THE INITIATIVES

THE INITIATIVES

Anyone who has embarked on a serious investigation of the new organisations, alliances, compacts and forums which have sprung up in the past five years, around issues of investment, world trade, poverty, the conduct of mnc's and linkages between capital and private or public development NGOs and agencies, must have become quickly bewildered - by the number and complexity of such initiatives.

While it is crucial to try and determine how they are interconnected (who is wielding what power and what changes they propose), it’s also important not to see links where they haven't yet been forged. There is not, in my view, a secret global conspiracy underfoot:: "making the world safe for capital as an engine for development " is a longstanding widely-held and publicly-advocated aim, whether embraced by General Motors, the Sumitomo Bank., the World Trade Organisation, Bread for the World (Germany) or numerous state trade and development bodies. If there is a conspiracy, then it is one aimed at concealing the validity of types of development (self-chosen, autonomous, micro- labour-intensive etc) which threaten capital-intensive ones (as cooperative small-scale mining threatens corporate mineral exploitation). Or it tries to propagate foreign direct investment (FDI) as the key to growth, even though there is now more than enough evidence to confirm that FDI restricts, or denies, local capital formation. [see for example Gustavo Gonz-Ellez "To what extent does investment equal growth?", InterPress Service, August 23 1999]..

Is there a global conspiracy? Yes – and no…

However, the sheer scale and number of recent convergences of interest between previously different (or only loosely connected) constituencies and institutions, may suggest that some people, some place, deliberately trying to confuse their opponents. Is this a "suppression of dissent by proliferation of initiatives" - so that, when one proposal is battered down by public criticism (like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in 1999) then another is sprung from the wings (such as the UN Global Compact – see below - or more particularly the GATS – General Agreement on Trade in Services)?. Could this be a form of knee-jerk, "dialoging to death" which many Subanen in the southern Philippines experienced at the hands of Rio Tinto in 1995-1998? Or is the ploy more sinister?

There are now detectable power struggles going on among those institutions calling for new codes of practice or alliances of interest (especially over whether these should be mandatory or voluntary – with the Australian government opting for the former and the OECD for the latter).

Equally important, there is disagreement over objectives: for example between the World Bank and the UNDP on the wisdom of a global corporate compact. Or between the US and other members of the WTO over types of protectionist measures (including those spurred by trade unions and environmental groups within the US itself). Since 2000 we have also seen formerly uncritical supporters of the WTO/GAAT-Uruguay Round doubting the wisdom of foreign direct investment, as a prime means of reducing poverty [see Edward Mortimore’s ECLAC. paper, 1999]. While there may be unity among European mnc’s (multinational corporations) over the different, but complementary, paths they should pursue, there is clearly major debate among European states over monetary union and the "architecture" of neo- liberalising trade measures.

Nonetheless, despite the apparent "dissent" - and even if there is no worldwide hegemonic conspiracy - as this paper hopes to demonstrate there are several key corporate bodies (call them think-tanks, forums, or business alliances) whose objectives do unite at key levels.

What distinguishes these bodies from most private consultancies, trade associations, government think-tanks is:

1) The fact that they are concentrated in Europe and the USA (the two biggest seats for the generation of global capital)

2) Their relative newness. Although some international think tanks (especially the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group) and conservative private foundations have met or functioned for most of the post second world war years the powerful "hands on" organisations featured here are still largely adolescents

3) The high degree of inter-connected between companies, merchant and commercial banks and the personnel playing influential roles within these groups. The Chief Executive Officers (CEO’s) of a relative handful of companies are to be found in virtually all these bodies (eg. Nestle, ABB, Rio Tinto, BP-Amoco,)

4) The startling (but is it really?) fact that it is the world’s most publicly criticised companies have the most prominent and frequent representation in these bodies

5) The absence of strong individual sectoral representation on most of these bodies (such as the ICC, ERT, WEF). Nonetheless a couple of organisations – such as the WBCSD – do appear to be dominated by leaders of extractive industry.

The lie of the land

What follows is a selective, rather than exhaustive, list of groups, companies and institutions which are involved at some level of "engagement" with each other over mining. The assessments provided are mostly personal, and the author welcomes comments, corrections and additions

(Please email: partizans@gn.apc.org).

Format: In all references below, organisations, agencies, companies, NGO’s and forums are identified in BOLD typeface. Individuals are identified in bold italics