What Are
The Main Issues?
Some observers see only benefits in
globalization, particularly the economic rationalists and business people
involved in international trade, whose justification is that globalization
leads to cheaper goods and services overall, and that it distributes technology
and wealth to developing countries. They say that as globalization increases,
even as the rich get richer, there is a “trickle down effect”, so that even the
poor benefit from increased overall wealth. Increased volumes of trade mean
more jobs for the locals, greater demand, rising salaries, greater spending
power, more affordable goods and services.
Some support globalization by claiming the increased trade and mutual
dependence increases the prospects of peace between the trading nations.
Others approve of the increased opportunity to be exposed to diverse cultures
and ideas, directly experienced in travel and tourism, or vicariously in books,
magazines, TV and radio. Some simply justify it because it improves
shareholder returns, and that, to them, appears to be a self-evident good!
On the other hand, many people express
concerns regarding the increasing power and influence of multinational
corporations. A major aspect is the rapid movement of capital, which can ruin
national economies, as we have seen in the Asian economic crisis in 1998.
National governments phrase fiscal and monetary policies based on their
expectations of the reactions of the 20-30 year old screen jocks who staff the
front office of the global money markets.
To attract and keep globally mobile capital investment, State and
provincial governments must compete with each other to give the best deal to
the multinationals, so that they will set up business locally. To “create
jobs” they may reduce taxes, restrict environmental regulations or labour laws,
or sell state provided goods and services at a cheaper rate.
Many on the left oppose the “export of jobs” to countries with cheaper
labour, and increased employment overseas is not seen as a beneficial outcome
of "the level playing field".
Even within nations, there is serious doubt of the reality of the
“trickle down effect”. In western countries over the past decade, the rich
have got richer and there is greater inequality. While the poor may not have
got poorer in absolute terms, they are little better off and the middle classes
are shrinking.
The perception of increasing wealth for the few while the many are left
by the wayside causes resentment, perhaps rebellion. Perceived economic
inequality can cause an increase in ethnic tensions.
Some environmentalists perceive global corporations as rapacious
plunderers, who exploit the local people and their environs while they profit
the company, in way that would be rejected by management or even prohibited by
law in their home countries.
Those who publish their beliefs regarding the adverse consequences of a
particular global corporation can be sued for libel. Multinationals can
afford, and do use, “private investigators” to infiltrate and spy on social
reform groups whose activities could be contrary to the company’s interest, and
they use their financial strength in legal "wars" of attrition, so
ordinary people cannot afford to resist.
Another worrying trend is the increasing power of nation states over
individuals (in contrast to their reducing influence over global
corporations). More and more information is gathered by various government
agencies about individuals, and this disparate data is being linked (using tax
file numbers, social security numbers, or even telephone numbers!). Freedom of
Information laws are not universal, and even where the do exist are limited in
scope and often poorly enforced. Big Brother is almost here. The epitome of
this kind of control is totalitarian communism or National Socialism (Nazism).
If Big Brother is the government, the credit reference associations are
his Little Brothers, and they are outgrowing their sibling. Modern “democratic”
countries are following the totalitarian's example, and the consequences are
potentially devastating.
Many are concerned at the culturally deadening impact of globalization,
particularly in the arts and the media, public debate, political style,
macroeconomic policy and management (“World's Best”) practices. Disney takes a
classic fairy story and copyrights its retelling. TV with bland unflappable
talking heads, where the host is more important than the message, appear on
most TV screens in the world.
Management consultants advise government agencies and corporations how
to restructure (downsize) their business, then return 5 years later to report
on the success of the devastation and self delusion. Mao has no need to
promote Five Year Plans, or the Great Leap Forward, in the West.
Some corporations – such as major tobacco companies – are simply
immoral, profiting by promoting death, encouraging addiction to dangerous
drugs, exposing workers and the community to industrial hazards, denying any
knowledge of harmful effects, supporting smuggling and tax evasion, and
justifying this behavior in the name of “free choice”, but driven solely by
shareholder value and profits. Remember Bhopal?
Another aspect of the concerns with
globalization relates to the payment of a fair amount of tax. Tax evasion is
rife: “Every body does it”. The mega sized News Corporation, through its 700
subsidiaries, paid about 7% of its profit in tax in 1997/98. Despite the
coercive power of national governments, for the very rich, tax is almost
optional.
Countries are now competing to reduce their top marginal income tax
rates, which have declined from over 80% in some countries some decades ago to
a “consensus” of around 30-35% now, to enable major local companies to attract
and keep senior executives, professionals and technical specialists in a global
market.
The national taxes are not only supposed to cover the cost of providing
equity within the country but the developed countries are obliged to provide
aid to developing countries. The UN target for foreign aid is a mere 0.7% of
GDP: most countries don't even come close.
Many believe that foreign aid provided through governments to other
governments is mostly wasted on bureaucracy, logistics, and corruption. There
is little prospect of realistic redistribution either within nations or around
the world under these circumstances.
In the meantime, the poor are still with us, and great injustice
continues.
Will Existing Institutions Help
A recurrent theme in many discussions of globalization
is the perceived lack of effective institutions that counterbalance the power
of the nation state, the major corporations, and the global market economy.
Reactions to the rampant rise of global capitalism have been varied.
International socialism was a fine ideal, but to succeed it needed
whole communities to support it and that was not forthcoming. Rising standards
of living have allowed the capitalists to push the “trickle down” theory, and
diluted the motivation for socialist cooperation.
The rise of totalitarian communism, which added central control,
censorship and coercion to the socialist ideal, is also thankfully collapsing.
National Socialism, which links socialist ideals to a preference for
specific national or ethnic groups, with overtones of a militaristic elite, was
discredited for decades after World War II but is becoming more attractive to
the disenchanted – the poor, the ignorant, the unemployed.
The less radical welfare state, exemplified in some European countries,
has been discredited, and is being dismantled even by supposedly leftist
governments. Can we address the global problem by improving these existing
institutions?
The United Nations:
Is the iceberg drifting in the right
direction?
Many idealists hope for greater regulation of global corporations and
markets through unions between nation states. The United Nations, the World
Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the International Court of Justice, the War
Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, and many other international bodies, perhaps even
the United States of Europe, are seen as components in an overall strategy to
civilize both the rogue states and free wheeling capitalism. Perhaps we could
have various universal tax schemes, for example on international money market
transactions, to restore the financial viability of nation states.
Major treaties - the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the UN
Conventions on Civil and Political Rights – reinforce peace and human rights –
at least in those countries that ratify the treaties and enact enabling
legislation! Much good work is done by the UN without much fanfare in areas we
don't normally see. The UN's role in population control and public health has
been a significant success.
But the UN approach is limited and many
believe that it has been tried and found wanting, or at least needs substantial
re-engineering.
·
The UN generally cannot, or chooses not, to take any action in a country
without permission of the national government - even an abusive, totalitarian dictatorship.
·
Any proposed UN action can be vetoed by any one of the 5 countries that are
permanent members of the Security Council, who may oppose a reasonable action
on the basis of ideology or national self-interest.
·
Because decisions must be made by consensus and with wide consultation, the UN
is seen as clumsy, bureaucratic, slow, timid and ineffectual.
·
The UN has very limited influence over a rogue state - or a major power - that
chooses to deny it legitimacy and refuses to comply with its requests.
·
Even the better member states can choose to ignore certain conventions or
interpret them in arbitrary ways to suit themselves.
·
The UN has virtually no power over individuals - even for crimes against
humanity, the UN success rate is not impressive.
·
Most member countries, particularly the richest - the USA- are well behind in
their dues, so there are limited funds available for the actual work.
·
At its best, the UN and its agencies will remain servants of the nation states
of which they comprise, subject to the economic clout of the major donor
nations (the United States of America and Europe) who are in turn are subject
to the whims of their local electorates.
·
Attempts to reform the UN, to overcome these limitations, are seen as threats
by conservative politicians and right wing militias alike, who see the UN and
its agencies as a threat to their national sovereignty, which is assigned
almost sacred reverence as an end in itself.
The UN is broke & we can't fix it.
National Governments:
Can We Trust the Politicians?
A more nationalistic reaction in many
countries is to contain the corporations by enforcing competition; especially
with “anti trust” legislation such as that used in the USA to break up oil and
telephone companies - and Microsoft? Despite the break ups, the “Seven
Sisters” group of oil companies still dominates global oil production,
distribution and sale, the “Baby Bells” remain dominant in the USA, and mega
mergers are on the rise.
On the contrary side, with more and more multinationals domiciled in a
range of home countries, especially the USA and Europe, the increased diversity
restricts the ability of any one nation to control the market just as much as
it promotes a freer (supposedly better) market.
In most countries even left leaning
governments are adopting the philosophy that it is government’s role “to steer,
not row”, and that governments should provide only the lowest safety net.
The “Third Way”, as epitomized by Tony Blair’s government in the UK, is
promoted as a compromise between the radical left and right, which welcomes
globalization, competition, privatization and free enterprise, and accepts that
the traditional socialist policies – of nationalization, protectionism,
controlled markets, high welfare levels – are now inadequate. Their solution
appears to cover improved efficiencies in government, micro-economic reform,
re-skilling the work force and judicious support for key (“high tech”)
industries: is that all there is?
Although state or national governments are seen by many to be the
natural institutions to address inequality, the post war history of the
developed countries vividly shows the inherent contradictions. Why do we have
such little faith in our politicians' ability to solve our global problems?
· State
and national governments are expected to rule with the consent of the people,
but apply their coercive powers to all persons within their border, even if
they don't consent, and many object;
·
Democratic elections allow a notional 50.1% of the voters on the day to elect
the government - so 49.9% of voters may not want the elected government, and
when there is a low turnout, the government may have as little as about 25%
explicit support;
·
Sovereign states have no limits on their coercive power over individuals,
except where there is a "Bill of Rights" in the local constitution,
but even this can be modified by the Supreme Court, or overturned by a
referendum or a coup d'etat.
·
Some national governments commit genocide and even democratic countries may
support violent despots and oppressive regimes for some misguided perception of
the national interest;
·
Once elected, state and national governments often enact or enforce legislation
that is discriminatory against ethnic groups, the unemployed or other minority
groups, or which is contrary even to the wishes of the majority;
·
Much of government expenditure is seen to be not only wasted because of
inefficiency, incompetence and laziness, but also fundamentally misdirected and
misinformed;
·
Some government expenditure, a high proportion in some countries, is devoted to
the armed forces, business cronies and corrupt officials - who in turn support
the government - rather than on desperately needed services to the poor;
·
Promises made by state and national politicians are notoriously unreliable, and
politicians often make radical changes for which they have no mandate; we
accept this as inevitable, but it's not!
·
There is no contractual basis for the delivery of the promised government
services;
·
Service delivery when it does occur is usually fragmented, remote, limited,
temporary, bureaucratic, apparently arbitrary, uncaring, impersonal and
dehumanizing;
·
Appeals against the denial of government services are usually too complex and
costly, and there is little local support for an aggrieved welfare recipient;
·
Swings in the electoral mood which result in a new government can result in
social advances being reversed for ideological reasons divorced from any
reality;
·
Many effective social policies cannot be implemented, and some regressive
policies are implemented, because state and national politicians need to appeal
to the lowest common denominator as well as the vocal single issue groups who
can influence perhaps 1-2% of the electorate;
· Social
planning is extremely short term where there is a 2-4 year electoral cycle,
perhaps involving a total turnover of the political leaders and senior
bureaucrats;
·
Vote rigging is worth while, when the winner takes all, and possible in larger
electorates with unknown candidates and secret ballots which can be tampered
with, and in the best of countries gerrymanders of electoral boundaries are
common;
·
Taxes are unfair when the wealthy can avoid them by choosing the country which
best suits their tax needs - the coercive power of the state is ineffective;
·
Government handouts are often not made only to the deserving. After natural
disasters, grants to the uninsured are often the same amounts as those to the
insured;
·
As Thurber said, that government which governs best governs least. The
socialists can't accept the maxim, but are losing the war;
·
Finally, even with the most enlightened and well run state, the benefits only
apply within the borders and leave out most of the world.
Can we, in good conscience, knowing these sorts of facts, depend on
national governments, or any aggregation of them, to resolve the world's global
problems?
Unions
In Unions There is Weakness
Unions and the labour movement have been the
traditional counterweight to errant capitalism – at least in those countries
with freedom of association and the right to strike. Where unions could be
most effective, the workers suffer severe oppression from the government and
large corporations.
Despite their best efforts over the past century, union power has
almost always only been effective within national boundaries, and the dream of
international unity remains elusive. Even within nations, demarcation disputes
and other internecine conflict reduces the effectiveness of the movement. A
good proportion of union members vote against the labour candidates endorsed or
financially supported by their own union.
Attempts to broaden the unions’ role, to include environmental and
social concerns have limited success. Many members prefer their subscriptions
to be devoted purely to better wages and conditions. Employers also support a
narrow interpretation of the unions’ role, and governments (even those of the
supposed left) often further reduce the scope of unions' effectiveness to the
local enterprise, to minimize their impact on national issues and politics.
Many workers fail to see that union subscriptions provides any benefit -
struggles for better wages and conditions have improved the lot of all workers
(in the country) not just the union members.
Union influence now seems to be effective only when some other
interested party is also pushing in the same direction: employers opposing
environmental controls or containing competition, racists resisting foreign
workers and immigration, insurers seeking to reduce work related accidents and
workers compensation costs. Recent recessions have seen the effective
destruction of unions as effective centres of power, and union membership is
declining almost everywhere.
Privatised Service Providers:
They Care, Don't They?
Some will say the effects of globalization,
just like any other adverse effects, can be minimized with the support of major
corporations themselves. One can insure against almost all possibilities. New
corporations will tailor products to suit your requirements: order over the
Internet and it will be delivered within a few days. But these services are
tailored to the wealthiest 20%, who control over 80% of the total wealth - the
poor miss out entirely.
If your personal property, privacy or safety is at risk, in most
countries you can hire a security firm to provide the appropriate degree of
assertiveness. In South Africa, if you fear robbery or rape in your home, you
can arrange cover with a rapid response team, who will smash into your house
within two minutes of being called, machine guns at the ready. If you need to
quell a rebellion in a local province, Executive Solutions will provide a small
army to terminate it.
Commercial organizations will also assist
you in selecting the best and cheapest product to by - as consumer agents,
especially on the Internet. But such companies are based on consumption: they
must encourage more purchases to increase profits. Some obtain commissions or
"kick backs", which may not be disclosed to the consumer, and may or
influence their recommendation.
Commercial organizations try to increase profits by adding more value:
more elaborate goods command higher prices, greater margins and increased
profits. But it is hard to obtain corporate funding for medical research into
additional uses for commodity drugs (such as aspirin) because even if the new
application is extremely beneficial there is no money in it: anyone can make
and sell aspirin cheaply.
Most corporations are not committed, of their own accord, to provide
useful and safe products. Tobacco companies are an obvious example. Fast
food, in small amounts, is not a health risk, but isn’t suitable every day. Few
corporations promote locally grown fresh fruit and vegetables. Yet in affluent
countries about half the deaths are linked to lifestyle - especially smoking
and obesity - while in other parts of the world people starve.
National and State governments try to counteract these negatives of
"free enterprise" by education in schools and public awareness
campaigns, but some issues are not vigorously pursued. In many countries
government colludes with the corporations, often secretly, to obtain bribes,
because of shared ideology amongst the rich and powerful or because of
narrow-minded views that business must be encouraged to create wealth.
Self Defeating Reactions
Some of the reactions to globalization,
rampant capitalism and the perceived meanness of the human spirit appear to be
well intentioned, but in essence are self-defeating. Shouldn’t we look after
our own community first? Isn’t the major problem better training and job
opportunity for the young? Is it worth donating to the Red Cross? Does
Amnesty International actually help?
Nationalistic Reactions:
Blow You Jack,
We'll Be All right!
The socialist left and the loony right both
struggle valiantly to stop the global tide, with calls for higher tariffs and
other trade barriers and increased government subsidies to local business.
Even conservative economically rationalist governments who fear an electoral
backlash, particularly from country electorates, support some subsidies. These
often become so ridiculous that the subsidy forms the major part of the income
of the worker, the foreign multinational still pays minimal tax while
repatriating profits and producers are paid by government to produce fewer
goods, or to produce goods we don't need.
Workers and employers unite in opposition to any environmental
restrictions that may impact on their jobs – or profits – often ignoring the
long-term impact on the very resource they are exploiting. Timber workers and
sawmills combine to resist constraints on logging designed to foster
sustainable development, then lose their jobs anyway to increased mechanization.
With higher subsidies to be paid out of ordinary peoples' taxes there
are less funds for government support of health, education and welfare. Tariffs
on imports, paid into consolidated revenue, are ultimately paid by consumers,
but only part is returned to the consumer. In many cases it is the rich (the
multi-nationals) who benefit from these arrangements at the expense of the poor
(ordinary consumers).
Another typical reaction in developed countries with “conservative”
governments wishing to compete with developing countries is to attack labour
standards – reduce wages and conditions so that the lowest paid worker is
effectively at subsistence level, and the work environment is little more than
an unregulated sweat shop. Unions who struggle against this trend to lower
their members’ standard of living are accused of feathering their own nest and
selfishly resisting the “reforms” required to reduce unemployment (even if it
is at subsistence wages). The “race to the bottom” could be won by the country
with the greatest inequality within its borders, with its consequent social
disruption.
Education in modern states is driven by
globalization, where specific skills – technology, engineering, management,
economics, marketing, law and finance – are seen to be required in a modern
technological world. The humanities are being left by the wayside: is our
humanity being left too?
NGOs: Don Quixotes
Local charities can do much good work. As
they evolve into large non-government organizations (NGOs) their influence
spreads. The Society of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Medecins Sans
Frontiers, Amnesty International, World Vision and other church based NGOs save
many lives and provide a moral dimension to international affairs.
Most NGOs appear to focus on short-term aid in acute situations (war,
flood, famine, fire), restoring the recipients’ ability to help themselves, to
avoid the demeaning aspects of long term dependency. It’s cheaper too.
There's always another crisis competing for resources.
There is an ongoing debate within NGOs as to whether their funds should
be expended on actually delivering programs to the needy or advocacy -
persuading governments to provide the services rather than the NGO. The move
to professionalism in human support organizations can also cause disquiet. CEOs
of NGOs focus on budgets, strategies, marketing, resources, efficiency and
effectiveness: there sometimes appears to be little room for love or
compassion.
There is also a major concern that a lot of the income of NGOs is "lost"
in fund raising costs, administration and corruption.
Major disadvantages of the traditional NGOs are that they are:
·
Not universal - they provide benefits only to the poor, so the affluent have
little reason other than pure altruism to be involved;
·
Not comprehensive - they usually provide limited or fragmented services;
·
Not contractual - management makes the decision on whether a particular
individual will receive services, and the potential recipient has few rights to
any benefits;
·
Not democratic - the recipients and the donors actually have little say in the
process, which is often run by a religious group or some other hierarchy;
·
Not forceful - they tend to be apolitical in order to be permitted to act in
the local state;
·
Not reciprocal - in most cases there is no obligation placed on the recipient
·
Under capitalized - they have few business investments to provide ongoing funds
to redistribute to the needy, and all gifts are applied to operating expenses.
Some would say that by continually applying band aids NGOs inhibit long
term solutions and become part of the problem.
PERSONAL REACTIONS:
The Lone Rangers
Others take a more desperate, personal view
while trying to be proactive. They contribute to charities, support civil
rights groups, participate in local community groups – kindergartens, schools,
youth groups, civic groups, local councils – and join “national clean up” or
“national tree planting” days. They believe the personal is political; they
think global and act local. On the personal side, they take out medical, life,
house and car insurance, save for retirement, spend prudently and hope for the
best.
What’s wrong with this? It does not solve the global problem. The
charity work is at the fringes of society, specialized, or localized. The
personal insurance business generates profits for increasingly global financial
corporations. This sensible, personal approach addresses some of the concerns
for those educated, prudent, affluent people who have the wherewithal to plan
in this way.
But to really think globally, individuals need to do more than these
piecemeal feel good and self-interested actions.
At the same time, as levels of technical
education and access to wider sources of information increase, faith in
religious beliefs is declining, the average age of church congregations is
increasing, and applications for entry into the priesthood have fallen to below
replacement level.
The Existentialist and Post Modernist approaches are based on ignorance
(we don't know) and amorality, and ultimately lead to despair. Most of us need
a core set of beliefs, but the major religions fail to provide a mythological
structure that we can actually believe. Despite dramatic increases in
knowledge, the anti-science/anti-technology reaction that permeates the modern
world results in dogmatic, paternalistic religious sects or political parties,
often controlled by an apparently charismatic leader.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
The march of globalization seems unassailable, but the major proposals
to humanize the global economy have all been found wanting. State welfare is
being decimated, because tax is becoming optional for the rich and countries
compete to lower their individual and corporate tax rates. Union and church
membership is declining, NGOs supply charity to some but are toothless, the UN
is dominated by powerful nations acting in their own self interest, personal
responses are ineffectual and many people just despair.
The institution we need must thrive in the context of
globalization. It must become powerful, to enable it to acquire the resources
to effectively resist its powerful opponents, yet it must retain close links
with its constituents, so that it remains part of the solution and does not
regress to become part of the problem. It must provide a comprehensive and
integrated, well defined set of benefits to all members as of right, not as
acts of charity, and not based on their ability to pay, to the degree practical
while remaining financially viable. It must redistribute wealth and income
effectively, with active support from the affluent and the wealthy who accept
their obligations. It must impose obligations on the net recipients of
benefits to return the favour if and when they are able. It must provide (even
to the affluent) services to which all people are entitled but in practice
cannot sometimes obtain. It must remain sensitive to the needs of the poor.
It must conserve resources and preserve & sustain the environment. It must
be open and democratic. It must do this on a global scale, independent of
local nationality, without imposing a single culture. It must provide a
structure for all of us to manage our global obligations to humanity, where the
obligations are seen and felt to be mutual. It must be practical. It must
have teeth. It must inspire. The Global Obligations Organization is intended
to meet these goals.
Global Obligations
Global Obligations can begin, and function
well in many parts of the globe, as a small society, but should also strive to
grow into a major organization.
Its goal is to redress the balance in favour of individuals – to give
to each according to their needs, funded by contributions from each according
to their ability. Global Obligations will “guarantee” (where it is within its capability)
the basic necessities of life, will provide restitution for homes and
livelihood lost by flood, famine, fire or war, will provide medical care and
legal aid, a consumer protection service, and advocacy where abuses are
inflicted “legally” by government agencies or corporations. Benefits are
provided to members only, not to non-members: this is not a “charity”.
Global Obligations must have an appropriate structure, with a
separation of powers to provide protection against abuses:
1. A representative structure, that provides for members to
contribute to the formulation of policy and rules for the organization;
2. A professional executive body to manage the business of the
organization, implementing policy determined by the representatives;
3. A service structure that is comprehensive, integrated and
personal;
4. An independent arbitration structure to resolve disputes.
Global Obligations can be established in a number of phases:
1.
Establishment:
A preliminary phase to establish the legal structures, define initial
policies and procedures, and set up the financial management, commercial
partners and other infrastructure systems;
2.
Initiation:
The initial phase when Global Obligations is actually providing
benefits to a small number of members, during which policies and procedures can
be refined;
3.
Expansion:
A growth phase, when the organization exceeds a defined size and
implements fully its structure and policies, and markets itself widely.
Benefits and Membership
Global Obligations must maintain a prudent
investment and risk management strategy, so that it can meets its commitments
to its constituents. The key difference between Global Obligations and other
NGOs is that Global Obligations is obliged, by contract, to deliver the
services: though it may satisfy the taxman’s definition of charity it is not
optional “charity”. To deliver these obligations, the society must be well
managed, and have appropriate policies to handle the risks, balancing the
demand for services with income from regular contributions and donations, while
containing costs and meeting the obligations of a good corporate citizen.
On the cost side, actuaries dedicate their skills to determining the
probability and cost of defined sets of events, and can achieve this with
sufficient accuracy to allow insurance companies to make profits. Similarly,
Global Obligations needs to budget to receive sufficient income to cover the
expected costs and maintain provisions for future contingencies. It must have a
definition of “cover” that applies equally to the affluent and the poorer
members of the organization, so the affluent perceive that they also receive
tangible benefits from membership.
Global Obligations will need to control the
admission of members so that it can maintain its obligations without being
swamped by demand, with an obvious bias towards admitting net donors. Its
membership policy must be non-discriminatory, and ensure the membership covers
a wide ethnic background in its early phases. Once admitted, membership would
be valid for life, provided the member continues to meet their obligations, and
appropriate provisions must be made to cover future expected costs.
Some may deem this admissions policy to be unfair, denying people their
natural rights, or discriminating against those most in need. However
unfortunate, the policy is essential to prevent the organization going
bankrupt: if that occurred it would be useless to everyone.
Moderately affluent members will receive as
an integrated package benefits, which includes housing, health, income
protection and legal liability insurance, consumer protection and added
security services in some circumstances. Provision of some of these benefits
can be outsourced to commercial organizations. Global Obligations would
initially act as a kind of insurance broker providing bulk purchased cover.
A proportion of the affluents contribution – comparable to the broker’s
commission – is redirected to subsidize the contributions of the more needy
members. Another proportion (higher for the more affluent) would be a regular
“gift” to also be applied to the redistribution. The proportion would be
progressive. Some Christians tithe themselves 10% of their income. Islam
suggests 1/40th of one’s income to give to the poor, which seems a
more achievable target. The actual amount will need to be determined based on market
research and in the context of the net benefit to the society.
The poorer members of Global Obligations
would receive benefits as defined, but contribute financially at a lower rate.
In some cases the regular contribution may be almost negligible but it should
remain non-zero to confirm the member’s commitment. The ability to pay includes
not just actual income over a recent period, but expected income and the
member's ability to earn or their earning rate.
The provision of any net benefits to a member places a reciprocal
obligation on the member to continue to contribute under the standard policies
after they have recovered, or obtained, satisfactory circumstances. This may
be effected as a legally enforceable contract, to be rescinded on the member’s
death, which is payable on demand if the member wishes to resign their
membership when their fortunes improve and their resignation is judged
to be to avoid meeting their reciprocal obligations.
The tithe must take into account the taxes paid to area governments and
the degree to which the government services overlap the services provided by
Global Obligations. For instance, if a state government provides adequate
health care, the calculation of the tithe for individuals from that state must
be reduced to reflect the reduced costs. For a significant donor, particularly
a very wealthy donor, Global Obligations must retain the option to negotiate on
details - after all the contribution is voluntary, and some donation may be
better than none.
Global Obligations would need to manage the
claims made on it to reduce the demand on resource to a minimum. Service
delivery will be arranged through local Service Officers who will be familiar
with their local members’ circumstances, and will have the explicit authority
to cease specific benefits where there is no ongoing need. Costs may be
minimized by using other service providers, government agencies, NGOs, and
volunteers. Part of the member’s obligations would be to provide services,
when appropriate.
As a general approach, Global Obligations
would attempt to minimize demands for resources by adopting a somewhat ascetic
approach, consistent with minimizing the impact on the environment. If Global
Obligations encourages a member to reduce their consumption, this saves the
member some cash, is better for the environment, and leaves the member with an
increased ability to contribute to Global Obligations.
Electoral Groups
Each member of Global Obligations may elect to join a particular
electoral group, defined according to any criteria whatsoever and may at any
time change their electoral group. An electoral group is entitled to elect one
representative to act on their behalf for each 500 members. An election may be
held on a periodical basis, organized by independent electoral officers,
perhaps using a form of (optionally electronic) postal voting. The nominated
representatives consequently will represent essentially all their constituents,
not just 51% - or less, and the constituents may live anywhere in the world.
Representatives elected directly by members
will elect "higher level" representatives on the same basis,
similarly allowing for dynamic choice of the higher level electoral group. As
each level exceeds another threshold size, it will spawn a new level, where the
minimum number of representatives at the higher level is say 10, thus
permitting dynamic growth. A maximum of 3 levels would be required to cover the
whole human population.
The highest level of elected representatives constitutes the parliament
of Global Obligations, and appoints the Executive. Representatives should be
adequately remunerated, as determined by an independent tribunal, taking into
account various issues including the local cost of living and the level of
income of the constituents.
Service Officers
A major concern with many national welfare service
providers and large corporations is that there is no single point of contact,
and no one is responsible. Welfare recipients are expected to divulge
sometimes sensitive personal information to complete strangers, sometime
repeatedly, and in semi-public places. A potential global organization
established to counter the adverse effects of globalization must adopt specific
measures to avoid the same offence. These strategies may appear to be contrary
to efficient management principles, but are essential.
There is also a concern related to the ability of the service provider
to advocate what the client actually needs. NGOs who contract to governments
to provide some services have been threatened with reduced funding or access if
they criticize government policy. Staff at government agencies are usually
bound by secrecy laws (perhaps supposedly in the client's interest) or simply
threatened with no advancement, demotion or the sack. The professionals most
informed about the needs are often least able to speak about them.
For these reasons, Global Obligations is based on a service structure
that involves locally available, comprehensively skilled, Service Officers,
rather like a priest is appointed to a parish, who may work in consultation with
the elected representatives from the electoral group. After an appropriate
probation period and training, Service Officers should have some security of
tenure that allows for criticism of policy.
As a component of the strategy to avoid
becoming “just another impersonal, imperious, global corporation”, Global
Obligations should provide a structure to support particular Special Interest
Groups (SIGs). These may be based on religion, ethnicity, locality, politics,
the arts, or whatever basis the members see fit, consistent with the key
principles of the society. With the economies of scale, the support costs can
be minimized, so small groups that might not have been viable may be able to
flourish and counter the drab sameness of modern media’s global cultural
imperialism.
Global Obligations must maintain a system of
independent arbitration, which has the authority to direct the executive and
Service Officers. Arbiters should be able to strike out a resolution passed at
any level which is inconsistent with the key principles of Global Obligations,
and will resolve disputes between members and the service officers, disputes
related to the electoral process and any other matters. The executive should
include “internal auditors” whose role is to ensure that the services delivered
to members conform to the agreed entitlements and are delivered efficiently and
effectively.
Capital Investments
A key
principle of Global Obligations is that is should accrue a sound capital base.
This will provide the organization with income from the investments as well as
provide commercial and political influence. The capital investments account
should be kept distinct from ongoing expenses. Operating expenses will mostly
be obtained from ongoing subscriptions from members. Fund raising drives,
major donations and bequests should, in general, be applied to increasing the
capital rather than to operating expenses. Too often, a person’s life savings,
bequeathed after their death to some cause, have been quickly consumed with
little significant impact. Global Obligations will benefit from the donations
for the foreseeable future.
Donations to the capital fund, the proportion of the subscription which
is applied to other members, and the proportion which relates to income
protection insurance should be should also be tax deductible in many national
jurisdictions. That component which is for certain insurance like benefits (for
one’s house) would not be tax deductible without changes to tax law.
Global Obligations will have one stream of its capital investments
dedicated to controlling the worst excesses of capitalism via share ownership.
All the income from these investments will be ploughed back into the same
Strategic Investments Fund. The profits from tobacco companies will be used to
promote quit campaigns, from gambling companies to promote
"responsible" gambling, and from polluting companies to promote
better environmental laws, and so on. Global Obligations would pursue a harm
minimization approach rather than a punitive approach to such issues,
Who Would Contribute?
There is a general sense of despair and
cynicism which generally increases as one descends the socioeconomic scale.
Donor fatigue is now a risk to campaigns for emergency relief for major natural
disasters. A widespread consensus would be that while it is easy to understand
that the poor and needy would willingly join an institution such as Global
Obligations, the vast majority of the affluent, who would be net donors, would
not be involved - Global Obligations would be lucky to attract even 1% of them.
But a key feature of Global Obligations is that it does not need the
support of 50% of any group of voters to begin. A small group of individuals
would be sufficient for Global Obligations to start. If Global Obligations does
obtain a membership approaching 1% of the population that would be OK. 1% of 6
billion is larger than all but a handful of countries. With 1%, Global
Obligations would have an influence far beyond its absolute size or wealth.
As Global Obligations grows in influence, it can encourage national and
state governments to provide incentives for even the wealthy to join. And
again it needs to be emphasized that tax for the very wealthy is already partly
optional.
But the cynical despairing view of human nature is not completely
true. Many individuals and groups could find good reasons to support Global
Obligations:
· Many major corporations do try to govern
themselves openly and transparently and could take seriously Krugman’s warning
at Davos. To improve their image, and to be (seen to be?) a good “corporate
citizen”, many corporations donate to worthy causes;
· Some forward-looking companies may
contribute to Global Obligations to cultivate partnership arrangements in
anticipation of being considered for outsourced services;
· There are many, many wealthy
philanthropists who contribute millions of dollars to favoured causes;
· Some national governments, such as home
countries of multinationals, could see that the goals and effects of Global
Obligations are consistent with their national interests. Capitalist countries
should see Global Obligations as a development that requires substantial and
open support because it mitigates the negative effects of global corporations;
·
Minority groups - many of whom can be affluent or even wealthy - who desire a
more effective counterweight to oppression by the rest of the community;
·
Democratic socialists, who support the need to share according to our ability;
·
Economic rationalists, who support the reduction in area government services
and advocate volunteer bodies providing an increasing share of the safety net;
·
Anarchists who believe that the power concentrated in nation states, and also
in major corporations, is corrupting, so they seek to limit the power of
national governments;
·
Religious people – Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wicans and
many others– who share the sense of mutual obligation to fellow humans, even if
the foundation of their beliefs differ profoundly;
·
Environmentalists who see the need to contain global corporations and nations;
·
Peace activists who wish to reduce the linkage between geography and morality;
·
The idealistic young who typically see national politics and conventional
religion as based on lies and deception, and need something more to
believe in;
·
Ordinary families on modest incomes, who have difficulty determining the
appropriate level of insurance, or are bewildered by the range of choice, or
feel helpless in the face of major retailers, or are dubious that the providers
will pay up when required;
·
Ordinary people who feel that they should contribute to the community, or who
simply desire to create a more secure but more diverse environment for their
children.
Members and Services
For example, Global Obligations as an institution could provide:
· Clean water and a balanced diet to members
and their families in a famine;
· Protection against racial discrimination
or "ethnic cleansing" by negotiation, legal appeals, publicity,
relocation, or local security support;
· Health services - medical and hospital
treatment and health promotion strategies;
· Legal aid services for criminal and civil
matters;
· Legal and financial support to prisoners
of conscience or others arbitrarily imprisoned or abused outside the rule of
law;
· Re-establishment of an owner operated
subsistence farm or small business after a natural disaster such as earthquake,
flood or bush fire;
·
Consumer advice prior to and after purchasing a product, particularly where
large corporations fail to take responsibility for major harm they have caused.
Area Government
What impact would Global Obligations have on
national and state governments?
Sovereign states in the past have had unfettered authority over the
local citizenry and any visitors within their borders. Though some countries
have self-imposed restrictions in their constitutions the local citizens are entitled
to change their constitutions as they see fit, without foreign interference.
Rousseau's “social contract” is achieved by allowing all (or most) adults to
vote for the government, but it fails where there are not free and fair
elections, and fails where the majority abuses a minority. But even in the best
states, for a local born person, citizenship is effectively not optional
(moving country is too costly), and where majority rules, the minority remains
unrepresented. The only true social contract applies when membership is
optional, and participation is available to all.
We must accept that area governments are not
the only legitimate sources of authority: in fact they are often illegitimate.
The principle of sovereignty must be accepted by all nations with respect to
each other to reduce the likelihood of war, but that does not imply or require
sole, supreme, or unrestricted authority within national borders. The moral
force cannot be confined to particular patches of land and water. Aggregations of
states, such as the UN, are not the only logical alternatives to national law.
Given that some compulsory area government
is required, it should be restricted to the human rights essentials and the
area based issues that relate to geography: infrastructure such as roads,
communications channels, clean air, land and water, civil order, public health,
markets, the monetary system.
Preservation of the environment is mandatory
on all individuals and organisations, including Global Obligations. Because
the environment and the acts that degrade the environment are essentially
geographical, coercive area based government must be the primary institution
which monitors and maintains the physical environment. Global Obligations is
thus only part of a strategy to preserve the global environment.
Similarly, issues such as the elimination of
weapons of mass destruction would be strongly supported by Global Obligations,
but must be resolved by the United Nations and its member countries. Wars seem
to be moving to guerilla warfare rather than mass mobilization of organized
military forces. Global Obligations could improve the chances of world peace
by reducing the linkage between what is perceived to be morally right or
defensible and geographical areas and improving the lot of the disenfranchised.
Taxes based on the location of a
transaction, including property taxes, poll taxes, and goods and services or
value added taxes naturally are linked to area governments. Progressive taxes
imposed by one state on the total of an individual’s income become less viable
in a global environment, and to some degree are voluntary, so these will
diminish. One of Global Obligations strategies would be to persuade national
governments to provide generous tax treatment of contributions to Global
Obligations by the affluent.
The intensity of various separatists'
movements could be reduced if the minority group can dissociate the perceived
benefits of separation from geography. Global Obligations' Special Interest
Groups can provide additional services to the separatists that they desire. On
the other hand, Global Obligations would in general support separation from a
larger entity where a majority of the locals support the split, there is no
intent to oppress local minorities and the split is not motivated by a selfish
desire to exploit local rich resources.
Why should I share services, political
representation with another, just because they live within a certain distance
of my home? Why should I be denied representation if my party’s candidate lost
the local electorate? Why should I have to fund services with which I
disagree, or have withdrawn from me benefits that I require, because some
proportion of my neighbours say so?
As we become more mobile and have access to faster communications,
geographical ties mean less and less. Shared interests and commitment to a
cause, rather than geographical proximity, will more and more define our
community. Even with the best we can expect in national governments, a
reformed United Nations, ethical (or controlled) corporations and more
effective NGOs, there will still be a need for a counter balance to the power
and uniformity of big government and big business.
HOW IS THIS
NEW?
So what is
different or new about Global Obligations? In contrast to state or national
governments, corporations, and non-government organisations, Global Obligations
is based on a set of key principles which ensure it is:
· Global -
members can participate regardless of where they live;
· Reciprocal -
receipt of a benefit imposes reciprocal obligations;
· Comprehensive -
covering civil and political rights, personal property and consumer support;
· Contractual -
policy benefits must be delivered under binding legally binding contracts;
· Universal - all
members, rich and poor, are entitled to the same benefits;
· Progressive -
members' contributions are discounted for their ability to pay;
· Participative -
donors and beneficiaries elect representatives who define the policies;
· Representative
- most members will actually have their candidate as their representative;
· Personal - with
small electoral groups and accessible tenured service officers;
· Extendible -
special interest groups may address environmental, peace, social or other
community activities;
· Directed -
small electoral groups allow representatives to focus on services or policy
without the distraction and dislocation of regular massive elections;
· Assertive - as
the capital base and membership numbers grow, commercial and political
influence will follow;
· Financially
Viable - the admission of new members is controlled, and risks managed, to
ensure policy obligations can be met;
· Transparent -
open, public, with independent, authoritative dispute resolution;
· Inspiring -
because it is global, personal, assertive, universal, comprehensive,
progressive, participative, and reciprocal
· Achievable -
can be established without a majority or support from any politicians.
OTHER OPTIONS
If you agree
Global Obligations is addressing the right problem but you are doubtful about
this proposed solution then consider the alternatives.
· You can join an armed struggle, in an attempt
to force others to be good. Large corporations and wealthy democratic countries
will not, and should not, succumb to violence. Even with the coercive power of
the State, for the rich taxes are partly optional. Global Obligations must be
voluntary.
· You can continue the (non-violent) struggle
to persuade the general populous and the politicians to be more generous, by
being active in politics (where this is permitted). Campaigning and
compromising may over time lead to global improvements.
· You can join all of The Red Cross, Amnesty
International, the local Consumers Association, Greenpeace, and the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament (if the government will let you), and take out
health, home, legal and income protection insurance (if you can afford it). In
some counties, you’ll have to leave.
· You can join Global Obligations.
· Or you can shut up.
CALL TO JOIN
ARMS
Global Obligations' immediate need is for inaugural members who can
actively contribute to the establishment of the organization - with legal
issues, policy development, actuarial assessments, administration and
marketing. It also needs benefactors to provide the funds to cover the costs
of consultants and staff to coordinate and complete these tasks.
There are two main
components to joining Global Obligations: looking after yourself (and the
society will help you when required); and helping the society to look after
others.
In the face of the seemingly irresistible
forces of globalization, we as individuals can make a difference, perhaps not
to the whole world, but definitely to each other, to those who share our Global
Obligations.
All people – from all countries, all backgrounds, and all degrees of
wealth or poverty – have obligations to themselves, their families, their
familiars and humanity as a whole. By being part of Global Obligations we are
declaring that our fellow members at least will be treated with equity,
regardless of where they live, providing they accept their obligations to us,
according to the Key Principles of the society.
And this is not just a fervent wish, it does not require a revolution,
it is not just a goal we believe the majority should accept. We can do
it now.
To contact send email to: Info@GlobalObligations.com. Home Page:www.GlobalObligations.com
Address: Global Obligations Establishment
Trust, G.P.O. Box 2004, Melbourne, 3001 Australia
