Let's not put all NGOs in the same basket. Two elements have been added to the debate on the role of civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs): the signing of the c-o-operation protocol between the European Commission and the Economic and Social Committee, and the open letter from the President of the European Council, Guy Verhofstadt, to the opponents of globalisation. It may seem futile to return to this debate in these dramatic times humanity is experiencing today. In fact, there is a link between the deep-rooted causes of terrorism, globalisation and its effects, the anti-establishment proponents.
The details on and clarifications of the role and representative nature of NGOs and civil society in general were appropriate to avoid excesses and disputes that could have jeopardised the functioning of our democracies. The new generations especially, for whom freedom and democracy have not been gained but are a heritage of birth, have at times given the impression of forgetting the difference between pressure groups and elected representatives, demonstrations in the street and the democratic game. The sensational interview of the President of the Union Council, Louis Michel (see this section dated 26 July of this year) and the reactions and polemics that ensued enabled us to see clearer. Most NGOs, those that count, while at times protesting vehemently against to tone of what Louis Michel had to say, acknowledged that their role was to draw attention, to denounce certain abuses, to take positions, but that decisions were up to politicians. But there are different categories of "pressure groups". One obvious example: organisations such as the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) or the European employers organisation (UNICE) are not to be put in the same basket as NGOs whose representative nature may be doubted and that lack transparency. These two bodies bring together the trade union or industrial federations of Member States, they are regularly received and heard by heads of government before each Summit, and, through their specific procedures (together with the representative body of State-owned companies CEEP), take part in the legislative activity of the Union, with the faculty of negotiating between themselves agreements destined to become European legislative texts. Beyond these particular cases, some traditional NGOs, like Greenpeace, the EEB and WWF may not be considered to be at the same level as the nebulous groups and bodies that have been proliferating these past few years. Even if at times one or another traditional NGO exaggerates in the spectacular nature of their intervention, their action has on the whole been broadly positive: it has contributed to shaping public opinion, raising its awareness to the problems of the environment, nature, the protection of wild animals. Today, "Greens" are in several governments and in several parliamentary majorities of our Member States, and ecological concerns are part of the programmes of all large traditional parties. Which means that the democratic game has worked: NGOs have denounced possible abuses, alerted public opinion and led the political classes to think; authorities have passed into the operational phase, with the essential backing of a sufficient electoral consensus. How many times would certain authorities, inadequately informed or influenced by interest groups, without denunciation by Greenpeace, have closed their eyes to projects that have then been abolished or altered, for ecological reasons? How many errors or how much negligence would have occurred without campaigns from one or another of these organisations? Would the attention of the political classes to environmental issues today be the same had the aforementioned oganisations not existed" There are many more possible examples, especially in the field of aid to the third world. The preceding considerations complement those developed in this section of 7 September.
ESC and the Tobin Tax. At present, the European Commission/Economic and Social Committee protocol places and reinforces the presence of organised civil society in the European institutional framework. This Committee is made up of representatives of different social and economic categories which compose our society, and it participates in European decision-making mechanisms. The new protocol provides it with an intermediary role between organised civil society and Community institutions, not to relay or defend the stances of such or such an interest group (this, pressure groups can do alone, some manage quite well) but to seek a balance, in the general interest. In addition, this protocol provides civil society with the means to express its opinion from the preparatory stage on EU plans and policies, through "exploratory opinions". The result cannot be taken for granted; it could be reduced to additional chattering or to an unnecessary dozen or so pages of documents, but it could represent an effective way open to civil society to have its voice heard in Brussels.
Let's be optimistic and seek an example. Why not the famous "Tobin tax" on financial transactions? One large NGO, Attac, chaired in France by a first rate person, Bernard Cassen, came to life to back this project. The EcoFin Council placed it on its agenda but ended up using the most classical and effective method to bury it: call for a study and excessively broadening its remit ("describe the positive aspects and possible abuses of globalisation so that we, ministers, may examine different ways of responding to these abuses, among which the Tobin tax", according to Laurent Fabius). Commissioner Bolkestein declared that he had not heard a single minister speak out in favour of this tax, words confirmed by Dutch minister Zalm and Luxembourg's Juncker. The NGO Attac obviously has the right to pursue its battle; but what are its chances? The ESC could intervene, compare the arguments for and against and express an "exploratory opinion" aimed at the institutions. It may be a bad example, but what counts is that NGOs understand that in the EU there is a body that can reflect their positions within political institutions.
Superficial compliments, substantive criticisms. These considerations lead us to the Guy Verhofstadt's open letter to the enemies of globalisation who had their voices heard in the streets of Seattle, Gothenburg and Genoa. The Belgian Prime Minister begins by flattering them, these anti-establishment proponents: "tens of thousands of people who come down into the street to proclaim their opinions. A breath of fresh air…Had there not been this gratuitous violence, we would have been tempted to applaud (…) Politics has become sterile, boring and technical. This observation is beneficial for democracy." But the compliments stop there; what follows in practice accuses these people of a total lack of coherence and logic, adding some poisoned arrows. What in fact is it you actually want?, asks the President of the European Council. "Like the black-block (the violent fringe of the anti-establishment proponents), act violently against all forms of private ownership?" Or else "promote the slow food movement, a worldly club that publishes prestigious pamphlets eulogising correct food in the best establishments?". The thrust is clear: the demonstrations are picturesque (when they remain peaceful), but opposition to globalisation in no way helps the third world. And it is full of contradictions: against free trade when it concerns goods and capital, for when it concerns immigration. A confusion of ideas common to the extreme right and left as well as the "religious fanatics who brandish the Bible or the Koran". Environmental defenders who do not understand that only global agreements can counter climate change and global warming. There needs to be more globalisation, not less; even the Tobin tax would, moreover, be an act of globalisation. Trade must not be less free but more. Globalisation is no enemy; the challenge lies in "the ethical framework". The aim is, therefore, "ethical globalisation", which presupposes the disappearance of the G8 of the richest countries and its replacement by a forum bringing together on an equal footing the EU, the African Union, Mercosur, Asean, the North American free Trade Agreement … (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.8 for a more complete and structured summary of Guy Verhofstadt's open letter).
To smile or scratch one's head? Conclusion: anti-establishmentarianism retains its right of asylum in the Union, and it is even useful and refreshing, but it has to be more coherent and would be of more use to the third world if it had a better grasp of what it was on about. The trouble-makers are not even mentioned; globalisation and the interests of the third world are the least of their concerns, and Guy Verhoftadt was right in ignoring them. Moreover, in Italy itself (where the post-Genoa polemic logically continued throughout August), the whole thing slid towards a farce, when newspapers discovered a photo of the great chief of the anti-multinationals, Luca Casarini, having a revolutionary meal, composed of an enormous sandwich and….two cans of Coca Cola. Interviewed by "Corriera della sera", Casarani declared straight faced: "I do my best not to drink any, and, anyway, whether I do or not, it does not prevent me each time I come across an Always Coca Cola billboard of writing on it: Bastard". What a hero! He had previously announced: "we shall take the war into the streets". More refined, the spokesman for his movement, Professor Vittorio Agnoletto, developed the concept of the "critical consumer", which enables one to consume products of American multinationals but while keeping a critical eye on them. The newspaper's investigation broadened to other American firms and other European revolutionaries. McDonald's fast foods? Answer: "Where can immigrants find a sandwich for 2000 lira, if not at McDonalds?". Nike shoes? Answer from Ms. Raffaella Bolini, of the Arci International movement: "I often go in Nike shoes to anti-globalisation meetings, they're comfortable and inexpensive".
One may smile or scratch one's head. But we may also wonder about the real interest that certain campaigns dear to the sons of the Western rich have for the poor of the third world.
(F.R.)