Civil Society and US Business Community

Hinrich Kuhls kls at mail.online-club.de
Thu Dec 17 13:08:29 PST 1998


In connection with the most recent international developments and in connection with some recent threads on the list

- bombing in Iraq, globalization, civil society, international trade, global financial crisis -

I assume it might be quite interesting to have a look at this revealing document:

http://www.uscib.org/news/akspeech.htm - [Remarks by Abraham Katz - USCIB International Leadership Award Dinner 1998]

or for those of you who are in a hurry:

http://www.uscib.org/news/adrel98.htm [Press Release - Annual Dinner 1998 - December 8, 1998, New York, N.Y.]

both on the website http://www.uscib.org [United States Council for International Business - We invite you to browse through these pages to get the latest on the USCIB and its services to the American business community.]

Here is only one paragraph from the former document:

"At the very time that globalization has brought to our country and the world unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, the opponents of business, the enemies of an open market system have marshalled a serious counter attack on further liberalization of trade and investment and on multinational companies as the main agents of globalization. These opponents call themselves the true representatives of civil society, a concept from which they seek to exclude business. This distorted concept of civil society has become the mantra of the millennium which our political leaders, both American and European as well as the top leaders of the main international organizations seem to have internalized. It has given a potent voice in national and international discourse to a loose alliance of groups ranging from responsible international environmental and trade union organizations to various religious, human rights and consumer lobbies, to entities consisting of one man with a computer and web site. What they have in common is a strong emotional bias against business and the free market. If you listen closely or read their statements on the internet, you find underneath the rhetoric not a single constructive idea. Globaphobia is being fed by liberal slices of globaloney."

Indeed, here we have the view which is the very extreme opposite of all progressive movements in a nutshell, globally.

An elaborated version had been published earlier by September 3, 1998
:"Civil Society and Trade Negotiations: A Business Perspective"
[ http://www.uscib.org/policy/civsocst.htm ].

Its starting paragraphs:

"The Clinton Administration has taken the lead in calling for the participation of 'civil society' in future trade negotiations, both in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The U.S. initiative has taken concrete form in the FTAA negotiations by the creation of a Government Committee on Civil Society.

"The concept of civil society remains amorphous. The definition used in FTAA documentation includes business, but some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) see their groups, labor unions, and consumer activists as the only legitimate spokesmen for civil society, and would exclude business participation. Others resent the business community's influential role in past trade negotiations and want business to channel its views on the FTAA through the Civil Society Committee instead of through mechanisms such as the existing Business Forums. To both groups, business and industry represent the status quo, which they are seeking to change through political pressure on governments.

"Business, environmental, labor, consumer, human rights and other groups all have the right to make their views known to governments on issues directly or indirectly affecting them. Consultation with civil society in this broad sense of the term is essential to ensuring the legitimacy of public policies.

"That said, business plays a unique role in trade negotiations. Trade and investment negotiations are about setting parameters for international commerce. Governments need business' technical expertise to identify market access opportunities and barriers to the free flow of goods and services. One-issue groups cannot possibly provide the same breadth of advice needed by governments in any sophisticated trade negotiation.

"Governments bear the responsibility for formulating consensus positions in trade negotiations. Business will continue to work with all elements of civil society on a voluntary basis to find common ground on international trade and investment issues. However, we think it highly unlikely that groups with markedly different perspectives will arrive at useful consensus positions. We question the utility of forums that would bring together all elements of civil society with U.S. and foreign trade negotiators.

"If the U.S. and other governments wish to intensify public participation in trade policy, they should consult separately with business, labor, and other NGOs. This format is more likely to produce serious dialogue and minimize political posturing." ---

According to USCIB "in a capitalist system, private enterprise is the essential driving force for the economy". The "open market system" includes the oil markets, and maintaining low import prices and secure supply of crude oil is vital for the nation that by far consumes the highest share of it. Hence it is no contradiction that the government which "has taken the lead in calling for the participation of 'civil society' in future trade negotiations" pursues - beyond all civil society - another military attack in order to keep hegemony on this vital market for running the "driving force for the economy".

Hinrich Kuhls



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list