CONCLUSION

Many thinkers are working on the global governance challenge: If not the status quo, then what? For the governments of Europe and China and India and Brazil it is about their growing power and place in international decision-making institutions. For much of civil society it is about getting rid of the unjust forces that exercise so much power in their daily lives. For pro-global justice campaigners, it’s a matter of building new processes of international decision making from the bottom up.

Taking all of this into account, it seems there must be at least four dimensions to the process of reorganizing our international system. First, the process will need to facilitate debates with civil society at the community level all over the world—before, during, and after institutional transformation. Second, it will need to convince the managers of existing institutions to immediately self-correct within the existing framework. Third, it will need to design democratic mechanisms of coherence between and amongst the institutions of society at every level. And fourth, it will need to create new global mechanisms for creating, managing, and redistributing transnational wealth that are just and democratic, reaching local communities.

The democratization of global governance is generating a lot of debate lately—accelerated in no small part by the terrorist attacks of September II, 2002, and the subsequent threat of extended war. AIDS and other infectious diseases continue to kill millions, while global warming expands the range of the West Nile mosquito and other vectors. Mad cow disease, E. coli contamination, and genetically engineered DNA threaten our food supply. Famine, drought, and floods are rampant. A sense of urgency provokes us all.

Momentum is building. Even prominent political leaders are proposing specific and novel mechanisms for redistributing power and wealth:

France’s former prime minister Lionel Jospin, for example, called for an Economic and Social Security Council parallel to the UN’s existing military-oriented Security Council, as well as taxes on weapons and carbon dioxide, and the creation of a World Environment Organization.

Brazil’s new President Luis Ignacio “Lula” da Silva, better known as just “Lula,” has announced that the elimination of hunger will be the hallmark of his first administration—starting with cash payments of $14 per family in the poorest part of the country, then creating adequate channels for food distribution to the tens of millions of Brazilians who are now deprived, next reorganizing Brazil’s agricultural programs and policy, and finally proposing a regional parliament in southern South America and restructuring the FTAA negotiations to ensure not just economic but social development throughout the Americas.

Gus Speth, former head of the UN development program and now dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, supports “social and political empowerment of the poor,” endorsing an electronically controlled voluntary self-taxing mechanism so millions of individual citizens worldwide can also contribute through tiny surcharges on their daily electronic transactions.

Anthony Hill, former Jamaican ambassador to the WTO, emphasizes the need for “local decision making at local levels,” with national as well as international programs giving “absolute priority” to local analysis and local implementation of policies “to provide for decent living conditions.”

For some local activists, the basic principle for just and democratic global governance is, to quote my friend from the Philippines: “Leave us alone.” For others, like my friend from Bangladesh, it is about communities engaged in cultural resistance—defending their language and dress and cuisine and art and heritage and health and happiness from the onslaught of globalization. As my Ethiopian friend says, it is a matter of sustaining the relationship between human beings and the land, without corporate intermediaries. A couple of friends from Colombia and Uruguay told me: “Don’t spend any more time reacting to their agenda. We have to create our own.” And right here, my friend, my neighbor, where I live on the East Side of St. Paul, says, “Let’s take care of our own government first.”

“Localization” is not a philosophy of isolationism, but of integrated decentralization in which strong local institutions form the base, with national and regional and international institutions—governmental as well as nongovernmental—networking across the hemispheres, horizontally, as well as from local to global, vertically. National governments remain the point of responsibility and accountability to their citizens. Regional associations serve as the transmission belts of information, planning, and policy making—within nations as well as across national boundaries. Global institutions and decisions must derive their authority from an effective system of communications amongst stakeholders. There is no intention of turning back the clock or restricting the flow of information, trade, and finance. To the contrary, these resources are absolutely essential to restructure production and distribution in ways that are sustainable and promote new models for human development and peace.

What we’re talking about is global democracy. There is no doubt that people, communities, civil society, the public, whatever you want to call us—we, the people—reject the military coercion and market fundamentalism that now dominate the world. We want a just international system that gives undeniable preference to public goods, and investment that promotes food security, sustainable livelihoods, cultural integrity, and human and ecological health. We must insist that our national governments embrace these policies, which in turn will facilitate the development of strong communities with locally embedded social responsibilities and the capacity to share and care globally.