Forward as you see fit: ------------------------------------------------- On April 13, 2000, just before the April 16th/17th demonstrations in Washington D.C. a day-long conference was held at American University (in D.C.) on the various subjects surrounding the general \'globalization\' debates. Activist scholars like Dr. Walden Bello and officials from the World Bank and IMF were among the many different speakers that presented and took questions from the audience (comprised of it\'s own array of activists, scholars, officials, and other interested persons.) During the break for lunch a select mix of NGO members, professors, and others (including business leaders?), were transported to a luncheon at a nearby hotel to hear James Wolfensohn (president of the World Bank) and Stanley Fischer (acting managing director of the International Monetary Fund) speak about the issues and field questions from the audience. The two were unaware that the microphones on their table were activated during their lunch. As is frequently done, the live feed from these mics was provided to all the media covering the event (this allows the operators of recording equipment to test their connections, set levels, etc.) The following is a transcript of the casual conversation that they had, believing (we can only assume) that it was private. Included in their conversation is Ben Ladner, president of American University, who hosted the event. Some points need to be made. It should not be assumed that anything said in the transcript represents a casual conversation that the three might have had in true privacy. Also, one can only speculate as to how any of the three might have acted or spoken differently in the presence of any of the others. That is, they could be altering their words, opinions, and so on, for various political, social, or other reasons. The decision to make this material public took into account their right to privacy. It was decided that the general urgency of the subject matter (i.e. \'globalization\'), given their positions, outweighs the ethical transgression. President Ladner\'s introduction for the speakers is also included. In the transcript, the following abbreviations and symbols are used. F: Stanley Fischer W: James Wolfensohn AU: Ben Ladner (president of American University) Words enclosed in /forward slashes/ were not totally clear; the best guess is given. /?/ means that the word or words were unintelligible (typically because the signal was too weak.) A /?/ is never more than a small phrase. Thus, a sentence like I feel lucky to be here /?/ means that \"I feel lucky to be here\" was clearly stated and was followed by an unintelligible phrase. It does not mean that the printed words themselves were in question. I feel lucky to be /here/ /?/ means that \"I feel lucky to be\" was clear, \"here\" is a reasonable guess for the next word, and an unintelligible phrase follows. Other combinations should be clear by context. Fischer\'s speech (with some editing and without questions from the floor) is at: http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2000/041300.HTM Wolfensohn\'s speech may be available somewhere. The transcript: ------------------------ F: Oh nice to meet you, how are you? Excuse me. ... Yeah, well he is. ... Ah Europe then; it\'s the same the other way. Nice to see you. [pause, to Wolfensohn] What\'s his, ah, field? W: I think he\'s a lawyer but I\'m not 100% sure. F: So have you been going to the conference? AU: Pardon me? F: Have you been at this morning\'s conference? AU: Ah, I was there just for a little while, ah, and you know the problem with being a university president -- [sarcastic] we have other crises, like hiring a new basketball coach. I mean this is a big deal... so -- ha ha! -- we have alumni writing in, emailing and, expressing opinions and ... so I\'m managing that in the press and so on and; you\'d think there\'s nothing else in the world going on. W: Is that a big factor in fundraising? AU: It is, well, it is a factor... I wouldn\'t say... were not a huge athletic school like some... [F: Right, I didn\'t think you were a sports...] Yeah, so, it doesn\'t, ah, and I try to keep putting that in to perspective with some of our real enthusiastic supporters. Ah, there\'re some people who\'ll walk in and say, you know, \'Here\'s $250,000; let\'s be sure we win next year. This is what I want done...\' You know, and so, [Wolfensohn laughing] but not so many, ah, you know, not like Wisconsin, you know, or something, where they kind of run the place or [trails off] F: How\'s it going so far Jim? W: I think it\'s OK. I think the press conference yesterday went quite well. F: I saw you on the evening news. W: Was that all right? F: Yeah. You conveyed exactly the sense that... that I think our people have as well. W: Which is? F: You know, that it\'s difficult being accused of all these things. W: Yeah, I said that. F: Yeah, no, I... that\'s what I /saw there on the program/. I am trying still to figure out how to deal with the Ann Pettifors of the world that come in and give you a long lecture which is \'You guys are arrogant, you\'re unfeeling, you\'re unlistening\' and then \'we care about the poor.\' And it\'s a psychological device, and there must be some way of switching the debate and I was trying to figure out afterwards; I thought one way next time is to say \'let\'s just agree: you\'re morally superior to us, [Someone: Hmm.] and now let\'s get on with the discussion.\' W: I never could... I would... AU: [joking] Let\'s talk strategy, huh? W: I would not concede that. F: You wouldn\'t? AU: Ha ha, you wouldn\'t, ha ha ha! W: I always fight /them there/. F: I, uh, no no, I mean by saying it... W: I know, I know you\'re trying to rubbish it, but I wouldn\'t.... F: You wouldn\'t even say that. W: \'Course they\'ll take it and quote you, they\'ll quote you, /Stan/. Someone: Ha ha. F: But there\'s got to be something to knock them off their perch, because she wasn\'t that... W: It\'s just the assumption... F: This is the leader of Jubilee 2000. The other thing which is very interesting is she attacked me for stuff I said in Russia and it was based on a lot of research I did... W: [to server] thanks very much. F: ...eh, had done. And by the end of it, after I explained to her, she said \'Oh, well I see you know more about that than I do\' so... W: She moved /ahead, huh./ She moved away from it. F: She moved on to the next topic. I guess... AU: Ha ha ha... W: Well you\'re dealing with these people much more than we are, that\'s for sure. F: We have 70 people in the field now, who do nothing but deal with NGOs. AU: Really? F: 70 people... When I came there were 2. AU: Do you actually try to leave in place a kind of dialogue setting where people can talk to each other and... F: Oh, absolutely. Now we have these 70 people; most of them are ex-NGO people. AU: Oh, I see, yeah. F: And they come to us and they become like, converted, religious... AU: Is that right, ha ha ha... F: Yeah, they do. AU: Well this is a huge issue of, ah, you know, once you get beyond trade and /socialism and so on/; the knowledge issue and the exchange of knowledge; once that breaks down, there\'s a huge huge problem, and it\'s not just technical skills it\'s around values, it\'s around, you know, if you don\'t have a way in which people can confront each other in a civil context, you\'ve got huge problems. Someone: Yeah. F: It\'s actually interesting. What is... /in that/ implicitly a lot of people in the press conferences are asking \'why now?\' I don\'t have a good answer, do you? W: I think it\'s post-Seattle. I think this a clear follow-on to the Seattle victory. AU: Well why did Seattle bubble up so quickly and dramatically? W: I think that is a fear of globalization, it\'s a fear of the unknown. There was a lot of... that did get some labor people as well, [AU: Right] there was a mixture there of trade issues... AU: Right, right. W: And other issues [garbled, interruption] W: What is that, chicken? Server: Yes sir. This is Creole /?/ chicken. W: Creole breast of chicken, /fabulous/. Server: And that\'s also some vegetable. /You all/ enjoy it. Various: Thank you. F: Yeah, but it\'s interesting that it should happen now at a time of real prosperity, and uh... AU: At a time in which your institutions are doing more than ever before to be responsive to some of their concerns. W: Right. AU: That\'s what so odd. [pause, eating] W: Did you hear that they\'re claiming that four of the Jews pleaded guilty in Iran? [pause] I\'m trying to get some pressure now from shareholders to try and, um, delay our /loan/... F: Yeah, I\'m sure you can get that pressure. W: Hmm? You\'re not sure? F: No, I\'m sure you can. Well... W: I\'m not... F: ...I\'m not sure on the Europeans /\'yet\' or \'yeah\'/. W: That\'s the problem. I\'ve, I\'ve, well, the only country at the moment who\'s prepared to do it is the United States. F: You could get Canada. W: Yeah, I might get Canada. But I /\'need\' or \'mean\'/ Germany and France /?/ F: Well it\'s a nice lunch you\'ve put on. W: Delicious. F: Thank you. AU: /\'No\' or \'None\'/. You gotta do it somewhere, you know. Every day you gotta eat lunch. You might as well do it here. F: How large is your student body? AU: We have about 11,500... Someone: Mm hmm... AU: ...but the significant fact is we\'ve got 165 countries in our student body, so... it really is one of the great diverse universities, I /think/, in the world. And we\'re known for, uh, taking on the tough issues, socially. Our law school was, of course, one in the country to be founded by women, to bring women to the law. And we regularly are out front on issues like Burma; We, we gave an honorary degree to Aung Song [sic] Suu Kyi and... W: /You were/ just in Israel because they\'ve trained practically the whole of the human rights bar in Israel. Is that right, Ben? AU: That\'s right, we have about 60 lawyers who have graduated from our law school and have gone there and who work steadily to introduce human... in fact I even think some of the effects of the recent announcements that have been coming out, the judgments about releasing some of the Lebanese and /so on/, W: Are these both Palestinians and Israelis? AU: Some of them are Israeli Arabs but [W: Yeah] we don\'t have any from the Palestinian sector, no. But that... what I was talking to you about is exactly what we need to do is bridge that... we were saying that, ah, they had proposed that American University be a kind of neutral site as a university and get out of the political arena and begin to do some peace building not just peace making [Someone: Mm hmm.] on the assumption that whether it\'s this year or five years from now peace has got to happen somehow, and can we put in place the economic structure to be able to build a society of cooperation between, you know, the Palestinians, the Syrians, and so on. [Someone: Yeah.] It\'s a very exciting idea, and I think there\'s a lot of support in Israel for, for pushing ahead, and... W: Have you got any Syrian students? AU: Oh yeah, yeah sure. W: ...who will go back to Syria? AU: Yeah, that\'s the interesting thing; Ah, so many of our students actually come from the upper tier of the social and political corporate class, so in many countries; for example in Bahrein we have about 20-something members of the royal family, including the crown-prince and /\'many\' or \'there are\'/ others who just started coming to A.U... W: Do you really? AU: ...and they keep sending their kids and cousins and, you know... W: Is that right? AU: Yeah. And, ah, King Hussein, before he died, ah, his daughter was here, and he was here 2 or 3 times, visiting, and... It\'s amazing, if you go around the world, Latin America and so on, ruling families, top families, somehow see A.U. as a, as a home, that, you know, so diverse, that they know that their kids are going to feel, feel good when they\'re in their, /in their/ /?/. So it\'s an interesting dynamic. [pause] W: Have you got a paid /staff/ of people? F: /?/ how about you? W: Same. F: /Oh yeah?/ F: It might be useful if we left at... I do have the three, three o\'clock /to make/... W: Yeah, I do too. AU: So what time should we shut down? F: I think if you could make sure we\'re in our cars by 2:30 that would be /quite/ [AU: /?/ /OK, Yeah, exactly/] /?/ /2:25, something like that/ /?/ /be careful/ /?/ 2:20, /yeah/ W: Are they giving you a police escort? F: I haven\'t asked for one; I\'ve got a body guard now /you know,/ /\'I haven\'t/ or \'and\'/ I could have an escort, I may, I may get one. W: /?/ I didn\'t need it the last two days but I think that we should take it seriously. [Fischer: Yeah.] Of course the people they want to stop getting places /?/ /that/ F: It\'s certainly the case that so far things are better than expected. W: Much. F: But uh... W: But then we didn\'t expect much. Until Saturday-Sunday. But, my god, they\'re well-prepared, aren\'t they, the police? F: I went to, uh, well I met... W: You went to see the mayor? F: Well I went to see the mayor and then I ended up speaking a lot to Ramsey and, uh, uh /his right-hand guy, what\'s his/ W: Who\'s Ramsey, /then/? F: The Chief. W: Oh, Chief, oh good. F: Oh he was terrific. They\'ve got it all planned, ah... AU: So they\'ve done their job, huh? F: Yeah, I mean, they have one thing in mind which is \'No Seattle\', that was, uh [AU: Yeah, right.] the thing he kept making clear, now, the other thing he said, Jim, that, that is certainly true, is sort of every day that goes by we\'re, we\'re a little bit further ahead. He said the worst thing that, that /it/, he said if they have some success, the demonstrators, then the whole thing is going to escalate. /I mean/ So every peaceful day is a net gain [W: /net for us/] for us. W: That\'s interesting. F: But he was also very, uh, I asked him if they are going to use tear gas; he said that tear gas is basically useless out of doors, and all it does is to escalate matters. He said it\'s a very effective device for clearing out a building, but it\'s not actually much use in the outdoors and when you start using it you always end up with a much higher level of tension at the end than at the beginning. AU: I remember an old tactic from the 60\'s... F: [jokingly] We were on the wrong side of the barricades, or the right side, as you see it. [Tone perhaps implying a generic \'you\' rather than referring to Ben Ladner.] AU: Well, [jokingly] I was an old philosophy professor, what can I tell you. But, ah, in a particularly large event in which there were hippies flying around and people throwing things and all that, somebody had the bright idea to bring about 10 colonies of bees and set them down and stir them up and you have never seen a crowd disperse this quickly. Ha ha ha ha ha. Once the bees did all their stuff they all came back to the queen and they carted \'em off. [Various: laughing] W: Is that right!? AU: That\'s the God\'s truth! F: Who did that? AU: /?/ I don\'t know who it was but I\'ve often thought, that\'s pretty cool... and, and every, and what was funny about it everybody thought it was kinda cool, you know, ha ha ha ha, they thought \'that\'s really hip, you know? No bullets no, just, ah, scare the bejesus out of everybody.\' Ha ha ha ha ha. W: It is a very clever idea, isn\'t it? Maybe we should do that, /\'Stan\' or \'instead\'/. Have an IFC and a World Bank colony. AU: Yeah, right. F: [laughs?] [pause] You had people up there? W: [to server] Could I possibly get a coffee, please? F: You had people up there this morning? W: I had /one from/, yes yes, Mats Karlson was there. [F: Mm.] [pause] I think the best element will probably be the questions /at the end/ [break in the recording, approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute] AU: [sneeze] Pardon. Do you regard one of your institutions being more susceptible than the other to /?/ F: I suspect we each feel more susceptible than the other, but [AU: Ha ha ha] I\'m not sure. They go off to Jim for a variety of things that /aren\'t like/, they don\'t have a chance to go off for us for, but I suspect that the underlying level of dislike may be /higher/ for the Fund than the Bank. Am I right? I\'m not [AU: /Oh, that\'s inter.../] sure what you think, Jim. W: I think probably that\'s right. AU: Really? W: /?/ F: They can get Jim on things like... they\'re after them on pipeline projects on [AU?: Right] totally unreasonable... W: After me on Tibet. They\'re, they get [AU?: Oh, yeah.] after us on, [F: More on specifics.] on dams, and specifics. AU: Do they move to the higher level of the, the concept of what you\'re trying to accomplish [Both: No, no, no.] /there/ in a complicated way; they never get to that. Just black and white. W: It\'s all ad hominem, it\'s all, ah, [Someone agreeing] they\'ve brought in a [sic] indigenous person who was displaced in 1975, and whose [AU: /Yeah/] family has been ruined, [AU: Right.] and they\'ll then blame us for the problems of Guatemala, [AU: Right.] and we\'ll say that there was a civil war for 32 years, and tens of thousands of people were killed down there, and this probably had nothing to do with the project, [AU: /Right/] but then someone will write a book, um... it makes it very difficult to answer [AU: Oh, yeah, right.] so you continue to try and deal with the specifics, with the Chixoy Indians, which we\'re doing, [AU: Right.] and then they agree, which they did, and we solved the whole thing, and now there\'s another Chixoy Indian coming /\'out\' or \'now\'/ saying \'Well, we appreciated what you did, but now we want reparations and damages.\' [AU: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.] and so they\'ve got a [AU: You\'ve got to start all over again.] an Indian here who\'s very keen to do it. And these indigenous people, I\'m not suggesting they didn\'t have problems, but they\'re also very smart. [AU: Sure.] So they come up and they think, \'it\'s a pretty good way to make a few bucks\', ah. [AU: Right, right.] F: And you can\'t say anything about the victims /you know, it\'s.../ AU: No, it\'s off limits. AU?: /Yeah,/ completely. F: /Well,/ a lot of the discussion is on the level of \'there is a problem and you are present therefore you are guilty.\' W: Right. [pause, preparing for the luncheon talk] I\'m just looking for a piece of paper to write [Someone: OK] down everything you say, Stan. F: [joking] Oh yeah, Jim, that\'s big enough, much too big. AU: Who wants to go first? W: Ha. F: Well, you do what my boss says. AU: Ha ha ha, right, OK, I\'ll give a little introduction and we\'ll be off the ground /before we/ /?/ W: No, I think it\'s more logical /?/ [pause, mic is pounded upon] AU: Ladies and gentlemen, if I may interrupt, please, ah, continue eating, ah, all I ask is that you stop talking. Ah, we\'re about to embark on a very, ah, interesting program. I\'m Ben Ladner, president of American University, and I want to welcome you today to a very special program. Some of you who are here and others know, if you weren\'t on our campus this morning, we\'re in the midst of an all-day conference, with some very exciting presenters and panelists and a very exciting audience who\'s, ah, asked some very penetrating questions already, so it is a very special day. But it\'s also special because we have with us today two eminent world leaders who lead institutions that are charged with having greater cooperation, ah, of doing things that are isolated and causing a great deal of consternation and concern, but they\'re both with us today, so they can talk not only with us but to each other and see whether some of those concerns really do pan out. [F?: /?/ /an opportunity here/ /?/] But more importantly, I think, ah, it is a special event, because we\'re engaging in a, ah, very important and profound public event. That is, we are about to embark on speaking and listening about consequential issues. We will be giving voice to concerns, to insight, to criticism, to understanding, and as I see it, everything, liter-, literally everything, turns on this intriguing and important dynamic. Universities, I think, are one of the last bastions of, ah, intelligent discourse, ah, on the planet. Ah, indeed, that is our business. It\'s that one place that has this incredibly simple and single overriding mission, and that is to get people together to try to achieve understanding. At universities, we try to ask the question \'what can we know?\' and \'what do others know?\' and \'how can we achieve insight, knowledge, understanding, in a way that we didn\'t have it before we got together?\' Our whole institution is built on that simple but fundamental principal. At American University we think it\'s particularly important and fitting that we be holding this conference and having this luncheon, because we are, not only in theory and advertisement but in actual practice, a leading global university. We have on our campus the largest international school in the United States, we have one of the most diverse student bodies in the world with more than 165 countries represented in our student body. What this does, however, in working with our students and faculty, is simply to remind us that as other forces swirl around us, forces of protest, forces yelling \'shut it down\', we are here to embrace the forces of reason and informed debate and open dialogue. This, in fact, is the prescription. This is the way ahead for this gargantuan phenomenon that we call \'globalization\'. There are voices that must be heard. We all struggle to identify voices that have no hearing, and yet there are institutions and leaders and professors and others here today who spend most of their waking hours trying to give a context in which all voices can be heard and all concerns expressed. It\'s against that backdrop that it\'s a special pleasure for me to introduce people who, if it has ever been true, need no introduction. And if you don\'t know these two gentlemen, ah, you\'re at the wrong luncheon. [laughter] Ah, Stanley Fischer is the, ah, acting managing director of the IMF, and he will address us first, and Jim Wolfensohn, as president of the World Bank, what you may not know unless you were at our commencement ceremony last year is that he is an American University alumnus now because we gave him an honorary degree, [laughter] ah, but, without, ah, any other additional comment, they will make a brief presentation on a few key issues, then they would like, because I know them both, they invite and enjoy tough questions. They want to deal with the kinds of concerns and issues that you have and take them head on, so don\'t be shy. I will moderate and we will try to entertain as much discussion as we can once they have completed their presentation. Thank you. [applause] ------------End of transcript-----------------