Secretive versus open organisations and what I prefer
Bilderberg Group
This year was the
60th anniversary of the Bilderberg conference where a number of invited
politicians, military leaders and business people attended. I think it is a bad
initiative because it is mainly a secretive activity (although they have a website with some information) for a select group of important people who will discuss some major problems of our planet without involving many who are involved (such
as members of unions or poor countries). If indeed the discussions are only informal where no conclusions are reached, then there could still be a press release with abstracts of what has
been discussed as is done for normal conferences while now there is only a
short agenda. I also think politicians should be open and answer questions of
journalists and ordinary people so we know what they are discussing with very
influential people leading very powerful organisations such as armies,
financial institutions (can you imaging discussing the financial crisis only with those who are mainly responsible for the crisis?), Internet companies (discussing our privacy?) and fossil fuel companies (discussing our future energy use without companies in the business of renewable energy?); then
people can decide during elections whether we like the solutions they propose
as that is how democracies work (maybe it should be even forbidden that
politicians meet business people at secretive conferences although of course
they can meet those people at work while private organisations can organise
these meetings but within the law). It seems journalists even get arrested for
daring to question what is going on behind those closed doors. It also seems
there are snipers who may shoot people who try to enter the conference
uninvited (I understand powerful people need protection as some people don't like them). Although many
subjects are secret, not all are as we know they discussed among others how to respond to the Ukrainian crisis (and this discussion is with military
leaders, not only diplomats) without telling us what they agree while I think
the general population should know what they discussed (compare with ex-PM
Blair who discussed going to war with Iraq in Parliament and the UN although it
didn't change the course of history). Still, I can very well understand these
people: being invited for such an event means those people are considered
important and thus they do as they are ordered: be silent to remain in grace by
the even more powerful (and of course, politicians should go to know what is
discussed but they should demand as much openness as possible). And that no
conclusions are made is probably not true although it may not be written down.
Can you imagine all these important people wasting time by attending a meeting
where nothing is decided? At least they know what is discussed and what the opinions
are of other powerful people, therefore they have advanced knowledge others
don't have.
UN (and regional organisations)
Many of the people
attending the conference are also those who mistrust the UN and other
international organisations such as the EU and some tell us not to trust them.
And by telling this often enough, many people believe them and distrust those
organisations. I do totally disagree with them (look to the extensive websites
of UN and EU to demonstrate their transparency) although I agree that the UN
(and EU) should be further reformed so countries become more equal as there
is at present too much power in the hands of a few countries with their right to veto
decisions. For instance, the yearly conference at the UN is quite open whereby
leaders of all countries have the opportunity to speak to the delegates of
every other country in the world (and although we don't always need to agree,
at least we know what they're saying) while cameras register what they say and
broadcast it worldwide. Of course, there are discussions behind the scenes, but
in general it is much more open and at the end people know what politicians
spoke about. Another example is the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conference that also publishes what
scientists know, prognoses for the future and which actions should be
undertaken by politicians to prevent disaster. Can they be more open (although
deniers claim they are lying)? These meetings are of course only the conclusion
of previous discussions, but it is normal people research the subject before
such open conferences take place although the public is informed by scientists
who publish their results in articles that are also discussed in newspapers. Also diplomats
often discuss subjects in private because often this is the best way to reach a
solution; still we should know at certain moments what is discussed because
discussions can't go on for ever and thus politicians should discuss sometimes
how they see certain solutions for problems or what is (not) acceptable. This
will inform the public but also diplomats about certain directions they have to
follow to prevent that politicians don't agree with the solutions of the diplomats
and negotiations have to restart. At the UN, many major problems are discussed
and we can hear in the news about the (dis)agreements between the different
countries whereby disagreements can indeed sometimes kill when certain countries use
their veto to prevent solutions (that is why the UN needs to reform to accept
the majority vote although countries that disagree should be able to opt-out when actions are needed).
This is in contrast to the Bilderberg conference where it seems even the agenda
is not completely published and only a select number of people are invited so
that the rest of the world has to guess the issues they discuss and whether
they reach any conclusions, thereby creating an environment of secrecy and thus
paranoia amongst the public, something that is certainly unhealthy.
Lobbying groups are part of the game
Lobbying
groups are present at both the Bilderberg conference and international
organisations and I am in favour of these groups as long as they are public and
polite and different groups are included in discussions (thus also unions representing
workers) because they inform politicians and other decision makers about the
different sides of the argument so that those who have to take decisions know
the different options and thus can take an informed decision. Lobbying groups
are in fact part of the ultimate democracy because they unite people who want
to inform decision makers about their points-of-view as it is not possible that
each individual is heard by policymakers as there are too many people, unless
maybe at local level. Of course, some are idiots such as those in favour of
fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) when the vast majority of scientists (and some evidence) contradicts them and warn us of the consequences of
continued fossil fuel use; those lobbyists can be ignored
until, in order to be able to continue meeting the powerful and continue having
influence, they join the camp that tries to find solutions for our fossil fuel
dependency. Also people who still
claim that smoking doesn't cause damage or that the right to carry weapons
should be defended because it protects us against criminals can today be ignored
unless they come with solutions.
Comments