Research Report

Civil society as a force for global change

By Carl Teichrib

The following report, originally published in 2003, outlines some of the subjects and political points that arose during the 2002 FIM Global Governance meeting in Montreal. Although dated, the information offers a window into the scope and role of NGO’s as international pressure groups.

Note: Some changes to the original article have been made to improve flow and better connect its historical context.

FIM Global Governance 2002 Basic Data.

Conference/Event Name: FIM Global Governance 2002.

Event Sub-title/Theme: Civil Society and the Democratization of Global Governance: Redefining Global Democracy.

Conference/Event Acronym: G02.

Place: Palais des Congrès, Montreal, Que., Canada.

Date: October 13-16, 2002.

Host Organization: Forum international de Montréal.

Host Acronym: FIM.

Approximate number of attendees: 475.

Approximate countries represented: 65.

Event Audience: NGOs, academics, governments, multilateral organizations.

 —————————————

In the fall of 2002, I traveled to Montreal in order to attend a gathering of influential Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), government players, and representatives from the United Nations.

The reason for this gathering was to flesh out a vision for democratic, global governance, particularly in terms of empowering the United Nations. Global Governance 2002 was, moreover, the continuation of a conference series that had started in 1999, with each event building momentum and direction for a new international order. 

FIM And Global Governance

In 1999, Forum international de Montréal (FIM), a small yet dedicated international think tank established in order to increase NGO influence on multilateral institutions, hosted a conference in Montreal on the theme of Global Governance. This conference, and the subsequent 2002 event I attended, brought together hundreds of NGOs, government officials, and members of various multilateral groups such as the United Nations and the International Labour Organization. Coming from all parts of the globe, these organizations represented a diverse array of issues and agendas, from human rights to environmental concerns, from global education to world citizenship.

Although these delegates had traveled from different parts of the world, and the groups they represented were varied, there was uniformity in purpose: to build support for global governance through a democratically empowered United Nations.

But what exactly 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, offers 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, a United Nations sponsored commission was established to define this new “global-speak.” Hence, the UN Commission on Global Governance was birthed.

Their landmark report, Our Global Neighborhood, stated upfront that global governance was not world government. After making this distinction, the 410-page document went on to outline a strategy for the UN: equip it with its own taxation and funding programs, its own military force and judicial system, and give it the ability to make enforceable laws. Although these combined items make up the essence of world government, the suggested arrangement was to be built on a governance model. In other words, world government represents a centralized authority with overbearing powers, whereas global governance is an international framework built via the consensus of nations and under which individual countries would voluntarily submit themselves.     

Nevertheless, global governance, when stripped of its verbal mask, is about centralizing international management. With this in mind, the FIM Global Governance 2002 conference, from a definitional point of view, was about “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, cocktails, and two very interesting and talented interpretive dance troupes, FIM organizers and active G02 participants greeted and networked for most of the evening.

On the surface this doesn’t seem important, but it must be remembered that it’s in these settings where alliances are formed and new partnerships to are conceived. Furthermore, to the observant participant, it’s at such times wherein one can spot particular men and women who hold sway: those leaders who coalesce diverse parties and create global networking/peer groups.

Of special interest was Bill Pace, the Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement – a large, pro-world government lobby group – and Convener of the NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court (ICC), both of which played paramount roles in ensuring the creation of the ICC.  

Observing how NGO leaders and FIM organizers responded to Mr. Pace, it was obvious he commanded a great deal of respect within the global governance movement. In conversation with an attendee, I was told that the WFM was viewed with skepticism in the past, especially within policy circles. However, because of the organization’s active role in UN conferences and its successful promotion of the International Criminal Court, this skepticism had changed to recognition. Pace and the World Federalist Movement, champions of the ICC and active promoters of global governance, were now highly regarded players able to galvanize the NGO community and effectively transcend political hurdles. 

Through careful observation and my own networking, it was possible to gather a comparatively accurate picture of who was considered a prime mover, and whose agendas would rise to the forefront of the conference. By the time the evening wrapped up it was evident which NGOs held the most sway.    

G02 Core Concepts

What were the core initiatives of global governance at the G02?

International Criminal Court: As already alluded to, the agenda of the World Federalist/International Criminal Court was accepted as a primary focal point by a large segment of those in attendance.

Many of the working sessions, including thematic issues of democracy and human rights, referred to the ICC as a cornerstone institution for global change. Repeatedly the ICC was held up as an essential ingredient for global governance, and its support was widespread and greatly encouraged. Moreover, with the fact that the ICC was officially launched on July 1, 2002, the mood at G02 was both celebratory and visionary. Great things are expected of the ICC and the advancement of world law, and those in attendance were confident that the ICC would become a central institution in structuring a new system of judicial world order.  

World Taxation and the new economic order: A substantial portion of the G02 agenda examined issues surrounding neo-liberal corporate globalization, including the role of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and major trans-national business compacts.

Certain segments of the international community see the neo-liberal agenda as being in conflict with the larger vision of the United Nations. Rather then being referred to as partners, these global financial institutions were viewed by many participants as steamrollers on the road to global control, actively pursuing a for-profit governance model instead of an empowered, socialistic United Nations system. Hence, the UN was portrayed as the struggling “good guy,” and it was hoped that someday the world body would hold unparalleled jurisdiction over these multilateral financial institutions.

According to many G02 attendees, a global taxation scheme was essential to empowering the United Nations, giving it the financial clout needed to firmly coordinate “economic governance.” To this end, broad G02 support was given to the Tobin Tax, an international taxation arrangement that would charge a levy on foreign currency transactions and trans-boarder monetary flows. 

It was recognized that great strides towards implementing the Tobin Tax have already been achieved, especially given that some national governments, such as Canada, had already endorsed the plan. NGOs were encouraged to continue lobbying government leaders, particularly US politicians, in anticipation that the democratic/industrialized countries would kick-start this taxation program between each other. It was strongly believed that by starting with the major democracies, other countries would soon join under pressures imposed by wealthier nations.

World Parliament: A “people’s congress” for humanity, tied directly into the United Nations, was positively considered at G02. While the idea isn’t new, it is gaining in popularity and attracting influential NGO’s to its cause.

The concept is straightforward; in order to have a legitimate world government, it will be necessary to have a legislative assembly in place so that pressing issues can be debated and laws enacted. Global problems, so the argument goes, can only be solved by a global parliament.

Because a strategic part of the G02 was the “redefining of global democracy,” the idea of a world parliament was enthusiastically discussed in some of the NGO working sessions. But NGOs weren’t the only ones in favor of an “elected” world assembly.

During a question and answer period with Bill Graham, then the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Graham announced that he favored the creation of a parliamentary system that would work in tandem with the World Trade Organization. This concept of creating a WTO world parliament was also discussed in one of the G02 working sessions. Moreover, during the 24th World Congress of the World Federalist Movement held in London in July 2002, it was agreed that the WFM should lobby for a WTO-world legislative assembly. And yes, the World Federalist Movement is also in favor of creating a UN-based world parliament.

If a world parliament comes into existence, either through the UN or via some supra-national trade and monetary organization, how will this impact national sovereignty?

Andrew Strauss, a 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.”[2]

Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary-General and a strong supporter of a world parliament, takes this one step further; “In the next century Earth sovereignty must have precedence over all national sovereignties.”[3]

Iraq: One other issue of importance at G02 was that of Iraq and the US war build-up. Legitimate concerns were expressed as to what the real motive may be regarding US interests in the Middle East; is it an actual war against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or designs for regional petroleum/resource access?

In debating the real or perceived threat and the actual or stated American intentions, G02 participants overwhelmingly opted for an empowered United Nations operating in the region as opposed to a US military engagement.

Conclusions Of Global Governance 2002 

One of the primary goals of the G02 was to rally the NGO community in order to place pressure on national governments. Participants were encouraged to take the call of United Nations empowerment back to their home countries and regions, to lobby policy makers and community leaders, and to engage in actions that would enhance the call for global governance.

Another outcome of the G02 was the networking component and the coordination of likeminded NGOs as a force for change. Lobbying and support actions were encouraged to bolster the UN International Criminal Court, and advocate for a world taxation systems and a global parliamentary assembly.

Many of the government officials who attended G02 will also take these ideas back to their departments, infusing the vision of global governance within their spheres of influence. And for the UN officials who attended, they will have walked away with a better sense of which NGOs can be partnered with, and who in public office can be counted on as strategic allies.[4]

Endnotes:

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Robert Muller, 2000 Ideas For A Better World (fascicle one), idea 51.

[4] To keep the record straight, it must be noted that not all of those who attended were in complete agreement. I talked to a couple of government officials, and at least one professor, who had a real problem with what was being proposed. Moreover, there were a handful of NGO representatives who didn’t understand the scope of what was being proposed, nor its implications. These individuals had been sent by their respected organizations without being properly briefed on what G02 entailed. Therefore, they naively believed that this was about human rights and giving “the people a voice in globalization.” For the most part, however, those who attended fully supported a UN global governance regime.