Specific U.N. fund collection methods
Demilitarization funds are to be created from cuts in military spending. According to the terms of the Oscar Arias Peace Plan, if military spending were to be cut by three percent a year by the nations of the world — both rich and poor — for the next five years, these monies could be placed into a Global Militarization Fund from the GMF. The estimated yearly income from the GMF is calculated at $14 billion.
Pollution taxes collected by an international authority to issue tradable permits that entitle the holder to emit a certain quantity of pollutants. Countries that didn’t need their full quota could sell their surplus to others. Those generating pollution would pay more and “ecological space” would be priced for all nations.
Alternatively, a tax of $1 per barrel could be levied on oil and coal consumption. This would also be used to discourage excessive and wasteful use of nonrenewable energy. Pollution taxes are estimated to yield $66 billion.
Taxing global foreign exchange through a levied against speculative international currency transactions. Suggested by James Tobin in 1981, a tax of .5 percent on the value of each transaction would deliver $1.5 trillion per year.
Fund for a the “global safely net” would be used to assist poor countries pay for the 20/0 social compact; the social compact calls for 20 percent of both the developing countries and the industrialized nation’s budgets to be allocated to human priority expenditures. Human priority expenditures would provide the basic needs of each individual. Basic needs would include education, access to primary health care, clean drinking water and sanitation, immunization for all children, reduction of maternal mortality, family planning services, reduction of adult literacy and the elimination of severe malnutrition.
Countries who could not afford the cost would be funded under the Safety Net through a world income tax of 0.01 percent. This world income tax would be levied on the richest nations with a per capita income of $10,000 or more. The estimated yearly income would be $20 billion.
The above methods would total $250 billion a year, not counting the “Tobin Tax.” Considering the 1995 UN budget is $1.1 billion (and total worldwide expenditures, based on 1992 figures, of $10.5 billion), it appears there will be a fair amount left over. The cost, however, to finance a new human development program is estimated at $30–$40 billion a year. It was recently reported that the UN has a current deficit of $3.6 billion. To date, only 29 countries have made payments and 39 of the 185 countries still owe for 1994. The two top debtors are the US and Russia who owe $550 million and $62 million respectively toward the regular budget, and $200 million and $507 million respectively for peacekeeping (Reports prepared by financial analyst, Joan Veon from the UN Human Development Report 1994, Chapter 4).
When did we elect these Volke?
The Commission on Global Governance is comprised of world leaders who came together, at the invitation of Willy Brandt, to determine how the world should be governed in the post-Cold War Era. The twenty-six men and women have worked for the past three years to develop a common vision to accomplish the transition from the cold war to the twenty-first century. Together they endorsed other recommendations for raising dollars for global governance (in addition to human development costs).
Suggestions included: a surcharge on airline tickets; a charge for ocean maritime transport; user fees for ocean, non-coastal fishing and for such activities as fishing in Antarctica; parking fees for geostationary satellites; and charges for user rights of the electromagnetic spectrum. These costs would include protecting the “global commons” which includes the overuse of common environmental assets. The pollution of the global atmosphere and the depletion of ocean fisheries is viewed as caused by inadequate governance.
The Commission states, “We urge the evolution of a consensus to help realize the long-discussed and increasingly relevant concept of global taxation. In this and in other areas, managing economic interdependence will require technically creative and politically courageous innovation.”
Other “creative and politically courageous innovations” suggested by the Commission include a permanent volunteer world any which could be hired out to Third World countries for a fee; the establishment of an Economic Security Council to provide political leadership and promote consensus on international economic issues; the establishment of a Global Competition Office to strengthen global competition through the World Trade Organization (WTO); the conversion of the International Monetary Fund to a world central bank; the establishment of an international criminal court; and the amendment of the UN Charter.
Key players in the Commission on Global Governance
The co-chairman are Sir Shridath Ramphal and Ingvar Carlsson, the newly re-elected Prime Minister of Sweden. Other members include: Oscar Arias, President from 1986 to 1990 and author of the Arias Peace Plan for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987; Allan Boesak, Chairman of the South African National Congress; Jacque Delors, former president of the European Commission; Quia Jiadong, Deputy Director-General of he China Center for International Studies in Beijing; Adele Simmons, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation of Chicago (MacArthur Foundation of population control fame); Maurice Strong, Chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro and Chairman of the Earth Council.
Speaking of over-consumption!
Some of the salaries of the chief executive officers of NGOs who hope to be supported by taxing the world prove to be interesting reading, not to mention the current income of the NGOs themselves.
At the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), executive officer, Frederick D. Krupp, receives an annual salary of $234,573; EDF’s annual income is $22,307,335. Of the income, 78 percent is actually spent on programs. Within the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), executive director, Kate Michelman receives an annual salary of $121,629. NARAL’s annual income is $1,709,831. Seventy-seven percent of the funds is used on programs. Peter A.A. Berle at the National Audubon Society (NAS) receives $178,000 annually. NAS income annually is $$0,004,160. Fifty-eight percent of the funds are spent on NAS programs. At the Nature Conservancy (NC), John Sawhill receives an annual wage of $202,228. NC annual income is $279,675,000. Sixty-four percent of the income is spent on programs. National Wildlife Federation’s (NWF) Dr. Jay Herr receives $299,876 annually. Annual income of NWF is $99,443,000 Sixty-three percent of income is spent on programs. Planned Parenthood Federation’s Pamella Maraldo receives $209,696. Annual income of PPF is $41,869,858 Sixty nine percent of funds are directed to programs, At Zero Population Growth (ZPG), Susan Weber’s annual salary is $81,602. ZPG’s annual income is $2,498,316. Seventy-eight percent of funds are directed toward programs. At UNICEF, Dr, Gwendolyn Calvert Baker receives $118,912. Richard Gorman, SVP-fundraising receives $167,890. UNICEF’s annual income is $46,863,000] Seventy-seven percent of the funds collected are directed to programs (Annual Charity Index, Council of Better Business Bureau, 1995 edition).
Now come on folks, don‘t be stingy! Cough up some of your wages in taxes to help these aforementioned “poor people.”
What we need now is a World Central Bank, Right?
According to that very informative UN Human Development Report 1994, the world is very much in need of a World Central Bank. Such a bank could service the world through: macroeconomic management; guaranteeing global financial stability; be the lender of last resort to financial institutions; calm jittery financial markets, regulate financial institutions, create and regulate new international liquidity. But, sad to say, the UN warns, “It will probably take some time and probably some international financial crisis before a full-scale World Central Bank can be created.
IMF as the World Central Bank
What an idea! The IMF could become the World Central Bank! Then the IMF could issue special drawing rights (SDR); and issue 30–50B SDRs to fuel world recovery. They could become an expanded Compensatory and Contingency Financial Facility (CCFF); and change the CCFF toward: no funding restrictions, extended loan periods, and eliminate conditions on borrowing. And, the IMF could control all international banking activities! Just makes you want to go right into debt; and pay all those poor people at the IMF with your interest payments!
Help an NGO buy a country through Debt for Development!
Debt for Development is based on the willingness of commercial bank creditors to accept less than face value in selling debts they are owed by developing country governments. An NGO can purchase the debt for less than face value by agreeing with the debtor government to cancel the debt in exchange for a payment of local currency at a higher price. The local currency is then used to fund the NGO’s projects. Debt conversion can generate funds between live percent and 200 percent in additional local currency for an NGO’s project in comparison with a conventional foreign exchange transaction (Debt for Development Coalition).
Some of the countries where the World Wildlife Fund has carried out such transactions are: Philippines, for $12,970,000 WWF purchased $19,000,000 face value of Philippine debt and received $17,100,000 local currency in exchange. Also in the Philippines, WWF purchased $9,846,607 face value of debt for $5,000,000 and received in return $8,815,946 in local currency. In Costa Rica, WWF purchased $550,488 face value of debt for $99,000 and received $900,000 in local currency. WWF in Ecuador paid $354,000 for a $1,000,000 debt and received $1,000,000 local currency in return (List of WWF Debt Swaps, World Wildlife Fund, Wash., D.C.).
U.S. debt conversion program
The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI) is described by the U.S. as opening “a new era of hemispheric partnership” in “trade, investment and growth.” While encouraging countries to “reform their economies” the U.S. created agreements in several countries. As an Example: The US expanded E1 Salvador’s environmental and child development programs by reducing the country’s debt by $268.4 million in exchange creating $6.1 million in local currency for the projects. And in Bolivia, the original debt was reduced by $30.7 million in return for $1.8 million plus a $20 million bond for the same purposes (The Operation for the America’s Facility, Report to Congress, September 1994). While this may sound like a bargain, the price is often deeper controls of the country by the debt purchaser.
