Re: COGALL post - "Simultaneous Policy"

[Brian Kohler <bkohler@cep.ca>]

Dan Bell wrote:
> Dear Capital Ownership Group participant:
> I thought you might be interested in this new 
> effort to combat globalization which was sent 
> to me.
> Dan Bell forwarded:

----------------------------------------

"...The Simultaneous Policy, a new international campaign to counter the
forces of corporate globalisation and international competition, has
been launched in London. Based on the premise that all nations are
subject to global competitive forces unleashed by the ability of capital
and transnational corporations to cross national borders, no nation nor
group of nations can control global capital nor can they implement vital
economic, social or environmental policies that might incur market or
corporate displeasure. To break the vicious circle of global
competition, both between nations and between corporations, all nations
need to act simultaneously by implementing the Simultaneous Policy (SP);
a range of measures to re-regulate global markets and corporations in
order to restore genuine democracy, environmental protection and peace
around the world..."

------------------------------------------

Dear group:

Unless I have greatly misunderstood the proposal, I am left with the
following question:  how, exactly, do the promoters of SP imagine that
convincing national leaders to create (and finance) a NEW international
agency (which will obviously be required to provide a debating and
decision making forum, coordination, research, translation and other
secretariat services, and so on) has a greater hope of success than
making the ones we already have (UN, OECD and their subsidiary bodies
and agencies e.g. TUAC and especially the ILO) work?  At least within
the ILO, labour is guaranteed a voice.  SP looks like a forum for
national leaders, and we know which side of the economic/ social/
environmental debate they have tended to come down on.  The best-case
scenario for SP would be that it ends up creating something that looks
and smells like the ILO.  The worst case is we create another WTO.  But
we already have the ILO, it just does not work as well as it should. 
That is due to its lack of resources and our failure to force our
national governments to give it the respect it deserves.  Yet, I think
our efforts should be devoted towards fixing these problems.  Proposing
a brand-new international agency (and a whole new set of acronyms to go
with it) has about zero chance of success, in my estimation.  Even more
unfortunately, any attempt to nevertheless achieve one will further
divide our attention and dilute our resources, beyond their already
woefully divided and diluted state.

Brian Kohler