The Progressive Response
Volume 6, Number 33
October 25, 2002
The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) as part of its Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without Walls," 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." FPIF is joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. 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 www.fpif.org, or email <feedback@fpif.org> to share your thoughts with us.
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. 10 | CLEARING THE AIR
By John Gershman
RESPONDING TO NORTH KOREA'S SURPRISES
By John Feffer
NAFTA: A CAUTIONARY TALE
By Timothy Wise and Kevin Gallagher
NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS
II. Letters and Comments
FROM BAD TO WORSE IN VENEZUELA
I. Updates and Out-Takes
FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 10 | CLEARING THE AIR
(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 multilateralism framework for managing global affairs. It is part of the new Project Against the Present Danger. These columns are now indexed on the www.presentdanger.org site at: http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/index.html.)
By John Gershman
From October 23rd until November 1st, governments will be meeting in New Delhi, India, for the 8th Conference of the Parties to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP8). The purpose of this round of UN climate talks is to continue developing international rules under which the UN Convention and the Kyoto Protocol can be implemented. The Kyoto treaty is the only international treaty aimed at reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, but it has not yet become international law. The Bush administration pulled out of Kyoto in early 2001.
Thus far 96 countries have ratified Kyoto, but the Protocol requires 55 countries plus countries representing 55% of industrialized country emissions ratify the treaty before it can enter into force. Without the U.S., Kyoto will not be ratified unless Russia joins. During the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov stated that Russia intends to ratify "in the very near future," which now appears to be sometime in the first half of 2003. Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien also announced his intention to put the Kyoto Protocol before parliament for ratification, leaving Australia as the only industrialized country aside from the U.S. that has stated that it will not ratify. The EU and Japan have already ratified the treaty, along with most Central and Eastern European countries and many developing countries, including Brazil, China, and India.
Domestic pressure on the Bush administration has been unable to break the lock of fossil fuel industry and other opponents of policies aimed at addressing human-induced climate change. For the first time in six years, this year's annual federal report on air pollution trends had no section on global warming, a step taken by top officials at the Environmental Protection Agency with White House approval. Advocates for policies to address climate change have targeted state and local authorities--with increasing but uneven success--to adopt climate policies. Globally, however, the Bush administration continues to undermine multilateral action. For example, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, a U.S.-OPEC coalition forced the abandonment of a proposed global renewable energy target.
U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson has alienated many at the New Delhi meeting by arguing that the U.S. will never accept mandatory emissions reductions, "Not today, not tomorrow, never in the first commitment period." (The latter refers to the 2008-2012 period, during which countries have to stay within their assigned amounts of emissions. Under the Protocol, the overall emissions from industrialized countries should be reduced by 5.2% below 1990 levels. Negotiations on reduction commitments for subsequent periods are supposed to start no later than 2005.) Watson has also said that the U.S. will not be attending the next negotiations on emissions reductions, scheduled to begin in 2005. With Watson apparently finding no difficulty in speaking in the name of subsequent administrations, it seems that the arrogance of the Bush administration has reached new levels.
The Bush administration's effort to derail multilateral progress on climate issues is even more scandalous in the face of recent successes in some developing countries at reducing emissions growth. A study from the Pew Center for Climate Change (www.pewclimate.org/projects/dev_mitigation.cfm) details how six developing countries (Brazil, China, India, Turkey, South Africa, and Mexico) have already reduced the growth of their combined greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 300 million tons a year. Furthermore, other industrialized countries are expressing firm leadership. According to an Environmental Data Services report on the coalition agreement between the German Social Democratic and the German Green Party, "Germany will push for the EU to go beyond its current Kyoto protocol commitment to cut greenhouse gases to agree to a target reduction of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020. In this context, Germany should reduce its own emissions by 40%, the parties have agreed."
In the face of science, common sense, and morality, the Bush administration remains committed to pursuing a policy that enriches a few and undermines the future for many, both at home an abroad.
(John Gershman <john@irc-online.org> is a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (online at www.irc-online.org) and the Asia/Pacific editor for Foreign Policy in Focus.)
For more see:
Equity Watch, published by the Center for Science and the Environment (India)
http://www.cseindia.org/html/cmp/climate/ew/index.htm
ECO Equity (published by a coalition of environmental NGOs)
http://www.climatenetwork.org/
Ecoequity
http://www.ecoequity.org/
RESPONDING TO NORTH KOREA'S SURPRISES
By John Feffer
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210nk.html .)
For a supposedly changeless, monolithic state, North Korea shakes up the staid world of diplomacy with surprising frequency. In the past four months, Pyongyang has initiated dramatic economic changes, stunned Japan with its confession of abductions, appointed a Chinese-born tycoon to oversee its newest free-trade zone, and sent its first-ever boatload of athletes, musicians, and cheerleaders to South Korea to participate in the 2002 Asian games. In the latest stunner, North Korea revealed in early October to a visiting U.S. delegation that it has violated international agreements with a secret uranium enrichment program.
Pyongyang has long recognized that nuclear weapons are one of the few deterrents that United States takes seriously when contemplating regime change. "We won't be next," they are telling a U.S. government bent on replacing Saddam Hussein. At the same time, to improve relations with the larger world, North Korea has to reveal the extent of its nuclear program. A diplomatic solution requires international inspections and a suspension of North Korea's nuclear program.
The first step, then, must be a renegotiation of the Agreed Framework. This agreement has been, as analyst Peter Hayes notes, more a means "to conduct diplomacy and to push forward on issues of concern to both sides" than a specific deal on building two nuclear power plants in North Korea. North Korea expected the agreement to lead to normalization of relations; the U.S. architects of the agreement expected North Korea to collapse before the plants were built. An agreement built on such contrary expectations cannot last long. The current crisis represents an opportunity to build a better agreement that would provide greater security guarantees for the United States and its allies and a more sustainable energy future for North Korea.
Second, the United States must provide assurance that it will not launch a preemptive attack on Pyongyang. A government under constant threat of attack will seek out all deterrents within reach. As part of a package deal, security guarantees such as suspension of exercises or troop reductions should accompany verbal promises.
Finally, and most fundamentally, the United States must develop a more nuanced understanding of what is happening on the ground in North Korea. The Bush administration portrays North Korea as a totalitarian society frozen in time and adamantine in philosophy. To the extent that an impoverished country can do so in a globalized age, North Korea has insisted on determining its own pace of change. To borrow from the language of science, North Korea is engaged in a form of punctuated evolution--not a smooth transition from Confucian communism to market socialism but a process characterized by sudden bursts of diplomatic and economic activity. The past four months have been just such a burst.
Granted, a changeless, evil society figures prominently in the very structure of U.S. security doctrine, and it might be naïve to expect the Bush administration to understand North Korea's punctuated evolution. To do so, however, is not simply of academic importance. There are important benefits to engagement that so far the Bush administration has ignored.
The benefits can't be expressed in trade figures. Although North Korea has key natural resources--gold, magnesite, even newly discovered off-shore oil--it remains a poor investment. The country, however, plays a pivotal role in the region. With North Korea more resolutely embarked on market reforms, East Asia will be able to form a free trade area, Europe and Asia will be able to connect by railroad and greatly expand trade, and the natural resources of the Russian Far East will be more easily tapped for Asian development. Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan all recognize this potential. Only the United States, because of Bush's almost pathological distaste for diplomacy, remains on the outside of what promises to be one of the more remarkable economic shifts in the coming decade.
For any of the grander economic schemes involving North Korea to materialize, a large infusion of capital into the country is required. The only likely sources for such capital are the international financial institutions. The International Monetary Fund has extended an invitation for North Korea to participate in its 2003 meeting in Dubai and has offered technical assistance even before membership. Market reforms and engagement with international financial institutions are a two-edged sword. This kind of engagement brings North Korea into the world, and thus reduces the risk of war, particularly with the United States. But it also creates debt dependency and accentuates what are already strong class divisions within North Korea.
Before North Korea confronts these difficult choices, however, the essential confrontation between the Bush administration's preference for regime change and North Korea's preference for nuclear deterrence must be resolved. These two destabilizing strategies have developed a toxic co-dependency on the Korean peninsula, and the United States and North Korea must agree quickly and equitably on a new framework to detoxify their relations.
(John Feffer <johnfeffer@aol.com> is a member of the FPIF advisory board and editor of the forthcoming book Power Trip: U.S. Foreign Policy after 9/11 (Seven Stories).)
NAFTA: A CAUTIONARY TALE
By Timothy Wise and Kevin Gallagher
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/americas/commentary/2002/0210nafta.html . This commentary comes to FPIF courtesy of the Americas Program at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org). For more commentary and analysis on inter-American affairs, visit the IRC's Americas Program at www.americaspolicy.org or FPIF's own Americas section at http://www.fpif.org/indices/regions/latin.html .)
At the end of this month, trade ministers from throughout the Western Hemisphere will gather in Quito, Ecuador for negotiations on the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Many FTAA proponents, including the Bush administration, herald the FTAA as a NAFTA for the Americas. Indeed, early drafts suggest that the proposed treaty is modeled closely on NAFTA, which took effect in 1994. Less clear is why the Bush administration believes NAFTA's spotty track record will help sell the FTAA to wary Latin American governments.
Trade Without Development
It is widely accepted that the goal of economic integration should be to raise living standards. According to our review of the public record, NAFTA has yet to fulfill that promise.
Official figures from both the World Bank and the Mexican government show that trade liberalization has succeeded in stimulating both trade and investment, and it has brought inflation under control. Mexico's exports have grown at a rapid annual rate of 10.6% in real terms since 1985, and foreign direct investment (FDI) has nearly tripled, posting a real 21% annual growth rate. Inflation has significantly been tamed.
Unfortunately, this growth has not translated into benefits for the Mexican population as a whole. The same official sources show that:
- Economic growth has been slow in Mexico--less than one percent per capita per year from 1985-99--compared with 3.4% from 1960-80.
- The increase in exports has been far outstripped by rising imports, leaving Mexico with a serious balance of payments deficit.
- There has been little job creation, falling far short of the demand in Mexico from new entrants into the labor force. The manufacturing sector, one of the few sectors to show significant economic growth, has seen a net loss in jobs since NAFTA took effect.
- Wages have declined nationally, with real wages down significantly. The real minimum wage is down 60% since 1982, 23% under NAFTA. Contractual wages are down 55% since 1987. Manufacturing wages are down 12% under NAFTA.
- Sixty percent of the employed do not receive any of the benefits mandated by Mexican law. One-third of the economically active population is in the informal sector.
- The number of households living in poverty has grown 80% since 1984, with some 75% of Mexico's people now below the poverty line.
- Inequality has worsened, with Mexico's Gini coefficient--the standard international measure of inequality--rising from .43 to .48 since 1984, putting Mexico among the most unequal nations in the hemisphere.
- The rural sector is in crisis, beset by grain imports from the U.S., falling commodity prices, and reduced government support. Four-fifths of rural Mexico lives in poverty, and over half are in extreme poverty.
These figures make clear that economic integration in Mexico has come at the expense of development. Our own empirical research on the social and environmental impacts of integration contributes to this gloomy report card.
Environment: Accelerated Degradation
Our research runs contrary to the pre-NAFTA predictions that economic integration with Mexico would eventually lead to an upward harmonization of environmental standards and performance. Between 1985 and 1999, rural soil erosion in Mexico grew by 89%, municipal solid waste by 108%, and air pollution by 97%. The Mexican government estimates that the economic costs of environmental degradation have amounted to 10% of annual GDP, or $36 billion per year. These costs dwarf economic growth, which amounted to only 2.6% on an annual basis.
The surge in foreign direct investment (FDI) has largely failed to bring cleaner technologies to Mexican industry. Although the Mexican cement and steel sectors are now cleaner as a result of overseas investment, they are the exception not the rule. Industrial pollution as a whole has nearly doubled since 1988. Unless economic integration is coupled with strong environmental regulations and enforcement, pollution will only continue to worsen. Since NAFTA took effect, however, real spending on the environment has declined 45%, and plant-level environmental inspections have shown a similar drop.
NAFTA: No Blueprint for the Americas
The conventional wisdom on economic integration is changing. In response to the hard facts, a wide range of Latin American governments, prominent economists, and civil society organizations are questioning the U.S. approach to economic integration. A vibrant debate among these actors will be occurring both inside and parallel to the official meetings in Quito. These critics do not deny that trade and investment are essential tools for development--the question is what kind of trade and investment, by what rules, and to what end. NAFTA's track record in Mexico certainly does not bode well for Latin American and Caribbean nations desperate for change after over a decade of slow growth and worsening poverty.
(Kevin Gallagher and Timothy Wise are researchers at the Global Development and Environment Institute of Tufts University and frequent contributors to the IRC's Americas Program.)
The Cuban Missile Crisis versus the Crisis with Iraq
By Susan B. Martin
Mr. Bush would have us believe that the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis support a preemptive war against Iraq. Mr. Bush is wrong, and his misreading of the Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates what is wrong with the current administration's policy toward Iraq.
Mr. Bush, The Answer Is In Your Hands
By Don Kraus
On September 12th, President Bush asked, "will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
U.S.-Iraq: On the War Path
By Stephen Zunes
New FPIF policy brief on U.S.-Iraq relations, with prescriptions for a more effective policy.
Also see, FPIF's special focus pages:
NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS
Indonesia: An Archipelago of Self-Determination and Communal Conflicts
By John Gershman (October 2002)
There are two major types of violent conflicts in Indonesia: Self determination conflicts and Communal conflicts.
II. Letters and Comments
Re: United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
Americans need to know all the facts before they give their seal of approval to President Bush, to embark on a war against Iraq; under no circumstances should Americans allow the U.S. government to initiate a war under false premises. We have heard President Bush in repeated statements declaring that we must wage a war against Iraq and achieve regime change, a new aphorism for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, because his government has been the leading culprit among nations who are in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions; it is choking and appalling that the overwhelming majority of the media in this country has allowed these misleading statements made by the President to have gone unchallenged. I thank you for setting the record straight, in addition, perhaps Americans should be informed about the current prices of extracting a barrel of oil in various parts of the world, In Saudi Arabia it costs 2 dollars, in Russia 8 dollars, and in Iraq 0.70 cents. Perhaps oil has more to do with President Bush's decision to occupy Iraq than the violations of UN Security Council Resolutions. President Bush should be reminded that the application of international law needs to be even-handed; double standards will only help fuel the resentment felt toward America throughout the Islamic world and in other parts of the world. Thank you for setting the record straight.
- Bianca Jagger
A time has come when stupid articles from leaders on our college campuses constitute betrayal. Professor Hallinan, you would do well to remain silent as your ignorance is readily apparent. Does it take a college Provost to reach the astounding conclusion that wars kill people? Wars are designed that way: that is what is supposed to happen. You write "... and the Pentagon Projects Gulf War II will kill another 10,000 (Iraqis) ..." I think the Iraqis will be extremely lucky if the number is, indeed, that small. The Iraqis have the option of doing away with Saddam Hussein and sparing themselves any loss of life, other than Saddam's. Iraqis have had this option for 23 years, so it seems they do need motivating. I, for one American citizen, am proud " ... all of this will be carried out in our name ... " because I am an American who is in strong support of our President and our country's name and its War on Terrorism. Too bad our educators deign to be different.
- T. D. Ponder <tdponder@juno.com>
FROM BAD TO WORSE IN VENEZUELA
Re: Venezuela--Not a Banana Oil Republic After All
I would like to know what Mr. Wilpert thinks about Chavez six months after publishing this article. The president has radicalized his speech, has become bolder with his threats and insults toward his political opponents and the economic and political situation is more difficult than it was on April. Even Peru's President Alejandro Toledo has called yesterday for the Andean Pact countries to provide help for Venezuela and nobody knows better than Toledo what it is to fight against a "democratic dictatorship." Even though he was democratically elected, Chavez has concentrated all the power in his hands and has shown no intention whatsoever to dismantle his violent bolivarian circles or get involved in a consensus dialogue with the opposition. I am one of the thousands of women who have opposed this regime since the beginning and even if I were to recognize that I am also one of the thousands who felt betrayed by Carmona in April, that doesn't mean that my perspective about President Chavez has changed; rather, it has become worse.
- Maria del Carmen Abreu <macabreu@hotmail.com>
Stay Connected to the World
OneWorld U.S.--Global Daily Headlines brings you the most engaging and relevant articles on the environment, development, human rights, U.S. foreign policy and globalization, direct from over 1,250 organizations working in the field across the globe.
http://www.benton.org/OneWorldUS/dailyheadlines.htm
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.
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
Friday, October 25, 2002 4:55 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001
IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.