"Do you think
the [World Economic] Forum really deserves
to be the target of so much protest?" The
question was asked by a well dressed
man, who identified himself to me
as a Californian involved in the
environmental
movement. The two of us had both
sought out a quiet corner near the
Plenary Hall
on the third floor of the Waldorf,
he to read the Sunday New York Times,
piles
of which were on display in several
places. I had just come from the
lobby, where,
to my surprise, not a single copy
of The Earth Times was to be seen.
I
knew that our Sunday paper had a page-one story critical
of the Forum's treatment of the press, and it occurred
to me that perhaps some Forum officials had confiscated
all the copies. (I found out later that was precisely
what had happened.)
My
answer to the man's question was: "Yes
and no." No, because the Forum is a private
organization and is therefore entitled to conduct
its business confidentially and undisturbed.
On the other hand, there are several reasons
why the answer is clearly: Yes, yes, yes. For
one thing, the Forum is the world's only private
institution that is universally identified as
promoting globalization. So, to the extent that
globalization is perceived as causing any harm
in the world, such as widening the gap between
rich and poor countries, the Forum is certain
to be seen as part of the problem.
What's
more, since the Forum's motto is "improving
the state of the world," the rest of us
who live in that world have every right to be
curious--yes, and suspicious too--about what
it is up to. Whenever rich and powerful people
meet with government leaders behind closed doors,
as they are meeting here at the Waldorf, there
is ample cause for concern.
To allay such suspicions and concerns, the Forum
has a fundamental obligation to make the process
as open and transparent as possible. If it cannot
or will not open its sessions to the public,
it should at least open them to the press.
And,
speaking of the press, it hardly needs to be
mentioned
that any organization billing
itself as a "global forum" must be
tolerant of all sorts of voices and viewpoints,
including the voices of people who are critical
of the way it operates.
Unfortunately,
as The Earth Times reported on Sunday, the
organizers of the Forum are not so
much concerned about the public's "right
to know" as they are about keeping a tight
lid on the proceedings.
Their decision yesterday to ban distribution
of the newspaper in the Waldorf is just further
evidence of their public-be-damned attitude,
to say nothing of their contempt for such fundamental
values as press freedom and respect for diverse
views.
Does the Forum deserve the criticism that has
been directed against it? You can decide that
for yourself. Is the Forum also deserving of
praise for the work it does? I would say that
is; some of the workshops and other sessions
it has put together here in New York, as in previous
years in Davos, have been truly outstanding and
worthwhile, and I have genuinely enjoyed attending
them, covering them and taking part in them.
At the same time, though, I have found the atmosphere
in the Forum, including the discrimination against
and censorship of the press, so poisonous as
to be almost unbearable. I am immensely relieved
that this assignment comes to an end today and
I will be able to move on to other things.
Ultimately, I suppose, my feelings about the
Forum are best summed up by what someone else
once said about a dead mackerel in the moonlight:
It shines and it stinks.
|
