There are also other possible scenarios of a more symbolic and less cumbersome nature based on consultation or coordination. With regard to your second question, economic globalisation, when viewed as an imposed and uncontrollable phenomenon or as something ordained by fate, tends to scare ordinary people, fuelling a debate that is gathering momentum. The WTO, which some see as being dominated by those who wield political, military, technological, financial and commercial power in the world, has emerged as the symbol of this worrying globalisation. If NGOs seek to block the system with some measure of success, as was the case in Seattle, they will find it difficult to initiate positive action. But State institutions comprise not only governments but also parliaments, which can more easily and effectively serve as the representatives and advocates of citizens who feel concerned and apprehensive.
Parliamentarians are usually closer to the people than others.
As well as offering a democratic safeguard, they can reassure, allay fears and promote cooperation in a more serene environment based on solidarity rather than confrontation. I think Parliaments can provide a parliamentary dimension to the UN at two levels. One is to make sure that, within our own countries, there is a much greater involvement of parliament in determining the role of our governments in the UN, but of course within the UN system the emphasis is on governments. What we are saying is that, as the directly elected representatives, we should be having a much greater say. Yes, Parliaments can play a role in furthering the aspirations of civil society because as the directly elected representatives of the entire population, we represent the society in its broadest sense.