|
|
The Progressive ResponseVolume 10, Number 5 Editor: John Gershman, IRC |
|
||||
|
|||||
Table of ContentsI. Updates and Out-TakesThe Economics of Outsourcing: How Should Policy Respond? | Thomas Palley I. Updates and Out-TakesThe Economics of Outsourcing: How Should Policy Respond? Outsourcing is a central element of economic globalization, representing a new form of competition. Responding to outsourcing calls for policies that enhance national competitiveness and establish rules ensuring acceptable forms of competition. Viewing outsourcing through the lens of competition connects with early 20th century American institutional economics. The policy challenge is to construct institutions that ensure stable, robust flows of demand and income, thereby addressing the Keynesian problem while preserving incentives for economic action. This was the approach embedded in the New Deal, which successfully addressed the problems of the Depression era. Global outsourcing poses the challenge anew and calls for creative institutional arrangements to shape the nature of competition. Dr. Palley (www.thomaspalley.com) is the author of Plenty of Nothing: The Downsizing of the American Dream and the Case for Structural Keynesianism (Princeton University Press) and Post Keynesian Economics (Macmillan Press) and is a regular contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). This policy report is a shortened version of a paper presented at a conference on “The Political Economy of Governance” held at the University of Bourgogne, Dijon, France, December 2-3, 2005. His weekly economic policy blog is published at www.thomaspalley.com. See full FPIF article online at: With printer-friendly pdf version at:
The U.S. Role in Iraq’s Sectarian Violence The sectarian violence which has swept across Iraq following last month's terrorist bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara is yet another example of the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Until the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation, Iraq had maintained a longstanding history of secularism and a strong national identity among its Arab population despite its sectarian differences. Not only has the United States failed to bring a functional democracy to Iraq, neither U.S. forces nor the U.S.-backed Iraqi government in Baghdad have been able to provide the Iraqi people with basic security. This has led many ordinary citizens to turn to extremist sectarian groups for protection, further undermining the Bush administration's insistence that American forces must remain in Iraq in order to prevent a civil war. Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be “ripped apart” by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to “expedite” such a collapse anyway. As a result, the tendency in the United States to blame “sectarian conflict” and “long-simmering hatreds” for the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq is, in effect, blaming the victim. Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism. See full FPIF article online at: With printer-friendly pdf version at:
A New Endgame in Iraq: Government Formation and Constitutional Renegotiation Since the bombing of the golden-domed Askariya Shi'a mosque in Samarra on February 22, Iraq has been close to the outbreak of open civil war. What seems to be true is that for now none of the main groups wish an all out civil war. Each apparently hopes to achieve its objectives without launching an open conflict, or thinks that it would have even more to lose in case it did. Given the hard line stance of the Shi'ites, a grand compromise is nearly impossible. American pressure may not be enough to counteract Shi'ite intransigence. Al-Sadr may not control his followers both in and out of parliament in future Shi'ite and Sunni conflicts. Thus even if an all out civil war is avoided now, it may not be as easy to avoid in the future if negotiations over either the formation of a coalition government or the constitutional settlement finally break down. Andrew Arato is an expert for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at fpif.org) and is the Dorothy Hart Hirshon Professor of Political and Social Theory at the New School University. See full FPIF article online at: With printer-friendly pdf version at:
An Open Letter to my Danish Friends This is a letter of apology from an American who has witnessed in horror the extreme anti-Danish reaction in parts of the Islamic world. While the spark may have originated in your country, the tinderbox which caused that spark to explode in such a violent conflagration is largely a result of the policies of the United States. Comments from U.S. government officials chastising your countrymen to be more sensitive about offending religious sentiments in the Middle East may not be inappropriate in and of itself. However, the United States is the last country to preach to others about unnecessarily provoking anti-Western sentiment among the world's Muslims, particularly a nation such as yours which has had such an admirable history of supporting United Nations peacekeeping operations and providing generous financial contributions to Third World development. Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism. See full FPIF article online at: With printer-friendly pdf version at:
Desert Faux: The Sahara’s Mirage of Terrorism When two U.S. Marine helicopters recently went down off Djibouti, a tiny slice of desert at the entrance to the Red Sea, they exposed a low-profile program that has poured money and troops into a broad swath of northern Africa from the Indian to the Atlantic Oceans, which encompasses some nine nations in the region. The Bush administration claims the target of this program, called the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Initiative, is the growing presence of al-Qaida-influenced organizations in the region. Critics, however, charge that the enterprise has more to do with oil than with Osama bin Laden, and that stepped up military aid to Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia will most likely end up being used against internal opposition groups in those countries, not “terrorists” hiding out in the desert. As part of the initiative, the United States has re-routed satellites and aircraft to monitor “terrorist” groups in the region. “These are groups that are similar to al-Qaida, but not as sophisticated or with the same reach, but the same objectives,” says Air Force General Charles Wald. “They're bad people, and we need to keep an eye on that.” But according to the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, the Sahara is “not a hotbed of terrorism,” and North African governments are only going along with the Initiative because it gives them training and weapons they can use on their own people. Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) and a lecturer in journalism at the University of California, Santa Cruz. See full FPIF article online at: With printer-friendly pdf version at:
Reclaiming the City on the Hill The nation's—and the world's—final farewells to Coretta Scott King were celebrated in Atlanta on February 7. Three former presidents attended Mrs. King's funeral, as did President Bush. The day before, he had submitted to Congress a $2.77 trillion budget request for fiscal year 2007, a request whose entire tenor runs counter to the life and work of Mrs. King and her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The budget request gives the Defense Department (DoD) a 4.8 percent—$28.5 billion—increase over the amount appropriated for the current fiscal year, excluding supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This increase for DoD actually exceeds by $1.1 billion the total difference ($27.4 billion) between discretionary spending (what Congress enacts every year) for fiscal 2006 ($843.3 billion) and what the president requested for 2007 ($870.7 billion). Among the other 23 agency discretionary accounts, only International Relations and Veterans Affairs saw increases exceeding one billion dollars. Eight agencies edged up between $100,000 and $600,000, with the other 13 losing $10.8 billion. The biggest loser is Education (-$3.5 billion). The budget terminated vocational education and drug-free school grants to states, arts in education, gifted and talented education, and teacher quality enhancement programs. Community Service Grants under Health and Human Services are terminated as part of the $866 million cut in discretionary spending—with another $3.2 billion cut from mandatory spending (chiefly Medicare) for 2007. What does it say about a nation that allows its government to spend—before counting war fighting costs—$480.9 billion attempting to secure the homeland (DoD plus $41.6 billion for all non-DoD federal spending) while it undermines community building and community assistance efforts that (1) are essential to millions of today's most vulnerable and (2) expand tomorrow's opportunities by broadening the scope of training for today's youth? It clearly says that the United States no longer cherishes the spiritual vision articulated by one of the earliest colonial “Founding Fathers”—the Puritan leader, John Winthrop—while still aboard the Arbella in 1630. In a discourse titled “A Model of Christian Charity,” Winthrop wrote one of the enduring images associated with the early Puritan settlers: “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” As his title suggests, Winthrop's message to his fellow seekers is one of inclusiveness. Noting that their religious quest for freedom of conscience had a parallel secular quest for moral self-governance, he cautions the company that “the care of the public must oversway all private respects …” Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org), a retired U.S. Army colonel, and a senior fellow on military affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. See full FPIF article online at: With printer-friendly pdf version at:
Haiti's Elections: Right Result for the Wrong Reason On February 7, Haitian voters went to the polls to elect a president for the fourth time since 1990 and handed their chosen candidate a landslide victory. Also for the fourth time, Haitian elites—with support from the international community—immediately began to undercut the victory, seeking at the negotiation table what they could not win at the polls. The negotiations reached a deal that boosts the successful candidate, Rene Preval, over the 50% of the vote necessary to avoid a runoff election. By choosing to negotiate the process instead of confirming the clear winner through a fair count, it provides leverage for those seeking to delegitimize Mr. Preval’s presidency and block the progressive social and economic policies that he was elected to implement. Haiti’s politics are not parlor games. Each coup d’etat leads to thousands of deaths, and many more times that are killed by diseases that would be prevented or treated by the programs of a less embattled government. The life expectancy for men in Haiti has dropped below 50. It is far past time for the international community to stop condemning Haiti to repeating this outrageously unjust history. Brian Concannon Jr., Esquire, directs the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, www.ijdh.org, and observed several elections in Haiti for the Organization of American States. See full article online at: With printer-friendly pdf version at: Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new kind of think tank—one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh, internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail. We Count on Your Support. Thank you.
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). ©2006. All rights reserved. Subscribe to The Progressive Response!
The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the International Relations Center or the Institute for Policy Studies. We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to irc@irc-online.org. Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive.
|
|||||
