From: Michael Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SUMMITS
By Noam Chomsky
United Nations Summit in New York in September was the second major
gathering of government leaders marking the millennium. The first was the
South Summit in Havana in April. The UN Summit received considerable
national publicity, while the South Summit was barely reported, a
reflection of the "imbalance" in the global system that it deplored.
The South Summit brought together heads of state of the "Group of 77"
(G77), now 133 countries, accounting for 80% of the world's population. The
name G77 is carried over from the founding meeting of the UN Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1964, attended by 77 of the "developing
countries." The April 2000 Summit was of unusual importance. The first
meeting ever at the level of heads of state, the Summit focused on the
concern that the South is "collectively endangered" by the global economic
system that has been instituted by the rich countries.
A leading third world journal described the Summit as "a defining moment in
G77 history," ending on "a note of confidence and determination from the
leaders to work together to bring about a new world order based on equity
and fairness," with South-South cooperation as a centerpiece and a plan of
action seeking significant changes in the global system (Third World
Economics, Penang).
In the New York Times Week in Review, UN correspondent Barbara Crossette
reported that the Summit "denounced the global economy and its symbols"
(the World Bank, IMF, and WTO), dismissing it as insignificant because
"slogans and oratory do little to illuminate the profound complexity of
human development in the new economic order." According to "development
experts," for the poor "nothing could be more irrelevant than global
theories or rants against multinational corporations." "The experts," who
recognize the "profound complexities," prefer serious measures to deal with
them: for example, persuading multinationals to "help workers improve their
lives" and inducing "big international institutions" to adopt policies that
"work for all levels of society."
The experts are also bemused by the "irony" that the World Bank is moving
"dramatically into social programs...just as protestors operating on
outdated images single it out for attack." Translating to the real world,
the World Bank is reacting to protestors who have been operating for years
on quite accurate images, as the experts now tacitly concede; whether the
reaction will pass beyond rhetoric depends substantially on the dedication
of the critics who are largely responsible for bringing it about.
Each Summit produced a Declaration. The Declaration of the UN Summit
consisted largely of pieties, though at least one resolution had a certain
bite: "to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to make essential drugs
more widely available and affordable by all who need them in developing
countries." There is little need to elaborate on the extraordinary human
catastrophes to which the resolution alludes, and it is clear enough who
bears the primary responsibility to address them.
One central topic, much discussed in commentary, was what Secretary-General
Kofi Annan described in his call to the Summit as "the dilemma of
intervention": "national sovereignty must not be used as a shield for those
who wantonly violate the rights and lives of their fellow human beings."
That much is generally agreed, at least at the rhetorical level. But a rift
appears with Annan's next sentence: "In the face of mass murder, armed
intervention authorized by the Security Council is an option that cannot be
relinquished." The US and its allies, which monopolize military power,
adopt a very different stance: they insist on their unique right of armed
intervention without such authorization. Annan is relatively popular in the
West because of his efforts to accommodate the interests of the rich and
powerful, but in this case he sided with the South Summit, which rejects
what it calls "the so-called `right' of humanitarian intervention" by the
powerful in violation of the UN Charter and "the general principles of
international law."
The Declaration of the South Summit also "firmly reject[s] the imposition
of laws and regulations with extraterritorial impact and all other forms of
coercive economic measures, including unilateral sanctions against
developing countries." The Declaration calls on "the international
community neither to recognize these measures nor apply them," alluding
obliquely to US initiatives, primarily. The Declaration insists on "the
right of developing countries, in exercise of their sovereignty and without
any interference in their internal affairs, to choose the path of
development in accordance with their national priorities and objectives."
It views "with alarm the recent unilateral moves by some developed
countries to question the use of fiscal policy as a development tool,"
reiterates "the fundamental right of each State to determine its own fiscal
policies," and reaffirms "that every State has the inalienable right to
choose political, economic, social and cultural systems of its own, without
interference in any form by other States." It calls for "reformulation of
policies and options on globalization from a development perspective," and
is sharply critical of the specific forms of international integration that
have been imposed by concentrated political and economic power -- what is
called "globalization" in Western rhetoric, often depicted as a neutral
force to which "there is no alternative," in Thatcher's famous slogan.
These calls are directed primarily to Washington. The same is true of the
call to "promote respect for all universally recognized human rights and
fundamental freedoms, including the right to development." The first part
is ritual incantation: the right to development the US has forcefully rejected.
For the South Summit, "our highest priority is to overcome
underdevelopment, which implies the eradication of hunger, illiteracy,
disease and poverty." The UN Summit adopted similar wording. "Although this
is primarily our responsibility," the South Summit declares, "we urge the
international community to adopt urgent and resolute actions, with a
comprehensive and multidimensional approach, to assist in overcoming these
scourges, and to establish international economic relations based on
justice and equity." It goes on to deplore "Asymmetries and imbalances that
have intensified in international economic relations" to the severe
detriment of the South, and calls for reform of "international economic
governance" and "international financial architecture" to make them "more
democratic, more transparent and better attuned to solving the problems of
development," reviewing current problems in some detail.
The Declaration also warns that "the prevailing modes of production and
consumption in the industrialized countries are unsustainable and should be
changed, for they threaten the very survival of the planet." Furthermore,
"technological innovations should be systematically evaluated in terms of
their economic, social and environmental impact, with the participation of
all the social sectors involved," including "groups that have not
traditionally been part of this process" -- almost everyone. It calls on
"the developed countries to fulfil their commitment to provide developing
countries with financial resources and environmentally sound technologies
on a preferential basis." Further provisions, also elaborated in some
detail, will not be unfamiliar to the ranting protestors with their
outdated images.
Annan's recommendations to the UN Summit included implementation of the
Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases; providing "the necessary resources" for
the UN "to carry out its mandates," specifically its "peacekeeping
operations"; debt relief; and "more generous [overseas] development
assistance" (ODA). In all of these categories, the US has a special
responsibility, though it is not alone.
> The US has been evading the Kyoto protocol, and has one of > the worst
records for violating it: emissions have in fact > considerably increased.
The US is notorious for its refusal > to meet its funding obligations for
the UN, including > peacekeeping operations. In July, the House and
Senate > Appropriations committees again rejected an administration >
request for a miserly $107 million for peacekeeping expenses > in Kosovo
and East Timor, while cutting the small request > for peacekeeping by
almost 50%, to $500 million. Debt relief > remains words, tied to strict
conditionalities ("reforms"). ODA has declined sharply in the past 10
years, most radically in the US, which by now provides virtually nothing,
far less than other industrial countries as a proportion of GNP; by far the
leading beneficiary of the minuscule ODA budget is a rich country, Israel,
with Egypt second by virtue of its relations with Israel.
When the Cold War ended, the conventional self-applause held that at last
Western elites could now act in accord with their ideals and treasured
values. So they did, expressing their ideals and values with great clarity
as soon as there was no longer any need for even cynical gestures to the
poor, the space for nonalignment having disappeared.
The standard version holds that the end of the Cold War coincided with the
discovery that trade is more helpful to the poor than aid. Accordingly,
Annan called on the rich countries to open their markets to goods produced
in the South. On that they have been dragging their feet, while demanding
free access for their own products and services and using a variety of
methods to impose their will. Among these are trade barriers and subsidies
that are direct or hidden "under the rubric of `defense'," as remarked by
then-World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz, deploring the mixture of
liberalization and protectionism in the mislabelled "free trade" regime,
geared to the wishes of the masters of the economy. Just as the South
Summit was gathering the Clinton Administration announced its opposition to
a World Bank proposal to allow poor countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin
America to export to the US without tariffs or quotas; that would provide
"a huge economic advantage for those developing countries," the New York
Times reported, "going significantly beyond the administration's efforts to
get Congress to forgive their debts as they undergo economic reforms" --
that is, facilitate the takeover of their economies by Western firms. The
World Bank and IMF endorse the complaint of the South "that the United
States and other rich nations are using their enormous prosperity and
technology to grow rapidly at the expense of countries being left far
behind by economic globalization" -- to which we should add that a similar
process continues internally.
While the Declaration of the UN Summit is more muted than that of the
South, behind the scenes the mood seems to have been similar. A good report
in the Boston Globe by John Donnelly is headlined "African leaders lash
out," accusing the UN and the West of "keeping [the] continent in poverty."
The "overriding theme" of the African heads of state, Donnelly reports, is
that "the forces of globalization are enriching the West anew while
sentencing them to even more misery," essentially the message of the South
Summit. "They said the Western powers talked a good game about the benefits
of globalization to Africa, but then stood by as corporations plundered
riches from the continent," following the classic pattern, sometimes
assisted by World Bank programs: for example, the Bank's demand for
privatization in Gambia, leading to elimination of the peanut industry by a
foreign buyer that shifted processing abroad so that the country now
imports its own product.
African leaders pointed out that the "voices in the street" in the West are
repeating what "the developing countries have been saying for many years in
various international fora with little success." Several suggested that "an
alliance was possible." That has been taking shape at the grass-roots
level, an impressive development, rich in opportunity and promise, and
surely causing no little concern in high places.
Michael Albert
Z Magazine / ZNet
www.zmag.org
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
