Report on Conference on Globalization and Culture of Peace, Barcelona

Network members,

What follows is my report on the conference on globalization and the
culture of peace that I attended in Barcelona. Following my brief report is
the text of my presentation.

Steve

*****
The XIth Meeting of Barcelona, "Culture of Peace and Globalisation"
Barcelona, June 9th & 10th, 2000
Organized by Justicia I Pau (Justice and Peace) and Fundacio per la Pau
(Foundation for Peace).

Conference Report by Steven Staples

 Justicia I Pau organized a very successful meeting to discuss
globalization and peace in Barcelona, Spain on June 9th and 10th. More than
a hundred people  attended the two days of lectures held at the Universitat
Pompeau Fabra in the middle of Barcelona's beautiful Gothic Quarter.

As the name implies, the meeting was the eleventh held to discuss current
issues facing the work of the organization, and Spain's peace and social
justice  movement. In honour of the UN's dedication of the Year 2000 to
developing a culture of peace, and to discuss issues raised by the protests
in Seattle  against the WTO, the theme of the meeting was "The Culture of
Peace and Globalisation."

There were many excellent presentations on the challenges created by
globalization. The issues covered ranged from protecting local economies,
the role of  the media, North-South solidarity, and the coordination of the
peace movement at the international level. My presentation specifically
examined  globalization's effect on disarmament.

I was very honoured to be asked to present to the meeting, and to be among
the very accomplished speakers who also presented. Among them were
Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former Director General of UNESCO; Bernard Cassen,
General Editor of Le Monde Diplomatique; and Colin Archer,
Secretary-General of the International Peace Bureau.

Following the meetings, my schedule allowed me to visit the many
fascinating buildings by Antonio Gaudi in Barcelona, and to meet with other
activists. I  was very happy to be able to meet with Arcadi Oliveres and
Gemma Xarles of the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Arcadi and Gemma
have been  undertaking important work on the European arms industry and
economic conversion.

Finally, I would like to report on two recent victories for Justicia I Pau.
First, during the recent national election more than a million signatures
calling for  Third World debt relief were collected. Justicia I Pau and
others organized parallel polling stations where voters could sign the
petition.

Second, Justicia I Pau was so offended when Madrid chose Barcelona as the
site for a large military parade, that the group organized its own public
event  promoting peace and the arts. The military parade attracted less
than 20,000 people, while a few blocks away more than 40,000 people joined
Justicia I  Pau in its peace festival. Impressive.

END

*****
A New Culture of Peace
Barcelona, June 9 2000

Presented by Steven Staples

There is a famous story about Bill Clinton's first campaign to be President
of the United States in 1993. As the story goes, Clinton's campaign
strategists  were working on developing an election platform to use against
their Republican opponent, George Bush. The strategists came up with a
simple motto that  they wrote out and pinned to the wall of the election
headquarters as a constant reminder to themselves. The sign said, "It's the
economy, stupid."

What they meant by that was, above all else, the major theme that needed to
be addressed by would-be president was the economy. Everything else was a
side issue.

Well, I think that as we meet here today to forge ahead with a plan to
promote a new culture of peace in this century, we need a sign of our own
to remind  us of the single greatest issue that we must deal with (and here
it is): "It's corporate globalization, stupid."

I take this message to heart in my peace work. As a peace activists working
for peace and disarmament, we cannot achieve our goals if we do not deal
with  the tremendous effect that corporate globalization is having on the
world.

Globalization is changing all of the rules: it is changing the economy,
governments, and politics. And it is demanding that we rework our analysis
and plans if  we are to achieve our goals.

I use the term corporate globalization – and not globalization – because
corporate globalization is better at describing the phenomenon. We are not
simply  talking about an natural evolution of society here, a system that's
is devoid of any values. Quite the contrary – corporate globalization is
rigged game that  has been designed to make winners and losers.

Globalization is based upon that old adage about the Golden Rule: Whoever
has the gold – makes the rules. And today, the forces that have the gold
are the  transnational corporations and their allies who control the vast
majority of the world's resources.

To understand globalization – we need to look back into history.
Globalization actually began back in the 1970s. It was at this time,
following the oil crisis,  that the leaders of the global free-market
system began to develop their ideological basis for free-market polices – a
system that has been called  neo-conservatism. In North America, new
schools of economics and allied conservative think tanks began to address
what one organization called, "the  excess of democracy."

Prior to this period the West operated upon Keynsian principles which had
evolved into the "social contract." We saw the evolution of the welfare
state, and  governments that played an active role in the economy through
regulation, state enterprises, and social programs. But the
neo-conservative philosophy  preached classic economic theories based on
free markets, and free trade. It promoted deregulation and privatization of
state industries and services. It was  these economic systems which were
adopted by successive conservative governments led by Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. These  administrations were firmly allied with
big business – and were committed to eliminate the welfare state
domestically, as well as communism internationally.

But the real victory for them came in 1989. Seemingly without warning,
communism collapsed and the Berlin Wall came down. This gave the
neo-conservative agenda two gifts:

First, Communism was dead. There were now no other economic models to
challenge free-market economics in the world. This gave evidence to
Margaret  Thatcher's pronouncement that "There are no alternatives."

Second, the collapse of the Soviet economic sphere of influence finally
opened vast new markets for the West to integrate. Finally, there was the
possibility  of a single global economy.

This was the corporate dream come true. The integration of the world into
one economic system was aided technologically by advances in transportation
 and communications. Investment could move across borders in the blink of
an eye. Manufacturing, research, natural resources, and administration
could be  moved anywhere on earth, regardless of national boundaries. This
is what globalization is all about - "The end of history," as one US
economist declared.

Globalization has been a tremendous success for corporations, and that
small elite of the world who benefit from the global economy. The global
economy  creates more wealth than any other time in history. The power of
governments is shrinking, and corporations have been merging and expanding
at a dizzying  rate. Today, of the top 100 economies of the world, 52 are
not countries at all, but are corporations.

But this wealth is not being distributed equally. The World Bank this year
had to admit that the numbers of the world's poor is growing, and so is the
gap  between the poor and the rich. Fifty years of development programs
have failed to redress the terrible inequalities in the world. And this is
not limited to the  developing world: economic inequality is growing in
industrialized countries too. In Canada, we are seeing the re-emergence of
diseases that we once  thought were eliminated, like tuberculosis. Its
estimated that one on four children live in poverty, meanwhile the stock
market goes up, and up, and up.

In the mid 1990s, the corporations wanted to create a set of rules for the
global economy. Since the 1940s, the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, or  the GATT, had been the primary vehicle for the lowering of
tariffs between non-communist countries. But this system was very slow, and
relied too much on  voluntary compliance by nations that were often swayed
by domestic politics toward protectionist tendencies. Or more specifically,
democracy was getting  in the way.

Following the Uruguay Round of negotiations in 1994, the World Trade
Organization was established. The WTO is the first real attempt at
effective global  government. The WTO was created, in many respects, to
replace the United Nations. Unlike the UN, the WTO is dominated by the
industrialized northern  countries. There are no vetoes  in the WTO, and
the WTO's has the power to enforce rulings on trade agreements that require
governments to change their  laws to conform to the WTO's trade agreements.

Proponents of the WTO say that the through the GATT, and the many other
trade agreements negotiated and adjudicated by the WTO, they have created a
 "rules-based" system for world trade. They say that the system fights
poverty – and even promotes peace, by creating a system of equals before
international trade law.

But in reality, this is far from the case. We have to ask – whose rules is
the WTO based upon_ The answer is that the rules give the greatest benefit
to  transnational corporations. While its true that its governments who are
represented at the WTO, it is also true that its the transnational
corporations who are  exerting tremendous influence over the system and on
whose behalf the governments write these rules.

One need only look at the rules themselves, and the record of five years of
WTO trade panel rulings, to see where the power lies. The WTO does not
makes rules for trade, rather it makes rules for governments. It builds
fences around governments, dramatically limiting the role that they can
play in virtually  all areas of public policy – from environmental
regulations to cultural protections.

Successive WTO rulings have struck down laws that promote economic and
social development. European Union can no longer give preferential
treatment  for banana exports from former colonies because the US, backed
by Chiquita Banana, successfully challenged the development policy.
Likewise, US beef  producers had their government challenge EU health
regulations that banned hormone-treated beef imported from North America.

In Canada, we have lost laws that made drugs affordable for our public
health system because the drug manufacturers challenged our patent laws. US
media  giants like TimeWarner were offended by programs that promoted
Canadian culture in the face of a mental landscape saturated by the Untied
States. And  most concerning, every single environmental legislation of any
country that has been challenged by the WTO has been struck down.

The cumulative effect of these rules is a dramatic transfer power from
governments – democratic governments in most cases – to unelected and
unaccountable transnational corporations. Maude Barlow, the head of the
Council of Canadians which is Canada's largest citizens organization,
summed it  up like this, "The corporations have spent the last fifty years
fighting communism, and now they are fighting democracy itself."

As peace activists – we are trying to achieve disarmament, reduced military
spending, the end of the arms trade, and the abolition of nuclear weapons.
In  their place, we want to build a global society where the economy
provides wealth equitably, where human rights are respected, and every
person can live in  a clean environment and free from the threat of war.
These are our values. So what does corporate globalization mean for us –
how does it affect our work  in creating a culture of peace_

Frankly, we face a monumental task. As we can see, corporate globalization
does not share our values. In fact, the values of corporate globalization
are in  many ways in opposition to us.

As citizens, we depend on democratic governments that have the power to
promote peace, human rights, social development, and protect the
environment.  But global trade agreements and economic institutions oppose
us.

Rulings have struck down laws governing the promotion of culture, food
safety, industrial policy, and taxation. Furthermore, environmental
protection  measures that in any ways impinge on the ability of
corporations to make profits have been struck down when challenged before
the WTO.

One would think that the WTO would view the tremendous amounts of public
resources spent on arms, the special  treatment of domestic weapons
corporations by governments, and state subsidies to the arms trade would be
viewed in the same negative light. But this is not the case.

In fact, the only area of economic activity that is given a blanket
exception by the WTO are government policies and actions designated by the
state as  essential for national security. In  the eyes of the WTO,
national security means the development, production, and trade in arms
required for the provision of  a military establishment. Special clauses
called "security exceptions" in trade agreements allow governments free
reign to prepare and wage wars.

The special protection for military industries and defense policies is
unmatched anywhere in the GATT and other trade agreements in the WTO.

Its here that the security exception plays two important roles in
facilitating the development of the new global economy. First, WTO
membership requires an  ascension of national sovereignty to the
international body, and the security exception has convinced national
security institutions to acquiesce to the  constitutionalization of the
global economic system. Given that the GATT was signed in 1947, the
security exception allowed the system to develop while not  interfering in
governments' actions taken to conduct the Cold War.

Second, the security exception allows the wealthy industrial countries to
cheat the WTO rules, using military spending to subsidize corporations,
promote  regional development through defense contracts, and maintain an
industrial knowledge base through weapons research and development.

However, the security exception gives a false sense of security. The role
of the nation state goes far beyond simply providing a police and military.
The state  maintains its legitimacy through responsible governance in the
interest of the common good, and it is this imperative which provides for
the needs of its  people.

Moreover, by pursuing a global economic system which facilitates a global
free market – an amoral social Darwinism which promotes the survival of the
 fittest based on wealth, privilege, race and geography – it will guarantee
greater conflict, proliferation of arms, and exactly the instability which
is anathema to  the economic interests of all nations.

The security exception is supported by Western states because it gives a
competitive advantage to military powers who can afford high military
spending,  and use it as a tool to intervene in the economy. The United
States devotes more than $50 billion of its $276 billion defense budget to
weapons  procurement, and contracts are selectively handed out to US
weapons corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon. The
government also  assists these corporations in foreign arms sales through
promotions, financing incentives, and other means. For example, it's
estimated that in 1995 alone the  US government subsidized arms exports by
$7.6 billion.

This special treatment for weapons corporations is not normally permitted
in trade agreements. Export subsides, discrimination against foreign
corporations  bidding on government contracts, and preferential treatment
for allies, all violate WTO rules. Countries who cannot afford high levels
of military spending  must abide by these rules, while the U.S. and other
military powers are provided an escape clause.

For example, aerospace and defense is a nearly $200 billion per year
industry, dominated by huge corporations such as Boeing, Airbus,
Bombardier,  Lockheed Martin, BAe Systems, and DaimlerChrysler Aerospace.
These corporations build both civilian and military products, and receive
preferential  treatment and billions of dollars in subsidies from their
governments through military and non-military spending.

However, the WTO is limiting the ability the ability of governments to
provide subsidies for non-military purposes, creating greater dependence
and pressure  for military spending to aid "national champions" in
industry. Furthermore, governments may pursue national economic objectives
relating to employment,  regional development, strong domestic producers,
and promoting high-tech manufacturing through military spending.

There is evidence that this is already happening. Bombardier is the world's
third largest maker of civilian aircraft, and has annual sales of more than
$7  billion, employing tens of thousands of Canadian workers. In 1999, a
WTO dispute panel ruled against a Canadian industrial program that
subsidized  Bombardier Aerospace to build and export civilian passenger
jets. All aerospace corporations receive subsidies from governments, but
the WTO ruling was  prompted by a complaint by Brazil, acting on behalf of
its champion aerospace corporation and Bombardier competitor, Embraer.

After changing the industrial program to focus more on research and
development to satisfy the WTO, the Canadian government introduced a new
$30  million (CAD) annual subsidy program for the development of new
weapons and boosted military spending by nearly $2 billion (CAD) over the
next four  years. This new military spending will allow Bombardier to
continue to receive subsidies through Canada's military programs, and it
will not be challenged by  the WTO.

The Canadian government admits that military spending is being used as an
industrial subsidy. A recent report on the arms trade said, "Despite
General  Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) rules that eliminated tariff
barriers between signatories on civil aircraft products and the restricted
the use of  government procurement, many countries use national security
exceptions to provide direct financial assistance to their domestic
industry."

The connection here is clear. Because the security exception shields the
war industry from challenges by the WTO, it will spur government military
spending.  Military economies are favoured over civilian economies. The
danger is that governments will only be able to promote jobs, new emerging
industries, or  high-tech manufacturing through military spending.

It seems that this lesson has not been lost on some of the so-called
emerging economies, such as South Africa. South Africa is currently
undergoing a huge  arms buying spree, buying billions of dollars worth of
helicopters, aircraft, ships, and even submarines from European weapons
corporations. The  government has negotiated that the corporations will
move some of the production to South Africa, creating short term jobs and
investment. Finance  Minister Trevor Manuel explained that the increase in
military spending would allow "the National Defence Force to upgrade
equipment, while providing a  substantial boost to South African industry,
foreign investment and exports."

So while we as peace activists are up against the new global economy where
human rights, the environment and social programs are out – and the
military is  in – we are at the same time losing our ability to even work
to promote peace and human rights.

Today, the WTO is prepared to challenge the work of peace activists who are
trying to restore democracy to Burma, a country that Amnesty International
has consistently criticised for its terrible human rights record.

Burma is ruled by a military junta which refuses to relinquish power to
Burma's legitimately-elected leader, Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who
is under  house arrest. Trade unions have listed Burma as one of the most
dangerous places in the world to be a union organizer.

But in 1996, peace activists succeeded in having Massachusetts and twenty
other municipalities and counties across the United States pass laws
preventing  government contracts from being issued to companies doing
business with Burma, in order to put pressure on the military rulers. This
legislation was similar  to the laws that many governments passed in the
1980s to support the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.

In response, both the European Union and Japan challenged Massachusetts'
law as a violation of the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement on  the
grounds that Burma and companies that did business with Burma were being
unfairly discriminated against.

Before the WTO could convene a dispute panel, a U.S. corporate lobby group
– supported by the E.U. and Japan – stepped in and sued Massachusetts in
domestic courts, under the pretext the state had exceeded its authority.
Massachusetts lost the case and the court overturned the law and all
similar laws in  the U.S. Massachusetts is appealing the ruling to the US
Supreme Court.

The lesson here is clear as well. If we, as activists, are successful in
achieving laws which promote peace and human rights, but affect corporate
profits, we  will face the entire weight of the transnational corporations
and the WTO.

***

Until now I have been largely speaking about transnational corporations
outside of the arms industry. But the end of the Cold War, corporate
globalization,  and the weakening of the nation state has had a profound
effect on the weapons corporation as well.

In the last five years, there has been an unprecedented round of mergers in
the weapons industry. Boeing swallowed up McDonnell Douglas to create the
world's largest manufacturer of military aircraft. The same is true in
Europe, where British Aerospace swallowed Marconi, and soon we will see the
merger  of France's Aersopatiale Matra, Germany's DaimlerChrysler
Aerospace, and Spain's Construciones Aeronauticas into the European
Aeronautic Defense  and Space Company, or EADS.

The sheer size of these corporations pose a direct challenge to
governments. The top five of the world's weapons corporation in aerospace
sales, where  military sales exceed civilian sales, amount to more than
$130 billion dollars every year.

Boeing is the U.S.'s largest exporter, with customers in 145 countries,
employees in more than sixty countries and operations in twenty-seven U.S.
states.  Worldwide, more than 200,000 people get their paycheque from
Boeing. Boeing is the worlds largest military aircraft maker, with $55.4
billion in civilian  and military aircraft sales.

Lockheed Martin is the largest over-all weapons builder at $26 billion. The
next two are European corporations, with EADS at $25 billion and British
Aerospace (or BAe Systems) at $20.5 billion. Fifth is the US missile
manufacturer Raytheon with $17.5 billion.

These corporations manufacture practically every weapons system imaginable,
ranging from bombers, fighters, helicopters and missiles. In both Europe
and  the United States, these corporations have becoming larger and larger
in an arms race between the two continents, each side competing for the
world's $20  billion export arms market, but at the same time positioning
themselves in transatlantic alliances for lucrative contracts from NATO
nations.

Transatlantic mergers of these corporations have been resisted by the
United States for fear that it would result in a weapons corporation so
large, that even  the Pentagon could no longer control it. But while the
Pentagon has been nervously watching these mergers and its influence
slipping away, it finally admitted  last year that it will not be able to
resist transatlantic mergers of their client corporations. The most likely
merger would be between Boeing and BAe  Systems, which would create a
weapons corporation with more than $75 billion in annual revenues.

Governments seem to be powerless in the face of these corporations. In the
United States, weapons corporation have become so intertwined with the
military and industrial policy that they cannot be allowed to fail
financially. So the government aids in arms exports, subsidies research and
development, and  even ten years after the end of the Cold War, is
increasing its military spending to more than $300 billion.

The influence of this military-corporate complex, a collusion between the
military and the weapons corporations, is perhaps even powerful enough to
spark a  new arms race and a revival of the Cold War in its short-sighted
quest for ever greater profits. Here I am speaking about the United States'
plan to deploy  the National Missile Defence System.

The deployment of a missile defence system goes against every reasonable
peace and security policy imaginable. The rationale of deploying a dubious
$60  billion system to shoot down non-existent missiles from North Korea
and Iran defies logic. Surely, if a so-called rogue nation wished to attack
the US with a  nuclear bomb they would do it secretly in a suitcase on a
bus or ship, rather than so overtly launching a ballistic missile which
could be tracked back to its  launching point.

And worse, the system has caused warranted consternation in Russia which
says the system will violate the Ballistic Missile Treaty and force Russia
and  other nations to deploy more missiles to overwhelm the shield in order
to maintain nuclear deterrence.

A better explanation of why the US is so vigorously pursuing the national
missile defence system lies in the more than $26 million spent on political
lobbying  Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW. These four weapons
corporations will win the billions of dollars in contracts to build the
system. And of this  $26 million spent on lobbying, about $4 million has
been given to both political parties in a presidential campaign year.

Another example of the influence of weapons corporations over defence
policies is the expansion of NATO. The expansion of NATO eastward to
include  three more states should have never have happened. Why_ Because we
now know that at the end of the Cold War, U.S. President George Bush went
to  Mikhail Gorbachev to strike a deal with him that if Russia acquiesced
to a reunified Germany, then NATO would not expand. Gorbachev agreed, and
we  now have a unified Germany.

But never underestimate the power of the corporations. The Committee to
Expand NATO  whipped up support for NATO expansion where there was no
support before. The committee was chaired by the Vice President of Lockheed
Martin, the largest weapons builder in the world.

The arms corporations stood to gain billions in contracts from NATO
expansion because new member countries would have to retool and upgrade
their  weaponry from old Soviet equipment to newer and more advance
American and European equipment like planes, communications equipment, and
other  weaponry.

As we know, their lobby was eventually successful, and in 1999 Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO. However the cost was enormous
in relations with Russia who was betrayed and humiliated by NATO and the
United States. Many analysts point to NATO expansion as a major low-point
in post Cold War reconciliation between East and West, and a lost
opportunity to build trust and a more secure peace between old foes.

But the corporations have nothing to complain about. Their allies in the US
military are now inspecting each NATO member's arsenal of weapons and
equipment, and handing each member a shopping list of new equipment
required to create "interoperability" within NATO, exactly as the
corporations  hoped would happen. This will mean more lucrative contracts
for the corporations.

 ***

Finally, we cannot rule out even more sinister motives. The US military is
part of corporate globalization and the agenda of creating a single global
economy,  dominated by the United States and its allies. This spectre was
raised by the columnist for the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, who last
year wrote this  in one of his columns:

"Behind the hidden hand of the market is a hidden fist. McDonalds needs
McDonnell Douglas, the maker of the F-15 warplane. And the hidden fist that
 keeps the world safe for corporations is the US Air Force, Navy, Army and
Marines."

This observation rings true when compared with recent statements from the
U.S. military. The U.S. Space Command wrote in its Vision 20/20 planning
document: "U.S. Space Command -dominating the space dimensions of military
operations to protect U.S. interests and investment. Integrating Space
Forces into war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of
conflict." The document further compares the U.S. effort to control space
with the effort  centuries ago when nations built navies to protect and
enhance their colonial commercial interests by ruling the oceans.

These sentiments are shared by US Secretary of Defense William Cohen. In
February last year, Cohen went to Redmond, Washington to meet with two
hundred Microsoft workers to deliver a simple message. He said, "For all of
the domestic prosperity produced by the Information Age – symbolized by the
 astounding success of Microsoft – U.S. economic power is still dependent
on its military strength. Some soldiers in the high-tech revolution do not
fully  understand or appreciate the soldiers in camouflage."

But perhaps most frightening of all, was a quote brought to my attention by
author Susan George in her book, the Lugano Report. She quotes a military
planner writing in the journal, Proceedings, that "The de facto role of the
U.S. armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open
to our  cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of
killing."

***
But in the face of corporate globalization – a new social movement for
peace, human rights, the environment, and the rights of workers is
emerging. I was  present at the protests in Seattle and in Washington DC,
and was part of the mobilization of civil society against the agenda of the
World Trade  Organization, the IMF and the World Bank.

The large numbers of people who participated in the protests came about
because social movements spent many months preparing citizens. We organized
 numerous events, including large conferences and small workshops. We
showed how the issues are linked together, and this brought about the kind
of unity  between workers, environmentalists, and others that I have never
seen before.

The result was more than 50,000 people in the streets working together in
common cause: to make a global economy that works for everybody – and not
just the very rich in the world. A global economy that promotes peace and
human rights, that is environmentally sustainable, and promotes democracy
and  social development.

Our message, however, was met by hundreds of police in riot gear, police
cars, armoured cars, and helicopters. Protestors rounded up in mass
arrests, and  hit with tear gas and rubber bullets. And behind the police
barricades and clouds of tear gas, our government members negotiated the
rules for the global  economy in seclusion and secret.

Because of these protests, and increasing resistance from developing
countries over the unfairness of the global system, globalization is
undergoing a crisis in  legitimacy. The protests in Seattle surrounding the
ministerial meeting of the WTO were simply an overt demonstration of the
much broader degree of  disillusionment with the global economy. Where many
people once felt that globalization was inevitable and that there were no
real alternatives, some people  are questioning the WTO agenda, and many
others are outright opposing it.

The level of opposition varies. In some quarters, the WTO is completely
opposed because it is seen as an unwanted intervention into national
sovereignty,  and part of a secretive alliance of governments and
industrialists who want to enforce poverty and subjugate citizens to its
will. In other quarters, the WTO is  seen essentially like a large
corporation - an organization representing employers that must recognize
the rights of workers and bargain with unions as they  would with employees
of a company.

Finally, there are those who have organized around the call to "fix it or
nix it," meaning remove the most egregious htmlects of the WTO which affect
social  programs, environmental protection, and cultural programs, while
including a recognition of how trade affects human rights giving special
consideration to the  needs of developing countries. Failure to blunt the
destructive edge of the WTO will result in greater opposition to the WTO as
an institution.

Clearly, there is a role for effective multilateral institutions such as
the WTO. The arrival of the twenty-first century is not a time for
reclusion behind twentieth  century national structures, but nor is it a
time to disregard the horrible lessons of the last century's disastrous
wars. The WTO must adapt to the new  realities of a world that is
interconnected, interdependent, and of limited resources.

The crisis of legitimacy of the WTO, and its sister organizations the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, provide an opportunity to
reengineer  these institutions to be responsive to human needs which cannot
be addressed by the free market.

To begin, the WTO and other global institutions must adopt a human security
imperative. The United Nations Human Development Report 1999 notes that,
"Threats to human security are being exacerbated by globalization." It
calls for actions to protect cultural diversity, control global crime,
preserve the  environment, promote fairer trade - especially for the
poorest countries. Under the current system, governmental powers to achieve
these goals are being  limited by trade agreements and dismantled by
successive WTO trade panel rulings and IMF-imposed structural adjustment
programs.

Security exceptions in trade agreements which provide blanket protection
for government actions for military security must be reinterpreted to
accord the  same blanket protections to government actions necessary for
human security. Governments could be free invoke the exception for actions
required for  protection of the environment, human rights, and culture.

Furthermore, new agreements would need to be subjected to a "Human Security
Impact Assessment," akin to the more common place environmental  impact
assessment. A Human Security Impact Assessment would be similarly required
for World Bank projects and IMF conditions for assistance.

Following the reinterpretation of the security exception, a dismantling of
the special treatment for military economies could begin. A first step
would be to  prevent countries from using military spending to subsidize
corporations. For example, current prohibitions on exports subsidies would
be expanded to  include the arms industry.

The inclusion of the arms industry in existing agreements would allow
member countries with low military spending to challenge the unfair
industrial practices  of the military powers. The absence of subsidies
would immediately dampen the international arms trade. Moreover, it would
further remove the impetus to  pursue industrial development through an
arms industry which was exempted from the threat of WTO challenges.

Finally, new agreements should be negotiated into the WTO where
international controls are needed to prevent a "race to the bottom." The
first of such  agreements would control the trade in arms. A WTO Arms Trade
Agreement would subject all arms sales to international standards where
prohibitions on  arms sales could be set on member countries in conflict,
arms races, or that violate human rights.

The dispute settlement mechanism could be available to countries protesting
violations of a WTO Arms Trade Agreement. For example, if a member  country
made an arms sale to a country currently under an internationally
sanctioned arms embargo, a third member country would be able to challenge
the  sale before a trade panel. If the sale was ruled in violation of the
Arms Trade Agreement, the arms exporting country could face trade sanctions
equal to the  value of the arms sale.

These suggestions for inserting a human security imperative into trade
agreements could form the beginning of discussions on positive alternatives
to the  current globalization agenda.

Given that we are gathering here today for this meeting to address the way
forward for our peace work in the next century, I think that we need to
begin  with a careful examination of our goals and our traditional means of
working for peace:

First, the peace movement must educate itself and others about the
relationship between militarism and globalization. We need to encourage our
writers and  researchers to investigate the military-corporate complex, and
to provide activists with the information they need.

Second, we cannot address issues such as the arms industry and military
spending in isolation. We have to deal with globalization as a whole,
recognizing  that the international corporate agenda is itself a form of
warfare against peace, human rights, and democracy.

Thirdly, we need to develop our own positive alternatives to globalization.
And here, I would suggest that the vision include a new sense of
international  citizenship, where the citizen has a responsibility and a
role in working for peace which supersede nation-state sovereignty and the
perceived needs of  so-called national security.

Finally, let us begin by taking our demands directly to those international
bodies where globalization gains its power. This is at the World Trade
Organization,  the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, APEC, and NATO.

***

For me, building a culture of peace requires building a mass movement of
people who are prepared to reclaim their democracy. The challenge is to
stop the  current pro-corporate agenda of globalization. We must work to
ensure that globalization is essentially people-centred, not
profit-centred. That means  reclaiming our governments from the influence
of big business and then ensuring that governments are empowered to work
for peace.

We have to redefine "national security." National Security does not come
from tanks, and warplanes, and missiles. National Security comes from
economic  justice, peace, human rights, a clean environment, and an economy
that works for everyone.

Thank you.
 
 

___________________________________________________________