The Martlet

There is a certain irony to our near-sighted world ringing in the year 2010.

In optometry, 20/10 vision is generally considered the maximum visual acuity of the human eye. Someone with this level of visual acuity can see minute details from 20 feet away that the average person can see from 10. Yet in this year of detailed sight, we live in a world that can’t see squat even with its nose squashed against the chart.

Take Copenhagen as an example. From Ottawa, to Washington, to Beijing, with many stops in between, you heard how important protecting “growth” is.

No one is willing to sacrifice “growth” at the unholy shrine of Mother Earth. From our global leaders, we always hear “we won’t unless you do,” but never “we must, so let’s.”

Or take Wal-Mart and their fancy slogan, “Save money. Live better.” It’s easy to look no further than your own wallet, and off we rush to save 68 cents.

But step back to see the bigger picture, and you recognize you are paying that 68 cents back tenfold and more at the social level. And yet municipal governments still trip over themselves to offer Wal-Mart tax breaks to come undermine the economy of their community. Like a vampire, the monster comes in when invited and sucks the host dry.

Wal-Mart, like China and the U.S., considers growth an end in itself. In fact, in 2007 Fortune Magazine ranked Wal-Mart as the 22nd “largest global economic enterprise.” This means that, of the world’s 195 countries, only 21 of them have a larger GDP than Wal-Mart. And of the world’s top 150 “largest economic enterprises,” 63 per cent were corporations.

Why is it that our elected representatives and these corporations frequently seem to share the same objectives? Well, one clue is that in last year’s third quarter alone, Pfizer spent $5.4 million (USD) on lobbyists.

It’s conceivable that this action affected the American health-care debate. How much profit must Pfizer be making if they’re willing to spend $5.4 million in just three months to protect the status quo?

Obviously, Copenhagen saw its fair share of lobbying as well. Corporations had their voices heard by belonging to lobby groups like Combat Climate Change (3C) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The other end of the economic spectrum, the people whose lives are impacted by the decisions made at these conferences, had no lobby group, however.

And you see it with our prime minister too. The environment is important — as long as it doesn’t interfere with energy production, because energy production is a growth industry.

Who gets Harper’s most sincere attention: you and me, or the corporations who donate the money he needs to campaign? The campaign will get your vote, but for that he needs the money.

And it’s no different on the international stage, where heads of state compete for investment. There are only so many dollars to go around, which means labour rights, tax revenue and environment protection are all traded away for growth.

In the end, the mighty State, supposed ultimate sovereign of the international system, is left cowering like a beggar with his bowl held out, hoping its capitulations will attract the noble corporation away from its neighbor.

And the corporation gets away with it because the international system is one of anarchy. This doesn’t mean no rules or systems, only that there is no binding central government. The head-of-state becomes the last level of authority, save for any international treaties or obligations they willingly enter.

Except now corporations frequently wield more influence than many countries. Who do you think had more pull at Copenhagen, Wal-Mart or Latvia?

Even in more powerful economic countries, like Canada or the U.S., corporate CEOs have direct access to government decision makers. Heck, a lot of times corporate executives bounce between the private and the public sector, taking jobs in government to help shape the business environment they’ll return to in a few years.

So who do these transnational corporations ultimately answer to? Only their investors. These corporations answer to no code, neither legal nor moral, other than that of maximizing the profits of their investors. And yet they increasingly influence the decisions that decide living standards for billions of people.

You don’t have to have the eyes of a hawk to see how this influences the way the world is run.