-----Original Message----- From: Erik Wesselius <erik225@knoware.nl> To: StopWTORound@onelist.com <StopWTORound@onelist.com> Date: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 2:17 PM Subject: [StopWTORound] THE ECONOMIST: THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORDER >From: Erik Wesselius <erik225@knoware.nl> > >This article from the current issue of The Economist describes >the increasing influence of NGOs at the corporate, national and >international level. The article suggests that this may represent >"a dangerous shift of power to unelected and unaccountable >special-interest groups?" In an interesting analysis of the >impact of new technologies on progressive grassroots organising >and international coalition building, the Economist refers to a >a study by David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla of the infamous RAND >institute, who have coined the term "NGO swarm" for "the >phenomenon of amorphous groups of NGOs, linked online, descending on >a target. According to the RAND researchers, such NGO swarms have no >central leadership or command structure, and being multi-headed >cannot be easily 'decapitated', while they can "sting a victim to >death". > >A must-read! > >Erik Wesselius >Corporate Europe Observatory > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE ECONOMIST: THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORDER > >The Economist >December 11th - 17th 1999 > >Citizens groups: The non-governmental order Will NGOs democratise, or >merely disrupt, global governance? > >AS POLITICIANS pore over the disarray in Seattle, they might look to >citizens groups for advice. The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) >that descended on Seattle were a model of everything the trade >negotiators were not. They were well organised. They built unusual >coalitions (environmentalists and labour groups, for instance, bridged >old gulfs to jeer the WTO together). They had a clear agenda to derail >the talks. And they were masterly users of the media. > >The battle of Seattle is only the latest and most visible in a string >of recent NGO victories. The watershed was the Earth Summit in Rio de >Janeiro in 1992, when the NGOs roused enough public pressure to push >through agreements on controlling greenhouse gases. In 1994, protesters >dominated the World Bank's anniversary meeting with a "Fifty Years is >Enough" campaign, and forced a rethink of the Bank's goals and methods. >In 1998, an ad hoc coalition of consumer-rights activists and >environmentalists helped to sink the Multilateral Agreement on >Investment (MAI), a draft treaty to harmonise rules on foreign >investment under the aegis of the OECD. In the past couple of years >another global coalition of NGOs, Jubilee 2000, has pushed successfully >for a dramatic reduction in the debts of the poorest countries. > >The NGO agenda is not confined to economic issues. One of the biggest >successes of the 1990s was the campaign to outlaw landmines, where >hundreds of NGOs, in concert with the Canadian government, pushed >through a ban in a year. Nor is it confined to government agendas. Nike >has been targeted for poor labour conditions in its overseas factories, >Nestli for the sale of powdered baby milk in poor countries, Monsanto >for genetically modified food. In a case in 1995 that particularly >shocked business, Royal Dutch/Shell, although it was technically in the >right, was prevented by Greenpeace, the most media-savvy of all NGOs, >from disposing of its Brent Spar oil rig in the North Sea. > >In short, citizens' groups are increasingly powerful at the corporate, >national and international level. How they have become so, and what >this means, are questions that urgently need to be addressed. Are >citizens' groups, as many of their supporters claim, the first steps >towards an "international civil society" (whatever that might be)? Or >do they represent a dangerous shift of power to unelected and >unaccountable special-interest groups? > >Power in numbers Over the past decade, NGOs and their memberships have >grown hugely (see chart). Although organisations like these have >existed for generations (in the early 1800s, the British and Foreign >Anti-Slavery Society played a powerful part in abolishing slavery >laws), the social and economic shifts of this decade have given them >new life. The end of communism, the spread of democracy in poor >countries, technological change and economic integration, >globalisation, in short have created fertile soil for the rise of NGOs. >Globalisation itself has exacerbated a host of worries: over the >environment, labour rights, human rights, consumer rights and so on. >Democratisation and technological progress have revolutionised the way >in which citizens can unite to express their disquiet. > >It is, by definition, hard to estimate the growth of groups that could >theoretically include everything from the tiniest neighbourhood >association to huge international relief agencies, such as CARE, with >annual budgets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. One conservative >yardstick of international NGOs (that is, groups with operations in >more than one country) is the Yearbook of International Organisations. >This puts the number of international NGOs at more than 26,000 today, >up from 6,000 in 1990. > >Far more groups exist within national borders. A recent article in >World Watch, the bi-monthly magazine of the World Watch Institute >(itself an NGO), suggested that the United States alone has about 2m >NGOs, 70% of which are less than 30 years old. India has about 1m grass- >roots groups, while another estimate suggests that more than 100,000 >sprang up in Eastern Europe between 1988 and 1995. Membership growth >has been impressive across many groups, but particularly the >environmental ones. The Worldwide Fund for Nature, for instance, now >has around 5m members, up from 570,000 in 1985. The Sierra Club now >boasts 572,000 members, up from 181,000 in 1980. > >Citizens' groups play roles that go far beyond political activism. Many >are important deliverers of services, especially in developing >countries. As a group, NGOs now deliver more aid than the whole United >Nations system. Some of the biggest NGOs, such as CARE or Midecins Sans >Frontihres, are primarily aid providers. Others, such as Oxfam, are >both aid providers and campaigners. Others still, such as Greenpeace, >stick to campaigning. And it is here that technological change is >having its biggest impact. > >When groups could communicate only by telephone, fax or mail, it was >prohibitively expensive to share information or build links between >different organisations. Now information can be dispersed quickly, and >to great effect, online. The MAI was already in trouble when a draft of >the text, posted on the Internet by an NGO, allowed hundreds of hostile >watchdog groups to mobilise against it. Similarly, the Seattle trade >summit was disrupted by dozens of websites which alerted everyone >(except, it seems, the Seattle police), to the protests that were >planned. > >New coalitions can be built online. Much of the pre-Seattle coalition >building between environmental and citizens' groups, for instance, was >done by e-mail. About 1,500 NGOs signed an anti-WTO protest declaration >set up online by Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group. That, >acknowledges Mike Dolan, a leading organiser of the protest, would have >been impossible without e-mail. More important, the Internet allows new >partnerships between groups in rich and poor countries. Armed with >compromising evidence of local labour practices or environmental >degradation from southern NGOS, for example, activists in developed >countries can attack corporations much more effectively. > >This phenomenon amorphous groups of NGOs, linked online, descending on >a target has been dubbed an "NGO swarm" in a RAND study by David >Ronfeldt and John Arquilla. And such groups are awful for governments >to deal with. An NGO swarm, say the RAND researchers, has no central >leadership or command structure; it is multi-headed, impossible to >decapitate. And it can sting a victim to death. > >Less dramatic, but just as important, is the rise of NGOs that are >dubbed by Sylvia Ostry, a trade expert from the University of Toronto, >as "technical" groups. These specialise in providing highly >sophisticated analysis and information, and they can be crucial to the >working of some treaties. In 1997, for instance, the verification >system for the Chemical Weapons Treaty was devised by the world's >chemical-manufacturing associations. In the campaign to cut third-world >debt, a handful of NGOs, including Oxfam, have become as expert in the >minutiae of debt-reduction procedures as the bureaucrats at the IMF and >World Bank. Increasingly, they have been co-opted into making policy. >At the WTO, these technical NGOs (staffed overwhelmingly with lawyers) >have concentrated on training and providing information on the arcana >of trade law to delegates from poor countries. > >Enemies or allies? > >If the power of NGOs has increased in a globalised world, who has lost >out? A popular view is that national governments have. In an article in >Foreign Affairs in 1997, Jessica Mathews, the head of the Carnegie >Endowment for International Peace, wrote that "the steady concentration >of power in the hands of states that began in 1648 with the Peace of >Westphalia, is over, at least for a while." Certainly national >governments no longer have a monopoly of information, or an unequalled >reach, compared to corporations and civil society. But the real losers >in this power shift are international organisations. > >Inter-governmental institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, the UN >agencies or the WTO have an enormous weakness in an age of NGOs: they >lack political leverage. No parliamentarian is going to face direct >pressure from the IMF or the WTO; but every policymaker faces pressure >from citizens' groups with special interests. Add to this the poor >public image that these technocratic, faceless bureaucracies have >developed, and it is hardly surprising that they are popular targets >for NGO "swarms". The WTO is only the latest to suffer. > >Less obvious is whether NGO attacks will democratise, or merely >disable, these organisations. At first sight, Seattle suggests a >pessimistic conclusion: inter-governmental outfits will become >paralysed in the face of concerted opposition. History, however, >suggests a different outcome. Take the case of the World Bank. The >Fifty Years is Enough campaign of 1994 was a prototype of Seattle >(complete with activists invading the meeting halls). Now the NGOs are >surprisingly quiet about the World Bank. The reason is that the Bank >has made a huge effort to co-opt them. > >James Wolfensohn, the Bank's boss, has made "dialogue" with NGOs a >central component of the institution's work. More than 70 NGO >specialists work in the Bank's field offices. More than half of World >Bank projects last year involved NGOs. Mr Wolfensohn has built >alliances with everyone, from religious groups to environmentalists. >His efforts have diluted the strength of "mobilisation networks" and >increased the relative power of technical NGOs (for it is mostly these >that the Bank has co-opted). From environmental policy to debt relief, >NGOs are at the centre of World Bank policy. Often they determine it. >The new World Bank is more transparent, but it is also more beholden to >a new set of special interests. > >The WTO will not evolve in the same way. As a forum where governments >set rules that bind rich as well as poor countries, it is inherently >more controversial. Nor does it disburse money for projects, making it >harder to co-opt NGOs. But it could still try to weaken the broad >coalition that attacked it in Seattle by reaching out to mainstream and >technical NGOs. Some will celebrate this as the advent of the age when >huge institutions will heed the voice of Everyman. Others will complain >that self-appointed advocates have gained too much influence. What is >certain is that a new kind of actor is claiming, loudly, a seat at the >table. > > >** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this >material is distributed without profit to those who have >expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information >for research and educational purposes. ** > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >*** Make holiday parties more fun, less stress *** >Try seeUthere.com: the easier way to organize great events. >Click on <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/sut4 ">FREE OFFER</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************************ Building the capacity of a new movement for social & economic justice ... Project South: Institute for the Elimination of Poverty & Genocide Washington Office & Affiliate 6617 Millwood Road Bethesda, MD 20817 tel 301.320.4034 fax 301.320.4534 email wkatzfishman@igc.org visit us online!! http://www.peacenet.org/projectsouth