The idea of a ‘New Marshall Plan’ to benefit developing nations has been inspiring people around the world since United States Secretary of State George C. Marshall spearheaded a major American relief and reconstruction program for Europe following the Second World War. The goal then was the emergency stabilization and reconstruction of sixteen nations in Western Europe, which were ravaged by poverty, disease, hunger, unemployment, and political chaos in the aftermath of combat. The US was motivated to assist them for humanitarian reasons, as well as to reestablish the region as a strong trading partner and a buffer against the expansion of Soviet Communism. From 1947 to 1951, the US extended as much as 2% of its annual GDP in material and financial assistance in this unprecedented development relief effort. Some people at the time also began to envision the possibility of a similar program in developing nations. Looking beyond Europe, President Harry Truman promised a new dispensation of American foreign assistance for the poor countries of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, "a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas". The concept also became popular in several European nations (Germany, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Great Britain, in particular) which were especially grateful for America’s largesse and realized the logic of doing something similar to fight poverty in the world’s poorest nations. A global action plan to fight poverty had long been a symbol of hope for those living in the crowded slums of poor townships and the tiny dirt farms of the world’s remote and impoverished places, far from the hulking urban centers. This dream took on greater currency when the Brandt Commission’s 1980 report on global development, North-South: A Program for Survival was hailed in the international community and the press as a new ‘Global Marshall Plan’. Since then, the theory of a global plan to benefit impoverished nations has been deconstructed, reformulated, and endlessly discussed by academics, policy analysts, parliamentarians, development specialists, environmentalists, and more than a few global leaders.

Over the past fifty years, the phrase has become a metaphor used in many different contexts and with a variety of meanings. Usually it refers to an intensive development program involving financial support and technical assistance on a large scale for a specific impoverished geographical region or a complex global problem. Most often, the goal of a proposed ‘Marshall Plan’ is to fight poverty and underdevelopment through a massive infusion of aid and resources. The assumption is that helping local people meet their basic needs and build capacity will produce a transformational stimulus, producing self-generated and independent economic development; in turn, economic growth in developing nations would increase trade, create new jobs, and boost the economies of developed nations. But the scope of new Marshall Plan proposals has also been broadened to include many other areas related to poverty, such as finance and the environment. A deep search of the term in the Google listings shows at least sixty different proposals calling for a Global Marshall Plan (GMP). There are probably dozens more. Some of these are mere announcements, declarations of good intentions, and wish lists, while others are formal, detailed proposals. We may classify them into four different types. Most uses of the term GMP refer to particular development goals for specific issues. Some GMPs are region-specific proposals, targeted for a particular geographic area. A third type – interdependent proposals – focus on linkages among various issues pertaining to developing nations as a class (rather than a specific issue or region). A final type of GMP includes structural proposals, which address systemic changes in the international economic system to promote long-term development.

While there is not sufficient space here to review all of these plans, we may offer a few observations. What is common to most GMPs is an implicit recognition that nation-state structures are inadequate in meeting systemic international problems; that increased global interdependence requires that global issues be linked together strategically and discussed by a broad array of international representatives at a new level of international political discussion; that these representatives should launch an immediate global action program commensurate with the dimensions of the issue or problem designated; and that substantial amounts of money must be raised to meet these goals. From an intra-cultural perspective, the very existence of all these different GMPs is evidence of a profound plea for global order surfacing from every corner of the Earth. The variety and persistence of proposals for a GMP are symptomatic of a planet singularly becoming conscious of its problems and contradictions, as experts from countless fields of inquiry and service call for a new framework of economic governance. Whether the particular focus is on poverty, development, environment, human security, social equity, cultural diversity, or human rights, virtually all of these GMPs suggest a need for global economic justice and a committed long-range effort to end poverty, ensure sustainable development, establish global governance, and create enduring prosperity. And this, in turn, implies a restructuring of the global economic and political order, which cannot be achieved within the scope of current Bretton Woods, World Trade Organization, and United Nations rules, policies, and institutions. This paper synthesizes the most important structural proposals for a Global Marshall Plan with an emphasis on personal security – the protection of people from external threats of all forms.

Security Without Borders

Since the start of the multilateral era following World War II, we have tended to view security and development as two distinct areas – a political realm of peace and security, and a socio-economic realm of development. This bifurcated approach to security has become part of the unconscious fabric of modern government in virtually every nation. As the international flow of goods, services, money, information and people across the planet intensifies, the result is not a borderless world of personal security but a militant increase in state power and a submissive decline in individual liberty. Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, progressive analysts have been formulating a new paradigm: that true security for human beings stems from sustainable development – not the sovereign defense of states. As many people are now keenly aware, while we are all globally connected by virtue of our common humanity and shared values of personal dignity and worth, globalization is not being managed according to the intrinsic rights and responsibilities we hold as a human family. We need to create a regulatory framework based on the universal norms of generosity and equitability that flow from human civilization as a functioning whole – an inclusive institutional design that establishes formal links between peace, security, development, and the environment, allowing people to live free from fear and want, with the opportunity to develop their full personal and social potentials in a healthy and supporting environment.

The safest way to build a bridge from the old world to the emerging one – applying our democratic norms of diversity, equality, and cooperation to the global system that is now evolving – is through a Global Marshall Plan. The major challenge before us today is to reexamine our traditional sources of political legitimacy and power and open a new context for global interdependence and cooperation. Because sovereignty is ultimately an individual expression of the inherent unity of humankind and does not truly depend on national boundaries or ideologies, we recognize that personal security must be generated primarily within – not between – nation-states. Indeed, the way to create lasting peace and justice in the world is through honoring the needs and sacred presence of the other person – an inner reality which the world’s governmental bureaucracies studiously avoid and sometimes malign. But many people are already following this path of ‘security without borders’ as an ethical imperative. Through our vast subjective interconnectedness, we realize that only inward security can truly lead to outer security, and it is our task to acknowledge the common interests of all nations and cultures for peaceful security and to bring this understanding into the national and international political process. Through a GMP based on human security and generosity we shall embark on a new era of global structural change, ensuring that this present transitional period of globalization leads to international equity and cooperative governance. Synthesizing the various proposals for a Global Marshall Plan that have been put forward, we see five essential points for action: (1) Fulfill the Millennium Development Goals +; (2) Establish & Meet Global Environmental Targets; (3) Create New Sources of Finance & Allocation of Resources; (4) Restructure Global Economic Rules & Institutions; and (5) Internationalize the Dialogue for Global Action.

In the 1940s, after a devastating period of economic depression and war, our multilateral era was launched with great hope for the future, promising international peace, security, freedom, social progress, equal rights, and development for all people. Those ideals were enshrined in the 1945 United Nations Charter and the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But global politics quickly intruded and the military defense of nation-states became the overriding theme of the postwar era. Measures for human and social development were widely identified and discussed during the Cold War period but rarely placed in the context of human security and never formally quantified at the international level. Finally, in 2000, the international community established the United Nations Millennium Development Goals – measurable targets to fight poverty and raise living standards in the world’s poorest areas. These practical goals, set for 2015, include: eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; combat against HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and creation of a global partnership for development.

In 2007, midway to their target date, funding and implementation for the MDGs is woefully behind schedule. Sixty nations remain in desperate conditions of poverty and another forty are below the international poverty line, yet rich governments are not ramping up their aid budgets for 2008-2011 nearly as rapidly as they have pledged. It has also become clear that while the MDGs are a very significant start, they are just the beginning of what is truly needed to end extreme poverty and achieve inclusive development. Even if the MDGs were met by 2015, they are not likely to ensure human security and social development for the long term for several reasons. (1) The MDGs are not the minimum requirements for empowering poor nations to improve their standards of living and foster an ethic of local self-sufficiency. Additional reforms – which some in the development community call ‘MDGs+’ – must be initiated to supplement the MDGs, including clean water, sanitation, habitat, local infrastructure, and opportunities for employment. (2) Even the MDGs+ must be enhanced by other global goals for capacity-building so that the root causes of economic, political and social instability are also addressed. The MDGs and MDGs+ cannot thrive without adequate support from local governments in developing nations to ensure self-sufficiency and self-determination. This means the complete legalization of women’s rights, strong social, political and economic institutions, the rule of law and courts, moral and political freedom, full equality, property rights, a reliable civil service, community-building, public safety, stable banks, public finance, public utilities, public education, and social welfare – areas which the MDGs and MDGs+ do not address in any depth. (3) The international community also needs to look beyond 2015. Even if nations were to achieve their goals to eliminate poverty, ensure development, and encourage the creation of stable institutions in poor nations for the medium-term, the MDGs+ cannot be sustained unless they are supported by major reforms in international trade, finance, monetary and energy policy. This means that our commitment to multilateralism must be total and that sustainable development must become the collective responsibility of the international community. It must be recognized, therefore, that the philosophy underlying the MDGs – that each country should finance its own development, and what it cannot undertake will be financed by investments from transnational corporations and overseas aid from individual states – is still part of the world’s bilateral orthodoxy, not a formula for lasting transformation. Over the long-term, national development projects such as the GMP must be managed by a central multilateral development agency, such as the UN Development Program or a reformulated UN Economic Council.

The Stern Review (2006), the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), and many other recent studies have provided convincing evidence of the reality of climate change, predicting that the average global temperature could increase from 2˚- 5˚ F over the next century. Rising temperatures and extreme climate patterns are already having an enormous impact on human security. We already know that global warming leads to loss of species, decline of ecosystem services and habitats, environmental hazards and natural disasters, all of which threaten human life and community. But the direct impact of global warming on personal security is also clear. Increased production of greenhouse gases from the use of fossil fuels, chlorofluorocarbons, and methane gas from landfills leads to higher ocean temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and acidified oceans, which results in intensified levels of rainfall, storms, flooding, loss of wetlands, heat waves and droughts. As a consequence, many people – especially the poor in some of the world’s most crowded and marginally productive areas – are affected by a lack of water for drinking and irrigation, increased resource scarcity, a decline in agricultural production, loss of supportive wildlife, widespread disease from mosquitoes and other pests, declining health, economic losses caused by volatile hurricanes and tornadoes (exacerbated by warmer, rising seas), volatility in economic output and trade, and increasing poverty. In turn, the harmful impact of climate extremes on human livelihoods and living conditions, combined with the resource exploitation of poor nations by rich interests, has triggered violence, armed conflict, social and cultural disruptions, mass migration of refuges, and a widening disparity between developed and developing nations. We are currently witnessing many signs of this kind of temperature-driven civil strife in parts of Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

Although the sustainable development movement has been pressing for mandatory rules to curb global warming for more than twenty years, firm targets have not been universally adopted. Thirty-five countries have ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions for 2012, but developing nations were exempted from these binding carbon limits to protect their economic growth. Kyoto rests on the idea of capping the quantity of emissions at an agreed level and allowing companies to trade carbon credits for extra reductions (costing in the range of $20 - $100 per ton of CO2 emitted). This shifting of financial burdens through the sale and trade of surplus emissions permits – creating, in effect, a global pollution market in which companies can obtain the right to produce more emissions than they otherwise would – is not the kind of deep restructuring of global trade, finance and monetary policy that will change the energy base of global society. Kyoto has already lost legitimacy since the US refused to join, and also because several other rapidly industrializing nations which were originally exempted – India, China, Indonesia, and Brazil – need to be brought under emissions caps now as well. The 1987 Montreal Protocol, which applies equally to developed and developing nations, has been very successful in cutting back global emissions of ozone-depleting gases. Ultimately, all nations need to enter into a similar universal system for the reduction of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. It is not too soon to begin formulating a more inclusive framework for stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions after the Kyoto Protocol expires, setting carbon reduction targets and developing new international mechanisms to ensure their enforcement beyond 2012. China and the United States – the world’s largest producers of carbon dioxide – must soon become active participants in global negotiations for mandatory emissions controls, particularly now that climate change is widely recognized as a major threat to international peace and security.

The international community needs to set high standards for environmental security by ending its fossil fuel dependency and wasteful use of resources that result in global warming. To do this, we need to find new ways of diversifying our energy sources through solar, hydro, wind, tide, geothermal, and biomass fuels, lower the costs of these renewable energies so they can compete with fossil fuels, and increase conservation through increased efficiency. The world’s poorest nations are presently unable to absorb the cost of emissions reduction which would allow them to adapt to climate change. Developed nations must therefore give special attention to reducing the climate and coastal threats to these vulnerable regions and help them adapt to the devastating results of global warming by financing carbon reduction projects, ensuring that impoverished nations get increasing amounts of clean energy. Because sustainable development is a vital component of human security for all nations, rich and poor, we need to create a United Nations Environmental Organization to coordinate global action on ecological degradation and climate change.

Since the Second World War, the Korean War, and the Viet Nam War, many peace activists have championed the idea of channeling government funds from the production of arms and weapons directly into spending on human and social development. Under the present system, however, ‘economic conversion’ is not an easy legislative matter of replacing one budget with another, since it involves a fundamental change in political and economic infrastructure, society and culture – requiring a new quality and degree of public consciousness. To embark on this transformation, we must expose the illusory economic incentives that drive the ‘permanent war economy’. As many social critics have observed, the socioeconomic infrastructure embedded in our national security state exaggerates global cultural differences in order to maintain domestic control. The objectification of foreign nations and races as enemies creates a cohesive emotional identity within our group based on fear and hatred of the Other. This enables the State to deploy a standing army which is sanctioned by the government, financed by taxpayers, supplied by the oil industry and defense contractors, tested with the latest devices by technology companies, and rationalized by the popular media – all of which generates research and development, production, consumer demand, and new spending. Demonizing the Other also takes our attention away from the political control and enormous profits that result from institutionalized war and financial exploitation, producing social regimentation and conformity, unquestioning acceptance of the political orthodoxy, collective dissociation and personal disempowerment. It is important now to educate the public on the extent to which the military-government-oil-industrial-technology-media complex stimulates the domestic economy by fostering a climate of militarism and mass anxiety over regional emergencies and national security, persuading us that the protection of our borders is more important than the human and social welfare and environmental conditions within those borders.

Despite this perennial fear of foreign invading armies, the fact is that far more people today die from poverty, disease, and human rights abuses, and ecological degradation than from war. Natural disasters alone cause six times as many deaths as war. To transform the traditional meaning of security from military defense of the state against external attack to the humane protection of individuals and the community from all forms of political and economic violence, we must demonstrate the feasibility of allocating national resources based on generosity and sharing. We must show that devoting multilateral resources to the improvement of human conditions and the guarantee of freedom from danger and injury will powerfully offset the need for national defense expenditures and war profiteering, break down cultural barriers, reduce social fears, and create new demand for personal security and sustainable development, resulting in a peaceful economic stimulus. After all, it is far less risky and less costly for a nation to devote itself to mutual cooperation and peaceful change than to unending war and domination. In proposing new multilateral means for the financing and distribution of funds for social development and environmental reform, several challenges require progressive understanding and action.

First, we must be clear about what generosity means in the context of international development. The liberal and neo-liberal orthodoxy preaches that more economic growth and more foreign aid are the solution to reversing global poverty and environmental destruction – when in fact growth-driven production and consumption and aid-driven corruption have contributed significantly to global poverty and environmental destruction. So it is not simply a matter of generating more money; it also is a matter of creating new international mechanisms that level the playing field and stop draining the poor of their resources, livelihoods, and incomes so that the compassionate generosity of the wealthy may actually have a chance to be effective. Under the present scheme of bilateral foreign assistance, there are just too many opportunities for the skimming of financial flows and the manipulative use of aid for geostrategic objectives by donor nations, as well as poor planning and lack of coordination by aid agencies and widespread hoarding and corruption on the part of many recipient governments. We need to embark on a system of multilateral financing that will end the damaging double standard of country-to-country aid which turns resource distribution into a zero-sum game in which aid donors benefit and aid recipients lose. Worldwide aid distribution must be entirely reconceived. The responsibility for global resource distribution needs to be shared between creditors and recipients through a new multilateral institution. For starters, the huge inefficiencies in the present system of food aid distribution (including shipping, transportation, logistical and administrative costs) could be greatly reduced by growing and storing food nearer to the impoverished areas where it is needed and encouraging the local populace to actively participate in all decisions that directly affect their social and economic development.

Second, current estimates of the additional money that is needed for international development are short of the mark. The official development aid standard of 0.7% global GDP per year, first proposed in the 1960s, is an arbitrary figure but has been repeated so often that development policy makers feel obliged to maintain this standard as an ideal, even through most nations don’t come close to meeting that level of foreign aid. Based on the 0.7% GDP figure, development economists have called for an additional $100 bn a year (above the roughly $100 bn currently being given in annual global foreign assistance) to meet the MDGs. In fact, far more needs to be raised to meet the MDGs and the MDGs+ to ensure sustainable development. Many economists believe that a mid-term burst of at least $400 bn now needs to be raised annually for the next twenty years to fully integrate policies and programs for sustainable development into the global economic system. The immediate target should be 1.5% global GDP a year, eventually reaching 2% annual global GDP or more.

Third, we need to look beyond foreign aid. It is time to explore a whole new area of global financing – innovative approaches to ensure the multilateral distribution of resources on an independent basis. Through incremental fees on ‘global commons transactions’ – that is, taxes on global common goods – the international community could generate funds for the kinds of multilateral programs and institutions that governments and markets are unable to finance. There is much discussion currently about a global carbon tax – a small fee on international carbon emissions through which the world’s heavy polluters would pay their proportionate share for adding to our global environmental problems. We should also consider the possibility of raising funds through a currency transaction tax – a small assessment on every international financial transaction, which would also help to regulate the volume of foreign exchange. France and Great Britain have recently proposed similar global commons fees for international airline tickets. Many other sources of multilateral funding are also possible, such as small transaction fees on international jet fuel, maritime freight, ocean fishing, seabed mining, offshore oil and gas, satellite orbital parking spaces, electromagnetic spectrum usage, non-sustainable resources, and energy consumption. The international community has an obligation to protect human security for the common good, especially the global commons, and these transaction fees would certainly reflect the mutual interests of all people, not simply individual nations or particular businesses, which have no sovereign or legal jurisdiction over the global commons. These fees would raise substantial funds for social development and the environment, providing a new basis for international regulation and global governance. The administration of these taxes should be undertaken by a democratically-run UN organization which is overseen by civil society groups in their new identity as global commons organizations. Another source of global financing exists but is underutilized. Special Drawing Rights, created by the IMF in 1968, are a line of permanent credit through which national central banks, treasuries, and the Bank for International Settlements obtain foreign currencies to clear and settle outstanding balances. SDRs should be expanded to help increase international financing for development. Enlarging global liquidity through an increase in SDRs would be of real benefit to impoverished nations, where the adjustment burden is the highest and the need for credit expansion the greatest.

Fourth, as these multilateral sources of financing are developed, multilateral mechanisms for the distribution of resources must also be created. Instead of the current bilateral system in which aid flows are subject to the competing political and economic interests of donor nations, we should deliver aid through a single multilateral channel, based on the needs of each nation. To do this, the United Nations Charter should be amended to break up the UN Economic and Social Council of the General Assembly into two separate units – an Economic Council and a Social Council. Rather than bilateral flows of foreign aid, the allocation of resources would take place through a Global Development and Environment Fund of the UN Economic Council. The account of the Global Marshall Plan could be administered through this fund. The UN Economic Council would also administer global transaction fees and create new oversight of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Fifth, we must be more realistic about debt cancellation. Since the 1990s, debt cancellation has become a significant social and political issue through the efforts of a large coalition of NGOs and church-related groups, particularly in Great Britain, Europe and the US. Much progress has been made in putting the topic on the international agenda at several G-8 Summits and IMF and World Bank meetings. The idea is to end the dependency of indebted nations on the IMF and World Bank and use the money that is saved through the cancellation of debt to fight poverty, enabling poor nations to make a fresh start in social and economic development. Although establishing a formal link between debt cancellation and poverty eradication is of crucial importance, some advocates of debt cancellation expect that slowing or stopping the increase of debt will lead directly to the end of poverty and increased living standards in developing nations. There are several problems with this assumption. (a) For one thing, the major plans thus far developed for debt relief do not place the savings directly into the hands of the poor. The 1999 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative of the World Bank and IMF includes conditionalities which require borrowing nations to reduce social programs, divest of public utilities, increase the role of the private sector, and adjust the value of their domestic currency. Under this arrangement, the poor receive no dividend from debt relief. The Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative agreed to at the 2005 G-8 Summit, which is only addressed to a small number of qualifying nations, offers a comprehensive debt relief package that uses taxpayer-funded aid monies to pay off the international creditors, so that the money saved from debt relief never reaches the people of the borrowing nations. For debt relief to work, it must be tied to specific development projects that actually help to reduce poverty, instead of flowing directly from aid donors (Western taxpayers) to debt creditors (the IMF and international banks), bypassing the indebted nations altogether. Thus far, debt cancellation advocates seem to have no viable solution for redirecting these savings to the poor. (b) In addition, the current arrangement for debt cancellation actually encourage some nations to engage in further borrowing and overspending, since recipient governments know that their debts will eventually be forgiven. In this scheme, there is nothing to prevent the new credit from being invested by recipient governments back into the rich nations, further preventing the monies from reaching the poor. (c) Lastly, debt cancellation ignores the structural flaws in the global financial and monetary system which gave rise to debt in the first place. Even with absolute debt cancellation today for the poorest countries, the clock on interest rates would start ticking again on new loans tomorrow, and in another 50 years debt levels would be back to where they are now. The system of international credit adjustment needs to be changed. Comprehensive debt cancellation will work only if it is supported by alternative sources of development finance and structural changes in global trade and finance. This transformation must include an accountable and equitable mechanism for access to global credit – a major change in the way that international credit is now allocated. In addition, the world community needs to create a formal process for independent and impartial arbitration of sovereign default on debt – fair and transparent procedures involving international bankruptcy laws and insolvency courts.

During the past thirty years, a unique partnership has grown between the environmental and development movements, both of which are deeply committed to ecological harmony and social justice. We now recognize that sustainable development alone will not produce a just economic order, for even if development and environmental reforms are enacted, people must still be protected from the macroeconomic currents of trade conflict, financial disruption, monetary volatility, and energy insecurity caused by the structural imbalances and asymmetries of the global economic system. To address the challenges of economic globalization and bring about sustainable development with equity, we need an integrated design for the international economy. To attain true socioeconomic inclusion, we must democratize our existing international rules and institutions by increasing the political influence and participation of developing nations and creating a mutually agreeable framework for global policy-making through greater pluralism, transparency, and accountability. We need a multilateral order based on generosity, cooperation, equality, rule of law, economic self-determination, freedom from economic exploitation and abuse, and the inclusion of ethical and spiritual values in the global decision-making process. For nations to collaborate at a globally inclusive level and guarantee sustainable development and human security for the common good, we need effective new institutions and policies in four major areas:

Fair Trade: Since the new era of labor-capital cooperation in the 1930s and 40s, protectionism has become one of the strongest leverage points available to those involved in labor negotiations, which is why labor parties have often supported government intervention in the marketplace through tariffs to protect corporate pricing, jobs, wages and benefits, as well as government subsidies to keep our farmers competitive in global markets. The offshoring of jobs, particularly those in communications technology, is producing major employment disruptions in many developed nations. Yet when we focus primarily on protectionist means to shield workers and farmers and their families from the loss of jobs and income, we are further empowering the competitive multilateral system without addressing the larger need for major changes in the practice of trade liberalization and the regulation of global market forces.

Many of us recognize that international corporations often pose a threat to human security. We believe that multinational corporations must be held accountable to national and international laws and follow a responsible code of conduct for treating workers fairly and helping to improve conditions in the community, society, and environment in which they operate. We also recognize that fair trade is a dynamic way of reversing extreme poverty and building human security. This is why the World Trade Organization needs to be thoroughly reformed by altering its decision-making processes, voting procedures, and polices on international development. The Development Round of the World Trade Organization, launched in 2001 in Doha, Qatar, has the objective of equalizing trade between developed and developing nations, especially by encouraging developed nations to open their markets to the labor-intensive manufactured goods and agricultural products of poor nations. Because rich nations have been demanding tit-for-tat reciprocity rather than genuine equity in trade negotiations, however, these talks are now at an impasse. This creates the temptation for nations to retreat into bilateral or narrowly regional trade patterns, which is likely to cause widespread confusion and animosity (reminiscent of the 1930s).

If the Doha Development Agenda fails, a new international trade system must be formed which guarantees that developing nations have equal or better terms of trade with developed nations to ensure more proportionate representation in trade discussions, broader access to global markets for their products, protective rules for the most vulnerable economies, and a more equitable settlement process in trade disputes. Immediate progress must be made on the reduction of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies, as well as the elimination of export subsidies for farm goods in rich nations which drive farmers in poor nations out of business, robbing communities of the ability to grow their own food and undermining the essential basis of self-sufficiency, human security, and social development. We need to adopt a Global Ethics Policy to ensure consistent labor laws, the security of workers, the end of discriminatory policies, the transparency of corporations, and technology sharing agreements between rich and poor nations. Decent jobs, higher wages, and more balanced trade policies to protect the rights of workers are also needed in both developed and developing nations. Above all, we need a world trade system that is not ideologically committed to ‘free trade’ and ‘open markets’ – the philosophy of trade liberalization which encourages rich nations to dismantle multilateral regulations and conventions for development, environment and personal security that are in the public interest in order to privatize those domains.

Regulated Finance: Many progressives today are calling for corporate social responsibility, debt relief for the world’s sixty poorest nations, empowerment of the capital-starved poor through small amounts of micro-credit loans, and the elimination of corruption in the governments of both developed and developing nations. Growing numbers of people are also calling for comprehensive changes in the international financial system, including the speculative framework for international investment and the decision-making and voting structures of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The need for more equitable representation, transparency, and accountability of the governing board, management and staff of both the IMF and World Bank is evident. At the same time, the draconian policies of these twin institutions, which clearly represent the interests of the world’s creditor nations, need to be radically altered. The structural adjustment policies of the IMF and World Bank, which are imposed on indebted nations as a condition for receiving new loans, often lead to the elimination of trade barriers and capital controls on foreign investment, the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the reduction of government spending and subsidies for social programs, and the destruction of the domestic market and local earnings, all of which result in state instability, depressed commodity prices, increased debt, and currency crises.

The world’s present financial arrangement is a mixed blessing for developing nations. On one hand, the deregulation of global financial flows has dramatically increased the amount of foreign direct investment in developing nations, giving business and consumers better terms for borrowing and lending. On the other hand, when there are sudden changes in interest rates or market conditions and global investors suddenly withdraw their funds from a local economy, the result is exchange rate volatility, a sharp drop in asset values, and a meltdown of the domestic banking system, which leads to recession and shatters all prospects of human security and social development. $6 trillion in financial investments flows around the world each day, entirely unsupervised. New international legal and economic measures are needed to regulate foreign investment and eliminate corruption. A new international financial regime must also ensure greater equity and security by improving wages, working conditions and environmental standards in developing nations.

Stable Monetary Values: Since 1944, the American dollar has been the world’s virtual currency – the money that most nations use to trade, pay their international debts, and hold in their Central Banks to protect their own domestic currencies from inflation or devaluation. Dollar hegemony gives the US the ability to control the international money supply to its advantage. By issuing the world’s primary currency reserve and trading in the same currency, America can borrow heavily at minimal interest from other nations to settle its current-account (the trade imbalance combined with other foreign payments). This means that America does not have to balance its budget while it continues to increase its spending. But Americans are also discouraged from saving because our domestic credit, production, consumption and investment capacities are financed mainly through foreign savings and investments. As a consequence, the US is now importing twice as many goods as it exports and, for the first time in a century, paying more to foreign creditors than it receives from its investments abroad. Dollar hegemony and credit-based affluence have provided great strategic advantages to the US, but this will last only as long as foreign investors continue to finance America’s deficit spending. At some point foreigners (particularly China, Japan, and the OPEC nations) will withdraw their funds and the United States will be forced to (1) reduce its massive current-account deficit (its trade flows and other international payments) through a fall in the value of the dollar; and (2) increase its savings either through a huge decline in consumer and corporate spending or by slashing its federal budget deficit drastically. These two fiscal adjustments will send shockwaves across the world, creating volatility in exchange rates and a disruption in global capital flows, access to credit, and currency value stability, necessitating a complete overhaul of the global monetary system.

We know from history that no monetary regime lasts forever. As the US loses its grip on dollar hegemony and we are forced to create a new US monetary system along with a new global monetary system, we need a good understanding of the major stakes involved when the power to issue currency and determine its value is not in the hands of the people. As we recall from the Great Depression, every aspect of personal security and social development is vitally affected by monetary stability. Currency was a major populist issue until a century ago – it should become a new popular cause today. We must insist that representatives from civil society are present at a conference which reorganizes the international monetary system, leading to the establishment of a global trade currency and a monetary union administered by a Global Central Bank. In particular, we must develop a new self-adjusting global balance of payments mechanism, allowing nations to cooperate through a system of fair trade exchange, equitable financial reciprocity, and the impartial distribution of global resources.

Energy Security: Many people regard energy security as little more than a consumer issue. For most of us, energy security means having access to sufficient supplies of energy at affordable prices for our families and communities. But the degree to which energy security is related to stable monetary values is seldom realized. From 1944-71, America used its gold as a reserve base for the international money supply. Since the US took the world off the gold standard in 1971, no precious resource has been backing the dollar – or so it is said. Officially, the US dollar is a fiat currency, printed at will and based simply on faith in the sovereignty of the US government. As monetary experts recognize, however, all major currencies in history have been based on one or more precious resources. It takes only a moment’s reflection to realize that, because oil is priced primarily in dollars across the world and has more direct influence on the value of currency than any other factor, the US dollar is fundamentally linked to global crude oil as its de facto reserve base. So when it sets interest rates the Federal Reserve is actually reacting to relative price stability – inflation or deflation – caused by the global reserve and flow of petroleum as it affects US and global economic output and growth. Thus, it is the oil-driven engine of productivity in relation to the global oil reserve that the Federal Reserve uses to determine the value of our currency and, by virtue of US dollar hegemony, the world’s currencies.

This has broad implications. Many people are now acknowledging the need to internalize the external costs of environmental degradation and climate change into the market system by setting a real price on carbon emissions, encouraging market-driven innovation, efficient use of energy, clean technology, pollution cleanup, and the production and consumption of alternative energies to displace our production and consumption of oil. The idea is that as consumers and businesses are forced to adjust their practices and lifestyles by reducing their oil consumption, and businesses find that investing in efficiency or alternative energy is cost-effective, they will absorb most of the new environmental costs through higher prices. But an intensive transformation of the global industrial base through consumer demand and business innovation will take many decades to accomplish. As we begin to curb our appetite for oil, develop alternative fuels and achieve energy efficiency through technological advances, petroleum will remain the most important ingredient of economic growth, and the profit and wage incentives in these ‘green’ businesses will still be denominated in dollar values that are linked directly to oil. There is already growing anxiety about whether there is enough oil to meet the world’s future energy requirements. Even the most optimistic estimates suggest that the flow of oil will reach its peak by mid-century, if not before. As a reserve asset, oil is a highly insecure resource, tightly controlled by a relatively small number of nations, many of which are part of a single cartel (OPEC) and many of which are becoming increasingly autocratic. Oil is also affected by rising demand and price volatility, and subject to many types of supply disruptions (such as natural disasters, oil spills, competition for supplies, geopolitical rivalries, political turmoil, armed conflict, terrorist attacks, and vulnerabilities to pipelines and naval chokepoints). Oil is hardly the most secure reserve asset possible for the global monetary system.

The ‘triple bottom line’ strategy made popular by a large coalition of environmentalists, politicians, and business leaders (simplified by the slogan, ‘people, profit, planet’) proposes that tackling our social, ecological and energy problems will create a massive stimulus for business and jobs. Although this arrangement is sometimes put forward as a neo-Hegelian or evolutionary dynamic – a tripartite arrangement that will transform the deep structure of the global economy – it is really just a neo-Keynesian program of government intervention to subsidize research, loan guarantees, and the creation of new standards, taxes and incentives for the creation of alternative energies and technologies by the private sector. While this formula gives primacy to the economic signals of the marketplace, it completely ignores the independent monetary driver of energy reserves, currency values, and interest rates. Any major shift by governments to price carbon emissions in market terms will result in a dramatic increase in oil prices, creating widespread inflation, a significant increase in interest rates, large fluctuations of exchange rates, upheavals in global capital markets, disruptions in access to credit, and monetary depreciation. In reducing carbon emissions on a global basis, we must be prepared not only for much higher energy costs, slower economic growth, and fewer jobs in many industries, but volatility in the US dollar and international currencies tightly linked to the dollar, resulting in monetary disorder.

Greening all of the world’s businesses through the economic signals of the marketplace will not change the energy base of civilization from fossil fuel to solar or other renewable energies as long as the reserve standard of the dominant global currency remains tied to fossil fuels. Ultimately, the external costs of global poverty, the environment, and geopolitical security must be adjusted not only through global market prices and alternative sources of finance (global commons taxes and an expansion of the Special Drawing Rights of the IMF), but also through an adjustment of the world reserve currency system. One solution would be to create a new international trade currency based upon a basket of global resources (including a broad proportion of renewable resources, gold and other non-renewable resources), in which the value of currencies would rise when the reserves in this basket are scarce and fall when those reserves are more plentiful. Global currency value would thus be determined by the priority and sustainability of global energy resources as monetary reserves – not by their price in the marketplace based on economic productivity and growth.

Thus, it is a grave illusion to see energy security in terms of national energy independence or the regional military protection of energy reserves. The idea of energy independence is virtually meaningless since the global energy market directly affects local energy costs: an energy disruption or vulnerability in one area of the world has an immediate impact on prices and energy security in other areas. But consider that national governments today own and manage more than 75% of the world’s oil. The national security dangers arising from foreign oil dependence, combined with aggressive competition for strategic reserves of fossil fuels, can only lead to further degradation of natural resources and continued global warming, contributing to rising sea levels, declining food production, resource scarcity, widespread migration, political conflict over non-renewable resources, and major economic instability, particularly in the world’s most vulnerable regions – which is likely to inflame further extremism and terrorism. Instead of conceiving of energy independence as a national security issue, it is vital that we think in terms of global energy interdependence as a basis of human security, ensuring that everyone on earth has stable and reliable access to energy supplies from multiple sources. With the steady growth of global population, the need for increased amounts of energy production and pricing, and the diminishing supply of fossil fuels, the energy security system – the entire energy supply chain and its infrastructure – must be integrated, managed, and protected on a global basis. The International Energy Agency, or another new organization, must have the authority to oversee prices and the crude oil business cycle to prevent energy crises that could lead to social and political unrest or international conflict over scarce resources. There must be a new level of international cooperation on energy security to diffuse the evident global dangers of diminishing oil resources, climate change, and energy nationalism. A new or transformed International Energy Agency must begin an ongoing dialogue with energy producers, energy distributors, and consumers to ensure the availability of sufficient flows of energy to stimulate economic growth at reasonable prices. We need a comprehensive global energy policy to smooth the transition from a fossil fuel economy to a sustainable energy economy through the diversification of energy supplies and equitable energy redistribution. Creating a multilateral energy cooperative and providing consumers with a variety of clean energy sources that are affordable and reliable are essential components of human security.

After many harrowing years of economic depression and world war, the United Nations and postwar multilateral institutions were set up to create a freer and more equitable world. Yet these international agencies, which emphasize the prevention of external aggression through the sovereign defense of borders, have brought only a modest amount of peace and security to the world, while new threats to human security – such as infectious disease, environmental pollution, economic deprivation, and terrorism – increasingly transcend national boundaries. Increasingly, people across the planet are recognizing that human security, social development, and environmental safeguards must no longer involve the fictitious claims of state sovereignty and the usurpation by a government of power and legitimacy from its people based on the defense and security of national borders. Human security knows no borders.

But how do we establish our sovereign equality in the new context of interdependence? How do we shift the present hierarchy of values, which rests on territoriality and national self-interest, to the claims of the global community for a more just and humane system based on the indivisibility of the world’s people? Who speaks for the global commons? There is no representative multilateral organization yet giving voice to the common interests and aspirations of humanity and the legitimate needs of future generations that lie beyond the decision-making province of multinational corporations, international banks, single nations, and groups of nations. There is no global democratic organization or network today with the legitimacy and power to enforce minimum standards for human security, sustainable development and global governance across the world’s cultures and civilizations. But human consciousness is not contained by political boundaries. A transformative political constituency could develop quickly if an existing organization such as the UN, or a new organization, were to acquire this legitimacy and power through popular international demand and collective action, giving the global commons its own representative voice. The masses of the world have never before had the ability to organize effectively, but an international political referendum is now a distinct possibility because of advanced communication technology, new levels of networking, and greater international understanding on global issues, providing citizens of the world an opportunity to choose representatives to the world’s decision-making bodies for the first time through direct global elections.

For this to happen, civil society organizations and all people who recognize themselves as sovereign citizens of the planet must first change the negative, disempowering view of themselves as ‘non-governmental organizations’, and redefine their roles as Global Commons Organizations (GCOs). (Better to identify yourself in terms of what you are for, than by what you are not.) On the basis of this new collective identity, GCOs can launch a worldwide socioecological movement with a transnational political party and create a World Parliament or People’s Assembly – a third house at the United Nations – which will allow the public, civil society, labor, cultural and spiritual organizations, and other interested groups, far greater participation in global decision-making and consensus-driven governance. We could create a new UN agency for women to achieve gender equality. We could force operational changes in the institutional and voting structures of the UN, particularly in reducing the role of the Security Council and increasing the power of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. We could also create a World Commons Council for oversight of global rules and institutions. When this is organized, GCOs can help to implement and provide oversight of global commons transactions – new sources of finance for meeting global development and environmental targets. These monies, along with foreign aid, could ensure that the Global Marshall Plan is adequately funded and its results are sustainable.

We already see the beginnings of this global democratic assembly. It is comprised of the growing international networks and alliances among the global anti-war movement, the international environmental movement, the international development movement, the world’s social justice movement, the anti-globalization movement, the international women’s movement, the indigenous people’s movement, the international trade unions, and the social solidarity networks across developing nations. This new overarching social and political force is increasingly following the moral teachings of the world’s major religions and interfaith communities, the norms of international law, the evolving standards of human rights and inclusive development, and the ideals of freedom and democracy held by progressive people of all nations and cultures.

To engage the support of citizens around the world, we need a common action plan for personal security and sustainable development that is based on universally shared values and addresses world problems in a globally integrative way. In recent years, many prominent individuals have made proposals calling for a Global Marshall Plan. Various groups from Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Canada, United States, Brazil, Venezuela and other countries have issued similar ideas or discussed elements pertaining to such a plan. However, the various issues have not been effectively linked together, these groups have not met to consolidate their proposals, nor has a fully representative international panel endorsed their recommendations in order for significant action to take place. The creation of a GMP should not be left to the G-8 nations or to the world’s 29 OECD nations, which would only continue the statist policies of geo-hierarchical division, strategic exclusion, national domination, structural underdevelopment and mass dissociation. A global plan based on personal security must involve direct transnational participation, inclusive of all member countries, economic sectors, cultures, regions, and groups. It must also be seen as a tentative step toward geo-political realignment and global financial adjustment, leading to a greater degree of international unity and the creation of inclusive global governance.

Many of us are now becoming aware of these global concerns, not through the ideological filters of government, political parties, the popular media and celebrities, but through a personal realization of generosity and care which appeals directly to our hearts as well as our heads, empowering us to take action for greater unity. We are calling for a new international dialogue on these topics. We are inviting government leaders, parliamentarians, international agencies, the various Global Marshall Plan sponsors, civil society organizations and the public to discuss the global economic issues that will lead to a comprehensive GMP. We propose an ‘International Conference for a Global Marshall Plan’ to

The adjustment from a world of competitive nation-states to a framework of equitable multilateral cooperation will be difficult, possibly chaotic. Many critical problems must be addressed over the next few decades to meet the escalating crises of economic globalization, social inequality, and environmental degradation. Resolving these issues will be a monumental undertaking. It will require the coordinated effort of many individuals, organizations, and governments to address these challenges. This agenda cannot be undertaken without the understanding and involvement of people of faith and progressive vision, contributing a transcendent global ethic for political diplomacy and nonviolence, intercultural dialogue and understanding, international peace and solidarity, social justice and human rights. Global change can only arise from an awareness of our inherent unity and indivisibility as a people, expressed on the individual level through our recognition of the dignity and worth of the Other, including other persons and the natural environment. We must lead the way by demonstrating to the world that domination and force must be replaced with collaborative dialogue, shared responsibility, mutual reconciliation, global generosity, and intergenerational security. Perhaps the greatest lesson we have learned since World War II is that freedom does not lead to personal security, social justice, and sustainable development; rather, it is the realization of these goals that leads to freedom. Just as the America Marshall Plan succeeded sixty years ago because the US recognized that it needed Europe as a partner, the Global Marshall Plan will now succeed because the people of the world realize that sovereignty must no longer be predicated upon foreign defense between states, but on our collective unity as global citizens, which calls for a global operating system focused on personal security, social justice, sustainable development, and peaceful change in which all nations are equal partners.

This is where we are. Will you stand with us? Join the network for a Global Marshall Plan and help us:

About the Author