>From: "Jon Corlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Labor/_Another_Nuremberg_is_Required__ >-_Fidel_at_South_Summit > > >"Another Nuremberg is Required" - Fidel at South Summit > Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:25:32 -0400 > > >Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit > > > ANOTHER NUREMBERG IS REQUIRED > TO JUDGE THE UNJUST ECONOMIC ORDER > by President Fidel Castro > > Complete text of remarks at the > opening session of the South Summit > Havana, 12 April 2000 > >Excellencies, > >Distinguished delegates and guests, > >Never before did mankind have such formidable scientific and technologic >potential, such extraordinary capacity to produce riches and well-being but >never before were disparity and inequity so profound in the world. > >Technological wonders that have been shrinking the planet in terms of >communications and distances co-exist today with the increasingly wider gap >separating wealth and poverty, development and underdevelopment. > >Globalization is an objective reality underlining the fact that we are all >passengers on the same vessel, that is, this planet where we all live. But, >passengers on this vessel are traveling in very different conditions. > >Trifling minorities are traveling in luxurious cabins furnished with >Internet, cell phones and access to global communication networks. They >enjoy a nutritional, abundant and balanced diet as well as clean water >supplies. They have access to sophisticated medical care and to culture. > >Overwhelming and hurting majorities are traveling in conditions that >resemble the terrible slave trade from Africa to America in our colonial >past. That is, 85% of the passengers on this ship are crowded together in >its dirty hold suffering hunger, diseases and helplessness. > >Obviously, this vessel is carrying too much injustice to remain afloat and >it pursues such an irrational and senseless route that it cannot call on a >safe port. This vessel seems destined to clash with an iceberg. If that >happened, we would all sink with it. > >The Heads of State and Government meeting here, who represent the >overwhelming and hurting majorities, have not only the right but the >obligation to take the helm and correct that catastrophic route. It is our >duty to take our rightful place at the helm and facilitate that all >passengers can travel in conditions of solidarity, equity and justice. > >For two decades, the Third World has been repeatedly listening to only one >simplistic discourse while one single policy has prevailed. > >We have been told that deregulated markets, maximum privatization and the >state's withdrawal from the economic activity were the infallible principles >conducive to economic and social development. > >Along this line the developed countries, particularly the United States of >America, the big transnationals benefiting from such policies and the >International Monetary Fund have designed in the last two decades the world >economic order most hostile to our countries' progress and the least >sustainable in terms of the preservation of society and the environment. > >Globalization has been held tight by the patterns of neoliberalism; thus, it >is not development that goes global but poverty; it is not respect for the >national sovereignty of our states but the violation of that respect; it is >not solidarity amongst our peoples but ''sauve-qui-peut'' in the unequal >competition prevailing in the marketplace. > >Two decades of so-called neoliberal structural adjustment have left behind >economic failure and social disaster. It is the duty of responsible >politicians to face up to this predicament by taking the indispensable >decisions conducive to the Third World rescue from a blind alley. > >Economic failure is evident. Under the neoliberal policies, the world >economy experienced a global growth between 1975 and 1998 which hardly >amounted to half of that attained between 1945 and 1975 with Keynesian >market deregulation policies and the states' active participation in the >economy. > >In Latin America, where neoliberalism has been applied with absolute >attachment to doctrine, economic growth in the neoliberal stage has not been >higher than that attained under the previous state development policies. >After World War II, Latin America had no debt but today we owe almost one >trillion dollars. This is the highest per capita debt in the world. Also the >income difference between the rich and the poor in the region is the >greatest worldwide. There are more poor, unemployed and hungry people in >Latin America now than at any other hard time in its history. > >Under neoliberalism the world economy has not been growing faster in real >terms; however, there is more instability, speculation, external debt and >unequal exchange. Likewise, there is a greater tendency to financial crises >occurring more often while poverty, inequality and the gap between the >wealthy North and the dispossessed South continues to widen. > >Crises, instability, turmoil and uncertainty have been the most common words >used in the last two years to describe the world economic order. > >The deregulation that comes with neoliberalism and the liberalization of the >capital account have a deep negative impact on a world economy where >speculation blooms in hard currency and derivative markets and mostly >speculative daily transactions amount to no less than 3 trillion US dollars. > >Our countries are urged to be more transparent with their information and >more effective with bank supervision but financial institutions like the >hedge funds fail to release information on their activities, are absolutely >unregulated and conduct operations that exceed all the reserves kept in the >banks of the South countries. > >In an atmosphere of unrestrained speculation, the movements of short-term >capital make the South countries vulnerable to any external contingency. > >The Third World is forced to immobilize financial resources and grow >indebted to keep hard currency reserves in the hope that they can be used to >resist the attack of speculators. Over 20% of the capital revenues obtained >in the last few years were immobilized as reserves but they were not enough >to resist such attacks as proven by the recent financial crisis in Southeast >Asia. > >Presently, 727 billion US dollars from the world Central Banks' reserves are >in the United States. This leads to the paradox that with their reserves the >poor countries are offering cheap long-term financing to the wealthiest and >most powerful country in the world while such reserves could be better >invested in economic and social development. > >If Cuba has successfully carried out education, health care, culture, >science, sports and other programs, which nobody in the world would >question, despite four decades of economic blockade, and revalued its >currency seven times in the last five years in relation to the US dollar, it >has been thanks to its privileged position as a non-member of the >International Monetary Fund. > >A financial system that keeps forcibly immobilized such enormous resources, >badly needed by the countries to protect themselves from the instability >caused by that very system that makes the poor finance the wealthy, should >be removed. > >The International Monetary Fund is the emblematic organization of the >existing monetary system and the United States enjoys veto power over its >decisions. > >As far as the latest financial crisis is concerned, the IMF showed a lack of >foresight and a clumsy handling of the situation. It imposed its >conditioning clauses that paralyzed the governments social development >policies thus creating serious domestic hazards and preventing access to the >necessary resources when they were most needed. > >It is high time for the Third World to strongly demand the removal of an >institution that neither provides stability to the world economy nor works >to deliver preventive funds to the debtors to avoid their liquidity crises; >it rather protects and rescues the creditors. > >Where is the rational and the ethic of an international monetary order which >allows a few technocrats, whose positions depend on the American support, to >design in Washington identical economic adjustment programs for >implementation in a wide variety of countries to cope with specific Third >World problems? > >Who takes responsibility when the adjustment programs bring about social >chaos, thus paralyzing and destabilizing nations with large human and >natural resources, as was the case in Indonesia and Ecuador? > >It is of crucial importance for the Third World to work for the removal of >that sinister institution, and the philosophy it sustains, to replace it >with an international finances regulating body that would operate on >democratic bases and where no one has a veto right. An institution that >would not defend only the wealthy creditors and impose interfering >conditions, but would allow the regulation of financial markets to arrest >unrestrained speculation. > >A viable way to do this would be by establishing not a 0.1% tax on >speculative financial transactions as Mr.Tobin brilliantly proposed, but >rather a minimum 1% which would permit the creation of a large indispensable >fund -- in the excess of one trillion dollars every year-- to promote a >real, sustainable and comprehensible development in the Third World. > >The underdeveloped nations external debt is amazing not only because it is >terribly high but also due to its outrageous mechanism of subjugation and >exploitation and the absurd formula offered by the developed countries to >cope with it. > >That debt already exceeds 2.5 trillion US dollars and in the present decade >it has been increasing more dangerously than in the 1970s. A large part of >that new debt can easily change hands in the secondary markets; it is more >dispersed now and more difficult to reschedule. > >Once again I should repeat what we have been saying since 1985: the debt has >already been paid if note is taken of the way it was contracted, the swift >and arbitrary increase of the interest rates on the US dollar in the >previous decade and the decrease of the basic commodity prices, a >fundamental source of revenue for developing countries. The debt continues >to feed on itself in a vicious circle where money is borrowed to pay its >interests. > >Today, it is clearer than ever that the debt is not an economic but a >political issue, therefore, it demands a political solution. > >It is impossible to continue overlooking the fact that the solution to this >problem must basically come from those with resources and power, that is, >the wealthy countries. > >The so-called Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Debt Reduction Initiative >exhibits a long name but poor results. It can only be described as a >ridiculous attempt at alleviating 8.3% of the South countries total debt; >but almost four years after its implementation only four countries among the >poorest 33 have reached the complicated process simply to condone the >negligible figure of 2.7 billion US dollars, which is 33% of what the United >States spends on cosmetics every year. > >Today, the external debt is one of the greatest obstacles to development and >a bomb ready to blow up the foundations of the world economy at any time >during an economic crisis. > >The resources needed for a solution that goes to the root of this problem >are not large when compared to the wealth and the expenses of the creditor >countries. Every year 800 billion US dollars are used to finance weapons and >troops, even after the cold war is over, while no less than 400 billion go >into narcotics and one additional billion into commercial publicity which is >as alienating as narcotics; this is to mention just three examples. > >As we have said before, sincerely and realistically speaking the Third World >countries external debt is unpayable and uncollectable. > >In the hands of the rich countries, world trade is already an instrument of >domination, which under neoliberal globalization will become an increasingly >useful element to perpetuate and sharpen inequalities as well as a theater >for strong disputes among developed countries for control over the present >and future markets. > >The neoliberal discourse recommends commercial liberalization as the best >and only formula for efficiency and development. > >Accordingly, all nations should remove protection instruments from their >domestic markets while the difference in development between countries, no >matter how big, would not justify separation from the only way offered >without any possible alternative. After hard negotiations in the WTO, the >poorest countries have been conceded a narrow time difference for full >access to that nefarious system. > >While neoliberalism keeps repeating its discourse on the opportunities >created by trade openings, the underdeveloped countries participation in the >world exports was lower in 1998 than in 1953, that is, forty-five years ago. >With an area of 3.2 million square miles, a population of 168 million and >51.1 billion US dollars in exports during 1998, Brazil is exporting less >than The Netherlands with an area of 12,978 square miles, a population of >15.7 million and exports for 198.7 billion that same year. > >Trade liberalization has essentially consisted in the unilateral removal of >protection instruments by the South. Meanwhile, the developed nations have >failed to do the same to allow the Third World exports to enter their >markets. > >The wealthy nations have fostered liberalization in strategic sectors >associated to advanced technology where they enjoy enormous advantages that >the deregulated markets tend to augment. These are the classic cases of >services, information technology, biotechnology and telecommunications. > >On the other hand, agriculture and textiles, two particularly significant >sectors for our countries, have not even been able to remove the >restrictions agreed upon during the Uruguay Round because they are not of >interest to developed countries. > >In the OECD, the club of the wealthiest, the average tariff applied to >manufactured exports from underdeveloped countries is four times higher than >that applied to the club member countries. A real wall of non-tariff >barriers is thus raised that leaves out the South countries. > >Meanwhile, in international trade a hypocritical ultra-liberal discourse has >gained ground that matches the selective protectionism imposed by the North >countries. > >The basic commodities are still the weakest link in world trade. In the case >of 67 South countries such commodities account for no less than 50% of their >export revenues. > >The neoliberal wave has wiped out the defense schemes contained in the terms >of reference for basic commodities. The supreme dictum of the marketplace >could not tolerate any distortion, therefore, the Basic Commodities >Agreements and other defense formulas designed to face unequal exchange were >abandoned. It is for this reason that today the purchasing power of such >commodities as sugar, cocoa, coffee and others is 20% of what it used to be >in 1960; consequently, they do not even cover the production costs. > >A special and differentiated treatment to poor countries has been considered >not as an elementary act of justice and a necessity that cannot be ignored >but as a temporary act of charity. Actually, such differential treatment >would not only recognize the enormous differences in development that >prevent the use of the same yardstick for the rich and the poor but also a >historically colonial past that demands compensation. > >The failed Seattle meeting showed the tedium caused by and the opposition to >neoliberal policies in growing sectors of the public opinion, in both South >and North countries. > >The United States of America presented the Round of Trade Negotiations that >should begin in Seattle as a higher step in trade liberalization regardless, >or perhaps forgetful, of its own aggressive and discriminatory Foreign Trade >Act still in force. That Act includes provisions like the "Super-301", a >real display of discrimination and threats to apply sanctions to other >countries for reasons that go from the assumed opposition of barriers to >American products to the arbitrary, deliberate and often cynical >qualification that that government decides to give others on the subject of >human rights. > >In Seattle there was a revolt against neoliberalism. Its most recent >precedent had been the refusal to accept the imposition of a Multilateral >Agreement on Investments. This shows that the aggressive market >fundamentalism, which has caused great damages to our countries, has found a >strong and deserved world rejection. > >In addition to the above mentioned economic calamities, on occasions the >high oil prices significantly contribute to the worsening of conditions in >the South countries which are net importers of that vital resource. The >Third World produces about 80% of the oil traded worldwide, and 80% of that >amount is exported to the developed countries. > >The wealthy nations can afford to pay any price for the energy they waste to >sustain luxurious consumption levels and destroy the environment. The United >States' consumption is 8.1 tons oil equivalent per capita while the Third >World consumes an average of 0.8 tons, and the poorest among them only 0.3. > >When the prices mount abruptly from 12 to 30 US dollars a barrel, or more, >it has a devastating effect on the Third World nations. > >This is in addition to the external debt, the low prices of their basic >commodities, the financial crises and the unequal terms of reference's >negative impact weighing heavily on them. Now, we perceive a similarly >devastating situation emerging anew among sister South nations. > >Petroleum is a universally needed vital commodity, which actually escapes >the market laws. One way or another, the big transnationals or the Third >World oil exporting countries that associated themselves to defend their >interests were always able to determine its price. > >The low prices mostly benefit the rich countries that waste large amounts of >fuel, restrain the search for and the exploitation of new deposits as well >as the development of technologies that reduce consumption and protect the >environment; and they affect the Third World exporters. On the other hand, >high prices benefit the exporters and can be easily handled by the rich but >they are harmful and destructive to the economies of a large part of our >world. > >This is a good example to show that a differential treatment to countries in >different stages of development should be an indispensable principle of >justice in world trade. It is absolutely unfair that a poor Third World >country like Mozambique with 84 US dollars per capita GDP needs to pay for >such a vital commodity the same price as Switzerland with 43,400 US dollars >per capita. > >This is a 516 times higher per capita GDP than that of Mozambique! > >The San Josi Pact, concerted 20 years ago by Venezuela and Mexico with a >group of small oil importing countries in the region, set a good precedent >of what can and should be done bearing in mind the particular conditions of >every Third World nation in similar circumstances, although avoiding this >time any conditions associated to the differential treatment they might >receive. > >Some countries are not in a position to pay more than 10 US dollars a >barrel, others no more than 15, and none more than 20. > >However, the rich countries' world, prone as it is to big spending and >consumerism, can pay over 30 US dollars a barrel taking hardly any damage. >As they consume 80% of the Third World countries' exports, this can easily >compensate a price lower than 20 US dollars for the rest of the nations. > >This could be a concrete and effective way to turn South-South cooperation >into a powerful instrument of Third World development. To do otherwise would >invite self-destruction. > >In a global world where knowledge is the key to development, the >technological gap between the North and the South tends to widen with the >increasing privatization of scientific research and its results. > >The developed countries with 15% of the world's population presently >concentrate 88% of Internet users. Just in the United States there are more >computers than in the rest of the world put together. These countries >control 97% of the patents the world over and receive over 90% of the >international licenses' rights while for many South countries the exercise >of the right to intellectual property is non-existent. > >In private research, the lucrative element takes precedence over necessity; >the intellectual property rights leave knowledge out of reach for >underdeveloped countries and the legislation on patents does not recognize >know-how transfer or the traditional property systems, which are so >important in the South. > >Private research focuses on the needs of the wealthy consumers. > >Vaccines have become the most efficient technology to keep health care >expenses low since they can prevent diseases with one dosage. > >However, as they yield low profits they are put aside in favor of >medications that require repeated dosages and yield higher benefits. > >The new medications, the best seeds and, in general, the best technologies >have become commodities whose prices only the rich countries can afford. > >The murky social results of this neoliberal race to catastrophe are in >sight. In over one hundred countries the per capita income is lower than >fifteen years ago. At the moment, 1.6 billion people are faring worse than >at the beginning of the 1980s. > >Over 820 million people are undernourished and 790 of them live in the Third >World. It is estimated that 507 million people living in the South today >will not live to see their 40th birthday. > >In the Third World countries represented here, two out of every five >children suffer from growth retardation and one out of every three is >underweight; 30,000 who could be saved are dying every day; 2 million girls >are forced into prostitution; 130 million children do not have access to >elementary education and 250 million minors under 15 are bound to work for a >living. > >The world economic order works for 20% of the population but it leaves out, >demeans and degrades the remaining 80%. > >We cannot simply accept to enter the next century as the backward, poor and >exploited rearguard; the victim of racism and xenophobia prevented from >accessing to knowledge and suffering the alienation of our cultures due to >the foreign consumer-oriented message globalized by the media. > >As for the Group of 77, this is not the time for begging from the developed >countries or for submission, defeatism or internecine divisions. This is the >time to rescue back our fighting spirit, our unity and cohesion in defending >our demands. > >Fifty years ago we were promised that one day there would no longer be a gap >between developed and underdeveloped countries. We were promised bread and >justice; but today we have less and less bread and more injustice. > >The world can be globalized under the rule of neoliberalism but it is >impossible to rule over billions of people who are hungry for bread and >justice. > >The pictures of mothers and children under the scourge of draughts and other >catastrophes in whole regions of Africa remind us of the concentration camps >in nazi Germany; they bring back to us memories of stacks of corpses or of >moribund men, women and children. > >Another Nuremberg is required to put to trial the economic order imposed on >us, the same that is killing of hunger and preventable or curable diseases >more men, women and children every three years than all those killed by >World War II in six years. > >We should discuss here what is to be done about that. > >In Cuba we usually say: "Homeland or Death!" At this Summit of the Third >World countries we would have to say: "We either unite and establish close >cooperation, or we die!" > >Thank you, very much. > >English translation by Prensa Latina news agency > >================================================================= > NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems > Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us > 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 > http://www.blythe.org e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >================================================================= > >nytlab-04.13.00-23:25:23-32487 > > > >-- > > > > >_______________________________________________________________________ > > >REVOLUTION, COMMUNIST & CONTINUOUS ! ! ! > > http://members.xoom.com/joncorlett/ > > >E Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To Subscribe or Unsubscribe; Click Reply in E Mail Program, > >enter 'Subscribe' or 'Unsubscribe' on Subject line and Send to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >If wish to receive only certain types of Revolutionary Communist Information >Please Specify. > > >_______________________________________________________________________ > > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
