Civil Society and the Bank
Wednesday Night # 833
February 18, 1998.
This fascinating evening started with the introduction
of special guest, Angus Archer, Director of Development of the United Nations Association in Canada and Project Consultant for
the Civil Society and the United Nations (- a two-year project funded by the CS Mott Foundation..) Mr. Archer's imposing
stature belied his very gentle yet determined dedication to the
importance of the Civil Society. By the end of the evening his
quiet conviction eloquently expressed, convinced most if not all
of the assembled guests of the importance of this third leg of
the the three-legged stool of society for the health and well-
being of our planet. If he is as successful in his mission, the
world will not only be a more peaceful place, but human beings
throughout the world will be able to live in dignity and security
with their neighbours.
On the Millennium:
The evening's debate started out harmoniously with a
discussion of the starting date of the second millennium. Does
the next millennium begin on January 1, 2000, or 2001? Guests on
both sides of the question were equally convinced that they were
right. Gerald Ratzer ended the debate with the following
observation with which all could agree:
"Mathematicians start counting at zero. Most (other)
people start counting at one."
On the United States Embargo on Cuba:
Most guests agreed that this is an error in foreign policy
on the part of the United States. It was felt that the embargo
has been in effect so long that it is too difficult politically,-
given the influence of the Cuban exile vote over U.S. politics,-
to end it before the ultimate death of Fidel Castro.
Castro is seen as the best leader of any Latin American
country. Despite the hardships imposed by the embargo, Cuba has
excellent medical care and education plans, free to the population,an
excellent program for elderly people and a laudable trading
ethic. Trade is increasing with the rest of the world; there is
the beginning of a mixed economy and the Americans are missing
out on trade with an excellent present and future partner. On the other
hand, as one guest pointed out, Canadian companies have benefitted
greatly from the void left by the U.S.
On the United States and Iraq:
On this topic there was no unanimity. Those supporting the
United States did so for the following reasons:
- Saddam Hussein is a hypocritical mass murderer and must be
stopped.
- The United States initiative is merely the continuation of
a process that began with Kuwait. There has to be some
enforcement of the outcome of that costly war. and support for
the UN sanctions.
- This initiative may be supported secretly by
Iraq's neighbours who are probably uneasy about doing so
openly for fear of retaliation.
Those who opposed the United States initiative, did so
mainly on the grounds that the United States has not intervened to
support victims of human rights violations in other countries
and is no doubt influenced by other considerations, particularly oil.
It was agreed however, that it is to be hoped that United
Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan succeeds in his mission.
He has set himself a formidable task, with much negotiation to be
done, necessarily in secret, in order to arrive at a solution.
He is wished every success.
On the Canadian Economy and the Upcoming budget:
The upcoming budget will come as a big surprise to
Canadians, because eight months into the fiscal year, Canada
enjoys a budgetary surplus of eleven and a half billion dollars,
a non budgetary surplus of four and a half billion, and a five and
a half billion dollar surplus from money earned in supporting the
Canadian dollar. We have retired eleven and a half billion
dollars in debt. We also have five provincial budgets in surplus this
fiscal year. Next year will see increased spending of three to six
billion dollars for education and health care and reduced income
taxes for small and medium income earners. A quarter of the
surplus will be applied to debt reduction.
Canada will enjoy the lowest inflation rate in thirty-five
years, higher employment, a one and a half percent increase in
productivity and low labour costs.
The only weakness in Canada is in mining. The only
provincial economic weakness is in British Columbia and
Newfoundland. We have the best fundamentals of any of the G-7
countries.
Why then is the Canadian dollar so low?
Because of its perceived commodity based economy. And remember,
the C$ is low relative to the US$, not to all the world's currencies.
The main reason that the Canadian dollar fell to 68 cents is
the perspective that we were going to export far less to Asia
than is the case in Australia, New Zealand and Sweden. Another
reason for the falling Canadian dollar is that unlike the United
States dollar, the pound sterling or the Deutschmark, the
Canadian dollar is not a currency of refuge, the currencies to
which investors flee in times of international financial crises.
It may be necessary to have one final half percent interest
increase. The Canadian dollar should trade at between sixty-nine
and seventy-one cents in 1998.
The Canadian dollar at 68 cents should render us even more competitive.
At the end of World War II, the National debt was about 110% of
our Gross National Product. It is now equivalent to about 70% of
our Gross Domestic Product.
Fallout of the Asian Financial Crisis:
Canada has suffered unfairly because of the Asian crisis,
having been mistakenly considered a prime exporting country to
Asia. Actually unlike the United States which sends close to
forty percent of its exports to Asia, Canada is far less
dependent on Asian trade.
The worst is over in the Asian crisis, but recovery will take a
long time because of Indonesia and South Korea.
Some guests disagreed with this assessment, expressing their
opinion that we should have little confidence in Asian "Paper Tigers", especially
China and Thailand where there exists too great a disparity
between rich and poor. Indonesia is a big problem because it was
largely financed by the Japanese banks.
Things should come to a head in China within 5-10 years.
- They have NOT solved the population problem.
- They have a pollution problem, burn coal.
- There is a disparity between rich and poor, risking
revolution.
- They have problem with nationalities and ethnic minorities, not
unlike the problems that ultimately undid the U.S.S.R.
On the Supreme Court Hearings on a Unilateral Declaration of
Independence by Québec:
TOM HANSON, CP / Entering Justices Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Frank Iacobucci, Michel Bastarache, Antonio Lamer, Ian Binnie, Charles Gonthier.
see the /westweb/ page on the Court
The opinions of the guests varied as widely as those of
society as a whole. Some of the opinions expressed follow:
- "We are in a very murky area and there are a lot of people
arguing wrongly that the Québec boundary and agenda are
sacrosanct."
-
"I don't think that it's a good idea, but it isn't a bad one
either."
-
"What Chrétien should have done a few years ago was say that this
crisis is sapping our strength and call a national referendum."
-
"They are opening a can of worms with the Cree claiming two-
thirds of the territory of Québec."
-
"We will (soon) see great changes in leadership in
Canada and Québec."
On Civil Society Organizations:
An American initiative led to the adoption of
article seventy-seven of the charter of the United Nations
defining Civil Society Organizations (C.S.O.) and their non-
governmental role. The concept goes back to Putnam among others,
and has deep roots both in Africa and the Women's movement. The
negatives are from the Muslim countries, as well as such
countries as India. Canada has played a surprisingly supportive
role.
The concept sees society as being represented by three
sectors, namely Government, Business, and Civil Society
Organizations. Both the Government and Business sectors are
perceived as being powerful, with the C.S.O.s having little or
no power, but gaining influence to balance the power wielded by
the other two sectors. Hillary Clinton's speech at Davos is proof of
the rising influence of this sector. Although in western democracies, such
groups as trade unions, women's groups and environmentalists are
making a difference, it is difficult for us to grasp the
importance of C.S.O.s in those countries where individuals have
not had as easy access to government policy as for example, in North
America. In fact, it is said that you cannot enforce democracy
without the prior existence of a strong civil society. Until
that point is achieved, a benevolent dictatorship may work
better.
Civil Society Organizations have worked to change our
attitude towards the environment, change governmental philosophy
in South Africa, strengthen and establish civil rights in the
United States. Their role in the United Nations is advisory.
They certainly do not speak with one voice, nor do they have a
single leader even on a given topic. And not all C.S.O.s are benevolent,
for example, the Islamic fundamentalist movement is a C.S.O.
Then, how does the UN avoid a situation of chaos? Are there
limits to be set?
Probably yes, but there is no consensus on how to do this.
Isn't the UN currently devolving some of its programmes to the
C.S.O.s?
Yes, for instance, some 10-20% of the World Bank's funds are
now channelled through C.S.O.s and there is consultation with these
organizations about what and how to fund. Even the IMF has agreed to
hold consultations with representatives of C.S.O.s a couple of times a year.
The world is moving towards uniformity. These organizations
may be the instrument for maintaining diversity. The internet
provides them with unprecedented access to information,
strengthening the logical arguments of the C.S.O.s. It is hoped
that the result will be innovative approaches not emanating from
governments.
During the era of political leaders of the calibre of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, democratic governments demonstrated a
greater concern for the population. Their philosophy has changed
to the point that C.S.O.s are needed to fill the vacuum. And now we have
a former President, Jimmy Carter, at the heart of the CSO movement.
The one note of caution was introduced by guests who
expressed concern about groups who persist long after their goals
have been reached and whose central aim may now be self-
perpetuation, to the detriment of the people - and the society - that they were
initially formed to help.
On the Millennium Scholarship Fund:
The relatively high unemployment rate in Canada is
paradoxical when considered with the strength of the economy.
One answer lies with the recently published American unemployment
figures, where overall unemployment is at 4.7%, while dipping to
2.5% for those holding graduate degrees. In Canada our youth are
unprepared to meet the opportunities available. The Millennium
Fund is a first attempt to change that situation.
One guest disagreed, expressing the opinion that the problem
lay with a decline in social conscience and that historians will
look back on this era which most of us consider one of
prosperity, as a serious depression.
Reported by Herbert Bercovitz and Michael Judson
Edited by Diana Thébaud Nicholson
|