Critique of: Leaders keep promises: expert (June 23, 2002 / Calgary Herald)
A conference on "sustaining economic growth"... that's all we need. The planet is already exploited beyond carrying capacity with ocean fisheries collapsing, a majority of the forests lost forever, a climate gone haywire..., and here's a conference devoted to "sustaining" more exploitation. The wonder is that people can sustain such crap.
So who mounted this travesty? The Guido Carli Association (supported by the Bank of Italy and Italian heavy industry interests), the G8 Research Group (John Kirton's academic front group for the promotion of the G8 and its neoliberal/militarization agenda), and the Research Group on Global Financial Governance (probably a Kirton clone/facade organization - like his pseudoenvironmental EnviReform scam ... but an internet search turns up nothing). Oh, and not to forget the G8 Summit Policy Office of Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
So let's focus for a moment on Ella Kokotsis' statements. If we go to her actual study (see: The G8 from Genoa to Kananaskis and Beyond: Performance, Prospects, and Potential), a coproduction with John Kirton (champion of the New Security Economy - i.e. economic prosperity via increased repression - see: Retreating to Reach Out - Kananaskis 2002), we find that the '58' promises referred to in the article were "less than the norm for Summits of the fourth seven year cycle that began at Lyon, France in 1996". In other words, the G8 are making less promises to be broken later on. Bearing this in mind, consider the 'increased compliance record' which Kokotsis refers to. It went from an average of 45% for the previous five summits to 50% for commitments made in Genoa. So by making fewer 'bullshit promises', the overall 'compliance record' was increased by 5%. Hardly what I'd call an enviable track record. But wait a second - does this 'compliance record' really mean anything at all positive? If there is a compliance record of 50%, but half of the promises complied with are things like financing infrastructure for the MOX plutonium fuel cycle (thereby extending the production of toxic radiocative waste for a few more generations), beefing up state surveillance of citizens in the name of security, implementing euphemistically-termed 'worker flexibility' policies, waging military adventures abroad, etc., it hardly seems like something to be bragging about.
In other words, all of this scorekeeping silliness is an elaborate sham, concocted by the elitist inner circle of academics over at the UofT G8 Research Center as part of their continuing effort to legitimize and promote the G8 as the planetary executive committee, presiding over a corporatized planet.
Now we come to Alain Verbeke, a professor of business management linked to the Kirton coterie primarily via Alan Rugman, one of Kirton's 'inner circle' (and another speaker at this conference). Verbeke is a frequent collaborator with Rugman on trade policy papers, and was parachuted into a University of Calgary post in April, just prior to the official annoncement on May 8 of this conference.
Verbeke says that 'noted' multinational firms (whatever that means) have better environmental and labour standards than their domestic counterparts. So the implication is: if global corporations can knock down labor and environmental standards and keep them low through 'race to the bottom' processes (i.e. via the WTO and other free trade deals, playing off one country against another for tax breaks, etc) - BUT - at the same time, maintain nominally better standards than their domestic counterparts (which are forced to play dirtier in order to keep abreast of their global competitors), then workers and the planet are better off.... Try swallowing that.
Finally, he boasts about "an enormous body of empirical evidence" which he provides none of, but which, according to him, proves conclusively how wonderful corporate globalization is....
Sorry Verbeke, some other time; there's only so much crap we can take at one sitting.