Government and business in Monterrey {"Public Private Partnerships" for World Government}

Posted: March 20, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joan Veon
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Covering a U.N. conference is like switching television channels. In one room, you have the delegates meeting in the plenary and coming to consensus on the topics involved. In another room, you have a non-governmental organization forum where organizations gather from around the world to discuss their objectives. And in another, you have the press and media rooms reporting on conference happenings.

Then, in various hallways, there are all sorts of booths – usually sponsored by the various U.N. organizations, agencies and commissions, complete with multi-color brochures touting their particular goals, prepared well in advance of the document and which happen to mesh and blend with the stated agenda. Then there are tables with speeches, statements and future ideas in the form of white papers.

However, here in Monterrey, there is another important and historic addition: The Business Forum. This week-long event parallels the activities and deliberations taking place in the plenary among governmental officials, in that while they are discussing the already agreed upon Monterrey Document, corporate CEOs and heads of various international institutions and organizations are discussing their role in financing for development.

It was in 1996, at Habitat II in Istanbul, that the United Nations first "revealed" this new and bold concept. You see, the marriage or partnership between government and business has in the past been defined as fascism.

The United Nations was very careful in the conferences previous to Istanbul (Rio's Earth Summit, Copenhagen's Social Summit and Beijing's Fourth Women's Summit) to skirt the issue of public-private partnership. However, by 1996, the world was primed and pumped as numerous countries were in the process of reinventing their own governmental structure by adding the power of business. Here in the United States, Bill Clinton started the process when – in 1993 – he declared, "We intend to redesign, to reinvent, to reinvigorate the entire national government."

Public-private partnership has come full circle in two primary ways.

First, the whole of the Monterrey Document or Consensus, as it is known, is about setting up public-private partnerships. In paragraph 22, it states, "We encourage public/private initiatives that enhance the ease of access, accuracy, timeliness and coverage of information on countries and financial markets, which strengthen capacities for risk assessment." Furthermore, it explicitly acknowledges the importance of launching new mechanisms to facilitate public-private sector communication and cooperation: "… public/private initiatives could include the development of consultation mechanisms between international and regional financial organizations and national governments with the private sector …"

Second, the plenary sessions in the past were only confined to country delegates. Here, for the first time, there are business sector participants as well as NGO participants fully participating, thus completing the inclusion of public-private partnership on governmental debates. They include Union Bank of the Philippines, Cisneros Group of Companies, Daimler Chrysler, International Chamber of Commerce, Standard & Poor's and Moody's, as well as the Carter Center, United Methodist Church, Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, World Confederation of Labour and Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic – to name a few.

Interestingly, at the Business Forum a new initiative was announced, a "Global Information Clearinghouse" which will be used to provide information and analytics to guide decision-making of investors and policy-makers at all levels. While I am not saying this is bad, one can't help but wonder if the Monterrey Consensus was written with business in mind and its proposals tailor-made to the ideas on the drawing board that break the corporate mold and stretch the form of government, provoking questions about "co-management" between government and business.

In a conversation with an individual who works in a public-private organization, I stated that what I was seeing was a structural framework to link or blend together the structures of business and government. He told me that that is exactly what was happening.

I asked International Chamber of Commerce Secretary-General Maria Livanos Cattuai about "co-management." She replied, "It is a major issue you are raising. I am not sure we are looking at co-regulatory issues at this point. We are looking at everyone making a proper role given accountability and responsibility. Given that some partners, like business, are not elected to do this and others are and have to act in the public interest. If business was acting in the public interest it would be called the Business Foundation or the Republic of Business but it's Business Inc. and it has to produce jobs, wealth and value and somehow while the roles are close and the partnerships excellent, within that framework, it is important that business does what it does best."

However, this meeting is about financing. In an interview with Nitin Desai, secretary-general of this meeting – and future Secretary-General of the Rio plus Ten meeting scheduled for later this year in Johannesburg – I asked him, "If this is about financing, then what that means is that at previous conferences there wasn't the financing to go along with the ideas." He replied, "I would say there was a general commitment on financing but we have to recognize that one of our frustrations has been that the resources that were required for implementing the earlier conferences have not always been forthcoming. This is in many ways an attempt to break through this."

While business says they are doing what they are doing to help the poor and to keep them from dying in poverty, I have to wonder if poverty, AIDS and illiteracy are a means to an end? For example, part of the reason why the Third World does not have clean drinking water is the citizens are afraid if big corporations come in, they will not only lose sovereignty (government owned and operated) over their natural assets, but that the prices for it will increase to the point that they will not be able to afford it. Although He did not explain why, Jesus said that we would always have the poor. So how can the multinational corporations end all of these social problems in their own strength, when in the process, they will end up changing the structure of government in order to do so.

Bottom line: There are grave concerns here about the power of financing and what it really means and how it will be translated on the local level. There is no vitality or spunk at this meeting like previous meetings I have covered. Why? Perhaps because this is a done deal. When you marry government and business, you leave the citizen out who has been re-classified as a customer. In the old days, the customer was always right. But here in Monterrey, the customer is a means to an end.

Related offer:

The May edition of WND's WorldNet Magazine, now called Whistleblower, titled "GLOBAL LOAN SHARKS: How the IMF and World Bank debase nations, steal wealth and undermine sovereignty," exposes the multinational institutions' real agenda perhaps like never before.

Joan Veon ; T7W7G7@aol.com , has done extensive research on the United Nations and their agenda and has attended dozens of U.N. conferences.

All, The intent of "Business" is to make money for expansion and keep investors happy. The intent of "government" is to accumulate more and more power unto itself. I read a comment this morning concerning laws being made for "security". The guy said, "We need to think of these laws as if our worst enemy is administering them." I agree fully. It is NOT "nice" people for the most part that even seek POWER. It is mostly those who would USE it to their own advantage. For business to say, " they are doing what they are doing to help the poor and to keep them from dying in poverty." is truly laughable. The future for your children and children's children is being discussed. And, "Public Private Partnerships " ARE INDEED "Fascism.

I DO wonder about the "war on terrorism" and all the oil giants that will profit from these "partnerships". I no longer have ANY doubts about the HUGE profiteering by NGOs and power grabbing by government when it comes to environmental issues. This is NOT good. Peace and love, George.

""Public-Private Partnerships" a hallmark of corporatavism"

C, I really don't know. I've never studied fascism beyond the original Roman meaning of it. And, the rudimentary knowledge of Mussilini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany were both very much government partnered with business for "success". Though "merchantillism" was largely government approved and state sponsored. A large part of the slave trade to the U.S. of A.

"Public Private Partnerships" can in no way be beneficial to the people as a whole. ONLY government approved {licensed} private concerns will be allowed. Much like the street vendors being run off by lobbying by the 'permanent" businesses who "lose sales" to those "gypsies" who don't have "all the overhead". Public Private Partnerships are NOT good even in the beginning for competition, and are bound to become worse. Teaching and other government unions are a good example. ALL of their government earnings, including the taxes they pay, come from private sector taxpayers ONLY, and they "negotiate" pay raises between themselves WITHOUT input from the actual people who pay. Quite a racket, if you ask me. Peace and love, George.

"The Third Way leads to the Third World--- Vaclav Klaus"

C, Considering the way legislation and policies of today are happening, and the effect they are bound to have in the future, he was RIGHT ON. The elimination of the middle classes, and the remaining populace divided between the elite, their enforcers, and the working people supplying the resources for all. Socialism in combination with ANYTHING is still socialism. A social strata into which one is born, and baring the magninimity of government, where one spends their life. As do their children and their children. It's been done. It stunk then, and it still does. But, it IS the plan for the world's future. And, MANY of the world's "greatest" leaders think that it is good. I don't see it. Peace and love, George.

The "Third Way" = Government + transnational corporations + NGO's. The US government is (by design at least) elected and accountable. Corporations are accountable to maximum profit. NGO's allegedly represent "civil society" i.e. the will of the people.

In the real world, the corporations bribe the politicans, and fund the tax exempt foundations. The foundations fund leftist/marxist NGO's. This triangle writes law, and sets policy. Where do I fit into this equation?

Regards

J.R.

J.R., Most likely close to the bottom, as am I. But swimming hard. In DEEP water {or whatever} you can't stop swimming. Peace and love, George.

“It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
-- Samuel Adams

“One man with courage is a majority.”
-- Thomas Jefferson

Still swimming George -- Take care.

J.R.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.