>from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: World Trade Org. Vietnam, Angola >Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:10:50 -0500 > >Guardian London . May 4-10, 2000 - WTO, Vietnam, Angola > >"Attacking Goliath" By Isabel Hilton takes the point of the anti- >capitalist protest in London. >------------ > >Multinational corporations have been a bogy for the left since Karl >Marx first chewed the end of his pencil. Never have they offered >more cause for concern than 10 years after the collapse of the >socialist bloc and five after the establishment of the Word Trade >Organisation. According to Corporate Watch, 51 of the world's l00 >largest economies are corporations, and the combined revenues of just >two of them - General Motors and Ford - exceed the combined gross >domestic product of all of Africa south of the Sahara. > >We in Britain seem to be deeply attached to the idea of >national sovereignty. Without such an attachment in the wider >population, the Europhobes would find it harder going than they do. >But why are the British so easily aroused by the suggestion that >sovereignty has been lost to the European Union when they are so much >less moved by globalisation? After all, the steps towards integration >in the European Union were clear. They were subject to exhaustive >parliamentary debate and, on occasion, referendum. The extent of the >powers vested in the institutions of the EU is described in >exhaustive detail in of acquis communitaire. And though general >that there is a democratic deficit in the structures of the EU, at >least it has an elected parliament that is steadily acquiring powers. >It may be full of defects, but it least it is there. > >The anti-European lobby's favourite epithet - faceless - is unfair. >If you want to complain or protest about the conduct of matters in >the EU, it is possible to find out where you should do so. A far >more convincing symbol of a powerful, faceless process that not only >attacks national sovereignty and weakens democratic institutions but >also invades every aspect of daily life is the WTO. > >Since it was set up in 1995 the WTO, and the globalisation that it is >there to promote, has impacted on our lives at every level. The >advocates of untrammelled global free trade argue that this is all to >our benefit. We are wealthier, better fed, better housed and longer >lived than at any time in history. And the past two decades have >delivered an extraordinary rate of growth that has lifted millions >out of poverty. Free market purists argue that all the ills the >process has produced can be cured by further liberalisation. > >The demonstrators in Seattle last year and on the streets of London >this week - and those who quietly cheer them on - say that's not the >whole story. The counter argument was thoroughly made at Seattle: >that the cost of this economic growth in environmental terms is >unpayable, that the political price is too high, that the power of >the global corporations, which are the prime beneficiaries of the >system, is too great, that the huge disparities in wealth the process >has produced are immoral. For most people the argument is not >whether there should be capitalism or not. It is what kind of >capitalism? What degree of rapacity can I accept in return for >the benefits I enjoy? > >If I want to say to capitalism but not on the terms proposed under >the WTO millennial round, to whom do I say it, short of joining the >protest on the street? If I want to say yes to trade, but only if >the workers in south China's free trade zone factories can get labour >protection, whom do I lobby? If I want to say yes to >internationalism but no to a world in which international >institutions are a thin disguise for dominating US corporations, to >whom do I address my postcard? > >And the protesters this week have their answer, as the protesters >in Washington and Seattle had theirs. Their presence in Seattle and >since has focused the unease felt by many who would not join them. >But protest has its limitations, and one of them is that protest is >not a negotiating position. Even if negotiations were offered, it is >hard to see a coherent alternative vision in the many positions on >the street. > >Lucy Parsons, of Reclaim the Streets, told the Financial Times that >the May Day protests were aimed at "taking power away from the >politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats" and forcing "radical social >and ecological changes" But taking power from the politicians, >businessmen and bureaucrats does not of itself make power disappear. >My limited experience of moments when nobody was in charge (in >countries that were in the throes of disintegration) suggests that >they are more dangerous and unpleasant than even the most rapacious >forms of capitalism in a functioning society. > >Last century's alternative to capitalism was voted out by history. >Since overthrowing capitalism is not really an option, what we are >facing with is the much more complicated challenge of fashioning >capitalism into garment that we can live with. We are unlikely to >find contentment where we are valued mainly for our ability to >produce and consume; when the planet we inhabit in common is being >depleted in pursuit of profits that enrich an ever smaller group; >when global capitalism overrides democratic mechanisms and reaches >ever deeper into our lives; trying to shape our societies down to the >smallest detail, using our selfishness and greed as its mail >weapon. The global market delivered growth, but what is the purpose >of this growth? The only acceptable answer is that it is to enhance >human welfare, a standard by which we are entitled to measure the >damage to the environment, health dignity and family life. > >The WTO has given globalisation a huge boost, but where are >the international bodies parallel to the WTO that can regulate and >control the corporations or even force them to pay tax? Where is the >democratic body that corresponds to the WTO, where the objections of >the citizens can be heard? These are all concerns raised by the >protesters and echoed by a much wider group, but nowhere does the >political conversation reflect them. We are in the grip of an >orthodoxy that tells us not only that there is no alternative to >further globalisation, but that it is all for the best. > >Yet in the past few months the International Monetary Fund and the >World Bank, pillars of that orthodoxy, admitted that the >liberalising prescriptions that they have dispensed for 20 years may >not have done any good - staggering admissions that have produced >almost no political debate. Globalisation of trade has generated the >globalisation of protest - the Internet allows movement to build >critical mass as they fight against the Multilateral Agreement on >Investment or Monsanto's terminator gene. But so far it has failed to >create a global political ground on which the terms and conditions of >capitalism can be negotiated. Until it does, the discussion will >stay in the streets. > >---------- END -------************* > > >Guardian Weekly ... May 4-10, 2000 > (Washington Post) > >-- International News -- Inside ASIA -- >"Vietnam tries to look past the war" > By John Gittings >---------------------------------------------------------- > >Vietnam's leaders have an unusual habit of admitting how dreadful >things are - even during the current 25th anniversary of the 1975 >victory when they should be claiming that everything is wonderful. > >The prime minister, Phan Van Khai, used the occasion to tell the >world that his country suffers from "the low level of development, >heavy consequences of wars, low efficiency and competitiveness of the >economy, the adverse impacts of the widening gap between rich and >poor, bureaucracy, corruption and other social evils". The defeat of >the United States may have been "a great triumph of the 20th century, >but Vietnam is now beset by "potentially unstable and unhealthy >factors" > >This is a refreshing approach by contrast with the tight-lipped >attitude of officials in neighbouring China. Khai's counterpart in >Beijing, Zhu Rongji, although supposedly much more plainspoken than >his colleagues, will only allude briefly to "Problems" and "mistakes" > >It is true that Vietnam is much worse off than China. Vietnam has >suffered severely from decades of war and has had a shorter period of >time in which to recover. It has fewer natural resources and less >space in which to develop. The relatively recent Vietnamese diaspora >cannot play the same role as the long-established overseas Chinese in >promoting inward investment. > >Vietnam does not have any wonders of the world to match those with >which China can attract mass tourism. Finally, the Vietnamese >leadership still has mixed feelings about embracing the global >economy, not only for doctrinal reasons but because it knows it lacks >negotiating strength. > >Over and above these material problems, self-criticism and the >admission of difficulties is part of Vietnamese political culture to >an extent unknown in more formalistic China. Historically, it has >helped to defuse internal conflict, allowing the Communist party to >avoid - or at least soften - the savage purges and infighting >characteristic of fraternal parties almost everywhere else. The >preference for consensus is partly a national character trait, but it >also reflects the need imposed by decades of war to avoid destructive >"innerparty struggle" > >The anniversary day celebration in Ho Chi Minh City last Sunday put >out the flags as the occasion required, but in the run-up to the >event the war seemed further away in Hanoi than it did in Washington. >There were no posters in the streets, few reminiscences on the >bookstalls, and only a moderate media build-up. The obvious contrast >again is with China, where the government and press went into >overdrive for last year's celebration of liberation in 1949. > >Official Hanoi said almost nothing directly critical of the US until >it was stung by the provocative remarks of Senator John McCain - >visiting the country to make a TV documentary about the war for NBC. >His comment that the "wrong side" won the war gained international >attention largely because he was the only anniversary show in town >for the large Western media pack. > >McCain was factually right to observe that the current propaganda >display in the "Hanoi Hilton", where he was jailed after being shot >down in the war, does not reveal the harsh treatment handed out to US >prisoners. But like many Americans he still appeared unable to >understand the wider context of brutality inflicted upon the >Vietnamese people. Hanoi says that 3m died in what it calls the >"American war", and that 300,000 disappeared without trace - not to >mention those who may have been affected by Agent Orange. > >The order of magnitude is certainly correct. The scale of the trauma >is perhaps still too great to be dwelt upon for long. With more than >half of Vietnam's population born after the war, it also makes sense >to focus on current and future tasks. But there are other, less >positive reasons for not dwelling too much on the war. Any >retrospective survey of the war raises questions about what has >happened since then. > >Here the comparison with China is much closer: even though Vietnam >has nothing quite so unmentionable as the Beijing massacre to avoid, >its leaders cannot easily face a critical re-appraisal of recent >history. The international ostracism of Hanoi after the war delayed >the country's economic recovery by almost a decade. It also led to >the obscenity of covert Western support for the Khmer Rouge after it >was expelled from Cambodia by the Vietnamese army. > >Yet questions can still be asked about Hanoi's reluctance to reduce >its Cambodian commitment, for which it paid a heavy economic and >human price. Likewise there can be no excuse for China's invasion of >Vietnam - again with covert US backing - to "teach Vietnam a lesson" >Yet Hanoi's mistreatment of the Vietnamese Chinese goaded Beijing >unnecessarily, and set in motion the exodus of the boat people. > >Other pertinent questions might include asking whether the North >could have handled the reintegration of the South less harshly, and >whether the punitive re-education programmes of the 80s served any >rational purpose. Vietnam's lack of tolerance for political dissent, >although less severe than that of China, continues to this day. The >focus on the present rather than the past may therefore be, to some >extent, a diversion, especially if ways cannot be found to tackle the >problems that are so readily admitted. To acknowledge corruption in >particular becomes meaningless if it is not dealt with effectively. >There is no indication that Vietnam is more proficient at doing so >than China, even if the extent of corruption in cash terms is >less extreme. > >Observers in Hanoi are on the whole more optimistic than those who >view Vietnam from outside. They point to the progress made in >tackling poverty and the readiness to seek foreign help. The >leadership is expected to shift generations when the veterans finally >retire at next Year's party congress. Even the World Bank and the >International Monetary Fund have come reluctantly to accept that >Hanoi is sensible to take its time in opening up to world >competition. > >Yet it is not clear if the Communist party has an alternative >strategy or is just muddling along. Whether it can engineer a smooth >transition to the, future remains a wide-open question. > >---------- END ----**************** >Guardian Weekly ... May 4-10, 2000 > ANGOLA - "Refugees caught in crossfire." By Victoria Brittain > >UN mission warns of deepening humanitarian crisis in Angola as Unita >rebels mount new offensive against government forces. > > Heavy fighting has erupted in eastern Angola just as the United >Nations warns that the humanitarian situation in the country >threatens to deteriorate into crisis. > >Last month Unita rebels, scattered after their headquarters was >captured late last year, regrouped and launched a counter-offensive >on government troops in the east of Angola near the border with >Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. > >The intensity of the new offensive around the small 'town of >Lumbala Nguimbo, which has changed hands twice this year, took the >Angolan military by surprise. It appears to confirm recent >intelligence reports that Unita has received new military supplies >despite the tightening of UN sanctions on the rebels last month. > >In March a UN report into sanctions-breaking strongly criticised the >leaders of Burkina Faso and Togo as the major conduits for the trade >in arms for diamonds, which keeps the Unita rebellion alive. This >new resupply by night flights is presumed to involve stocks of arms >for Unita still held in those countries and flown via Zambia into >remote parts of Angola. > >Reports of the new military supplies will bring a major diplomatic >row in the region. Togo is set to host the Organisation of African >Unity annual summit next month and will then become chairman for the >next year, but countries in the regional Organisation, SADCC, are >already discussing a possible boycott of Togo because of President >Gnasingbe Eyadema's support for Unita's leader, Jonas Savimbi. > >After the fall of his headquarters in Andulo in the Central >Highlands, Mr. Savimbi designated Lumbala Nguimbo as his new >headquarters, although Unita has been unable to consolidate its >troops there because of government forces nearby. The area is bush >and savannah, flooded during the rainy season and accessible only by >canoe. > >The eastern border is one of the many insecure areas that the >UN's humanitarian mission has not been able to reach in its recent >research into the current level of malnutrition, sickness and >deprivation. Thousands of refugees have fled from the area into >Zambia in recent weeks, many in a very poor state. > >The UN's new report, issued by the UN humanitarian office in Luanda, >is the first to look at many places that have been inaccessible under >Unita control. The report says aid shipments across Angola must >quickly be increased and thousands of displaced people moved out of >badly run temporary shelters where sanitary conditions are terrible. >Airstrips, roads and bridges need urgent repair for the agencies to >be able to reach people. > >The government estimates that the fighting has uprooted some 3.8m >people - about a third of the population. Many of them are living in >makeshift camps and almost all rely on aid to survive. > >Most at risk are children, widows, and the handicapped and war- >mutilated people. "These groups are on the edge of an abyss," the >report says. > >Among the worst affected areas are in Huambo province in the >Central Highlands where Unita had control over large areas until late >last year. Some families in Chipipa in the Central Highlands are >surviving on larvae and grass, the UN says. > >In Caala, Ukuma, Longonjo and Chipipa the condition of the displaced >was some of the worst encountered during the assessment. In Ukuma >and Longonjo, both of which have become accessible only this month, >people are clearly short of food, and child malnutrition can be seen >in Ukuma. Sanitary conditions in the Caala transit centre are >appalling. The 5,000 displaced persons living there should be >immediately resettled. > >The majority of displaced persons are completely dependent upon >food assistance, unable to feed themselves because they have no >agricultural land, seeds, tools, fertilisers and other resources. >Most people, whether newly arrived or long-term, do not own the >essential items they need to survive, including plastic sheeting, >blankets, soap and clothing. > >Few non-food contingency stocks are available, and almost none >are pre-positioned in areas where further displacement is expected. >More than half of the displaced persons lives in camps with >inadequate shelter. The majority of displaced persons and other at- >risk groups do not have access to safe drinking water. > >None of the hospitals or health posts visited had sufficient >essential medicines, and many had no medicine at all, the UN reports. >Children throughout the country have not been vaccinated against >life-threatening diseases. > >The UN this year is asking donors for an estimated $254m for Angola, >more than double last years $108m. " > >(JC..US Republicans have sworn not to let Angola go to the Angolan >Democracy. US Weapons traders-suppliers use any country desperate >enough for money loans (IMF etc) to shift new most modern weapons to >Angola, Sierra Leone, Indonesia or anywhere else. Burkina Faso, Togo >drew the lucky straw this time. Not long ago it was Albania. The >British are never too far away from Uncle Sam's skirt either.) " JC > > __________________________________ 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] ___________________________________
