Corporations Are Not Humans : Not Even Close --- Episode 67

                                                 AGENDUM FOR CHANGE
                                               (continued)


                  LOCALIZING THE GLOBAL SYSTEM 

   Currently, global governance functions related to economic, social, and environmental affairs are divided between the United Nations system --- comprised of the United Nations secretariat ; its 
specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization ; and its various development assistance funds such as UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, and UNIFEM ---and the Bretton Woods system ---comprised of The World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization. The Bretton Woods institutions dominate the economic policy arena, yet accept no accountability for the social and environmental consequences of their policies. The under-funded United Nations has virtually no influence over economic policies, but is left with the task of cleaning up the social and environmental messes the flawed policies of the Bretton Woods three leave in their wake. 
   The founders of the United Nations intended that coordination of international economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related affairs, including oversight of the Bretton Woods institutions, would rest with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Although the World Bank, IMF, and WTO are officially designated specialized agencies of the United Nations, they have become far more powerful than the other specialized UN agencies and reject any UN effort to coordinate or oversee their activities. 
 Dividing the governance of the global affairs of one world between two competing governmental systems has not been a workable arrangement. A choice must ultimately be made between the Bretton Woods system and the UN system. The UN system has been only marginally effective --- in part because of under-funding, neglect, and lack of ability to influence the economic policies of the Bretton Woods institutions --- but has by far the broader mandate, is more open and democratic, is generally respectful of national sovereignty, and gives serious attention to human, social, and environmental priorities. The more secretive and undemocratic Bretton Woods institutions have greater professional competence and enforcement power, but generally take a narrowly economistic view of the world, run roughshod over national sovereignty and democratic processes, encourage competition among nations, and consistently place financial and corporate interests ahead of human and planetary interests. 
   Some would argue that the choice should favor the Breton Woods institutions because of their ability to get things done. Given that the things they do most effectively are destructive and that their coercive methods consistently disregard the will and interests of those who bear the consequences this seems a poor choice. The United Nations has been less effective, but its more open and democratic decision processes and its greater responsiveness to the will of the people affected have generally resulted in more consensual agenda aligned with human and planetary interests. Since the underlying goal is to strengthen democracy and give social and environmental goals priority over corporate profits, the more sensible choice is to reaffirm the mandate of the United Nations, invest in building its capacity to fulfill it, and decommission the Bretton Woods institutions. 
   Under its reaffirmed economic mandate the United States would work with member countries to regain control of their economies, establish necessary regulatory regimes, and orient their economies toward domestic priorities. In addition to strengthening the mandates and capacities of existing UN agencies in international economic affairs, three new UN agencies are proposed, each with a role nearly opposite of that of the Bretton Woods institution it will replace.