View previous stories
	Davos: The Shifting Nature of Power and the Shifting Power of Nature by Kumi Naidoo, David Sogge Greenpeace, Open Democracy   January 2014   Davos: The Shifting Nature of Power and the Shifting Power of Nature, by Kumi Naidoo.   One of the most challenging weeks of my working life starts today: the week of the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos.   Over 2,500 Presidents, Prime Minsters, CEOs, Celebrities and Academics with a smattering of civil society, will be holed up in a small and posh mountain resort in Switzerland to discuss, in the words of the WEF, "improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas."   At a moment when 20th century power structures, typified by the Davos devotees, try to squeeze the last buck out of a denuded environment and a failing industrial complex, new power structures are emerging, together with new threats, new solutions and new opportunities.   "The WEF warns its members that we are witnessing a shift of power. But those attending the WEF are largely focused on the symptoms of various crises not the causes or the cures. Dealing with global challenges especially in the face of new, seismic trends requires a global mindset that is a comprehensive and an interconnected way of understanding how different crises intersect with one another."   Many pay up to 250,000 U.S. dollars for their membership and entrance fee to the WEF. As a civil society representative I have been invited to attend the WEF over the last decade or so, without paying a fee, obviously. Why do I get invited, why are big corporates actually seeking meetings with us?   I know that, like other civil society leaders, I am there to add a pinch of public participation -- there are many meetings in penthouse suites that we have no access to. Climbing an oil rig in the cold Russian Arctic to protect a critical part of the world"s climate regulation system is uncomfortable, but rubbing shoulders with Davos thousand-dollar suits is equally uncomfortable. You"re probably wondering why I still do it?   Well if there is any chance to have a positive influence on the business community, then I should leave my feelings of discomfort at the Davos train station and give it my best. Winning over some of the key business leaders is critical if we are to succeed in tackling the multiple challenges facing the world.   Normally, these people exist behind a maze of staff, inside near impenetrable walls tens of floors high. Having the chance to speak truth to power, appeal to them as parents, grandparents and human beings, not just powerful politicians and business leaders is something worth pursuing.   If we manage to shift the consciousness of one CEO or senior political leader, who may do the same with a couple of his peers, then I think it is worth it. It is also worth being there, listening and observing, understanding some of the forces that shape our world and importantly feeding that information back to the rest of Greenpeace and other civil society allies.   As I have said before, the WEF is still unfortunately dedicated to system maintenance, protecting the fundamentals of the current system, broken and unjust as it is. What we need is system change. And it is changing, no amount of tinkering will hold it back forever.   This year"s theme is "The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business." A few words from the preamble make me raise my eye brows: "political, economic, social and, above all, technological forces... are shifting power from traditional hierarchies to networked heterarchies." That means the false idea of reducing democracy to the singular act of voting every few years is over. People are begging to assert participatory democracy and exercise people power, using many new technologies and methods of interconnection, as levels of confidence in political leadership are dangerously declining around the world.   The WEF warns its members that we are witnessing a shift of power. But those attending the WEF are largely focused on the symptoms of various crises not the causes or the cures. Dealing with global challenges especially in the face of new, seismic trends requires a global mindset that is a comprehensive and an interconnected way of understanding how different crises intersect with one another.   WEF founder Professor Klaus Schwab warns of the "shifting nature of power", but he got a couple of words in the wrong order, the real threat to all of us, including those in the cozy Davos conclave, is the shifting power of nature.   Scientists argue that most of the known fossil fuels reserves need to be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. Last year carbon dioxide concentrations breached 400ppm (parts per million) -- that"s the highest level in human history and means we are hitting the accelerator towards mass extinctions, mass migration and mass starvation. In 2012 we saw the lowest levels of Arctic sea ice. And a frightening slew of extreme weather events: heat waves, hurricanes, droughts and record low temperatures.   Business elites and politicians continue to suffer from an acute case of cognitive dissonance. All the facts are there, we need to re-think and re-design our economies, yet they are largely in denial about the scale and pace of the necessary change.   The WEF"s 2014 Global Report helps set the agenda and prioritization for the great and the good to discuss. Financial risk, unsurprisingly, still ranks at number one, followed by high unemployment or underemployment. Water crises come in third place with climate at fifth, behind severe income disparity. There is therefore a growing recognition that economy, ecology and equity are all in crisis; that they are all fundamentally interconnected. None can be solved without solving the others. None can be solved without accepting the physical boundaries of a resource-constrained world. The water scarcity crisis is driven -- from South Africa to China - in part by coal expansion, which is also driving climate change. While many in Davos keep us addicted to coal, an energy revolution based on renewables could generate many more jobs than business as usual.   We know that we need to break the carbon-corporate control over politics. The last UN climate negotiations in November took place in Poland, one of the most coal dependent countries in the world. If that wasn"t bad enough, fossil fuel companies sponsored the conference. The Polish government also hosted a summit for the coal industry at the same time. That"s not ironic, it"s simply outrageous. It shows us how much work we have ahead to shift our sources of power.   While the WEF suggests it"s members deal with the cause of the crisis, not just the symptoms, we know that we are running out of time and that the window of opportunity to avoid an ecological catastrophe is quickly closing.   Yes, some progressive corporate players, either for fear of consumer pressure or because they truly get it, are changing. Only last year we saw two of the biggest paper and palm oil companies commit to end forest destruction. Our Detox campaign is helping shift the clothing industry onto a path of clean production, backed by active and networked consumers, who are seeking a new relationship with the brands they buy.   The emerging horizontal power structures can work and a large part of that will be down to whether the kind of people who go to Davos understand not only the shifting nature of power but equally important they need to understand the shifting power of nature and embrace the change that is critically necessary if we are to secure this planet for human survival into the future. If they simply adopt a green front to defend their "greenbacks" they can slow the change, perhaps enough to ensure catastrophe for all.   So, off to Davos I go, armed with a copy of the 2014 Global Crisis report, a thick skin, and the support of many millions of people around the world who want to have a say in their own future and that of their children and grand children.   * Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.   Jan 2014   Not everybody’s business: corporate crowding into the tents of global governance, by David Sogge. (Open Democracy)   As invitation-only Davos gets under way, our public space and politics shrink that little bit more across the globe. Rolling back state authority will turn today’s accountability gap into a yawning abyss.   The annual gathering of “fat cats in the snow”, as one of those cats, U2’s frontman Bono, once named the World Economic Forum (WEF), continues to grab attention as a big platform for powerful people. More than two decades old, this schmooze fest will once again attract an estimated 2500 businessmen, politicians and some selected representatives of civil society’s polite camps.   There are few comparable events where your business card could end up in so many powerful people’s hands. But the media’s infatuation with the personalities neglects something bigger, namely how the private interests assembled at Davos have begun crowding in on public space in the rickety tents of international governance.   For a central argument made in Davos contends that when it comes to tackling global problems, nation-states and their public politics are not up to the job. They must therefore be replaced by a sleek new system in which ‘stakeholders’ –- that is transnational corporations, a few powerful governments, selected intellectuals and invited members of ‘civil society’ – will henceforth manage the world’s affairs together. Governments will become merely one actor among several running global affairs.   The working prototypes for such a scheme of governance are the invitation-only Davos gatherings themselves. The WEF proclaims that it represents the kind of global governance the world needs at a time where globalisation, as its founder Karl Schwab put it, has its “shining upside and the complex and unpredictable downside”.   In 2009, amidst the financial crisis, the WEF seized the opportunity to advance this vision of a corporate-led transnational governance through its Global Redesign Initiative (GRI). The aim was “to stimulate a strategic thought process among all stakeholders about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges.” Bankrolled from Qatar among others, the GRI enlisted some 1200 experts in thematic consultations. A year later it published a massive final report, Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World.   Ranging across issues as varied as chronic diseases, ocean governance and systemic financial risk, the GRI report argues that the way to manage just about every field of policy is through a stakeholder approach, claiming that “better coordination” between a self-select group of leaders is the best way to address complex problems.   Intergovernmental agreements, international frameworks, enforceable hard law are out; voluntarism, codes of conduct and soft law are in. Corporations become part of global authority. However, and crucially, they are not expected to take on any mandatory obligations. Democracy is overlooked in favour of bringing the ‘right’ people together.   Meanwhile governments and democracies that up to now are seen as final policy authorities, are called upon to “re-invent” themselves “as a tool for the joint creation of public value.” The term “joint creation” refers to such things as public-private partnerships (PPPs). That of course ignores the usually less-than-mediocre experience of PPPs. As a British Parliamentary Committee recently verified, for example, PPPs largely burden public taxpayers with the costs, while enriching private financiers.   It is not hard to see the myriad dangers of this approach. Rolling back state authority while private bodies carry no real liabilities for consequences of their neglect or mismanagement will turn today’s accountability gap into a yawning abyss. Replacing democratic systems with stakeholder systems raises serious questions about representation and who is chosen to represent us. Substituting enforceable laws with voluntary codes of conduct introduces capricious ad-hoc ways of making rules and enforcing them. Given the public’s declining trust in today’s governance, already in thrall to private interests, WEF’s vision is hardly propitious for a stable public order that everyone, including business, needs.   The real danger of WEF’s proposal, though, is that its design has already passed from drawing boards to routine practices in many realms of our life, including health, nature conservation, trade, security, and digital rights. UN institutions have adopted corporations as leading partners, chiefly under terms of its UN Global Compact. It is seen in workings of the World Water Council or in Food-Water-Energy nexus summits where corporations are both the hosts and driving participants while governments and civil society take back seats. It is also evident in the many international boards and regulatory agencies that set standards and rules for specific industries which are either toothless or captured by the very corporations they seek to regulate.   The rise of ‘governance lite’ may have aided corporations, but it has proved of little use to people whose jobs, livelihoods and rights to public services have been hit by volatility, fraud and claims on public revenues stemming from the financial sector. People with obvious stakes in the workings and impacts of this kind of governance are consistently denied access to information and means to call the powerful to account.   More than 60 years ago, the UN affirmed sovereign nations and their peoples as the ultimate authority for international affairs. The UN Charter , after all, begins with “We the peoples” and affirms the “equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”. While the practice of global management has fallen short of these ideals, no principles of governance enjoy wider endorsement around the world. A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business interests from crowding the public out of the tent Visit the related web page
	Protesters dragged away as Chinese human rights lawyer Xu Zhiyong faces trial by ICIJ & agencies International Consortium of Investigative Journalists & agencies China   3 Feb 2014   The European Union says it is "seriously concerned" about China"s treatment of human rights activists.   It comes after a number of campaigners were detained or convicted in China in recent weeks, while many more remain under house arrest.   EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton says China must release those activists who have been imprisoned for peaceful protest.   Her statement is an increasingly rare instance of EU criticism of China.   The relationship between Beijing and Brussels has grown warmer as trade between the partners has doubled over the past decade.   China was granted a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in November after it said it was committed to the promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Chinese people.   China convicted two anti-graft campaigners last week for their role in a protest calling on officials to reveal their assets.   Days earlier, it sentenced Xu Zhiyong to four years in jail after he campaigned for the rights of children from rural areas to be educated in cities, as well as for officials to disclose assets.   Ms Ashton says that Xu had been "peacefully advocating social justice and a society based on the rule of law".   She says the European Union is concerned about the health of some prominent human rights defenders and their families, who are under house arrest or imprisoned and are not receiving independent medical treatment.   22 Jan 2014   Protesters dragged away as Chinese human rights lawyer Xu Zhiyong faces trial, by Stephen McDonell. (Reuters & agencies)   There has been high tension outside the trial of a Chinese human rights lawyer facing charges of disturbing public order in Beijing.   Supporters of rule-of-law campaigner Xu Zhiyong were dragged away by police near the court where the prominent lawyer is facing trial.   Reporters and other observers have been prevented from entering the Beijing First Intermediate People"s Court.   Foreign governments and human rights groups have condemned Xu"s detention, which is now being seen as part of wider crackdown ordered by Beijing.   Xu came to the attention of Chinese officials when he and others launched a grassroots campaign to promote government transparency.   He was arrested in July for organising small protests calling for government officials to declare their income and assets.   He is now expected to be found guilty of "gathering a crowd to disturb order in a public place". This could mean a five-year jail term.   Xu"s supporters say his work has exposed shortcomings in a signature anti-corruption policy that has reportedly brought down 20,000 crooked officials.   Inside the courtroom, Xu"s lawyer said the 40-year-old refused to offer any defence and called the court unjust.   Zhang Qingfang said Xu told the judge: "This court is not just so I will maintain my silence."   The judge tried to persuade Xu and his lawyer to speak, but to no avail. As a result, the judge called for a recess.   "Our maintaining silence does not mean we will not express our views. But we believe this court is not worth expressing our views," Mr Zhang said.   "After the trial, we"ll tell society about our defence arguments."   Xu is China"s highest-profile dissident trial since 2009, when Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo went on trial for subversion after he helped organise a petition urging the end of one-party rule. Liu was jailed for 11 years.   http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/27/dream-deferred   21 Jan 2014   Leaked Records Reveal Offshore Holdings of China’s Elite. (ICIJ & agencies)   Relatives of top Chinese leaders have used offshore tax havens to hide their wealth, according to an investigation released on Wednesday.   The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), citing information culled from 2.5 million leaked documents, said President Xi Jinping"s brother-in-law and former premier Wen Jiabao"s son and son-in-law were among those with offshore holdings.   It is the latest revelation to shine a light on the hidden wealth of family members of China"s top officials, a topic considered off limits by Communist Party leaders.   Offshore entities can be legal and there was no evidence the politicians were aware of their relatives actions.   The release came days after Wen was reported to have penned a letter to a Hong Kong columnist proclaiming his innocence over previous claims his family amassed huge wealth during his decade in power.   The ICIJ cited nearly 22,000 offshore clients from mainland China and Hong Kong, including relatives of former president Hu Jintao, former premier Li Peng and late leader Deng Xiaoping, the man credited with opening up China"s economy in the 1980s.   Also included were members of China"s National People"s Congress, heads of state-owned enterprises and some of the country"s wealthiest men and women, including real estate mogul Zhang Xin; Pony Ma and Zhang Zhidong, co-founders of Chinese internet giant Tencent; and Yang Huiyan, China"s richest woman.   Ninety per cent of the mainland Chinese clients set up offshore entities in the British Virgin Islands, often with the help of Western companies such as UBS and PricewaterhouseCoopers, the investigation said. Seven per cent were established in Samoa, and three per cent in other areas.   The British Virgin Islands was the destination of choice for Xi"s brother-in-law Deng Jiagui, a wealthy real estate developer and investor who married Xi"s older sister in 1996. While such offshore trusts and companies "may not be strictly illegal", they are often linked to "conflict of interest and covert use of government power", Minxin Pei, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California, told the ICIJ.   http://www.icij.org/offshore/leaked-records-reveal-offshore-holdings-chinas-elite http://www.icij.org/offshore Visit the related web page
	View more stories