aut-op-sy
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

AUT: [Ciepac-i] English Chiapas al Dia 297 I

<html>
<div align="center"><font size=3><b>^ÓChiapas Today^Ô Bulletin No.
297<br>
CIEPAC; CHIAPAS, MÉXICO<br>
July 17, 2002<br><br>
</font>The Debate about ^ÓFair^Ô Trade:<br>
Tactics and Strategies of the Movement against Corporate-led
Globalization<br><br>
</b></div>
Globalization continues its swift, relentless onward march.&nbsp; Recent
events regarding globalization have led activists and organizations from
citizens^Ò movement on the global economy to restate their
positions.<br><br>
In keeping with the strategy to create one market within the American
hemisphere under the tutelage of the United States (known as the FTAAFree
Trade Area of the Americas), in January, 2002 president George W. Bush
declared before the Organization of American States his intention of
taking a further step in his ^Ómarch towards the south^Ô by negotiating a
free trade agreement with the Central American countries (known as
CAFTACentral American Free Trade Agreement).&nbsp; In Central America
this announcement led to intense debate among civil society organizations
(CSOs) regarding what stance to take regarding the upcoming negotiations
with the US.&nbsp; Some opinions could not be reconciled and the debate
concluded in the break up of several CSOs.<br><br>
During June 27-28, 2002 in Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico, the presidents of
Mesoamerica (Mexico and Central America) met to breathe new life into the
Plan Puebla Panama (PPP).&nbsp; A letter sent to the presidents in
Mérida, signed by ^Órepresentatives of the indigenous peoples^Ô of seven
Central American countries declared ^Óour firm will to cooperate^Ô with an
integral PPP strategy, as long as it respects the rights of indigenous
peoples.&nbsp; The indigenous leaders from Central America called for the
creation of ^Ótechnical, economic, and political conditions that will make
it possible to include an indigenous program within the PPP^Ô, and they
demanded that an Indigenous Commissioner be able to ^Óparticipate with all
rights in the diverse bodies of the Plan Puebla Panama^Ô.<br><br>
This letter was discussed in Mexico, particularly in the recent National
Encounter on the PPP in Xalapa, Veracruz (June 28-29).&nbsp; The final
declaration from Xalapa diplomatically toned down the resentment that the
document generated during the plenary by avoiding direct reference and
simply denouncing ^Óthe campaign of co-optation and divisions that the
Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank are carrying out to
buy off producer organizations and NGOs with credits, in order to
legitimize the imposition of megaprojects and the PPP^Ô.<br><br>
In the area of international aid, the Oxfam family of agencies published
an in-depth study in April called ^ÓRigged Rules and Double Standards:
Trade, Globalisation, and the Fight against Poverty^Ô.&nbsp; The study
also provoked intense debate, particularly among ^Óreformists^Ô (who see
possibilities of ^Órescuing^Ô the multilateral organizations that control
international trade), and the ^Óabolitionists^Ô (who state that the
disappearance of such organizations would be an enormous benefit to
humanity). (1)<br><br>
These examples of recent debates have to do with the world economic order
being built under the guidance of the United States government, the
^Ótriumvirate^Ô of the WB-IMF-WTO (World Bank, International Monetary Fund,
World Trade Organization), and, to a lesser degree, the governments of
other wealthy nations, particularly the European Union and
Canada.<br><br>
One way to understand the debate is through the lens of international
trade.&nbsp; The role of trade in poor countries is especially
polemical.&nbsp; What role does international trade play in the
generation of wealth, who wins, who loses, and who makes the
decisions?<br><br>
One of the viewpoints, widely known and which we shall not delve into
here, is the ^Ótriumvirate^Òs^Ô unflinching belief that trade benefits
^Óeveryone^Ô, rich and poor.<br><br>
Another position, diametrically opposed, comes from observing the real
world, where ^Ófree^Ô trade in poor countries has contributed to deepening
injustices and poverty.&nbsp; Neoliberalism, on which ^Ófree^Ô trade rests,
has failed as an economic model.<br><br>
In the group opposing the prevailing economic order there is a ^Óquilt of
many textures^Ô (2).&nbsp; One analyst, Tom Barry, distinguishes the
following categories: localists, anarchists, socialists, social
democrats, protectionists, critics of corporate rule, developmentalists,
social clause advocates, democracy advocates, and ^Ódeep
ecologists^Ô.&nbsp; Barry comments that many groups coincide in important
ways on objectives and thus ^Óoverlap^Ô, and members in some groups include
both reformists and abolitionists. (2)<br><br>
The recent study by the Oxfam consortium ^ÓRigged Rules and Double
Standards^Ô has provoked intense debate.&nbsp; The study is unabashedly
reformist, causing irritation among some sectors.&nbsp; The study^Òs basic
premise, that trade, ^Óunder certain conditions^Ô can help millions of
people escape from poverty, is anathema to the more radical
sectors.&nbsp; The key to understanding Oxfam^Òs affirmation is obviously
in the ^Óconditions^Ô that would need to exist for international trade to
^Ówork^Ô for the poor.<br><br>
It^Òs worthwhile to examine for a moment what the study says, because by
so doing we will better understand the discussion within the movement in
opposition to the neoliberal model.<br><br>
^ÓRigged Rules^Ô is an in-depth study of trade as it exists today among
nations, with its crude reality of injustices that are created and
imposed by the wealthy nations and multinational corporations, through
the WB, IMF and the WTO, organizations which the wealthy nations
themselves created.&nbsp; It is a detailed diagnostic of how trade and
markets work, where the greatest injustices exists, and how they are
created and perpetuated.&nbsp; It also examines how injustice can be
eliminated, or at least reduced.<br><br>
The study is undoubtedly polemical.&nbsp; It has been attacked from both
left and right.&nbsp; But it is not an apology for free trade,
globalization, neoliberalism, nor obviously unbridled capitalism.&nbsp;
It does advocate the integration of trade policies within a strategy that
benefits human development.&nbsp; The study^Òs call is simple:
international trade can benefit the world^Òs poor.&nbsp; But justice must
reign.&nbsp; If within countries there is economic, political and social
injustice, then the rich will reap the benefits of trade, and the poor
will be even worse off.&nbsp; If there is no justice, foreign trade will
only deepen existing injustices.<br><br>
Oxfam also identifies those who create the absurd and unjust rules of the
international economic game.&nbsp; The culprits are the large
multinational corporations, the wealthy countries (particularly the
United States and the European Union), and the agents of the latter that
create and implement the rules, i.e., the triumvirate of the
WB-IMF-WTO.<br><br>
The injustices in world trade border on the cynical.&nbsp; While wealthy
countries demand that poor countries open their borders to let in
products, capital and companies from the North, poor countries face
enormous barriers when they attempt to export to the rich ones.&nbsp; In
fact a poor country faces on average four times as many trade barriers on
its exports to wealthy countries than vice-versa.<br><br>
One of the more surprising conclusions of the study is that the European
Union is even more unjust than the United States in letting in products
from poor countries.&nbsp; But both commit another great injustice by
granting multimillion dollar subsidies to large food producers, while at
the same time bringing relentless pressure on the poor countries to
dismantle all subsidies to their peasants.&nbsp; The result...we in
Mexico have been affected.&nbsp; United States and Canada are dumping
subsidized corn in our country (in other words, selling it below real
production costs), while our peasants face increasing misery and hunger
in the countryside, due to the fact that they cannot cover their
production costs as prices bottom out.&nbsp; To make matters worse, US
corn is genetically modified.<br><br>
Summing up, the present rules of international trade are incredibly
abusive and immoral, and together with the structural iniquity within
most countries, are producing greater misery.&nbsp; Oxfam advocates
far-reaching reform, not only in international trade rules but also
structural reform within poor countries.<br><br>
What type of reforms?&nbsp; Nothing less than an agrarian reform (land
distribution), distributive policies, social policies to shore up
education, health, sanitation and housing, and other ^Ópro-poor^Ô measures
that would strengthen their participation in the economy and allow their
participation in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the
country.<br><br>
The study responds to a call made from academic circles, also reformist,
to build a ^Ómore intellectually consistent agenda.&nbsp; It must have an
internationalist game plan characterized not by backlash rhetoric and
populist strategies but rather by its analytical depth and political
maturityand it clear commitment to the principles of multilateralism.^Ô
(2)<br><br>
But due precisely to its commitment to multilateralism, in other words,
it explicit call for a profound reformation of the WB-IMF-WTO
triumvirate, the study will not be accepted by the more radical voices of
the movement, who, in their more strident expressions, accuse Oxfam of
undermining ^Óthe very social movements in the developing world that Oxfam
claims to support^Ô (Anuradha Mittal of Food First)<br><br>
There are other weaknesses.&nbsp; It caricature and reductionist portrait
of the economic justice movement as a bunch of ^Óglobaphobes^Ô is
regrettable.&nbsp; And a topic of tremendous importance which was left
out is migration.&nbsp; The study points to the ^Óstriking^Ô disparity
between the development of extremely mobile world financial markets and
the immobile labor markets.&nbsp; Yet it makes no call, nor does it
propose any measure to eliminate this ^Óstriking^Ô situation, nor does the
study ask about the right of workers to not migrate and to be able to
work with dignity in their country of origin.&nbsp; <br><br>
Certainly in the face of a devastating diagnosis of so much structural
injustice, Oxfam^Òs call to reform multilateral organizations and existing
power relationships would seem to be tepid. <br><br>
A possible interpretation of the reasons behind the reformist stance in
the study might have to do with tactics.&nbsp; By not making trade itself
the culprit of prevailing injustice, Oxfam reckons that it can take its
arguments to the heart of three audiences.&nbsp; One of them is the ^Óhard
line^Ô of the WB-IMF-WTO.&nbsp; Another is the political actors of the
European Union and the US, and other developed countries and, finally,
also the general public of the countries of the North.&nbsp; This latter
audience is a potential ally of tremendous importance that must be
educated.<br><br>
How then to touch the hearts and minds of this audience?&nbsp; The Oxfam
report bets on its approach based on ethical values: the present rules
are unjust and millions are suffering poverty because of them.&nbsp; As
the Oxfam report^Òs principal author says, ^ÓI believe that if most
Europeans knew what their governments were negotiating in their names,
they would be outraged, and I think this is also true of most
Americans.^Ô<br><br>
But the report^Òs interesting tactics don^Òt solve its strategic
weaknesses.<br><br>
The study^Òs lack of clear strategy is what noted abolitionist Waldon
Bello most questions.<br><br>
^ÓIt is likely that at the heart of our debate with Oxfam are [...]
divergent postures on strategic issues like what priorities the movement
should have at this point and how it should go about achieving
them.&nbsp; Strategy must respond to the needs of the moment in the
struggle against corporate-driven globalization.&nbsp; This can only be
derived by identifying the strategic objective, accurately assessing the
global context or conjuncture, and elaborating an effective strategy and
tactical repertoire that responds to the particularities of the
conjuncture.^Ô<br><br>
For Bello, the strategic objective centers on halting and reversing trade
liberalization and in trade-related areas being promoted by the
WTO.&nbsp; This objective must be the priority, Bello says, at the WTO^Òs
Fifth Ministerial Meeting to be held in September 2003 in Cancún,
Mexico.<br><br>
For Bello the movement^Òs efforts cannot be centered on ^Óuseless^Ô reforms,
but in deepening the crisis of legitimacy of the system.&nbsp; Bello goes
even further: the multinational corporation must be eliminated, not
transformed, not reformed, not regulated.&nbsp; Recent examples (Enron,
WorldCom, Disney, Arthur Andersen, etc.) of the prevailing putrefaction
within the multinational corporations are not exceptions, Bello says, but
the standard of corporate behavior.<br><br>
For Bello the multinational corporation has become obsolete:<br><br>
^ÓIt is the corporation that serves as a fetter to humanity^Òs movement to
new and necessary social arrangements to achieve the most
quintessentially human values of justice, equity, democracy, and to
achieve a new equilibrium between our species and the rest of the
planet.&nbsp; Disabling, disempowering, or dismantling the transnational
corporation should be high on our agenda as a strategic end^Ô.<br><br>
What Bello does not clarify, at least in his debate with Oxfam, is how
this strategic objective will be achieved in Cancún.&nbsp; Undoubtedly,
at least some of the tactics behind Bello^Òs strategy will rest on a
worldwide information campaign regarding the injustices of present-day
structures and institutions.&nbsp; And without a doubt the Oxfam report
will be used as an input in the world information campaign, thanks to its
profuse documentation on how the present system works.<br><br>
These musings on strategy are also valid when we contemplate the upcoming
negotiations on ^Ófree^Ô trade with the United States, as the US pushes
forward its FTAA agenda.&nbsp; Several advocacy and lobbying groups in
Central America have placed their bets on achieving ^Ójust and
sustainable^Ô trade accords with the United States.&nbsp; There is talk of
negotiating ^Óparallel accords^Ô on labor, environmental, migratory and
human-rights matters.&nbsp; Likewise some sources have commented on the
possibility of bringing pressure to bear in order to remove the
agricultural sector from the trade agreements, given the disparities
between agriculture in the US and Latin America.<br><br>
In light of the above, it would seem reasonable to ask about a long-range
strategic vision.&nbsp; Certainly a campaign of incidence as such would
seem to be disconnected from longer-range objectives, and de-linked from
the more pressing demands from social organizations.&nbsp; It runs the
risk of heading into a blind alley, if lobbying efforts don^Òt bear fruit
at the negotiating table.&nbsp; And by involving civil society in the
campaign, another risk of this approach is that it could legitimize not
only the negotiations but also trade relationships, that are subordinate
to a totally iniquitous and immoral regulatory framework, designed by
governments of the North, the multinational corporations and by the
WB-IMF-WTO triumvirate, and which, under no circumstance, will be on the
FTAA negotiating table.<br><br>
The debate will doubtlessly continue this week in Managua, Nicaragua,
when civil society meets at the III Mesoamerican Forum on the Plan Puebla
Panama.<br><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">(1)<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab></font>The
study ^ÓRigged Rules and Double Standards^Ô in several languages, as well
as the debate it has generated, can be found at
<a href="http://www.maketradefair.com/"; eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>www.maketradefair.com</a></u></font>.<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>(2)<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab></font>Taken
from ^ÓGlobal Economic Governance: Strategic Crossroads^Ô, by Tom Barry,
Foreign Policy in Focus, Discussion Paper, September 2001,
<a href="http://www.fpif.org/"; eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>www.fpif.org<br><br>
</a></u></font>Other sources:<br><br>
<font face="Symbol">·<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab></font>Some
criticism of the Oxfam study can also be consulted at
<a href="http://www.foodfirst.org/"; eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>www.foodfirst.org<br>
</a></u></font><font face="Symbol">·<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab></font>Walden
Bello^Òs opinions can be found at
<a href="http://www.focusweb.org/"; eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>www.focusweb.org<br>
</a></u></font>For an interesting classification of some of the principal
tendencies of the debate here reviewed, from the left to the far right,
and the futility of making alliances outside the left, see the article by
Patrick Bond, ^ÓStrategy and Self-activity in the Global Justice
Movement^Ô, in Foreign Policy in Focus, September, 2001,
<a href="http://www.fpif.org/"; eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>www.fpif.org<br><br>
</a></u></font>Translated by Miguel Pickard for CIEPAC, A.C.<br><br>
<div align="center"><b>Miguel Pickard<br><br>
<font face="Verdana">&nbsp;The Center for Economic and Political
Investigations of Community Action,&nbsp; A.C. CIEPAC, <br>
</b></font></div>
<font face="Verdana" size=2>CIEPAC is a member of the Movement for
Democracy and Life (MDV) of Chiapas, the Mexican Network of Action
Against Free Trade (RMALC)
</font><a href="http://www.rmalc.org.mx/"; eudora="autourl"><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>www.rmalc.org.mx</a></u></font><font face="Verdana" size=2>,
Convergence of Movements of the Peoples of the Americas&nbsp;
(COMPA</font><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>www.sitiocompa.org</u></font><font face="Verdana" size=2>),
Network for Peace in Chiapas, Week for Biological and Cultural
Diversity&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</font><a href="http://www.laneta.apc.org/biodiversidad"; eudora="autourl"><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>www.laneta.apc.org/biodiversidad</a></u></font><font face="Verdana" size=2>&nbsp;
and&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; International&nbsp;&nbsp; Forum&nbsp;
&quot;The People Before Globalization&quot;, Alternatives to the PPP
</font><a href="http://usuarios.tripod.es/xelaju/xela.htm"; eudora="autourl"><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#0000FF"><u>http://usuarios.tripod.es/xelaju/xela.htm<br><br>
</a></u></font><font face="Verdana" size=1>Note: If you use this
information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to
the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these
Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization,
and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you
this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any
amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank
account in the name of: <br><br>
</font>CIEPAC, A.C<br>
Bank: Banamex<br>
Account number: 7049672<br>
Sucursal 386<br>
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México. <br>
You will also need to use an ABA number:&nbsp; BNMXMXMM <br><br>
Thank you! CIEPAC<br>
Note:&nbsp; If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English
version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request
to the e-mail address shown below.&nbsp; Indicate whether you wish to
receive the email or the &quot;attached file&quot; (Word 7 for Windows
95) version.<br><br>
Email:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<font color="#0000FF"><u>ciepac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</u></font> <br>
Web page:&nbsp;&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.ciepac.org/"; eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.ciepac.org/</a></u></font>&nbsp;
(Visit us:&nbsp; We have new maps on the situation in Chiapas, and a
chapter with more information on the PPP)<br>
<div align="center"><font size=1>__________________________________________________________________________________________<br><br>
</font><font size=1>CIEPAC, A.C.<br>
Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción
Comunitaria<br>
Eje Vial Uno Numero 11<br>
Col. Jardines de Vista Hermosa<br>
29297 San Cristóbal, Chiapas, MEXICO<br>
Tel/Fax: en México 01 967 678-5832<br>
</font>Fuera de México&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; +52 967 678-5832<br><br>
</div>
</html>

_______________________________________________
Ciepac-i mailing list
Ciepac-i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.laneta.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/ciepac-i


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]