The Progressive Response
Volume 6, Number 27
September 10, 2002
The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)—a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen movements and agendas." We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/.
Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) www.irc-online.org and codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at <tom@irc-online.org>.
Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)
Table of Contents
I. Updates and Out-Takes
FRONTIER JUSTICE NO. 6 | Back to Earth
By John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)
BLAMING THE VICTIM IN ARGENTINA
By David Felix
NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS
II. Outside the U.S.
SUSTAINABLE FARMING: FAULTY LESSONS FROM AMERICA
By Devinder Sharma
III. Letters and Comments
I. Updates and Out-takes
FRONTIER JUSTICE NO. 6 | Back to Earth
By John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)
(Editor's Note: Frontier Justice is a weekly column written alternately by Tom Barry and John Gershman, foreign policy analysts at the Interhemispheric Resource Center, chronicling instances of U.S. unilateralism and its assault on the multilateral framework for managing global affairs. It is part of the new Project Against the Present Danger. These columns are now indexed on the Project Against the Present Danger website (www.presentdanger.org) at: http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/index.html .)
Thirty years after the Stockholm meeting on the environment launched the era of massive environmental conferences, the World Summit on Sustainable Development ended not with a bang, but with a whimper. The 10-day conference pulled together 9,000 delegates, 8,000 NGOs, and 4,000 media representatives (well below the 65,000 originally projected) in what is widely viewed as an unworthy descendant of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The most gracious comment one leading environmentalist could come up with was "at least it wasn't as bad as it could have been."
Secretary of State Colin Powell's reception--he was the only delegate to be jeered, interrupted, and slow handclapped during his speech to the Summit--showed that President Bush's decision not to appear was the correct one, from a public relations standpoint. It also highlights the Bush administration's deepening isolation with respect to a series of international issues, and illustrates both the reach and limits of U.S. hegemony on this issue. The agreement reached in Johannesburg is weak on targets and timetables and lacks effective monitoring mechanisms as well as carrots and sticks to induce compliance. (The contrast to agreements on international trade couldn't be more stark).
Amidst the glumness were a few accomplishments. New targets were set for water and sanitation (halving the number of people without access to clean water and sanitation by 2015) and a deal on fishing, to limit catches and restore depleted stocks by 2015 and establish marine protected reserves. But much of the success was marked by the degree to which sustainable development advocates were able to derail the Bush administration agenda.
The U.S. did promote a couple of new initiatives. These included a joint U.S.-Japanese effort to provide safe drinking water to poor nations and a partnership among six African governments, European nations, and conservation and timber groups to protect vast rain forests in the Congo Basin (a project that was begun in the Clinton administration). Powell, whose attendance at the Summit was part of an Africa trip covering three countries in a little over 48 hours, said "my only regret is that on this trip I cannot visit each and every one of the Congo Basin nations," (as reported by the Washington Post). On September 6, Powell was scheduled to travel to Angola and then to Gabon, where he scheduled 10 minutes to walk through a rain forest. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38103-2002Sep4.html)
The WSSD revealed a number of recurring trends in U.S. policy more broadly:
Dominance of the "oil-agarchy"
Reflecting the strength of the fossil fuels lobby in Washington and backed by Japan, Middle East petroleum producers, and China, the Bush administration torpedoed an effort promoted by Europe that set a target of 10% of energy needs to be obtained from renewable sources by 2015. After days of contentious negotiations, the EU relented and agreed to reintroduce language allowing countries to use not only solar and wind power as substitutes for petroleum products, but also nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric sources, or dams. Environmentalists contend that nuclear power is unsafe and that large-scale dam construction is ecologically unsound and has adverse social impact because it forces the relocation of communities. The U.S appears to have horse-traded its acceptance of a target on water and sanitation in exchange for the EU dropping the renewable energy target.
Undermining Rights
The Bush administration continued its assault on rights frameworks for development. Supported by China and the G-77, the U.S. tried to eliminate links between the environment and human rights. It also tried--and was only partially successful, in an alliance with the Vatican and some Islamic countries-to weaken language on linking access to health services to human rights, as it would strengthen women's demands for access to birth control, abortion, and other reproductive health services.
Private Sector
The Bush administration sought language that would embed multilateral environmental agreements and environmental agreements more broadly as being "consistent with WTO rules" in a transparent effort to privilege free trade and the WTO over sustainable development and the United Nations. It also continued to fight any efforts to include commitments to pursue binding corporate accountability standards. While the final language in the plan of action creates an opening to advance corporate accountability, the Bush administration continues to promote an alternative reading that would prevent such efforts. (For some of the details of this process see coverage at www.dailySummit.net.)
Positive Developments
There were some positive developments that also hint at an emerging consensus among many countries--including erstwhile U.S. allies--that they need to move ahead and leave the U.S. behind if it insists on being obstructionist. Russia announced plans to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while Canada (in a carefully worded statement) announced plans to submit the Protocol to parliament by the end of the year. This leaves the U.S. and Australia isolated in opposition to the Protocol among industrialized countries, and raises the prospect for the Protocol's ratification despite U.S. opposition. Late-breaking developments at the Summit suggest that even Australia may be wavering, as Australian Prime Minister, John Howard--who had previously insisted Australia would not ratify the Protocol--said at the end of the Summit that he would now reconsider.
Another positive sign emerged from the anger at U.S. efforts to undermine efforts to set targets for renewable energy (discussed above). Led by an EU delegation, the leaders of more than 30 government delegations pledged to go further than the Summit declaration on increasing the share of renewable energy as part of the global energy supply. The countries concerned agreed to a regular review of progress, on the basis of clear and ambitious targets at a national, regional, and "hopefully at a global level." Support for the proposal came from all 15 EU states, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia, Brazil, Argentina, Uganda, Mexico and other Latin American states, plus some Caribbean and Pacific islands.
The results of the WSSD clearly indicate that the terrain for the struggle for sustainable development has shifted away from a focus on large-scale summitry, and moved into other areas, at both the national (holding states accountable to commitments, many of which remain unfulfilled from the 1992 Earth Summit) and international levels (corporate accountability, climate change, water, biodiversity, etc.). American citizens have been faced with a clear call from abroad to get their own house--and government--in order. There is no shortage of places to start. The National Environmental Trust's report, First in Emission, Behind in Solutions, details how the emissions of some U.S. states exceed those of groups of developing countries. With a population of 288 million people, the U.S. releases more global warming gases than Africa, Central and South America, and most of the developing countries of Asia combined, that have a total population ten times larger--2.6 billion people. Texas' emissions of carbon dioxide, for example, the highest in the country, exceed the combined emissions of 119 developing countries with an aggregate population of over one billion people. (Texas has 21.8 million people). On a per capita basis, Texas' emissions are 47 times higher than those of the 119 developing countries.
The failure of the Bush administration to effect even a modicum of an effort at leadership shows that it calculates that it will pay no major domestic political price for being a rogue state on international environmental issues. As economist Jeffrey Sachs argued in an interview in the Earth Times:
We have had, in my own opinion, a dearth of leadership from the United States on these critical issues for the last generation. And that is a major problem. That is a bipartisan problem, by the way. This is not picking on any one administration, or on the White House as opposed to Congress. This is a neglect by the American political class of issues that go beyond our borders. http://www.earthtimes.org/aug/qaprofessorjeffreysachsaug2_02.htm
The Bali prepcom to the WSSD ended with the NGOs' slogan, "What are we going to do about the United States?". The world awaits our answer.
(John Gershman <john@irc-online.org> is a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (online at www.irc-online.org ).)
Copies of official documents
http://www.johannesburgSummit.org/
First in Emission, Behind in Solutions
http://environet.policy.net/warming/emissions.pdf
BLAMING THE VICTIM IN ARGENTINA
By David Felix
As is its wont, the IMF justifies its hard line on Argentina by placing full responsibility for the disaster on government mismanagement and corruption. It insists that Argentina must balance its fiscal budget, claiming that chronic deficits have been at the root of the excessive run-up of hard currency debt that produced the defaults. Indeed, to resume servicing that debt so as to regain access to the global financial markets, primary fiscal surpluses were essential. Without the fiscal turnaround, the IMF argues, additional credits would be throwing good money after bad.
The new IMF prescription of fiscal austerity and no capital controls makes little economic sense for three reasons.
First, it misreads the fiscal trajectory. From 1993 on, Argentina ran a primary surplus every year but 1996, with primary spending--all fiscal expenditure except on interest payments--representing a slightly declining percent of GDP. Rising interest payments that overtook the primary surpluses are what caused overall fiscal deficits to surge after 1996. During most of President Menem's last three years in office, increased borrowing was mainly responsible for the rising interest bill. But the IMF made no overt effort then to discourage the borrowing. Instead, the alacrity with which it came through with new credits during tight spots partly reassured the increasingly nervous financial markets that payments would be protected.
It was during the latter half of the recent de la Rúa/Cavallo era that the IMF became reluctant to lend. The timing coincided with near universal consensus in the financial markets that Cavallo's effort to overcome peso overvaluation with tighter monetary-fiscal measures was tanking the economy to a politically explosive degree. It also coincided with the Bush administration signaling the IMF to cut back because it was convinced that IMF bailouts merely encouraged overborrowing and overlending. Risk premiums on Argentine paper ballooned, making default inevitable.
The tanking and default might have been averted had the IMF supported President de la Rúa's initial intent to loosen fiscal-monetary policy to revive the economy, on the condition that it be accompanied by a peso devaluation and debt workout. Instead the IMF helped deepen the disaster by backing the policy triad long after it had become counterproductive. It bears partial responsibility for the consequences.
Second, elementary macroeconomics tells us that imposing still more fiscal austerity on an already deeply depressed economy, as the IMF persisted in doing to Argentina, can push unemployment and bankruptcies to politically explosive levels. For IMF Executive Director Horst Koehler to throw up his hands at the Argentines' loss of faith in their political system, declaring it to be "the most difficult problem" impeding IMF assistance, is disingenuous. The IMF had pressured the leaders of each of the two major political parties, the Radicals and the Peronists, to replace the recovery programs they had promised the voters with harsher austerity soon after gaining office. The lost faith and political chaos that ensued should hardly surprise.
Third, it insults the intelligence of foreign investors to assume they would plunge back in en masse were further austerity to succeed in squeezing a budget surplus from the deeply depressed and politically demoralized country. Indeed, it may insult the intelligence of the IMF operatives to assume they really believe the economic rationalization they offer for the Fund's harshness toward Argentina. It seems more reasonable to assume that the chief motive has been to punish Argentina, as a warning to others not to default. This may be morally reprehensible and in violation of the IMF's fiduciary responsibility under Article 1 of its charter, the Bretton Woods Articles of Agreement, to assist members in balance of payments distress on economically viable terms. But at least it gives a rational gloss to the harsh treatment.
(David Felix <felix@wueconc.wustl.edu> is professor emeritus at Washington University in St. Louis. Felix is the author of "After the Fall: The Argentine Crisis and Repercussions" an FPIF policy report available online at http://www.fpif.org/papers/argentina2.html .)
NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS
**The Indonesian Tribunal: A Matter of Justice or Political Diversion?
By James Dunn
James Dunn, former UN Expert on Crimes Against Humanity in East Timor, assesses the progress of the contentious human rights tribunal in Indonesia. According to Dunn, "If Indonesia's military command, and Kopassus, with its appalling past record of human rights abuses, is untouched by the Tribunal's findings, it could pose a serious setback to democracy in Indonesia, and to regional security. For this reason we need to keep some form of international tribunal on the agenda, so that this serious case of state terrorism can be properly investigated in order to clear the air."
The UN intervention in East Timor has been one of the world body's most significant achievements. Surely, therefore, we cannot let the matter rest with the unacceptable outcome of the Indonesian tribunal. It is necessary as a matter of justice for those Timorese who have suffered, but it is also important to clear up any doubts about the role of the United Nations in facilitating this self-determination process; the highly commendable role UN agencies have played in bringing justice and peace to East Timor, after 24 years of harsh occupation. The case is even stronger for East Timor, if the new nation is to develop an enduring harmonious relationship with its large neighbor. That relationship needs as its foundation a mutual acceptance of the way events involving both countries have unfolded since 1975.
(James Dunn <jasdunn@bigpond.com> is a Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) contributor on Southeast Asia and served as UNTAET's Expert on Crimes Against Humanity in East Timor, 2000-2001.)
See new FPIF Commentary online at http://www.selfdetermine.org/crisiswatch/0208timor.html
II. Outside the U.S.
(Editor's Note: FPIF's "Outside the U.S." component aims to bring non-U.S. voices into the U.S. policy debate and to foster dialog between Northern and Southern actors in global affairs issues. Please visit our Outside the U.S. page for other non-U.S. perspectives on global affairs and for information about submissions at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html. If you're interested in submitting commentaries for our use, please send your solicitation to John Gershman at <john@irc-online.org>.)
SUSTAINABLE FARMING: FAULTY LESSONS FROM AMERICA
By Devinder Sharma
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs commentary, posted in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0208indiafarm.html .)
There isn't a time when an educated Indian doesn't search for answers from "America--the dream land" for the problems that crop up time and again back home. Whether it is hunger, sustainable agriculture, kick-starting industrial growth, food habits, music, or of course the successful model of economic growth, India must follow the Americans. No wonder, the intelligentsia, the economists, and the scientists are always desperate for opportunities to travel and return with a bag full of answers to our multitude of problems.
The solutions to India's raging drought too--some call it the worst in recent memory--which haunts and ravages 12 States, rest in the way America has managed its crop lands. After all, the United States has put together a drought-mitigation strategy, which has been touted as something that India needs to follow immediately. With hi-tech transformation, American agriculture, we all believe, has become insulated from the vagaries of drought. They apply laser, information technology, and huge machines to crop farmland. They use satellite data, electronics, and now genetic engineering for what is popularly called precision farming.
For Indian agriculture, with its fragmented land holdings, subsistence farming methods, poor productivity, and the exploitation of the natural resource base as a consequence have cast serious doubts on the sustainability and viability of the farms. The only escape for the country, we are invariably told by agricultural scientists, is to follow the American model. Such an approach will provide an impeccable drought proofing. And it is primarily for this reason that corporate agriculture is being pushed as the way out from the crisis that afflicts Indian agriculture.
By a strange coincidence, America too is faced at present with its worst drought since the days of the great "dust bowl" of the 1930s. As many as 26 of the 50 American States are reeling under a severe drought, with "exceptional drought" conditions--the worst level of drought measured--prevailing in thirteen states, including New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. Such is the crop damage that like the drastic reduction expected in rice production this year in India, the U.S. wheat production is anticipated to fall to its lowest levels in nearly 30 years. Therefore there couldn't have been a better time to study America's drought coping mechanisms and suggest its replication in a poor, developing country like India--and for that matter in South Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
It comes as a rude shock. The American agriculture that we all studied and appreciated in the universities has crumbled with one year of severe drought. The drought proofing that we heard so much about the American agriculture appears to be a big farce. It is a known fact that Indian agriculture falters because of its complete dependence on monsoons. But with the kind of industrialization that took place in American agriculture, and with the amount of investments made, we were always told that in the U.S., agriculture is not dependent upon rains. Precision farming is the most efficient farming method that needs to be adopted on a mass scale.
At first impression, news reports appearing in the American media look like those emanating from a drought-stricken village in India's hinterland. Until of course you see the dateline. You continue to read in utter disbelief. About 100 desperate farmers and rural residents praying for rain at the St. Patrick parish church in Grand Rapids, Ohio. With hands clasped and eyes cast downward, they seek divine intervention. "None of us have control over whether it is going to rain or not," said Sister Christine Pratt, rural life director for the Catholic Diocese of nearby Toledo told Reuters, the wire agency. "But the people are praying for one another and there is some hope."
Another report in the Washington Post states President George Bush was unwilling to extend any more finances under drought relief than the support that can come from $180 billion farm bill he signed in May. The president, however, underscored his commitment to helping farmers under current programs, including the Agriculture Department's decision that provides $150 million in surplus milk--"spoiled milk," as Democrats called it--to be made available for use in animal feed in four drought-stricken states, including South Dakota.
Cattle are dying and crops are shriveling. Fodder has become scarce, and therefore the need to feed surplus "milk" instead. There is a scramble for new water sources as town and city residents are urged to stop watering lawns and washing cars. In heat-baked fields ranchers have sold off herds rather than let them starve for lack of pasture. "I have never seen it like this and I'm 60 years old," said Richard Traylor, who owns 37,000 acres in Texas and New Mexico but has sold off much of his cattle herd.
It is time India realizes that it has to develop its own low-cost farming strategies, suited to the needs of the country. It is time Indian agricultural scientists looked inwards for building up a farming system that meets the nation's requirements and also addresses problems of sustainability. It is time the developing countries realized the mistake of replicating a faulty agricultural system with one that will further exacerbate the economic crisis considering the massive investments required. Blindly aping the industrial farming system would only push developing countries into a hitherto unforeseen crisis, much more severe than the recurring drought.
(Devinder Sharma <dsharma@ndf.vsnl.net.in> is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst.)
III. Letters and Comments
Re: Trading Liberty for Security After September 11
I agree with Mr. David Cole only on the issue of how the ID cards will affect the citizen. I think he is being rather dramatic when he writes that the government will have total control of our every step. The Constitutional rights he speaks of should be the rights given to a citizen and we should close our borders to all immigration until terrorist threats are under control. (This is coming from a second generation American.) No more work visas or alien immigration for any reason. Mr. Cole is saying that we are being unfair to the prisoners on Guantanamo, what about our journalist who had his throat brutally slashed? Has Mr. Cole ever served in the military? They (on Guantanamo) have it easy, we have always treated our prisoners with a gentle hand. You are giving a lot of reasons for not doing what has been already established, can you come up with some concrete workable solutions that would be agreed upon not only with the President but Congress too?
[Editor's Note: See FPIF's New Agenda to Counter Terrorism .]
- Mary Trauger <traugerm@aol.com>
Re: U.S Foreign Policy. Attention, Right Face, Forward March
Thank you for organizing a clear explanation of Bush's foreign policy. Deep down, I knew that there was something sinister about Bush's policy, but it was difficult to pinpoint. The overall view you so eloquently stated, should jolt the people of America into viewing Bush foreign policy in a whole new light. Being a child during the Second World War, I remember clearly that Hitler's intent and purpose for his invasion of other countries, was to take control of the world. As we now know, this idea was the downfall of Hitler and Germany. Judging from the facts of your article I believe that all Americans can safely assume that Bush and his administration are leading United States right into the same fate as Hitler's Germany. Examples: Homeland Security, the complete trashing of our constitutional rights, spying on your neighbor, government spying on the American people, and the fact that anyone who dares exercise his right to speak out will be classified as unpatriotic.
- Jean Masters <JMas949007@aol.com>
Re: Seven Reasons to Oppose a U.S. Invasion of Iraq
I am opposed to sending our men and women into any war without good reason. But if we don't go into Iraq and Hussein is allowed to continue to thumb his nose at all of the world, he is sure to eventually have horrific weapons at his fingertips. Should we wait until he uses them and kills thousands of people? Won't President Bush/America be blamed if that happens?
- John Bates <foodadr@yahoo.com>
While I sympathize with the suffering of the Zimbabwean and African people in general--being one myself--I find it hard to agree with my sister Susan Colquhon [see "Arab Takeover of Africa" online at http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n26.html ] in several respects. Reams have been written on the Zimbabwe land saga, the forced evictions, and killings so I will not belabor the point. However, I would like to argue that the Libyans or Arabs or even Muslims are easy to target as part of the problem in order to extend the axis of evil to unpalatable regimes in Africa and then engineer regime change. I think that is stretching the Bush administration's preemption policy too far. Secondly I beg to differ with the assertion that it would be easy for the Arabic world to take over the entire African continent without having to cause so much as a ripple. Does that mean that Africans--especially the hardworking African women in the villages, the backbone that has kept the continent going in good times and in bad--are so complacent as to let hordes of Arabs swoop down from the burning sands of the Sahara, turbans flowing and then meekly hand over the continent, the cradle of humanity that now despises us, as the murderous squadrons position themselves to attack and butcher the rest of the free world? Were we not attacked and humiliated? And did we not fight back and are we not still in that struggle for global justice, forgiving old enemies, even if we've been kicked in the teeth many a time?
Are Africans so daft as to have no agenda of their own, no political mind, no exposure to the harsh global realities? I think not. On the contrary, I feel that ignoring centuries of discrimination and exploitation meted out to Africans to the extent that we are invisible does not delete our issues from the international radar screen. Ignoring the role of Africa's people in history and its direct link to the current difficulties, while focusing solely on leaders who half the time give more space to the World Bank and the strangely named aid agencies is to get the wrong end of the proverbial stick. The other day Malawi, listening to the infallible IMF/World Bank duo, hit a sticky wicket after the strategic grain reserve was sold off to the private sector in the face of a looming famine. A vaccination program was once in the balance in Uganda after it was felt that funding in that area would have a bearing on the exchange value of the Uganda shilling to the dollar! Now, must problems in Africa, a good portion of which are caused by questionable Western-imposed policies only be solved militarily by the United States unilaterally sending in the marines to do a Noriega on Mugabe. And is Mugabe the only tyrant in Africa?
I am afraid the perception that the African is totally incapable, prone to violence, and given to irrationality, is informed by apartheid. Discredited as it may be now in "polite society," the architecture that buttressed it is still as solid if not reinforced by the current neoliberal wave and its penchant for reducing the citizens of the Third World into two categories: statistics and terrorists.
- Fatoumata Toure <lolwe2212@yahoo.com> Pan African Movement
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 https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.
We Count on Your Support. Thank you.
Subscribe to The Progressive Response!
To subscribe to The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
To unsubscribe from The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
lists-unsubscribe@irc-online.orgSimply click the appropriate hyperlink above, or send a blank email to the appropriate email address above.
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 Interhemispheric Resource 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.
IRC
Tom Barry
Editor, Progressive Response
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: tom@irc-online.org
IPS
Martha Honey
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: ipsps@igc.org
This page
was last modified on
Monday, September 16, 2002 10:35 AM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001
IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.