One month after the Porto Alegre World Social Forum, the Financial Times ran a full page feature "Attack on Planet Davos" by John Lloyd. Although the article will annoy lots of people who were there (and even those who weren't) for its caricatures of the left and out-of-context quotes, at the end Lloyd conceded that he found in Porto Alegre "enough arguments to seduce goodhearted liberals everywhere into supporting its struggle against inequality."
"Porto Alegre and the demonstrations and fervour associated with it," he declares "are now a fixture." And if the Financial Times, the ultimate icon of liberal capitalism says it's a fixture, well that's good enough for us. In this issue, Walden Bello and Nicola Bullard write about the attack on Planet Davos (and if the FT can do it a month later, so can we).
But while the 10,000 strong forces gathered in Porto Alegre, the world kept turning.
In Ecuador, an historical battle was fought and won. In this issue of Focus on Trade Gerard Coffey, a writer and social activist who has lived in Quito for many years (and who also translates Focus on Trade into Spanish) assesses the gains for the people of Ecuador.
In Africa, James Wolfensohn and Horst Kohler were "listening and learning." According to the World Bank's press report of 15 February, they were expected to "discuss with African leaders how to diversify their 'single-crop economies' which have suffered from declining exports, poor business innovation and massive losses of capital and skill." One can't help but wonder whether useful something might be learned in a discussion about why many African countries have single-crop economies, or the risks of export-oriented agriculture, or what can be done about falling commodity prices.
The World Bank also hopes "that the meetings will help African markets integrate into a global economy that has seemed impenetrable to most of them." It seems that no matter what the African leaders or the African people might say to Kohler and Wolfensohn and no matter what they might try to teach the Bank and the Fund from their bitter experience, the solution is to integrate into the global economy.
In this issue, Marjorie Mbilinyi from the Tanzania Gender Networking Programme gives some insights into the sort of "listening and learning" that takes place when the IFI road-show comes to town.
And although the Bank is trying to re-invent itself as a listening and learning institution, the boundaries of dissent and control seem to be ever more tightly drawn, as Alex Wilks discovered in his investigations of the Global Development Gateway (the "knowledge" Bank's most recent burst of imperial overstretch). Many will also recall the experience of Ravi Kanbur who resigned from the Bank rather change the 'emphasis' of the 2000 World Development Report. Since then, Kanbur has become something of an icon but, as Raj Patel discovers in his review of Kanbur's "Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: The Nature of Disagreements," even those who defy the Bank can still be trapped inside an apolitical and economistic mindset.
When Davos Meets Porto Alegre: A Memoir
Walden Bello*
"Hemingway said that the rich are different from you and me. How can anyone expect the people in Davos to understand the crisis that globalization has visited on the lives of people like those of us here in Porto Alegre?" That was going to be my opening line.
When I arrived at the university studio for the televised trans-Atlantic debate with George Soros, the financier, and other representatives of the global elite gathered in Davos, Switzerland, a visibly shaken Florian Rochat of the Swiss delegation was waiting for me. Swiss are known for being impassive, but Florian was visibly shaken. "They are arresting protestors in Davos and other places in Switzerland," he told me. "They're killing democracy in our country. Our friends there are asking you to support them in calling for the shutting down of the World Economic Forum."
That request drove out any lingering desire to be "nice" in the coming exchange, which had been billed by its producers as a "Dialogue between Davos and Porto Alegre." The ambitious four-satellite hook-up, pulled together by the independent production company Article Z - which now stands to lose $100,000 on the quarter million dollar project (www.articlez.fr) -- aimed to explore if there was a common ground between the annual elite gathering in Davos and the newly launched World Social Forum (WSF) in this southern Brazilian city. Millions of people globally were waiting for the transmission.
Since I had been in Davos last year, the producers requested that I make the opening statement for the Porto Alegre side. I obliged with the following: "We would like to begin by condemning the arrests of peaceful demonstrators to shield the global elite at Davos from protests. We would also like to register our consternation that while we in Porto Alegre have painstakingly come up with a diverse panel of speakers, you in Davos have come up with four white males to face us. But perhaps you are trying to make a political statement.
"I was in Davos last year, and believe me, Davos is not worth a second visit. I am here in Porto Alegre this year, and let me say that Porto Alegre is the future while Davos is the past. Hemingway wrote that the rich are different from you and me, and indeed, we live on two different planets: Davos, the planet of the superrich, Porto Alegre, the planet of the poor, the marginalized, the concerned. Here in Porto Alegre, we are discussing how to save the planet. There in Davos, the global elite is discussing how to maintain its hegemony over the rest of us. In fact, the best gift that the 2000 corporate executives at Davos can give to the world is for them to board a spaceship and blast off for outer space. The rest of us will definitely be much better off without them.
The press termed the next 1-1/2 hours not as a debate but as an emotional exchange that, as the Financial Times put it, "sometimes degenerated into personal insults." But I and the other panelists-among them, Oded Grajew of Brazil's Instituto Ethos, Bernard Cassen of Le Monde Diplomatique, Diane Matte of Women's Global March, Njoki Njehu of 50 Years Is Enough, Rafael Alegria of Via Campesina, Aminata Traore, former Minister of Culture of Mali, Fred Azcarate of Jobs with Justice, Trevor Ngbane of South Africa, Francois Houtart of Belgium, and Hebe de Bonafini of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo-were simply reflecting the non-conciliatory mood towards the Davos crowd of most of the 12,000 people who flocked to Porto Alegre.
For this constituency, a significant number of whom watched the debate at a huge auditorium at the Catholic University, globalization was a deadly business, and many undoubtedly shared the feelings of Hebe de Bonafini when she screamed at Soros across the Atlantic divide, "Mr. Soros, you are a hypocrite. How many children's deaths have you been responsible for?" That Soros in the course of the debate made some utterances regarding the need to control the negative impacts of globalization hardly endeared him to this crowd, who saw him mainly as a finance speculator who had made billions of dollars at the expense of third world economies.
The holding of the weeklong World Social Forum was nothing short of a miracle. Proposed by the Workers' Party of Brazil (PT) and a coalition of Brazilian civil society organizations, supported with significant funding by donors such as Novib, the Dutch agency, and provided with strong international support by the French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique and Attac, the European anti-globalization alliance, the event was put together in less than eight months' time. The idea of holding an alternative to the annual retreat of the global corporate elite in Davos simply took off. While there were some glitches here and there, the event was resoundingly successful, despite the massive challenge of coordinating 16 plenary sessions, over 400 workshops, and numerous side events.
A major reason for the WSF's success is that it had the organizational support of the government of the city of Porto Alegre and the government of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, both of which are controlled by the PT. Porto Alegre has, in fact, achieved the reputation of being a city that is run both efficiently and with sensitivity to social and environmental considerations. The city is said to be at the top of the quality of life index for Brazil.
The sharing in Porto Allegre focused not only on drawing up strategies of resistance to globalization but also on elaborating alternative paradigms of economic, ecological, and social development. Militant action was not absent, with Jose Bove, the celebrated French anti-McDonalds' activist, and the Brazilian MST (Movement of the Landless), leading the destruction of two hectares of land planted with transgenic soybean crops by the biotechnological firm Monsanto.
Porto Alegre achieved its goal of being a counterpoint to Davos. The combination of celebration, hard discussion, and militant solidarity that flowed from it contrasted with the negative images coming out of Davos. The Swiss town was the center of Switzerland's biggest security operation since the Second World War. The Swiss police pulled out all the stops to prevent protesters from reaching the alpine resort, and fired water cannons and tear gas on demonstrators in Zurich, arresting many of them. Even conservative Swiss newspapers condemned the police operation as a threat to political liberties in Switzerland.
Perhaps the outcome of the duel between Davos and Porto Alegre was best summed up by George Soros: "The excessive precautions were a victory for those who wanted to disrupt Davos. It was an overreaction. It helped to radicalize the situation."
On his performance in the televised debate with Porto Alegre, Soros commented: "It showed it is not easy to dialogue...I don't particularly like to be abused. My masochism has its limits." Observed the Financial Times: "Such uncomfortable experiences seem temporarily to have scrambled his ability to deliver pithy soundbites."
But Soros was not alone in flubbing his lines. Soon after my opening statement, Bernard Cassen of Le Monde Diplomatique leaned over and told me: "Walden, it wasn't Hemingway who said the rich are different from you and me. It was Scott Fitzgerald."
*Dr. Walden Bello is executive director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South and professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines.
There's something about George
Nicola Bullard*
They say that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Well, in the land of Davos, George Soros is an honest man. Or so it seemed by the end of the now almost-famous Porto Alegre-Davos debate -- a high-tech, low-budget satellite link connecting the chilly capitalism of Switzerland with the red-hot radicalism of Rio Grande du Sul.
In public relations terms it was a triumph for the people. In Davos, we saw four white men in grey suits shivering in a gloomy church. And in Porto Alegre, a Bennetton-ad panorama of ages, races, languages, men and women in a crowded auditorium.
Given the balance of forces, what should have been a first round knockout for the Porto Alegre hard-hitters, turned into a long slug. Partly because the Porto Alegre panelists were not listening to the undercurrents of the debate and missed some golden opportunities (always easier to see from the outside, of course). But also because the other side simply oozed sticky sincerity. They were there to "dialogue."
All except George Soros, that is, who was honest to the point of blunt. At the outset he insisted "...I think I should clarify that there is a Davos. But, I think that we sitting here are perhaps not the best representatives of Davos, because if we were, we probably wouldn't be here." Which is a rather convoluted way of saying, first, that the 'real' Davos doesn't give a damn about what the people in Porto Alegre think and, second, that Soros didn't want to be seen as the voice of Davos.
It's not so easy to rewrite history, of course. For most people George Soros is the symbol par excellence of global finance, the maestro of the hedge fund, with a fabulous fortune accumulated by currency speculation (and now being "whitewashed" through his philanthropic activities).
But even if Soros saw the downside of assuming the Davos mantle, his co-panelists seemed to have no qualms. Mark Malloch Brown, boss of UNDP and former chief of World Bank public relations and John Ruggie, special adviser to Kofi Annan, seemed quite happy to be associated with Davos, as did Bjorn Edlund, head of corporate communications for the Swedish-Swiss transnational corporation ABB.
Mr Edlund, too, has his UN connection. Just that day, Kofi Annan had told his "colleagues" in Davos that Goran Lindahl (ABB's retiring CEO and Mr Edland's former boss) would be "leading the corporate recruitment effort and providing strategic guidance" as Annan's special adviser on the Global Compact. (1) According to Annan "(Lindahl) brings to this challenge not only a very successful business career, but also a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility and citizenship."
We could also add that he brings a vast experience of large-scale dam and power generation projects, but that might be churlish. After all ABB sold its embarrassing stake in the Three Gorges project and Malaysia's huge Bakun dam, in which ABB was the major partner, was shelved by the government after the financial crash of 1997.
But maybe the corporate leopard can change his spots?
Yes, according to John Ruggie who told the audience in Porto Alegre that the Global Compact "...is an example of progressive change... of how one can make a difference even if only in small steps," adding (no doubt to establish his progressive credentials) "I believe it was Chairman Mao who said that every long march begins with a small step."
No way, according to Soros. "Let me differ from you a little bit on the Global Compact," Soros said turning to Ruggie. "I think it is well intended, but it does have an element of whitewash or blue-wash in it. I know that you are full of good will and I recognise your sincerity. But it's very hard for business to sort of step out of its skin. Business is basically run for profit..."
Unfortunately this gift was squandered by the Porto Alegre panelists who were too busy building up their indignation at not being given enough speaking time. It would have been fun to see some internal squabbling.
And Soros's candour didn't stop there. When challenged by Le Monde Diplomatique editor Bernard Cassen to "take a petition into Davos" and enlist support for the cancellation of Third World debt, a Tobin Tax and a ban on tax havens, Soros admitted, "We would probably not collect too many signatures. ...we are not representatives of Davos here so I don't think it will be too successful in getting signatures. "
But the other three made no attempt to distance themselves from Davos and all it stands for. They were the willing emissaries to the frontline engaging with the anti-globalisation enemies. Which raises some questions: why would two very senior UN staff front for Davos? Is the Global Compact their only answer to the critics? Why assume the burden of Davos when the World Economic Forum itself not only refused to formally join the debate but also refused press accreditation to the programme producer Patrice Barrat?
Yet the Davos panelists felt that they had been unfairly attacked and misunderstood. They had come - in good faith they said -- to "dialogue."
The confrontational, demanding and uncompromising positions forcefully put by the Porto Alegre panelists were clearly outside the gentlemanly rules of "dialogue." But there is no way that the Financial Times would headline the "Attack on Planet Davos" if people had been nice to each other.
Soros, Malloch Brown and others may think that we can sit down and "dialogue" but as Raj Patel says in his article (above) " 'dialogue' itself favours the very status quo that protesters wish to overturn."
And a footnote to the WSF organisers...
For all the frustrations and lost opportunities in the debate, the World Social Forum organising committee could learn a lot from the carefully considered gender, age, racial and language diversity of the satellite debate. This group reflected both the actual and imagined "spirit of Porto Alegre" in contrast to the bizarre opening press conference which was like a scene from the Last Supper: twelve bearded men (and one without) seated at a long table. One woman upset the Biblical simplicity. "If this is the future," I thought, "then count me out." Fortunately, things got better, a lot better. But more on that another time, or read Naomi Klein's "A fete for the end of history" in The Nation, 19 March (www.thenation.com).
* Nicola Bullard works with Focus on the Global South in Bangkok.
(1) The Global Compact is a non-binding, non-enforceable and voluntary set of principles supported by various trade unions, NGOs, business associations and corporations. For more on the Global Compact see www.corpwatch.org
"We have come to listen"
Marjorie Mbilinyi*
A peaceful demonstration was organised by local activist NGOs at the meeting site of the heads of the IMF and the World Bank and the presidents of ten Eastern and Southern African countries on Friday, February 23, 2001. The activists were moved to hold a demonstration because of the exclusion of civil society organisations in the talks, and the desire to express their views in as public a manner as possible. Their main focus was on the need for total debt cancellation and a different approach to development. [see earlier press release at www/tgnp.co.tz] Some of the placards read: "Why do IMF and World Bank rob the poor to pay the rich?" "end debt slavery" "Charges for education and health can only be paid by James Wolfensohn and Horst Kohler" "We want total debt cancellation"
The police used force to stop the demonstration. Three activists were arrested on the spot, including a staff member of Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TGNP), Daudi Kweba, and two leaders of the National Youth Forum (Gwandumi Mwakatobe and Lito Kabwe), and bundled into police cars. A journalist from a major daily newspaper, Mtanzania, Jackton Manyerere, was severely beaten by police when he tried to pick up some of the fallen placards. The chairperson of TGNP, Demere Kitunga, was beaten at Central Police Station when she arrived to bail out the others, and later arrested, along with three other members of TGNP. A total of seven activists were held and interrogated for six hours, and only released at nightfall after the intervention of five top human rights lawyers.
On Saturday, February 24, 2001, the heads of IMF and the World Bank held a briefing session with the press, the private sector, donors and civil society organisations, under the chair of the President of Tanzania, Benjamin Mkapa. The way in which this meeting was organised illustrated the illusory nature of democracy within the International Financial Institutions, and the dependent governments they support, especially in the light of the previous day's police repression. First of all, the meeting was by invitation only, with many organisations excluded. The Presidents of IMF, the World Bank and Tanzania each spoke briefly. [The general consensus among activists was that there was nothing new!] Questions were restricted to the press. The meeting was cut short after about 30 minutes of questions and answer, just as activist NGOs were about to raise questions. Hence, we were duped into attending a glorified press conference as mere passive spectators, along with ambassadors from donor countries, United Nations development agencies, representatives of 'the private sector' as well as activist NGOs.
The explanation for the change in timetable? The visitors had to be rushed to Ngorongoro Crater Area by air where they would hold discussions with Ministry of Finance officials! [Ngorongoro Crater Area is a good example of the growth of tourist/wildlife industry at the expense of the rights and welfare of local communities.] However, before their departure, there was enough time for a cocktail party, with ample alcoholic beverages and scrumptious bites for a select few to meet informally with the visiting imperial Heads of IMF and World Bank, their local representatives and top government officials.
During the meeting, one sympathetic member of the press asked the IFI heads whether they enjoyed the arrest and brutal handling of the demonstrators on the previous day. The head of World Bank cynically replied that given his experiences elsewhere, "yesterday was a holiday". So much for commitment to "broadbased consultative processes"! On the other hand, President Mkapa replied that the police had erred, that the protesters were serving the interests of the country, and concluded, "I assure you that they have a right to express an opinion." Whether this was merely a public relations gesture will reveal itself later. So far, those arrested are out on bail, but remain charged with illegal assembly.
The whole exercise calls into question the meaning of participation and consultation from the perspectives of the IFIs and their client governments. It reinforces doubts about prospects of reform from within these institutions, and the urgent need to build a broad social movement for change. The arrogance portrayed today by leaders of institutions and nations is symptomatic of the gap between them and the people they rule.
* Professor Marjorie Mbilinyi is a member of the Tanzanian Gender Networking Programme
The 'Established Order'
Gerard Coffey*
On the 16th of January 2001, a little less than one year after the indigenous people and a small group of-mid rank army officers had taken control of the Ecuadorian Congress and Presidential palace, and a little more than a few days after the beginning of a new indigenous protest against the imposition of economic measures, the Ecuadorian military joint command issued the following statement.
"The forces of public order will act firmly and decisively, based on the rule of law, in order to combat any intent to destabilise the established order ... The armed forces and the police will assume no responsibility for the consequences which result from the accomplishment of their constitutional mission to safeguard life, property and the legal activity of the citizens of the country"
One week later, On the 23rd of January, four native people were shot while they blocked a road leading from the mid-sized city of Latacunga to the capital city Quito. From all reports the two hundred or so people blocking the road did so peacefully. They were not armed.
These two events mark the turning point in what was, up until that time, a relatively low-key protest. In the following days both the extent and the tone of the protest increased. Five thousand people marched in Latacunga, the closure of roads spread to other provinces and a decision was taken by indigenous leaders to begin a march on Quito. The government's position was clear. We will not negotiate while the disruptive measures continue, the economic measures are non-negotiable.
The final outcome of the more than two weeks of protests clearly show that, as in the past, the government's strategy did not work. President Noboa was forced to the table. His popularity dropped to 30%. The economic measures were changed. The indigenous movement showed once again that after more than five hundred years of virtual and often real oblivion, it is a political force that can not be denied. Almost 80% of the population are now supportive of the movement.
But the price paid was high. Four dead and eighty injured. Hundreds arrested. And this without counting the economic costs, both for the producers who could not ship their goods, and for Ecuadorians who will pay the cost of the massive police and military presence, the cost of the bullets that injured and killed them, and the thousands upon thousands of tear gas canisters used to maintain the "established order". An interesting phrase.
The specific events of those two weeks of protest have been well recorded. The arrival of 15,000 native people in Quito. The state of siege imposed on the Salesian University where the majority were housed. The declaration of the state of emergency. Battles between troops and indigenous people and campesinos in a number of places, but most seriously around the city of Tena, the capital of the Amazonian Province of Napo. There, three people died, including the son of an army sergeant, his brains blown out by an army bullet during the fighting. Twenty more including soldiers were injured. The Tena airport control tower burned after rumours circulated that the armed forces were about to bomb the town. The final signing of the 21-point peace treaty, for that is what it amounted to. The reduction of the price of gas. The freezing of gasoline prices for one year. The withdrawal of the indigenous road blocks. The avoiding of a more generalised armed conflict. The collective sigh of relief.
These are the concrete events, but it could prove both interesting and useful to go beyond them, examining in a little more detail both the context and the root causes of the conflict. Interesting because of the juxtaposition of global events. While the poorest of the Ecuadorian poor were marching and rebelling against economic measures that threaten to make their lives even more miserable, the richest of the world's rich were meeting in Davos Switzerland, and bewailing the fate of globalisation and the impacts on the poor that are staining its name. Useful because these events did not arise spontaneously, rather they are the result of a number of economic and social policies implemented by successive Ecuadorian governments, often at the behest or insistence of the representatives of the "established order" that were meeting in Davos.
With regard to the root causes, one very basic question comes to mind. Why was it necessary for native people to be killed and injured in order to lower the cost of a cylinder of cooking gas from $2 to $1.60? or event to be heard at all?. The answers are complex, and function on different levels, but they are not impossible to decipher.
On the most concrete and local level, Ecuadorians died and were injured because President Noboa assumed a hard line regarding any negotiations with the protestors, and at the same time encouraged the armed forces to act with severity in repressing them. Why did he do so? Because the revolt of the previous January still weigh heavily on Noboa himself, who became president as a result of the events of that day, on the economic power brokers, who were on the point of finding themselves on a plane to Miami, and on the armed forces who, while they were shown to be both sensitive to the plight of the poor (particularly the army), were also shown to have deep divisions within their ranks, and between branches.
This time around, neither the President nor the hawks that surround him were willing to risk another change of command, even though it was perfectly obvious from the statements of the indigenous leaders that no one (or very few) was interested in another president. This in strict contrast to the previous January when the agenda was clear; Send Them Packing (President, Congress and Judiciary). On the other hand, the regime's hard liners (minister of State Manrique and Minster of Defence, Admiral Hugo Unda) were also determined to show that the armed forces and the police would not be accomplices to another "Indian rebellion". The established order would be maintained, come hell or high water.
But there are other less obvious and more underlying reasons for the deaths and injuries. Reasons that range in scope from the national to the regional to the global.
First of all on the national level, the "Indians", for all intents and purposes, are still not considered as forming part of "real" Ecuadorian society. Conquered, marginalised and brutalised for centuries, the native people have recently become aware of and begun to exercise their own power, and their ability to influence political and economic events. But many Mestizo and "white" segments of society are still suffering from a form of colonialist time lag, considering the native people, at best pityingly, as quaint and childlike, at worst with hatred, as ignorant troublemakers and a burden for the members of real society (i.e. themselves) who just want to work and compete in the new globalised world. Juan Jose Pons, ex President of Congress, put it most plainly when he said in an interview with the national daily "El Comercio", that the government is basically comprised of people from the coast (i.e. Guayaquil) and that "on the coast we just don't understand the indigenous problem"
So as people "misunderstood" and with no recognised rights, the "indians" are therefore to be dealt with severely if they try to cause problems for real society. For example, a representative of the Guayas Chamber of Industry has been quoted as asking why, if the armed forces are supposedly trained to invade another country, they are not able to deal with the indigenous uprising.
Secondly, since the rebellion of the 21st of January 2000 the Ecuadorian armed forces have come under the watchful eye of the U.S., and its operations stop or rollback the guerrilla expansion in Colombia. From the point of view of the U.S., it is simply not good strategy to have potentially troublesome left leaning elements in the armed forces of a neighbouring country when you are about to exert military pressure on a major leftist guerrilla movement. The presence of these troublesome elements becomes even more problematic when that neighbouring country has just agreed to hand over, without congressional debate, a new U.S. military base in South America, and a new point of operations to replace the one lost in Panama with the transfer of control of the canal zone.
According to the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Charles Wilhelm, one of the objectives behind the agreement to lease the new base, and the port of Manta, is that of "reorienting" the Ecuadorian armed forces. A high-ranking official in the Ecuadorian armed forces expressed his concern about this reorientation in the following manner:
"Part of this reorientation is to modify the training of the Ecuadorian military to one similar to that of the armies of the Southern Cone (Principally Argentina and Chile), within a repressive doctrine, taking into account the reality of the regions" He also stated that in order to achieve this end "it is necessary to eliminate the progressive elements that could oppose (this initiative)".
As ex President Leon Febres Cordero succinctly put it, the role of the armed forces is not to think like sociologists, but to act.
Finally, on the global level, Ecuadorians died because the IMF, one of the three pillars of the neoliberal system enshrined in Davos, insists on economic reforms that for the vast majority of Ecuadorians only add to a multitude of present problems, while promising little relief in the long term. Of course, there are clearly other actors with responsibility for the recent events. The IMF does not do, nor even order, the shooting, nor does it directly twist the arm of the Ecuadorian government. However in a world in which, according to the economic elites, globalisation is the only alternative; in which the Ecuadorian state has lost control over fiscal policy due to its adoption of the dollar as the national currency; in exports are promoted to markets over which it exercises no control; in which the IMF, as one of the major forces for the expansion of the economic and commercial interests of the industrialised nations, is the only recourse in the case of a financial crisis, or indeed to simply balance the budget; and in which the approval of the Fund is necessary in order to renegotiate external debt with the creditors such as the Paris Club, what the IMF says is, for all intents and purposes, law.
No one is fooled by the multilateral institution's low-key approach, both government and the native people see all this clearly. They just differ in their responses to the problem. Its Davos versus Porto Alegre, played out on a national stage.
The President and his administration, and the people they represent, and who are generally those who benefit from globalisation or, more concretely, from the emphasis on export markets, competitiveness, privatisation etc., respond by getting down to the business of business: putting the books, and the country, in order; maintaining creditworthiness with the G7 and the multilateral financial institutions; voting against Cuba at the U.N; handing over military bases to the U.S.; repressing opposition to make sure that the economy gets "back on track".
The indigenous people on the other hand are not simply looking for a quick fix. Their banner is other. Despite the fact that the average income of an indigenous family is approximately $40 per month and that 39% rural indigenous people are chronically undernourished, what the they and their organisations are looking for is not just solutions to their own problems but to those of all poor Ecuadorians, and in a larger sense to the problems of a substantial portion of humankind: a more just and equitable economic system, respect for cultural diversity, environmental sustainability, food sovereignty, stimulation of national over international markets, participation etc.
What President Noboa, and his advisors and friends learned during the rebellion of last January was that if the indigenous people are allowed to become protagonists for all the country's poor, and thereby achieve power, the very basis of their wealth and power, the Davos version of globalisation and their lucrative part in it, is threatened by another very different vision of society.
Its a tricky problem for the system, a problem that will need to be resolved in a timely fashion if this latest uprising is not to just another in a series that, one way or another, will erode their power. Tricky because a few bullets obviously don't work, and massive military repression of the Argentinean or Chilean scale isn't fashionable at present, and besides it frightens away "foreign investors". On the other hand, within ten years the indigenous people and their long-term project could perhaps become an unstoppable electoral force.
So for them the final question becomes, in the face of the indigenous "threat", how to maintain "the established order". Perhaps the most pertinent clue lies in the very processes of globalisation, and how globalisation itself functions in maintaining that order.
Generally speaking, institutions and systems, such as democracy, are officially "useful" only as long as they work for the most powerful interests, but when they don't, something better has to be found or invented. At times this involves leaving in place the "democratic" facade while actually channeling power through other less open and transparent institutions that are more responsive to the control of the more powerful economic interests.
A perfect example is that of the United Nations, stripped of almost all its power because it doesn't work in the interests of the most powerful nation, or to be generous, nations. So either the UN changes to fit the new reality (global compact etc.) and/or exits the international stage as an effective actor, while the real power is transferred to the Bretton Woods Organisations. Also illustrative of this tendency is a recent call for the formation of a different world trade organisation which would work with only the rich countries and leave the rest to their own devices. If one could guarantee that the rest would in fact be left alone, perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea. But while there is still something to be gained, such as a semblance of participation or equity, then the WTO in its present unstable and unwieldy form will continue to exist, while the real emphasis will be placed on regional and inter-regional agreements.
All of which goes toward saying that as Ecuador probably isn't in the position to do away with democracy, some attempt will probably be made to adapt "democracy", just in case the "indians" do manage to win at the ballot box.
We have already seen a number of possible responses. The first is virtual autonomy for the regions, i.e. turning the port of Guayaquil into an Ecuadorian style Singapore, which until Leon Febres Cordero decided de launch another strong man presidential bid, was the position of the major exporters of the coast. Another is imposition of the type of "democracy" Peruvians enjoyed under Alberto Fujimori. But perhaps the most likely response is that of tying the hands of any future government by betting on Globalisation and further economic integration, in particular through regional "Free Trade" agreements such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which effectively strip national governments, even those of the most progressive and participatory nature, of major economic policy options.
However, perhaps it won't be so simple. In parallel to the rejection of the neoliberal model represented by Davos, which has been felt around the world during the last year, the success of indigenous movements in Mexico, Bolivia and Ecuador in presenting their demands for recognition and participation are changing the ground rules at the most basic level. The combination of the two processes promise some interesting moments for the established order.
* Gerard Coffey is a writer, translator and activist involved with social movements in Ecuador, Canada and the UK. He lives in Quito and translates Focus on Trade into Spanish. If you would like to be put on the mailing list for Enfoque Sobre Comercio, send an email to anoop@focusweb.org
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
Notes on Ravi Kanbur's "Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: The Nature of Disagreements"
Raj Patel*
Not all economists are secretive sophists. A few are able to explain their art to the public in an accessible way. Still fewer actually care enough about open debate even to make the attempt.
Ravi Kanbur, who was editor of the World Bank's World Development Report 2000 until his resignation last year, is one of this small band. His paper "Economic Policy, Distribution and Poverty: The Nature of Disagreements" is a flame in fouled air of development debate.
To outsiders, the exchange between those employed by the development industry and those opposed to it is like pantomime. The central bankers, typically educated in Anglo-Saxon economic orthodoxy, declaim from centre-stage that they are committed to the poor whereupon a gaggle of non-governmental actors and activists respond with 'Oh no you're not'. (Repeat ad nauseam.)
Kanbur's analysis goes some way to showing why there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in this debate, particularly on the part of central bankers. He does a sterling job of translating the concerns of the protesters against globalisation into simple economics.
Kanbur suggests that while the subjects of conversation remain the same, with both sides taking positions on "growth" and "development", a few fundamentally divergent assumptions remain implicit in their use of the terms. Bankers assume that competitive markets already exist, they think in terms of medium run equilibria, and aggregate over entire populations when speaking of economic gains. Their opponents on the other hand, prioritise the short and long run, assume imperfectly competitive markets, and pay special attention to vulnerable and marginalised groups. This, suggests Kanbur, is why the arguments of both sides have glided past each other, and have resulted in such bitter deadlock.
Frequently, Kanbur's sympathies lie with those hostile to the Bank. He does seem to acknowledge that much of the blame for misunderstanding lies with the bankers. Yet there are moments, perhaps reflecting a personal attempt to reconcile his unease with some parts of the Bank (witness his recent resignation from the Bank World Development Report' editorship) with his confidence in others (he worked there from 1989-97), when he argues for a rapprochement between the bankers and their critics. Indeed, Kanbur argues that there is already a surprising degree of consensus, and that this convergence throws the areas of disagreement into yet starker relief.
Before launching into a critique, I should be honest about two things. First, I side unhesitatingly with the critics. Second, reader, I know him. I have studied under Kanbur and he's one of the nicest and smartest people I've ever met. This is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a critique of an economistic reduction of politics that, while old, has its best presentation yet in this recent paper. While other economic high-flyers, most notably Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank, have chanced their arm at a balanced presentation of economic good sense, none have done it better than Kanbur. And it is precisely in the equivocal moments that the paper is least convincing.
Kanbur's central claims are, first, that there is already a great deal of agreement in debates between bankers and their critics and, second, that armed with a clear understanding of what the specific disagreements are, the chance of some mutually acceptable compromise, through 'dialogue', is higher. But there are at least four reasons to dispute these assertions.
1. Kanbur exaggerates the extent of consensus because of selection bias
During the consultation process over which he presided for the World Development Report, Kanbur met a wide variety of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Many of these organisations took 'flexible' positions on the state vs markets debate. Some even produced leaflets entitled 'Liberalising for the Poor'. Kanbur seems to have interpreted this as a sign that certain sticking points in the conversation between bankers and their critics, such as the desirability of markets, have been resolved. Fortunately, the debate is far from over.
The reason that Kanbur might have been deceived has more to do with the NGOs he met than with the debate in wider social activist circles. He consulted, after all, with those NGOs prepared to work with the Bank on the World Development Report. This group is not representative of the wider world of social movements. Many broad-based social movements are suspicious of NGOs tout court; within these movements, to be 'NGOish' is to be castigated, denounced as co-opted. The term 'CONGO' refers precisely to these co-opted NGOs.
Kanbur's limited sample of 'civil society' undermines the claim that wide consensus exists. There are many involved in resistance to the Bank whom the Bank never hears, either because the organisations will not engage in 'dialogue', or because the Bank will not listen to them. The Zapatistas and their autonomist allies outside Mexico fall into both these categories. There is little in their market philosophy that tallies with that of the Bank. Consensus is not just around the corner.
2. 'Political preferences' are signs of stubborn convictions
Economics has opinions about many things, but preferences remain fundamentally intractable to economic analysis. Kanbur is a good economist, and in his paper the positions adopted by the 'central bankers' and 'the protesters' reveal preferences that cannot be teased apart, or which can be scratched at only anecdotally. Political preferences are not, however, plucked from the air. They are signs of broader and, in this case, radically different political convictions, and are therefore far less reconcilable than their simple co-existence on different ends a spectrum of choice might suggest.
Consider this: socialists want high levels of income tax redistribution (in the interests of social justice), conservatives want low levels (as incentives to work). To suggest that there can be a middle path in which the conservatives and socialists agree on a median level of taxation, in the absence of other political considerations, is wishful thinking. Such a compromise would be symptomatic of breaks with fundamental theories of justice, equity, freedom and fairness. To hope that dialogue over percentage points will, in the absence of broader political confrontation, transcend these principles is to subscribe to the most facile kind of third wayism.
3. Bankers talk softly and carry big sticks
The possibility of rapprochement between the bankers and their critics becomes even more politically suspect when one remembers that dialogue with the central bank mob is unlike genuine dialogue. 'Central bankers', often wielding vast amounts of cash and a great deal of power, are ideologues with guns. The militarisation that surrounds the meetings of the Bank, Fund and WTO testify to the violence necessary to sustain one side of this dialogue. The bankers, in other words, are only credentialed to participate in 'dialogue' through their hold on power.
This is, furthermore, an undemocratic, unaccountable and (hence) illegitimate dialogue. There are many more grassroots critics of the Bank than supporters. The peasant farmers in Karnataka and landless peasants in Brazil, for instance, number well over five million. Through grassroots education initiatives, they are well versed in trade theory, and the latest machinations of the bankers. Their views count for little, however, against development technocracy.
4. History doesn't dialogue
The final reason to suspect that clarity in talking will not to lead to a third way is historical. In his paper, Kanbur contrasts "confrontation" - a sign of irrational, frustrated rage, with "dialogue" - a symptom of equanimity, reasonableness, preparedness to compromise. Yet confrontation is far more important than Kanbur allows. It has always been through confrontation that certain politics become possible. Dialogue happens after the fact.
Kanbur mistakes policy change as the consequence of dialogue, rather than as a cause of it. For example, referring to internal World Bank politics, he observes that "the issue of safety nets is back on the table, after its banishment in the 1980s, the banishment itself being a reaction to their inefficiencies and misuse in the 1960s and 1970s." That swings in the acceptability of 'safety nets' at the World Bank have reflected the ups and downs prevailing political trends is no accident.
The rise of conservatism in North America and Europe through the late 1970s and 1980s cannot have been peripheral to the changes in policy within the bank. The only way that the removal of safety nets became a conscionable action within the Bank is because of a great deal of confrontation, not dialogue, both within and outside the Bank, by the political right. The smashing of union power, the erosion of the welfare state and the privatization of public goods were accomplished through minority fiat, not as the consequence of popular dialogue and debate. That happened afterwards.
What we have seen, in recent anti-capitalist rumblings, is a counter movement on the part of those who want far more radical change than is thinkable at the moment by the bankers. Dialogue is unlikely to lead to benign 'big tent' politics, when the activists outside these institutions see bankers and their ideologies as part of the problem, not the solution. We can only hope that the effects of popular confrontation, whether over issues such as the privatization of water and health care in developing countries, or against the recent coup in the US, can be as profound as those confrontations by the right in the 1990s.
This is perhaps the greatest disappointment of the paper. While Kanbur, perhaps more than any other economist of his stature, sees that 'for whom' questions are at the heart of the critique of globalisation, he fails to see that 'dialogue' itself favours the very status quo that protesters wish to overturn.
In the final analysis, perhaps we should be grateful to Kanbur for clearing the air. He shows, wittingly or not, that the divides are deeper, and less surmountable, than bankers might have hoped. Kanbur begins his article with the excellent observation that the End of History didn't last long. It is a shame that the underlying desire of this paper seems to be to bring it about once again.
Helpful links: Ravi Kanbur's homepage http://people.cornell.edu/pages/sk145
* Raj Patel is a researcher for SEATINI <http://www.seatini.org> and a PhD student at Cornell University http://people.cornell.edu/pages/rcp9 This article was first published in SEATINI Buletin Volume 4, Number 2.
World Bank in major internet move
Alex Wilks*
The World Bank is best known for the projects it funds and the structural adjustment policies it promotes. Its roles as a "knowledge Bank" are less discussed, though perhaps as important. World Bank President Wolfensohn is particularly keen on the Bank's knowledge agenda, seeing it as a means to expand the Bank's influence even in the face of the protests, official commissions and independent research pieces which have contested his institution's legitimacy and effectiveness. A top item on his agenda is an attempt at a major land grab on the internet, seeking to build a new, multi-stakeholder, $70m supersite, the Global Development Gateway.
The Bank's plans to build what they have termed "the premier web entry point for information about poverty and sustainable development" represent an ambitious attempt to gain more control over what analysis and opinions on development topics are deemed policy-relevant and sound. The site aims to provide an overview of key policy issues plus links to sites with good information about them. Many activist or alternative sites are likely to be weeded out on the grounds that they contain unsubstantiated opinions, not validated research. The site will be heavily marketed to officials, journalists, students, NGOs and others. Although tightly controlled by the Bank at this stage, it will be launched this summer as an apparently independent initiative, potentially confusing unwary surfers.
The Bank is trying to impress G8 governments and others by working on a hi-tech, multi-stakeholder project to deliver knowledge and expertise to communities worldwide. The buzzwords associated with it are "transparency", "inclusivity", "interactivity" etc. However, the Bank is alienating many potential partners through its usual top-down approach to project planning and its failure to understand that there are many diverse and conflicting views on development. The Bank fails to understand that the internet encourages horizontal networking, multiple opinions and links, rather than central planning and coordination.
Wolfensohn is of course right that the internet is a confusing, yet very powerful and important medium for people working on international issues. Groups like Indymedia and Peoples' Global Action have demonstrated this, leading WTO officials to say that Seattle was lost not in the negotiating rooms, not in the streets but on the internet. Many others have posted publications which can reach people who perhaps previously relied on information from official sources such as the World Bank. Both campaign- and policy-oriented sites may be marginalised by the Bank's new plans, and some sites which need a certain number of visitors to keep going may even go bust. The many criticisms of the Gateway plans, from a variety of officials, web experts etc can be found on the publicly accessible internet consultations www.bellanet.org/gdgprinciples and www.globalknowledge.org and in the September open letter at www.brettonwoodsproject.org).
The main one is that the Bank is drastically overestimating what can be achieved in one website - "trying to kill five birds with one stone". The Bank wants to create a site which aims to do many things. They include the provision of access to: easy access data about aid agency projects; a database of organisations working on development; an online bookstore; nested country websites; a selection of links to analysis on over 100 policy topics.
The latter section is most problematic. The Bank is recruiting editors (called Topic Guides) who are given the impossible task of trying to examine websites across the world to see what exists on their issues, then post links to whatever reports they feel match their "quality" standard, plus highlight certain reports as priorities. Yet it is very hard to find the boundaries of what constitutes "reasonable opinion" within single organisations, villages or families, let alone when you get to a national or international level. The meaning of 'development' (everything that has to do with everyone in the South?) and many of the Gateway subtopics are themselves strongly contested in all the world's languages. On such a megasite reports from African thinktanks or NGOs are likely to be crowded out by major World Bank publications on the same issues.
Roberto Bissio, Director of Instituto Tercer Mundo, Uruguay has compared the site's editing approach to producing an online development newspaper. "Nobody has argued in favour of the World Bank starting to publish newspapers, even in countries which badly lack them. There would be a public outrage if someone proposed it, as the press is supposed to be free". Anyway no newspaper could possibly be taken seriously if it claimed to be representing opinions of all stakeholders in all countries on all issues relating to development.
Attempting to filter development-related information to produce a global supersite for so many audiences is extremely unrealistic and undesirable. It is clearly not possible for one person or a small team to claim that it has produced links and highlights which represent views of all stakeholders (civil society, governments, official agencies, companies etc) on any development topic. This is obvious to many people, but has been well-expressed by Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director of the Association for Progressive Communications: "The Global Gateway will: * de-contextualize the content it disseminates * neutralize and de-politicize information * create an illusory atmosphere of consensus and universality, while proclaiming 'diversity' * draw funding away from local information gateway development initiatives Most significantly, initiatives like the GDG, no matter how inclusive they attempt to be, are mediated by the North."
Many other detailed criticisms have been made against the Bank's planned approach including from officials and web entrepeneurs. There has been minimal serious response. On 7 November Wolfensohn personally posted to the globalknowledge list consultation that he was getting good feedback on the Gateway proposal, that the Bank would continue with it in collaboration with "those leading international NGOs and community-based organizations that wish to experiment with us". This was a frank admission that the consultation exercise has been largely a sham and that the Bank is moving to use diplomatic muscle to marginalise opponents and steam-roll groups into collaborating without questioning the fundamentals of the Bank's plans. Wolfensohn still believes in the 21st century that the Bank can get away with hiring "experts" to select sound and globally relevant analysis on all world issues.
The World Bank already gets over four million page hits per month on its main website, www.worldbank.org. It has recently invested a huge amount of resources into a series of other internet initiatives (i.e. the Global Development Network). Combined with the Gateway, these can be seen as a strategic attempt to capture the commanding heights of information technology for development. As the web is likely to grow ever more important as a publishing and organising medium, activists would be well-advised to prevent the World Bank getting any more powerful in this area. And the Bretton Woods Project, Instituto Tercer Mundo and others have been discussing a number of campaign actions using the internet*. At the same time civil society groups need to take the internet more seriously and consider further ways to use it collaboratively to raise awareness and promote new perspectives on global policy issues. A new attempt to use the net specifically to counter the World Bank as "knowledge Bank" can be seen at: www.realworldbank.org.
* Alex Wilks is a policy analyst with the Bretton Woods Project in the UK.
Campaign actions on the Global Development Gateway will be announced through the Bretton Woods Update (www.brettonwoodsproject.org/update), and various listserves, or register your interest directly by e-mailing: gdg@brettonwoodsproject.org.
Porto Alegre Call for Mobilisation
Social forces from around the world have gathered here at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. Unions and NGOs, movements and organizations, intellectuals and artists, together we are building a great alliance to create a new society, different from the dominant logic wherein the free-market and money are considered the only measure of worth. Davos represents the concentration of wealth, the globalization of poverty and the destruction of our earth. Porto Alegre represents the hope that a new world is possible, where human beings and nature are the center of our concern. We are part of a movement which has grown since Seattle. We challenge the elite and their undemocratic processes, symbolised by the World Economic Forum in Davos. We came to share our experiences, build our solidarity, and demonstrate our total rejection of the neoliberal policies of globalisation.
We are women and men, farmers, workers, unemployed, professionals, students, blacks and indigenous peoples, coming from the South and from the North, committed to struggle for peoples' rights, freedom, security, employment and education. We are fighting against the hegemony of finance, the destruction of our cultures, the monopolization of knowledge, mass media, and communication, the degradation of nature, and the destruction of the quality of life by multinational corporations and anti-democratic policies. Participative democratic experiences -- like that of Porto Alegre -- show us that a concrete alternative is possible. We reaffirm the supremacy of human, ecological and social rights over the demands of finance and investors.
At the same time that we strengthen our movements, we resist the global elite and work for equity, social justice, democracy and security for everyone, without distinction. Our methodology and alternatives stand in stark contrast to the destructive policies of neo-liberalism. Globalisation reinforces a sexist and patriarchal system. It increases the feminisation of poverty and exacerbates all forms of violence against women. Equality between women and men is central to our struggle. Without this, another world will never be possible.
Neoliberal globalization increases racism, continuing the veritable genocide of centuries of slavery and colonialism which destroyed the bases of black African civilizations. We call on all movements to be in solidarity with African peoples in the continent and outside, in defense of their rights to land, citizenship, freedom, peace, and equality, through the reparation of historical and social debts. Slave trade and slavery are crimes against humanity.
We express our special recognition and solidarity with indigenous peoples in their historic struggle against genocide and ethnocide and in defense of their rights, natural resources, culture, autonomy, land, and territory.
Neoliberal globalisation destroys the environment, health and people's living environment. Air, water, land and peoples have become commodities. Life and health must be recognized as fundamental rights which must not be subordinated to economic policies.
The external debt of the countries of the South has been repaid several times over. Illegitimate, unjust and fraudulent, it functions as an instrument of domination, depriving people of their fundamental human rights with the sole aim of increasing international usury. We demand its unconditional cancellation and the reparation of historical, social, and ecological debts, as immediate steps toward a definitive resolution of the crisis this Debt provokes.
Financial markets extract resources and wealth from communities and nations, and subject national economies to the whims of speculators. We call for the closure of tax havens and the introduction of taxes on financial transactions.
Privatisation is a mechanism for transferring public wealth and natural resources to the private sector. We oppose all forms of privatisation of natural resources and public services. We call for the protection of access to resources and public goods necessary for a decent life.
Multinational corporations organise global production with massive unemployment, low wages and unqualified labour and by refusing to recognise the fundamental worker's rights as defined by the ILO. We demand the genuine recognition of the right to organise and negotiate for unions, and new rights for workers to face the globalisation strategy. While goods and money are free to cross borders, the restrictions on the movement of people exacerbate exploitation and repression. We demand an end to such restrictions.
We call for a trading system which guarantees full employment, food security, fair terms of trade and local prosperity. Free trade is anything but free. Global trade rules ensure the accelerated accumulation of wealth and power by multinational corporations and the further marginalisation and impoverishment of small farmers, workers and local enterprises. We demand that governments respect their obligations to the international human rights instruments and multilateral environmental agreements. We call on people everywhere to support the mobilizations against the creation of the Free Trade Area in the Americas, an initiative which means the recolonization of Latin America and the destruction of fundamental social, economic, cultural and environmental human rights.
The IMF, the World Bank and regional banks, the WTO, NATO and other military alliances are some of the multilateral agents of neoliberal globalisation. We call for an end to their interference in national policy. These institutions have no legitimacy in the eyes of the people and we will continue to protest against their measures.
Neoliberal globalization has led to the concentration of land ownership and favored corporate agricultural systems which are environmentally and socially destructive. It is based on export oriented growth backed by large scale infrastructure development, such as dams, which displaces people from their land and destroys their livelihoods. Their loss must be restored. We call for a democratic agrarian reform. Land, water and seeds must be in the hands of the peasants. We promote sustainable agricultural processes. Seeds and genetic stocks are the heritage of humanity. We demand that the use of transgenics and the patenting of life be abolished.
Militarism and corporate globalisation reinforce each other to undermine democracy and peace. We totally refuse war as a way to solve conflicts and we oppose the arms race and the arms trade. We call for an end to the repression and criminalisation of social protest. We condemn foreign military intervention in the internal affairs of our countries. We demand the lifting of embargoes and sanctions used as instruments of aggression, and express our solidarity with those who suffer their consequences. We reject US military intervention in Latin America through the Plan Colombia.
We call for a strengthening of alliances, and the implementation of common actions, on these principal concerns. We will continue to mobilize on them until the next Forum. We recognize that we are now in a better position to undertake the struggle for a different world, a world without misery, hunger, discrimination and violence, with quality of life, equity, respect and peace.
We commit ourselves to support all the struggles of our common agenda to mobilise opposition to neoliberalism. Among our priorities for the coming months, we will mobilize globally against the: World Economic Forum, Cancun, Mexico, 26 and 27 February Free Trade Area of the Americas, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 6-7 April and Quebec City, Canada, 17-22 April Asian Development Bank, Honolulu, May G8 Summit, Genoa, Italy, 15-22 July IMF and World Bank Annual Meeting, Washington DC, USA, 28 September - 4 October World Trade Organisation, 5-9 November (Qatar?)
On April 17, we will support the international day of struggle against the importation of cheap agricultural products which create economic and social dumping, and the feminist mobilization against globalization in Genoa. We support the call for a world day of action against debt, to take place this year on July 20.
The proposals formulated are part of the alternatives being elaborated by social movements around the world. They are based on the principle that human beings and life are not commodities, and in the commitment to the welfare and human rights of all.
Our involvement in the World Social Forum has enriched understanding of each of our struggles and we have been strengthened. We call on all peoples around the world to join in this struggle to build a better future. The World Social Forum of Porto Alegre is a way to achieve peoples' sovereignty and a just world.
Hundreds of organizations have signed this call. If you want to see the endorsements, please check http://attac.org/fra/asso/doc/doc502sign.htm
If your organization wants to sign it, please send a email to attacint@attac.org mentioning your endorsement and giving all useful information.