Public vs. Private Control: Past History and Recent Changes - Joseph Elder

Many changes have taken place in the past 25 years. In 1974 as the Cold War was ending, the world population was about 4 billion. The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba were experimenting with centrally planned economies and ideologies that purported to be ending class distinctions and benefiting the health and welfare of peasants and proletariat.

In 1974 the General Assembly of the 135-member U.N adopted a "Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States," that would grant every nation full sovereignty over its own resources and economy and allow regulation of foreign investment and multinational firms. Sponsored by 3rd world countries and defined as new world order, the Charter was denounced by the U.S. delegate John Skally as "tyranny of the majority," and "a one-sided resolution that cannot be implemented."

Fast forward to 1999 with a world population of 6 billion and 185 members in the UN The cold war is over although nuclear weapons still threaten, and the U.S. Senate will not sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Most of the countries that had centrally-planned economies in 1974 have adopted elements of market economics, and a European Union is emerging.

Meanwhile America's military might exceeds by far that of any other nation in the world. The military budget is down from 6.5% to 3% of GNP but the military is riding as high as ever.
What lessons have been learned? From the collapse of the Soviet Union we learn that nations that interfere in other countries-like Afghanistan-can be mired in costly and unwinnable wars. From South Africa we learn that, in time, oppressive governments can generate conditions of their own overthrow and that persistent non-violence can eventually help bring down the most racist and brutal of governments. In addition, increasing peacekeeping by the UN can bring peace.
But what we have been told by those who have wealth and power is different. The political message is that our great power permits us to ignore the normal rules of international relations and to choose our own path. We will never yield our national sovereignty to the World Court, the Law of the Sea, and the documents of the rights of women and children.

The very different message we are given on economics is that world market forces must rule. The fact that market forces have for centuries generated huge discrepancies between the richest and the poorest is ignored. We are told that Adam Smith's "Laws" of Supply and Demand that control the free market will produce "the greatest good for the greatest number." Privatization is the watchword.

In 1975 "new world order" meant that the rich nations would respect the sovereignty of the poor nations. The new order of the last 10 years lets the rich nations dominate the world. Strangely in this process the US has surrendered economic sovereignty. A series of international institutions represent this philosophy-The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, The World Trade Organization, GATT, NAFTA.

In Seattle the weekend of November 30 we may see for the first time a confrontation between those who believe that there should be economic institutions that set a pattern for world behavior and those who feel that in allowing this kind of economic domination we are surrendering our very central rights as citizens. There will be 1001 groups there to say we will not allow the economic institutions of the world to dictate to those of us who have now been reduced to status of consumers. The challenge will be between consumers and citizens.

We are in a world where the US is powerful and aggressive. The wealthy would let economic democracy fade into the background while the laws of the market prosper, increasing the separation between the richest 1/5 and the poorest 1/5.

If we are unhappy, what are we going to do to participate in decisions of which we as citizens will be proud?