his report to that end, Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform (A/51/950, 1997).
Kofi Annan, Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform (A/51/950, 1997), paragraph 212, p.68.
Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, “On the Creation of a Global Peoples Assembly: Legitimacy and the Power of Popular Sovereignty,” Stanford Journal of International Law, volume 2, 2000.