Transborder Laboratory for Cooperation from Below (I)
The Economic and Society Trust, Paulo Freire Centre, IPE, and the EU Research Projects Demologos and Kartarsis invited critical social researchers and grassroots activists to an experimental transborder laboratory looking at cooperation from below. Part I.
Sara Carroll - Nov. 19, 2007
Participants from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the UK met at the seminar which was held in Brno from September 14-16, 2007.
Split into five parts, the seminar covered many different angles and aspects of cooperation from below, beginning with a look at elitist norm-making in institutions and ending with a look at the work of NGOs.
The first session started with a lively discussion headed by Matyas Benyik (Attac Hungary) about the extent to which the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), two actors in norm-making from above, can be seen to be democratic institutions. The difficulty of having no proper cooperation between the WTO and the United Nations (UN) was highlighted as being a major challenge to human rights the world over. This led to an overview of elitist norm-making in the EU and WTO. Member states often do not have much competence - for example trade policy is determined at the level of the union. The actual policy-making process of the EU has a bureaucratic nature which means that it is often not as transparent as it could be. As the EU Commission has a high degree of autonomy, this begs the question of how this institution can at the same time be democratic. Whilst it is true that member state parliaments have some say, this right of veto is also restricted to certain areas, giving member states at best a mixed competence. The 2004 EU constitutional treaty raised its head for the first time in the discussion at this point, with the remark that this treaty would actually have removed all competence for member states.
Turning to the WTO, there was mention of the fact that whilst the WTO appears to be democratic on a formal basis (one country, one vote), with decisions at council and ministerial conferences typically being reached by consensus etc, undemocratic elements and lack of transparency and accountability emerge on an informal level. One example of this is a certain asymmetry in getting information from the WTO and gaining access to major actors within the organisation. Developing countries have a more difficult time actually getting to central countries, whilst business lobby groups have far greater access than civil society organisations, simply on account of their more established contacts with officials. This discussion then moved on to looking at how these issues are being addressed. Certain groups of developing countries have been formed, such as the African Union, and within these groups self-organisation is happening. NGOs and think tanks are providing expertise and consulting services for developing countries’ delegations, which is ironing out this asymmetry. However, other problems, such as the asymmetrical power of mechanisms such as sanctioning are more difficult to overcome. Joachim Becker (Institute for Studies in Political Economy, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration) added to the debate the opinion that WTO should not be seen to be the only option whilst Matthias Benyik suggested that one way forwards is civil groups putting pressure on governments to make them more accountable.
Werner Raza (Chamber of Labour, Vienna) then gave an illuminating overview of how the neo-liberal ideology which drives the WTO functions in making developments irreversible. The WTO ‘locks in’ certain situations, such as the results of privatisation and makes the reversal of the results of neo-liberal ideology more difficult. In Raza’s opinion, WTO policy failures often also mean that human rights issues such as the right to health can get sidelined, whilst economic considerations are given highest priority. Evidence of this can be found in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATs) and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreements, which are based on progressive liberalism and have a huge effect on basic, essential services and fulfilment of the right to health. The question on how this can be resisted was partially answered by stressing the need to target specific actors, as seen in the ‘STOP GATS’ campaign, a need to involve trade unions and to call for the current system of multi-lateral trade agreements to be moved to the UN, as suggested by Attac, in order that they become more accountable and transparent. According to Raza, however, the likelihood of the latter happening is slim.
The debate on the EU constitutional treaty opened with an insight from Gerald Oberansmayr (Werkstatt Frieden & Solidarität, Linz/Austria) which highlighted how the reformed treaty differs from the original treaty, and what the new treaty actually means for the countries involved. Oberansmayr argues that what could essentially be seen in the new reform treaty is that big European countries are trying to build a hierarchy with themselves on top. The debate was centred on the military aspects of the new constitutional treaty with the concept of the EU being a ‘superpower’ as being one of the main concerns. If adopted, it would effectively see warfare capacities on sea, land and air being boosted even further, the stock of weapons in the EU already having increased from €22 billion in 2002 to €53 billion in 2006. It would also include an obligation for permanent military capacities, a European Defence Agency, the ability of the EU council to start warfare worldwide without UN mandate, a military EU budget, obligation for mutual military assistance and increased centralisation of policy-making. These factors would leave people within the EU who are campaigning for disarmament outside primary law. This would necessarily mean that real opposition would have to come from elsewhere, such as American peace movements, an alliance of peace, social and anti-globalisation movements worldwide and (inter)-national campaigning. Even leaving the EU should not be excluded as an option. Oberansmayr highlighted what is a major problem with the ‘militarization’ of the EU and that is the fact that it goes directly against the constitutions of some member states, such as Austria, which have neutrality written into their constitutions.
Split into five parts, the seminar covered many different angles and aspects of cooperation from below, beginning with a look at elitist norm-making in institutions and ending with a look at the work of NGOs.
Norm-making in the EU and WTO
The first session started with a lively discussion headed by Matyas Benyik (Attac Hungary) about the extent to which the European Union (EU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), two actors in norm-making from above, can be seen to be democratic institutions. The difficulty of having no proper cooperation between the WTO and the United Nations (UN) was highlighted as being a major challenge to human rights the world over. This led to an overview of elitist norm-making in the EU and WTO. Member states often do not have much competence - for example trade policy is determined at the level of the union. The actual policy-making process of the EU has a bureaucratic nature which means that it is often not as transparent as it could be. As the EU Commission has a high degree of autonomy, this begs the question of how this institution can at the same time be democratic. Whilst it is true that member state parliaments have some say, this right of veto is also restricted to certain areas, giving member states at best a mixed competence. The 2004 EU constitutional treaty raised its head for the first time in the discussion at this point, with the remark that this treaty would actually have removed all competence for member states.
Turning to the WTO, there was mention of the fact that whilst the WTO appears to be democratic on a formal basis (one country, one vote), with decisions at council and ministerial conferences typically being reached by consensus etc, undemocratic elements and lack of transparency and accountability emerge on an informal level. One example of this is a certain asymmetry in getting information from the WTO and gaining access to major actors within the organisation. Developing countries have a more difficult time actually getting to central countries, whilst business lobby groups have far greater access than civil society organisations, simply on account of their more established contacts with officials. This discussion then moved on to looking at how these issues are being addressed. Certain groups of developing countries have been formed, such as the African Union, and within these groups self-organisation is happening. NGOs and think tanks are providing expertise and consulting services for developing countries’ delegations, which is ironing out this asymmetry. However, other problems, such as the asymmetrical power of mechanisms such as sanctioning are more difficult to overcome. Joachim Becker (Institute for Studies in Political Economy, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration) added to the debate the opinion that WTO should not be seen to be the only option whilst Matthias Benyik suggested that one way forwards is civil groups putting pressure on governments to make them more accountable.
Werner Raza (Chamber of Labour, Vienna) then gave an illuminating overview of how the neo-liberal ideology which drives the WTO functions in making developments irreversible. The WTO ‘locks in’ certain situations, such as the results of privatisation and makes the reversal of the results of neo-liberal ideology more difficult. In Raza’s opinion, WTO policy failures often also mean that human rights issues such as the right to health can get sidelined, whilst economic considerations are given highest priority. Evidence of this can be found in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATs) and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreements, which are based on progressive liberalism and have a huge effect on basic, essential services and fulfilment of the right to health. The question on how this can be resisted was partially answered by stressing the need to target specific actors, as seen in the ‘STOP GATS’ campaign, a need to involve trade unions and to call for the current system of multi-lateral trade agreements to be moved to the UN, as suggested by Attac, in order that they become more accountable and transparent. According to Raza, however, the likelihood of the latter happening is slim.
EU Constitutional Treaty
The debate on the EU constitutional treaty opened with an insight from Gerald Oberansmayr (Werkstatt Frieden & Solidarität, Linz/Austria) which highlighted how the reformed treaty differs from the original treaty, and what the new treaty actually means for the countries involved. Oberansmayr argues that what could essentially be seen in the new reform treaty is that big European countries are trying to build a hierarchy with themselves on top. The debate was centred on the military aspects of the new constitutional treaty with the concept of the EU being a ‘superpower’ as being one of the main concerns. If adopted, it would effectively see warfare capacities on sea, land and air being boosted even further, the stock of weapons in the EU already having increased from €22 billion in 2002 to €53 billion in 2006. It would also include an obligation for permanent military capacities, a European Defence Agency, the ability of the EU council to start warfare worldwide without UN mandate, a military EU budget, obligation for mutual military assistance and increased centralisation of policy-making. These factors would leave people within the EU who are campaigning for disarmament outside primary law. This would necessarily mean that real opposition would have to come from elsewhere, such as American peace movements, an alliance of peace, social and anti-globalisation movements worldwide and (inter)-national campaigning. Even leaving the EU should not be excluded as an option. Oberansmayr highlighted what is a major problem with the ‘militarization’ of the EU and that is the fact that it goes directly against the constitutions of some member states, such as Austria, which have neutrality written into their constitutions.
IPE - Glockengasse 28/9 | A-1020 Vienna/Austria | office@ipe.or.at
