The Simultaneous Policy (SP) and 
The International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)
Frequently Asked Questions

1. Isn't ISPO like some kind of world government? If so, it sounds very 'top-down' and draconian.

 
2. But isn't the simultaneous, international implementation of certain policies what international treaties are already about? Why is the Simultaneous Policy any different?

 
3. But what about the Kyoto Protocol? It still went ahead without the USA, so why do we need ALL nations to implement such agreements simultaneously?

 
4. But is it really necessary to get ALL nations to adopt SP before implementation could proceed? Surely that's never going to happen

 
5. But wouldn't it be virtually impossible to get all nations to agree to a common set of policies when they would constantly be shifting their ground particularly in the final moments of negotiation?

 
6. You list a whole range of policy measures on your website. But what if I don't think they are very appropriate or I have some other idea to put forward? Are the measures of SP 'cast in stone'? Or do I have a say?

 
7. But if SP’s policy measures still remain to be defined and adopting SP is thus only ‘provisional’, how can provisionally adopting SP possibly allow us to make an impact?

 
8. How do the SP adoption campaign and the process of formulating SP measures relate to each other?

 
9. What organisational structures does ISPO envisage at national and local levels in order to achieve its objectives?

 
10. What organisational structure is envisaged for ISPO at the global level?

 
11. But is it actually possible to define measures which could be beneficially applied worldwide?

 
12. You say SP can only be implemented when all nations have adopted it. But wouldn't that mean that governments could use SP as an excuse to delay implementing necessary environmental legislation?

 
13. But developed countries are quite different from developing ones. How do you appeal to all of them? 

 
14. How is the range of SP policy measures to be formulated?

 
15. But how on Earth are you ever going to get SP adopted by a country like the USA? Both main parties are dominated by corporate interests so surely neither party is ever going to adopt?

 
16. But what about some of the so-called 'Third-World' countries whose governments are either dictatorships or heavily influenced by foreign corporations or interests. How are you going to get those countries to adopt SP?

 
17. I can see how SP would help to solve some of the world's pressing economic and environmental problems, but what effect would it have on the arms trade and the threat of wars?

 
18. What about the possibility of ISPO being infiltrated or co-opted by 'the powers that be' as can so often happen to a movement that looks like it could seriously threaten their interests?

 
19. Surely expecting all nations to adopt SP is just a pipe dream. So is the SP proposal truly realistic?

 
20. There are so many local initiatives ranging from eco-cities to organic farms and from LETS schemes to co-operative small businesses - and there's more and more of them starting up all the time. And what's more, there happening NOW! So why do we need SP? Aren't these local initiatives the only way to go? Aren't they sufficient to move the world towards sustainability?

 
21. What about consumer power, corporate responsibility initiatives and the 'triple bottom line'? Surely they are already bringing errant corporations into line, aren't they?

 
22. Since activists are so focused on their own vision of the problem and on their own activities, whether it's social justice, worker's rights, various aspects of the environment, etc, how is ISPO going to get them to investigate SP and to adopt it?

 

---

"Isn't ISPO like some kind of World Government? If so, it sounds very 'top-down' and draconian."  ISPO itself has only two principal functions: to campaign for the adoption of SP and to facilitate a process for formulating SP’s policy measures. Since ISPO is neither a political party nor a government, it is not a 'world government'. However, given that SP is to be implemented by all nations simultaneously, you could describe that as a kind of world governance (as distinct from 'government'). This means that global governance is achieved through a consensus of all nations acting on the wishes of their respective peoples (through their adoption of SP) and NOT by some overarching global institution which may or may not be elected. In fact, SP is designed to allow national governments to implement those urgent and necessary policies which, today, they are prevented from implementing because of the threat of capital and corporate flight. In one sense, SP is 'top-down' in that its measures would be implemented by all nations simultaneously, i.e. on a global basis. But 'top-down' has always been what democracy has been about: policies designed ‘by the people’ - from the bottom - and implemented by their elected governments ‘for the people’ - from the top. That is what democratic governance is and that is what SP seeks to achieve.  Top "But isn't the simultaneous, international implementation of certain policies what international treaties are already about? Why is the Simultaneous Policy any different?" There are three main differences between SP and traditional international treaty-making: Firstly, traditional International treaty-making assumes that, once a treaty is agreed, participating nations are completely free to implement its provisions. In the current competitive environment, however, when governments return from a Treaty Summit, they run up against the problem of competitiveness. With respect to the Kyoto protocol, for example, the green taxes needed to reduce emissions risk making the industries of nations implementing such taxes uncompetitive thus risking jobs (and votes) being lost. Consequently, the fear of uncompetitiveness remains and those taxes inevitably get watered down and the full provisions of the Treaty then remain unfulfilled. This is why even the very modest internationally agreed targets for reducing emissions and other such targets are continually being missed.  Instead, SP would re-regulate global capital and transnational corporations (TNCs) thus eliminating the forces which presently cause each government to fear that a full and proper implementation of the necessary taxes and measures will cause uncompetitiveness and job losses. Once SP measures to re-regulate global capital, tax havens and TNCs are in place, therefore, treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol could, for the first time, actually be fully implemented!  Secondly, most of today's International Treaties tend to consist of agreements on TARGETS, leaving the MEANS to achieving them open to each participating nation to decide. The underlying fear of uncompetitiveness thus remains because, although many countries ought to be imposing such taxes to meet the agreed targets at about the same time, there is no detailed agreement between them on their precise timing nor on which industries will be affected and to what extent. Under SP, by contrast, SPECIFIC industries, products or taxes could be identified as part of SP with the likely effect on the competitiveness of each nation having been assessed, and if necessary compensated for, AS PART of the agreement.  Finally, and most importantly, international treaties are commonly initiated by GOVERNMENTS and NOT by civil society. (At best, civil society might be requested to ratify a Treaty via a referendum.) It could therefore be said that, in the case of conventional treaty-making, "governments lead civil society". However, if one country is by far the most powerful in the world, as the USA is, there is absolutely no compunction on its government to cooperate in any treaty or agreement which might in any way reduce or constrain its power, freedom of action, way of life, etc. This is essentially why the USA will not play the game with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court or most other such treaties which it perceives as threatening its dominant economic position. (And let's face it, if any other country found itself in the USA's position, would its attitude be any different?) So with one country being dominant, you have a stalemate and the ability of governments to lead the process is consequently rendered virtually useless because, without the participation of the dominant government, nothing useful can be achieved.  SP is different because it permits members of civil society, through their adoption of SP, both to participate in formulating the 'Treaty' itself (i.e. the measures of SP) and, because adoption of SP represents a commitment on how adopters will vote in future elections, it enables them to bring intense electoral pressure to bear on politicians to cooperate (i.e. to pressure them into adopting SP too). In other words, with SP, civil society has the potential to lead governments, not the other way round. And this use by citizens - particularly those in the USA - of SP’s novel form of electoral pressure is thus potentially capable of bringing the US government to cooperate and thus to break the present US-dominance-stalemate.  Top "But what about the Kyoto Protocol? It still went ahead without the USA, so why do we need ALL nations to implement such agreements simultaneously?"  A key reason why the Kyoto Protocol proceeded without the participation of the USA is because the present provisions of the treaty are so mild. As such, the loss of competitive advantage likely to be suffered by those nations proceeding with the Protocol is not likely to be significant compared to the United States. But were the provisions of the Protocol to require much more stringent emissions reductions - as would be needed if a really significant impact on global warming is to be achieved - you would soon find no major nation willing to go ahead unless all did likewise because the significant additional costs their industries would have to bear compared to those of nations not participating would not be economically sustainable: the competitive disadvantage would simply be too great. So if we are going to have international agreements that are going to have a really significant effect on the environmental problems they're designed to solve, we're not going to get them unless all, or virtually all, nations implement them simultaneously. Hence the urgent need for SP!  The above thinking is also relevant to many other international initiatives. Take the Tobin Tax, for example. Any such cross-border tax could, some people say, be implemented unilaterally by a restricted group of nations, such as by the European Union. That may be so. But the effectiveness of the tax depends upon how high it is. If it is to be truly effective, the level of the tax must be relatively high. But the higher the tax is, the more incentive there will be for traders to site their operations outside those countries implementing the tax in order to avoid it. As a result, if the European Union ever does unilaterally implement the Tobin Tax, it is likely to be of such a mild and insignificant nature and will likely do little or nothing to calm foreign currency speculation. It is this logic which should indicate that what is needed to secure our global future is the implementation by all or virtually all nations of robust taxes and measures which have a truly significant effect. Hence the need for SP.  Top "But is it really necessary to get ALL nations to adopt SP before implementation could proceed? Surely that's never going to happen."  No, it's not strictly necessary. But the SP criteria of "all, or virtually all, nations" should not be understood as a condition "written in stone" but rather as a consensus-building strategy; a way of removing key objections and thus getting people, organisations and governments to say "yes" to such policies instead of "no".  Take the implementation of the Tobin Tax. There's a lot of debate about whether or not it could practically and safely be implemented in Europe alone, or whether the U.S. and other nations with significant financial centres would have to be included. But such debates just keep going round in circles and nothing gets done because there is no secure basis for cooperation to implement the proposal. So just asking a government: "Will you support the Tobin Tax" is likely to meet with a negative response. If, on the other hand, we instead ask: "Will you support the Tobin Tax on the basis of all, or virtually all, nations implementing it simultaneously?", all the previous key objections evaporate resulting in a much higher chance of the answer becoming "yes." And as more and more nations say "yes", the moral and public opinion pressure on the remainder grows and grows. So that is the SP strategy to build sufficient consensus for all the necessary policies which have an impact on international competitiveness to be implemented. ISPO merely groups all these policies under the 'one roof' of SP.  Top "But wouldn't it be virtually impossible to get all nations to agree to a common set of policies when they would constantly be shifting their ground particularly in the final moments of negotiation?"  Don't forget the measures of SP will be designed and decided by civil society around the world - not by political parties, governments or unaccountable global institutions. Although organisations, political parties and governments can symbolically adopt SP, it is only the adoptions of individuals which truly count. That's because your adoption of SP represents your personal commitment on how you will vote at future elections. And organisations don't have votes; only individual people have votes. So control of the policy content of SP is firmly in the hands of its citizen adopters.  It should also be remembered that, in many cases, political parties and governments will not adopt SP out of choice, they will do so because their electoral fortunes will have become dependent on it. Because if they fail to adopt, individual adopters will vote for another politician who has adopted. So bodies such as political parties or governments have no way to 'shift ground' or 'haggle'. They either adopt as a result of electoral pressure from individual adopters, or they don't - it's as simple as that.  In addition, it's important to see SP as a developing process against the backdrop of a world steadily descending towards disaster. As people everywhere - businessmen and politicians included - become increasingly aware that the water level is rising above our heads, the pressure for agreement and cooperation amongst nations will likewise become increasingly intense. Global warming, terrorism, the increasing gap between rich and poor, poverty and so on are all evidence of that rising water level. SP offers citizens and nations a peaceful way to reach the surface. And as the adoption of SP grows amongst more and more countries, the thought that any nation might deviate from the terms of SP will have become virtually unthinkable. Firstly, remember that politicians will only have adopted SP because their electoral success will have become dependent on it. So for them to renege on SP would only invite voters to vote for some other candidate at the next election. Reneging would therefore be wholly illogical and would by then be tantamount to cutting their political throats. Secondly, as the number of nations adopting SP increases, those nations resisting adoption will come under increasing international pressure, possibly including economic sanctions or boycotts. Finally, the worsening global situation will make it increasingly clear that every nation has far more to gain by cooperating to implement SP than by resisting it. By that time therefore, the thought of NOT cooperating to implement SP would have become as unthinkable as nations NOT competing is today!  Top "You list a whole range of policy measures on your website. But what if I don't think they are very appropriate or I have some other idea to put forward? Are the measures of SP 'cast in stone'? Or do I have a say?"  Yes, you do have a say and it's important to remember that the measures listed on our website are only ideas or illustrations of what SP could look like. That's why, when you adopt SP, you do so only provisionally because SP's measures have not yet been fixed. In fact, when you adopt SP, you also secure your right to participate, if you wish, in the formulation of SP's measures. More details on how you can participate are explained below or are available from ISPO. If you have a comment you wish to make NOW you can do so through our Your Ideas page. So it's a completely flexible and democratic process. And if at any time you don't like the measures that are emerging or have any other problem with SP or ISPO, you are always at liberty to cancel your adoption.  Top "But if SP’s policy measures still remain to be defined and adopting SP is thus only ‘provisional’, how can provisionally adopting SP possibly allow us to make an impact?" Citizens in any electoral constituency who provisionally adopt SP still pledge to vote in future elections for ANY politician or party -- within reason -- that also provisionally adopts SP. By doing so and by publicising their adoption through car and window stickers, etc., they will alert politicians to the necessity of taking SP into account, both before and during elections. And, as the numbers provisionally adopting SP increases, it is bound to project uncertainties in politicians' minds about whether or not there exists a critical number of SP adopters in the constituency. So, they will be wise to hedge their bets by provisionally adopting SP themselves to avoid losing critical votes to rival candidates who may have provisionally adopted SP to attract the SP voting bloc. Thus support for SP will begin to figure in MPs' and candidates' policy commitments. And, naturally, the more closely contested electioneering becomes, the greater will be their need to provisionally adopt SP and to demonstrate their support for SP themes. So adoption of SP, even if only provisional, still represents a potent means of building SP’s political clout.  Top "How do the SP adoption campaign and the process of formulating SP measures relate to each other?" It is anticipated that policy formulation will proceed slowly, gradually becoming more defined as the SP campaign progresses but probably remaining essentially provisional until a period close to intergovernmental implementation. And it is expected policy formulation will lag behind the public awareness campaign promoting the provisional adoption of SP by individuals and organisations worldwide. But the two processes react to one another in a kind of dialogue. The quicker the adoption process strengthens, the sooner a date for feasible implementation will come into view. As it does, the campaign will increasingly focus on policy definition and negotiation. The 'simultaneous' development of these processes is illustrated in the following diagram. Top "What organisational structures does ISPO envisage at national and local levels in order to achieve its objectives?" The SP project is based on the concept of nation states, and on how cooperation between them can be achieved. Thus SP organisations will, as far as possible, be established in every country of the world as National Simultaneous Policy Organisations (NSPOs). In their structure, they will each reflect the twin processes of policy formulation and provisional adoption. And, subject to internal NSPO agreement, Local SP Groups will be formed in each national electoral district. Provision is currently being made for the incorporation of the first NSPO (SP-UK) as a non-profit, democratically organised and membership-based company with Boards for Trustees, Management and Policy Representatives, supported by regional and local coordinators.  Top "What organisational structure is envisaged for ISPO at the global level?" The form and structure of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO), functioning at the global level, currently exists through informal consensus agreements between voluntary participants effected through email exchanges. When formalised in due course, however, ISPO is expected to assist in coordinating the campaigning actions of the NSPOs and to facilitate the process of formulating and negotiating SP’s policy measures in conjunction with the NSPOs. The process of policy formulation is expected to take place via a Global Policy Board (GPB) comprising internationally respected but independent expert advisers. (These need not necessarily be SP adopters; and the possibility is envisaged that the work of the GPB, to optimise the expertise required, could be delegated through mutual negotiation to an NGO that shares ISPO's objectives.) The GPB would be required to propose SP policy measures taking into account proposals from individual members. And it would broker modifications to initial proposals as exemptions or modifications for specific nations, as may be required in special cases agreed by all NSPOs. A further central ISPO function currently being developed is to ensure that SP policy measures are evolved with adopters’ bottom-up involvement, via exchanges between the Global Policy Board, each NSPO, its national Board of Policy Representatives (BPR) and Local Policy Coordinators. The aim in these democratic procedures is to protect adopters' rights regarding policy evolution as voting members in the policy-making procedures of their NSPO. Ultimately, however, the sovereignty of individual adopters is, of course, also guaranteed by their ability to cancel their adoption at any time if they so choose.  Top "But is it actually possible to define measures which could be beneficially applied worldwide?"  Whilst it may be difficult today to imagine such policies, we can already see how many problems of the world economy, the environment and other aspects of life are becoming truly global in scope and, furthermore, made worse by destructive global competition. Indeed, already today we can see proposals for policies based on global simultaneous implementation emerging; the most obvious being the Tobin Tax. Another would be U.S. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's legislation introduced into the House of Representatives (HR-2545) calling for the abandonment of U.S. nuclear weapons when all nuclear states do likewise. As far as any future regulation of transnational corporations is concerned, surely it is difficult to see how any significant regulation could possibly be implemented on any basis other than globally and simultaneously.  So, as global competition intensifies further, such globally beneficial policies can exist and are already beginning to emerge. It is ISPO's function to define and develop them with the assistance of individual adopters, NGOs and independent experts as the SP campaign progresses.  Top "You say SP can only be implemented when all nations have adopted it. But wouldn't that mean that governments could use SP as an excuse to delay implementing necessary environmental legislation?"  Not at all - in fact the contrary is more likely to be the case because what SP permits is a sorting out of two fundamentally different types of policy.  Firstly, there are those policies which, if implemented unilaterally by a single nation or a group of nations, would generally be likely to have a POSITIVE impact on that nation's competitiveness. These are clearly policies which CAN be implemented unilaterally and they would therefore NOT form part of SP in any case. So nations contemplating such policies will clearly want to implement them as soon as possible. After all, if they didn't, they'd LOSE their competitive advantage!  Secondly, there are those policies which, if implemented unilaterally by a single nation or a group of nations, would generally be likely to have a NEGATIVE impact on competitiveness, employment, capital markets, etc. These policies can ONLY be implemented by all (or virtually all) nations simultaneously and would consequently be included in SP.  This distinction between the two types of policy thus makes them mutually reinforcing providing a better focus for both governments and campaigners alike whilst helping to mobilise public support both for SP and for unilaterally implementable policies.  Top "But developed countries are quite different from developing ones. How do you appeal to all of them?"  As corporate globalisation tightens its grip on the world, a globally identifiable pattern is beginning to emerge which provides common cause between peoples of both developing and developed countries. This is that jobs are being lost and wages are highly depressed in developed countries causing social hardship while the related transfer of jobs to developing countries is made generally at rock-bottom wage rates and conditions and often at significant environmental cost. And even then, the number of jobs created by this transfer is relatively small. The transnational corporations thus achieve huge profits based on the enormous wage rate differential between developed and developing countries without furnishing any significant benefit to workers in developing countries and certainly no benefit whatever to workers in developed countries. It is this practice of 'destructive trade' which provides common ground for SP to appeal to the peoples of all nations.  Furthermore, environmental problems such as global warming are clearly problems which affect North and South alike and can therefore only be tackled on a global basis. SP provides the necessary cooperative basis for such problems to be solved.  Top "How is the range of SP policy measures to be formulated?" Original policy proposals were given in John Bunzl's book "The Simultaneous Policy" and an updated version of the SP policy proposal is available on this site. But as these are intended to be indicative only, it is expected SP adopters will participate in SP's internal bottom-up policy-formulation procedures described in outline above and in greater detail below. Supplementary/updated proposals from NGOs and other authoritative or inspirational sources - such as: "Alternatives to Economic Globalization" by the International Forum on Globalization (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, California, 2002); "The Age of Consent" by George Monbiot (Flamingo, London, 2003); "Localization - A Global Manifesto" by Colin Hines (Earthscan, London, 2000) - are also expected to inform and inspire SP’s policy content. At this early stage in the SP campaign, the facilities for successful policy formulation are currently being developed. However, the following process is presently envisaged as one way in which SP’s policy formulation might occur.  For reasons of practicality, it is likely that ISPO would invite a number of eminent and globally representative thinkers, economists, ecologists and other experts to form a Global Policy Board (GPB) or it may appoint a suitable existing outside NGO body. The GPB would be charged with developing a proposed range of measures for SP which is to be put to the national Boards of Policy Representatives (BPRs) of each National Simultaneous Policy Organisation (NSPO).  It is anticipated that the GPB's policy proposals would be put, via each NSPO’s Board of Policy Representatives (BPR), to all adopters of SP for their comments, recommendations and feedback. Each national BPR would be responsible for assessing the likely impact of the GPB’s proposal on their country. To make such an assessment, each BPR would consult extensively with its adopters as well as with other NGOs, think-tanks, government and other outside bodies. On the basis of adopters' comments and other recommendations, each BPR would respond to the GPB listing desired exemptions or amendments to the GPB’s initial proposal. It would then be the responsibility of the GPB to broker all the proposed amendments between all the NSPOs with a view to reaching a final agreement acceptable to the BPRs of all NSPOs and to their respective national adopters to whom they are accountable.  This two-way process of policy proposal, feedback, negotiation and refinement is expected to occur several times throughout the course of the adoption campaign. In this way, SP policy can be developed with the active participation of adopters while also benefiting from the expertise and experience of expert policy makers, NGOs and other outside bodies.  Only when the adoption campaign is nearing completion would a final round of negotiations be organised with a view to finally fixing the measures of SP shortly before implementation proceeds. At that point, and assuming agreement were reached, adoption of SP would cease to be provisional and would become unconditional. It should be stressed, however, that the above policy formulation process remains only tentative at this stage.  Top "But how on Earth are you ever going to get SP adopted by a country like the USA? Both main parties are dominated by corporate interests so surely neither party is ever going to adopt?"  The strategy ISPO would use to gain adoption of SP by the main political parties would vary from country to country depending on the electoral system. In "first past the post" systems such as exist in the United Kingdom or in the USA, the way SP works is NOT by starting yet another political party but, instead, by bringing existing political parties into competition with each other.  This competition will be intensified because it is increasingly likely that more and more elections will be decided by relatively small numbers of people. That's because the dictates of international competition have forced the adherence of ALL mainstream political parties to a narrow, market and corporate-friendly stance. That is why voters increasingly see little or no difference between them and why support between them is relatively evenly split. It is also why there is increasing voter apathy.  So here's how SP might get adopted in the USA: You'll recall that at the last Presidential Election in the USA in 2000, the entire result was hanging on just 2000 votes in Florida. So now imagine the situation at a future election and suppose that, by that time, about 5000 voters in Florida had adopted SP and a similar critical number in the other key US states. Then, about two weeks prior to the election, the US Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO-USA) would issue a press release announcing that all US adopters, according to their adoption pledge, will be voting for WHICH EVER of the Republicans or Democrats adopts SP first.  Assuming a similar knife-edge situation as existed in 2000, ask yourself what you, as the sitting Presidential candidate for either of the major parties, would have to decide in such circumstances as you sit in the Oval Office. If you failed to adopt SP but your opponent did, you just might have lost yourself the Presidency. On the other hand, if you did adopt SP first, not only would you attract the SP voting bloc, you wouldn't risk anything because implementation of SP only goes ahead when all or virtually all nations do likewise.  What would you do?  Top "But what about some of the so-called 'Third-World' countries whose governments are either dictatorships or heavily influenced by foreign corporations or interests. How are you going to get those countries to adopt SP?"  As this question suggests, most such countries are maintained in this sorry state of affairs as a result of the interests of foreign corporations or governments. So pressure will be most effective if applied firstly to the rich countries or corporations who are responsible for maintaining this situation. If electorates in the rich countries, through their adoption of SP, can bring their political parties and governments to adopt SP, the corrupt governments in Third-World countries they are supporting will similarly come under such pressure. Furthermore, where specific corporations can be identified, adopters of SP in richer countries could arrange consumer boycotts of such corporations, insisting that the boycott will continue until the corporations concerned bring sufficient pressure to bear on the governments concerned to adopt SP. But this is not to underestimate the pressure that can be brought to bear on such governments by the peoples of those countries themselves. They too can join with adopters of SP in the richer countries to bring all our governments to adopt SP.  Top "I can see how SP would help to solve some of the world's pressing economic and environmental problems, but what effect would it have on the arms trade and the threat of wars?"  Perhaps the best way to answer this is take the development of the European Union (EU) as an example. In past centuries Europe consisted of myriad nations who were at war with one another more or less continuously. Large quantities of arms were produced and consumed in Europe in those wars and millions died.  But as the nations of Europe gradually learned to cooperate economically, and to some extent politically with one another, and have now formed themselves into the EU, the thought that they might ever go to war with one another has become virtually unthinkable. So although large quantities of weapons are still produced in the EU, they are now only for 'consumption' outside its borders. The market the EU itself represented for the use/consumption of such weapons was thus abolished because it became an essentially cooperative group of nations.  SP extends this thinking to the global level since it provides a basis upon which ALL nations can together solve global problems through simultaneous government policies and taxes across national borders with appropriate redistribution and compensation between them. So this, if you like, is a form of cooperation similar (though not identical) to what has happened in the EU. And if cooperation can be extended by SP to cover all nations, the entire world would have become largely cooperative rather than competitive. And so, as it was with Europe, the global market for large quantities of weapons - i.e. the need for them - would effectively have been abolished.  Now that's not to say that all war would cease. But I think you can see how the whole global atmosphere would be changed by SP to the point where the chances of large-scale war would have become extremely small and there would also be a strong incentive for all nations to ensure that things remained that way. The best antidote for war is cooperation!  Top "What about the possibility of ISPO being infiltrated or co-opted by 'the powers that be' as can so often happen to a movement that looks like it could seriously threaten their interests?"  ISPO's universal inclusiveness might be thought to invite infiltration from subversive sources seeking to undermine our objective for a more just and peaceful world. But this inclusiveness is, in fact, ISPO's best protection against that possibility. This is because ISPO derives its political power solely from individual adopters of SP. So even if ISPO were 'infiltrated' by malicious individuals, they would each have only ONE vote and could therefore have little impact or sway against the vast majority of adopters.  Naturally, like any other organisation, there can never be any absolute guarantees that ISPO would not be infiltrated, co-opted, or just poorly managed. But even if it were, there is an in-built safeguard which is that adopters of SP can at any time simply cancel their adoption if they do not like the leaders of ISPO, the policies being proposed or are in any other way unhappy about SP or ISPO. If that were to happen en masse, it would result in the implosion of the organisation. So that, in itself, is a good guarantee which would prevent either ISPO’s co-option by subversive individual adopters or the imposition of policies or procedures of which adopters did not generally approve.  Top "Surely expecting all nations to adopt SP is just a pipe dream. So is the SP proposal truly realistic?"  Well, surely the key question is whether, in the circumstances, unilateral implementation is more or less realistic than simultaneous implementation? How realistic is it, after all, to expect a single or a restricted group of nations to unilaterally implement policies which are deemed likely to be against their own interests and likely to incur the immediate and potentially catastrophic wrath of global financial markets? Highly unlikely, we think you will agree. So, while the achievement of SP may admittedly appear highly ambitious, logically it is difficult to conceive of other ways in which such policies could be implemented. If, on the other hand, one were to imagine that ISPO, with the support of the Global Justice Movement, had been able to secure the adoption of SP by the EU, the USA and Japan, the prospect of all or virtually all other countries falling into line seems not that hard to imagine. Furthermore, as the world economic, social and environmental predicament worsens over the coming years, as regrettably seems inevitable, the pressure on politicians and businesses to support the SP approach could become increasingly likely. For although SP may today appear to global elites to be thoroughly undesirable, it may, by then, come to appear as very desirable indeed. Because when circumstances eventually become dire and a continuance of the status quo seems likely only to lead to disaster, for politicians and corporate interests to contemplate not cooperating to support the implementation of SP may by then have become unthinkable – not an option. By that time, therefore, it would potentially have become in virtually everyone’s best interests to cooperate in implementing SP.  Top "There are so many local initiatives, ranging from eco-cities to organic farms and from LETS schemes to co-operative small businesses - and there are more and more of them starting up all the time. And what's more, they're happening NOW! So why do we need SP? Aren't these local initiatives the only way to go? Aren't they sufficient to move the world towards sustainability?" ISPO applauds and endorses all such efforts and believes they are absolutely valid in themselves and are to be encouraged. Above all, they point the way towards a sustainable lifestyle and economy for the future. But we don't think they're enough. Whilst many people are converting to these new lifestyles, very many billions are not. And those billions are likely to remain in thrall to consumerism and highly dependent on the global economy. Furthermore, we do not think it can be assumed that small-scale initiatives will gradually replace the existing global economy in a benign and peaceful fashion. As economic, environmental or social dislocations gradually increase in size and intensity as the global economy starts to crack up, we think it not unlikely that civil disobedience and social unrest could result. And in such circumstances small-scale initiatives which have been lovingly and painstakingly built up over many years would be in danger of being over-run and destroyed as people's supermarket shelves become empty and their gas stations run dry. In the light of this possibility, we suggest that there is no substitute for proper legislation and governance. So why not "Act Globally, not just Locally"? Keep going with your local initiative, whatever it may be. But act globally too by adopting SP! Top "What about consumer power, corporate responsibility initiatives and the 'triple bottom line'? Surely they are already bringing errant corporations into line, aren't they?"  Again, ISPO applauds such efforts to instill responsible corporate behaviour. But it must be understood that corporations and their executives operate in a highly competitive environment. Any corporation acting in a socially and environmentally responsible way which therefore most likely increases its operating costs, puts itself in danger of losing out in the market to its competitors who may not have any such scruples. To a large extent, therefore, corporations can only afford to be as responsible as their main competitors allow. So all initiatives to instill good corporate behaviour are to be encouraged - but they are not enough. Again, ISPO takes the view that there is no substitute for properly adequate regulation. So why not boycott any corporation that fails to behave responsibly and adopt SP?!  Top "Since activists are so focused on their own vision of the problem and on their own activities, whether it's social justice, worker's rights, various aspects of the environment, etc, how is ISPO going to get them to investigate SP and to adopt it?" Everyone is busy these days. But activists of all kinds are coming to realise that politicians and governments have become increasingly captive to the demands of transnational corporations, the money markets and the necessity of maintaining 'competitiveness in the global market'. As such, their conventional forms of persuasion such as lobbying, street protest, direct action, media coverage, etc. have become substantially ineffective when the targets of that action - politicians - are today no longer in any position to respond. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the World Trade Center atrocities, the tolerance of the public and the state to street protest is becoming very narrow indeed. That is why SP gives activists of all stripes an additional and complementary 'technology' through which to press for their objectives in a completely new and politically effective way which augments and supports their existing campaigns.  Top