January 20, 2004
NOBLESSE OBLIGE
WEF: Snail's pace on social issues (Alan Boyd/Asia Times/17/01/04)
"Do they listen? Will they learn?" Such was the ringing challenge laid down by the environmental group, Friends of the Earth, when it joined 20,000 anti-globalization protesters in a tempestuous ambush of the World Economic Forum two years ago.
Inside, the same message was being delivered by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, who warned that big business ignored the social implications of inequalities in wealth at its peril. "Think of ways that your company can help mobilize global science and technology to tackle the interlocking crises of hunger, disease, environmental degradation and conflict that are holding back the developing world," he lectured.
As the forum's members gather again next week in Davos, Switzerland, there will be much soul-searching over whether the movement is living up to its lofty ideal of "improving the state of the world" or, alternatively - as social activists charge - is nothing more than an elitist corporate club.
Since the 2002 confrontation, the guardians of free enterprise have opened a direct dialogue with their critics and promoted core principles that strive to make business more responsive at a social level. Responding to Annan's plea, a handful of multinationals have pledged to set aside a portion of annual earnings to help bridge the technological gap that is contributing to the income gap and breeding poverty.
Other executives have forged environmental alliances with the green movement or are sitting down with human-rights groups to hammer out covenants on child labor and low wage levels in the Third World. Their guiding light is a Global Governance Initiative (GGI) established in late 2002 that has seven groups of experts analyzing how business can relate to the Millennium Summit issues of peace and security, poverty, hunger, education, health, environment and human rights. [...]
Because conservatives generally see enterprise as more beneficial than government, they tend to accord too much respect to the general wisdom of businessmen. The World Economic Forum is a great example of how successful entrepreneurs can make fools of themselves by believing they have a special insight into the world’s problems and the power to resolve them. From the naive soul that runs for office promising to apply “business principles” to government to leftist wannabes like Ted Turner, who can’t survive a week without his shrink but knows exactly how the world should be ordered, a modern scourge is the socially conscious businessman. Having made his fortune by waging take-no-prisoners commercial war and trying to destroy all competition, he suddenly thinks he can make the lion lie down with the lamb and lead mankind gratefully to the land of plenty. Who needs democracy when philosopher-kings that cornered the market in pork bellies are available?
These guys are suckers for leftist NGO’s and activists, who are masters of rhetoric and co-opting, and who know how to control an agenda. The Ford and MacArthur Foundations are proof of how virtuous, old-fashioned charity can be captured for the cause. To keep anti-globalists from trashing meetings in dangerous hot spots like Davos and St. Kitt’s, the WEF has invested its prestige in exploring “governance”, a word that didn’t exist a decade ago but which can now keep one a-googlin’ all day. The sleep-deprived may wish to explore the Global Governance Initiative site and treat themselves to a soothing journey from the banal to the fatuous.
Why can’t they just be content with their yachts and mansions?
Posted by Peter Burnet at January 20, 2004 8:59 AMMoney and hubris are a dangerous combination. The more specialized the source of the wealth (or the more distant) the more dangerous it becomes when combined with power and an unrealistic view of one's abilities. Talent for a narrow or particular trade or business seldom translates into the kind of wisdom which readily acknowledges one's limitations.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at January 20, 2004 10:38 AM
The World Economic Forum is not primarily a gathering of businessmen, but of movers and shakers -- UN bureaucrats, finance ministers and treasury secretaries, academics, CEOs, and politicians -- and the motives are complex, with many NGOs and government types motivated to co-opt business for their own agendas and many businessmen going to curry favor with the authorities who regulate them. So the businessmen are there to nod yes and flatter the political types on their genius.
The simple truth is that CEOs generally can't speak their minds while they hold their jobs. They are servants of the corporation and must adapt the company to the political context for maximum profit, not engage in the costly task of trying to change the political context.
Posted by: pj at January 20, 2004 11:27 AMPaul, that is a fair comment about the annual blowout at Davos, but the WEF membership is restricted to corporations, the funding comes exclusively from them (I think) and the activities are all undertaken in their name.
Posted by: Peter B at January 20, 2004 11:46 AM