The new “New World Order”

April 2, 2009

The new “New World Order”

© Enrique Woll Battistini 2009

Now that the G20 Summit in London is over, it is fair to ask if sufficient attention was given by the leaders of the world’s 20 richest countries to the economic and social conditions and prospects for development of the remaining 90%, which as should be noted, are almost all non-OECD members and, in contrast, located mostly in the Southern hemisphere. Why is it considered acceptable that the rich and powerful decide on the fate of the poor, without their consent? Poor does not mean stupid or morally inept. Rather, it means disenfranchised, still, and that, in the new “New World Order” proclaimed by Gordon Brown today, should be abolished forthwith. The grossly unacceptable welfare imbalance between countries in the Northern and Southern hemispheres also must be corrected forthwith. It is a reflection of the gross capitalization imbalances between them, and will cease in short order if G20-supported special action to promote North-South foreign direct investment is undertaken. For such action to be successful, it must occur in the context of for-profit PRIVATE-PUBLIC Development Partnerships in each of the three main geo-economic North-South scenarios -The Americas, Europe-Africa, and Asia-Oceania. These Partnerships must be comprised of the fittest surviving financial companies in the leading OECD-member country in each scenario, and their counterparts in each non-OECD or developing country in that scenario. In addition, each Partnership must include appropriate multilateral institutions relevant to economic and social development and their counterpart local governmental entities, in a supporting role. Without question, these Partnerships must be for-profit, as stated, and must be led by key members in the PRIVATE sector. In order to eradicate extreme poverty and globalize peace in this century, and set the world on a course to prosperity, it is not enough to reform the national and international financial systems, or necessarily convenient to abolish banking secrecy, super-inflate the IMF, or to enact a massive world-wide deficit-spending scheme. And it is not enough for the United Nations to set lofty Millennium Development Goals, or to support the creation of additional tax-dependent multilateral financial institutions for their achievement. In The Americas, the Partnership could be called, for instance, “A Partnership for Development with the United States of America” (“Sociedad para el Desarrollo con los Estados Unidos de América”). This idea was first proposed in 1992 to President Clinton, and in 2005 to Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Perhaps its time has finally come.

***

Note: the following are trademarks belonging to Enrique Woll Battistini:

1. “A Partnership for Development with the United States of America”
2. “Sociedad para el Desarrollo con los Estados Unidos de América”