 Return to LNP
|
|
A tale of two forums
Sunday, 30 January 2005 - 11:55 PM SL Time
|
|
|
Corporate giants, political potentates and the social entrepreneurial bigwigs who braved a chilling temperature of minus 24C in Davos must now be preparing for the homeward journey after a week of discussing business, politics and, above all, how to make economic globalization more `equitable` and `how to combat global poverty.`
Among the participants at the so-called high intensity think tank (that is how the fans of the World Economic Forum (WEF) describe the event, were Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac and corporate giants of the calibre of legendary Bill Gates, Michael Dell and top guns from Nestle, Shell, BP, Volkswagen, just to name a few. U2`s Bono, Peter Gabriel, Angelina Jolie et al were among those intent on fighting global poverty.
Apart from the humanitarian frills, the WEF has been described as a party where an economic turkey dressed in social responsibility is served for the consumption of the super rich, the theme being, 'Taking responsibility for tough decisions.' Talking, schmoozing and networking which characterise the Davos gathering also give a sense of pride to other participants who may get an opportunity to brush coat tails with those who `run the globe`'yes, something to preen themselves on.
BBC has described the WEF annual meeting aptly: `Some 2,000 of the world`s movers and shakers are in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos for a week of talking, schmoozing and networking...` and quoted an executive describing his objective of attending the meeting: `It is a chance to recharge my batteries, think about big things and meet lots of interesting people.` So, that`s the Davos meet!
Critics of the WEF view the meeting as a gathering to discuss how best to exploit the developing world. To bolster their theory, they point out that although thirty four meetings have been held so far, there is still no substantial dialogue on how to tackle the growing corporate malpractices such as bogus accounts, bribery, gene piracy etc. Roadblocks being slapped on the developing world such the controversial Carbon quotas allegedly to retard their industrial progress rather than protecting environment, constricting aid conditions, unbridled privatisation and the like, they point out, have come to stay despite much advertised efforts made at Davos to bring about social responsibility on the part of the super rich.
The much-touted corporate social responsibility (CSR), in the eyes of these critics, is a strategy to target, for exploitation, the so-called bottom of the pyramid (read the poorest of the poor) by throwing a few dollars or euros their way once in a while and making a song and a dance of it.
The opposition to the WEF is the raison d'etre of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, under the theme, `Another world is possible.` The WSF, which has come to be considered an antidote to WEF, is claimed to be `an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neoliberlism and the domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a planetary society directed towards fruitful relationships among Humankind and between it and the Earth.`
At these WSF meetings, the `corporate octopus` and the affluent nations have been torn to shreds year in and year out. Strategies have been drawn up and campaigns launched to protect the world`s poor and marginalised against the `marauding global capital.` But they continue to suffer in utter deprivation.
It looks as if the efforts of the developing world had failed to reverse the trend of economic globalization, the fountain of misfortune for the poor in the view of WSF fans. In other words, all measures adopted by the WSF have not been an effective counter to the 'agenda' of the WEF. The world's rich continue to march on with their footloose capital running in all conceivable directions despite protests from the poor in the developing world who accuse them of disporting themselves in schadenfreude.
The irony is that the developing world is juxtaposed between the two camps, identifying itself with the one that represents its interests and depending on the much maligned other for funds to survive to continue their struggle against the `wiles of the rich world.` (Island)
|
|
|
|
