ZURICH--The
World Economic Forum (WEF) is a foundation, whose
members include 1,000 of the world's foremost international
companies, claiming to represent entrepreneurship
in the global public interest. In truth, however,
the WEF represents the economic interests of its
own members and endeavours to widen the influence
of entrepreneurship in international politics.
With a vision in mind of a network of the most
influential opinion leaders and decision makers,
it brings together every year, alongside its members
from the world of business, a number of high-ranking
politicians and discusses with them on an informal
basis the world's future. At the annual meeting
in Davos, there are indeed no formal political
decisions made, but pivotal economic-political
course directions are set.
In the
past, WEF meetings have paved the way for the launch
of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)
Uruguay Round, from which the World Trade Organization
(WTO) was born, and for the launch of the North American
Free Trade Agreement. These were milestones in the
global liberalization process, each time guaranteeing
new and easier market access for the transnational
corporations in the WEF.
The
annual meeting takes
place for the
most part with the
public excluded: the
WEF itself decides
which media representatives
are allowed inside
its annual meeting.
Free access to all
the meetings is granted
only to those who belong
to the WEF-club of "World
Media Leaders." Besides
this lack of transparency,
our nonprofit watchdog
group, "The Public
Eye on Davos," complains
about the fact that
only a few critical
voices are heard inside
the WEF annual meeting.
It is far from being
a balanced platform
where all stakeholders
are represented; thus,
among the almost 3000
participants at the
annual meeting there
are only fifty representatives
of NGOs present. The
topics and the rules
of the game are all
decreed by the WEF.
Seen
in the face of this,
the alleged multi-stakeholder
approach and the WEF's
self-imposed obligation
to be "committed
to improving the state
of the world" remains
an empty promise. Essentially,
the WEF remains completely
committed to the credo
of neo-liberalism,
according to which
opening up world markets
and following policies
of unrestricted expansion
presents an effective
panacea for global
challenges such as
poverty. This illusion
flies in the face of
the experience of past
decades: whilst the
North and its transnational
corporations have profited
from this economic
policy, world poverty
was not able to be
reduced and the gap
between rich and poor
has become even bigger.
In November 2001 the
WEF decided to transfer
its conference temporarily
from Davos to New York.
According to the WEF,
this decision is to
be understood as a
sign of solidarity
with the city that
was hit by terrorist
attacks -- a solidarity
that so far has been
sadly lacking on the
part of the WEF as
far as those who are
on the losing side
of globalisation are
concerned.
"The Public Eye
on Davos" is a
joint initiative of
NGOs from various countries
worldwide and from
all the continents.
The project aims to
provide informed criticism
of the WEF and the
neoliberal policies
it promotes as well
as to challenge corporate-driven
globalization. The
Public Eye demands
that international
economic policies are
discussed in public,
transparent and democratically
legitimate platforms,
instead in the WEF.
It campaigns for legally
binding regulation
of transnational corporations
on a global level in
order to effectively
protect human rights
and the environment.
"The Public Eye
on Davos" is also
the name of an international
conference that takes
place during the same
period as the WEF annual
meeting since the year
2000. The Public Eye
conference 2002 will
take place in New York
City, in the UN church
center (opposite the
UN headquarters), not
very far from the Hotel
Waldorf=Astoria, where
the WEF will convene
for its annual meeting.
Topics of the counter-conference
will be the negative
affects caused by one-sided
economic globalisation.
In addition, representatives
from countries of both
South and North will
propose alternatives
which are aimed at
bringing about more
democratic decision-making
structures at international
level, and more equitable
and ecologically sustainable
economic development.
|