Norilsk has a population of 200,000. no trees grow there. In 1930, there was nothing there, except a few reindeers and reindeer-hunters, but shortly after, nickel and other metal deposits were discovered. In 1935, construction of what was to be the city of Norilsk and the Metallurgical Combine began. Hundreds of thousands of kulak farmers and peasants were rounded up and sent there to toil and, in many cases, die in what was called the Frozen Hell. Just how many was not known. In 1953, following the death of Stalin, as elsewhere in many Siberian labour camps, the slaves of Norilsk rebelled and went on a two-month strike. By 1956, the rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union, and the need for a more sophisticated workforce of 'free' wage-slaves, necessitated the beginning of the end of the Gulag system.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Norilsk Metallurgical Combine, like many other former Soviet combines and trusts, was privatised, having been purchased 'for a song' by Vladimir Fotanin and his business partner, George Soros.
The Metallurgical Combine became a mining company, MMC Norilsk Nickel, and the principle employer in the area. In 2004 it was reported that every day soot from the company not only turned the snow black, but also sends 5,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, making the air taste sour. The mining company produced one seventh of all Russian factory pollution; it churned out two million tonnes of waste gas, and 85 million cubic metres of dirty water a year, destroying forests for hundreds of miles and even affecting Canada and Norway. At the time, a spokeswoman for the company admitted that only four percent of the population of Norilsk were healthy.
And what of today, in 2008? A recent entry in Wikipedia, updates information on Norilsk and conditions in the area, and from the company.
According to the Russian State Statistics Service, the estimated population of Norilsk in 2007 was 230,000, Norilsk is the centre of a region where nickel (one of the largest deposits on our planet.), copper, cobalt, platinum and coal are mined. Wikipedia reports that the Norilsk area is largely closed to foreigners, with travel permits also required for Russian citizens, ostensibly because of the sensitive nature of the mining, but also because of the ICBM missile silos located in the nearby Putoran Mountains. The nickel ore is smelted on site at Norilsk. And, continues the Wikipedia report:
"The smelting is directly responsible for severe pollution, generally acid rain and smog. By some estimates, one percent of the entire global emissions of sulphur dioxide comes from this one city. Heavy metal pollution near Norilsk is so severe that it is now economically feasible to mine the soil, which has been polluted so severely that it has economic grades of platinum and palladium".
The Wikipedia entry confirms that not a single living tree grows within 48 km of the Norilsk nickel smelter, and that the city was listed in 2007 as one of the ten most polluted places in the world. It is now estimated that four million tonnes of cadmium, copper, lead, arsenic, selenium, zinc and nickel are released into the air every year.'
Last year, BBC TV news reported ('Toxic truth of secretive Siberian city') that the mining company accepted responsibly for what it had done to the forests, but insisted they were taking action to cut pollution. Between 2015 and 2020, it expects - hopes? — to reduce sulphur emissions by approximately two-thirds, but "admits it is hard to guarantee because they are still developing the technology". Moreover, the company like all capitalist enterprises, is not likely to try particularly hard to tackle the problem if it would curtail its vast profits. Profits before people — and the planet!
PEN
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
On replacing a bad system
Advocates of reform often make the mistake of reducing capitalism to a logical structure rather than seeing it "holistically" — as a dynamic process. Even as they note its continued evolution, when they talk about changing it, their interest tends to focus on parts and wholes, on mechanical interactions. Hence, they usually assume it will be a massive job from the standpoint of some mythical observer.
That it might conceivably be more of a chain reaction having "emergent properties," where individuals and groups all begin to adopt a massively coherent response at around the same time (without warning or even having a clear picture) analogous to, say, a flock of birds leaping suddenly into flight — is perhaps not so intuitively obvious. Yet it was to just such a torrential outpouring of public opinion that the rigid Leninist bureaucracies of the former Soviet system fell.
This suggests that it might be more useful to understand social change as a continuum of similar patterns that start with some not very sophisticated model and work their way up the scale of complexity to various all-encompassing models, with social change as a question of degree more than of kind. We might then be able to perceive possibilities and even opportunities we might otherwise have overlooked.
Such is arguably the case with a recent New Yorker article by Elizabeth Kolbert. She starts with a detailed account of a successful windmill project on the Nantucket-size Danish island of Sams and counterposes this to a broadly planetary emphasis with an analysis of the Swiss "2,000-Watt Society," focused on the concept of globally sustainable technology. What makes this article interesting is that its argument is sufficiently "whole cloth" that we can borrow from it to draw still more radical (social) conclusions relative to replacing capitalism with socialism. The following four propositions serve to illustrate how this might work.
1) Citing the prediction that eventual damage from climate change will amount to simply wiping out at least five percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, and "if a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account," that figure could "rise to 20 percent of GDP or more," Kolbert begins with a detailed, concrete description of the island of Sams's successful transition to the use of wind power in providing for its local economy's energy needs. This particular energy reform's distinctive characteristic was in its design: the islanders themselves drove the process. For several years, the project remained the brainchild of its "father," Sren Hermansen, but once it caught on in 1997, it snowballed and rapidly transformed the island economy's energy infrastructure. Kolbert cites an observation by Hermansen that "the hard work starts [with] convincing the first movers to be active."
In a parallel sense, the "first movers" of a socialist revolution are not really its theoreticians (those who self-consciously adopt an object grounded in a set of principles) but those sectors of the working class whose needs, interests and activities are functionally socialist. But whether or not one makes such a distinction, active first movers have to get the ball rolling. Thus, making socialists is an absolutely necessary first step in making a socialist revolution.
(2) On a more abstract plane, exploring issues similar to those that led to the Sams wind-energy project, Kolbert reports that "scientists affiliated with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology asked themselves what level of energy would be sustainable, not just for an island or a small European nation, but for the entire world. Answering this question led them to found the 2,000-Watt Society." According to a former director of the project, Roland Stulz, the Society "is not a program of a hard life. It is not what we call Grtel schnallen (belt tightening), it's not starving, it's not having less comfort or fun." It is about treating the future as a global common project of human creation. Again, from a still broader perspective, when we rethink our basic assumptions, we are rethinking the future.
(3) Former director of the 2,000-Watt Society Dieter Imboden told Kolbert that as a scientist he could see no technical barriers to creating a two-thousand-watt world. "Nothing has to be reinvented — for an engineer it's not even a challenge." But what does require changing is how people think of themselves. In the analogous socialist context, Imboden's conclusion remains intact: "The problems of the 21st century pose a different, qualitative kind of problem — a paradigm change in the role of science for our society."
(4) "It usually makes sense," Roland Stulz told Kolbert, "to become more intelligent in any human activity. As the former Saudi Arabian oil minister Sheikh Yamani once said, the Stone Age didn't end because there were no more stones. It ended because people became more intelligent."
This is as true for a socialist revolution with its overarching concepts as for a windmill project in a small Danish island community. We might therefore convincingly argue that more than anything else, a socialist revolution has to rest on most people re-learning the ancient survival art of tapping into their own native intelligence.
-Roel
That it might conceivably be more of a chain reaction having "emergent properties," where individuals and groups all begin to adopt a massively coherent response at around the same time (without warning or even having a clear picture) analogous to, say, a flock of birds leaping suddenly into flight — is perhaps not so intuitively obvious. Yet it was to just such a torrential outpouring of public opinion that the rigid Leninist bureaucracies of the former Soviet system fell.
This suggests that it might be more useful to understand social change as a continuum of similar patterns that start with some not very sophisticated model and work their way up the scale of complexity to various all-encompassing models, with social change as a question of degree more than of kind. We might then be able to perceive possibilities and even opportunities we might otherwise have overlooked.
Such is arguably the case with a recent New Yorker article by Elizabeth Kolbert. She starts with a detailed account of a successful windmill project on the Nantucket-size Danish island of Sams and counterposes this to a broadly planetary emphasis with an analysis of the Swiss "2,000-Watt Society," focused on the concept of globally sustainable technology. What makes this article interesting is that its argument is sufficiently "whole cloth" that we can borrow from it to draw still more radical (social) conclusions relative to replacing capitalism with socialism. The following four propositions serve to illustrate how this might work.
1) Citing the prediction that eventual damage from climate change will amount to simply wiping out at least five percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, and "if a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account," that figure could "rise to 20 percent of GDP or more," Kolbert begins with a detailed, concrete description of the island of Sams's successful transition to the use of wind power in providing for its local economy's energy needs. This particular energy reform's distinctive characteristic was in its design: the islanders themselves drove the process. For several years, the project remained the brainchild of its "father," Sren Hermansen, but once it caught on in 1997, it snowballed and rapidly transformed the island economy's energy infrastructure. Kolbert cites an observation by Hermansen that "the hard work starts [with] convincing the first movers to be active."
In a parallel sense, the "first movers" of a socialist revolution are not really its theoreticians (those who self-consciously adopt an object grounded in a set of principles) but those sectors of the working class whose needs, interests and activities are functionally socialist. But whether or not one makes such a distinction, active first movers have to get the ball rolling. Thus, making socialists is an absolutely necessary first step in making a socialist revolution.
(2) On a more abstract plane, exploring issues similar to those that led to the Sams wind-energy project, Kolbert reports that "scientists affiliated with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology asked themselves what level of energy would be sustainable, not just for an island or a small European nation, but for the entire world. Answering this question led them to found the 2,000-Watt Society." According to a former director of the project, Roland Stulz, the Society "is not a program of a hard life. It is not what we call Grtel schnallen (belt tightening), it's not starving, it's not having less comfort or fun." It is about treating the future as a global common project of human creation. Again, from a still broader perspective, when we rethink our basic assumptions, we are rethinking the future.
(3) Former director of the 2,000-Watt Society Dieter Imboden told Kolbert that as a scientist he could see no technical barriers to creating a two-thousand-watt world. "Nothing has to be reinvented — for an engineer it's not even a challenge." But what does require changing is how people think of themselves. In the analogous socialist context, Imboden's conclusion remains intact: "The problems of the 21st century pose a different, qualitative kind of problem — a paradigm change in the role of science for our society."
(4) "It usually makes sense," Roland Stulz told Kolbert, "to become more intelligent in any human activity. As the former Saudi Arabian oil minister Sheikh Yamani once said, the Stone Age didn't end because there were no more stones. It ended because people became more intelligent."
This is as true for a socialist revolution with its overarching concepts as for a windmill project in a small Danish island community. We might therefore convincingly argue that more than anything else, a socialist revolution has to rest on most people re-learning the ancient survival art of tapping into their own native intelligence.
-Roel
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Cloudy View from the Summit
Last month’s G8 Summit in the far north of Japan was typical of meetings of the heads of state these days. Held in a remote location, well out of sight and sound of protest marches, and protected by an army of police, the meeting was carefully choreographed to convey an impression of competence and confidence—but in the end only exposed the impotence of government leaders in the face of grave problems arising from their beloved social system.
The two problems that were the focus of attention at this year’s summit were climate change and price rises. Newspaper headlines quoted the vow of the heads of state to tackle both of these problems, yet the articles underneath admitted that this is much easier said than done.
One obvious reason why the various leaders are finding it difficult to solve such problems is that there is no clear consensus among them regarding the actions to take, which reflects the different and often directly opposed interests and standpoints of their respective nations.
For instance, not only are there differences between “rich” and “poor” nations regarding how to counter global warming, and the role that each nation must play, there are stark differences in the standpoints of the G8 nations regarding this issue, not to mention the political divisions within each nation.
Those same sorts of national and domestic differences came to the surface with regards to the rising food and fuel prices. Not surprisingly, each government has sought to frame the problem in a manner that lays the maximum blame on others. The root cause of the price rise has thus been identified, respectively, as the result of rising consumption in China and India, insufficient production by OPEC nations, or the flood of speculation on the commodities markets and declining dollar.
That is not to suggest, however, that such problems could be solved if only there was a clear consensus among the leaders and sufficient political will. The deeper issue is that the heads of state (with the backing, however tepid, of their electorate) have set out to solve problems that stem directly from the social system (= capitalism) that they are paid to serve and protect. (And it is worth emphasizing that their role is indeed as servants, rather than masters, of this system.) In other words, the reason that our self-styled “leaders” are unable to arrive at solutions is not that they are shortsighted, selfish and stupid—although more than a few fit that description—but that they are naturally reluctant to pursue the root causes of problems if it calls into question the capitalist system.
It does not take much digging, incidentally, to unearth the direct relation between a system of production for profit and a whole range of problems. This is particularly clear in the case of environmental problems. Capitalism is all about capital accumulation and the insatiable pursuit of profit is naturally accompanied by tremendous waste and destruction. If there are profits to be gained, capitalists are not too bothered by the long-term, or even short-term, consequences for other people or future generations. Political leaders lecture about the need to address environmental problems, while turning a blind eye to the role played by this rapacious system of profit chasing.
In the case of rising prices as well, it is rather absurd for politicians to bemoan the problem without fundamentally calling into question a system that revolves around prices and money. Granted, as long as the prices are “reasonable,” many people find this social system unobjectionable, or even natural. But a quick look at economic history reveals that inflation is a not uncommon side-effect of the money-centered capitalist system and that governments have had little success in bringing inflation under control once it picks up speed.
It is not surprising that inflation can be impossible to control, because commodity prices are not under our conscious human control to begin with. Simply put, prices are determined by the market. It is true that a business can set prices at whatever level it wants, but if that level is too far above or below that of their competitors the business runs the risk of losing sales or profit. Ultimately, therefore, businesses will tend to set the prices of their products according to the cost of production plus the average rate of profit. And, on a more essential level, these “production prices” are themselves ultimately determined by the amount of labor (or “socially necessary abstract human labor”) expended to produce the commodities.
In short, the very existence of prices reflects the fact, pointed out by Marx, that we live in “a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him” (Capital vol. 1). When prices are high, the absurdity of this anarchic social system comes into clearer view, but even in “normal” times our lives remain prey to forces outside of our control. The “solution” to the problem, at least as far as workers are concerned, is not to bring prices back to some acceptable level (assuming that were indeed possible), but to progress beyond this social system where production is just a means of generating profit and distribution is mediated by money.
If the businesses that carry out production are not free to ignore “market forces” and arbitrarily set prices, then it is foolish to imagine that national governments somehow possess the magical power to bring prices under control. To remain in power, heads of state need to convince the public that they are in control of the economic situation, or can at least curb the worst excesses of capitalism. In fact, their “control” over the direction of the capitalist economy resembles that exercised by a rodeo rider over an angry bull during those four seconds before he is tossed from the saddle into the dirt.
The powerlessness of world leaders was highlighted by a comment made during the G8 Summit by a Japanese government source who told Reuters that “there is a limit to what governments can do now” to stem the rising prices. The fact that this bland and exceedingly obvious statement was made on “condition of anonymity” speaks to the insecurity of world leaders who are desperate to pass themselves off as superheroes.
MS
The two problems that were the focus of attention at this year’s summit were climate change and price rises. Newspaper headlines quoted the vow of the heads of state to tackle both of these problems, yet the articles underneath admitted that this is much easier said than done.
One obvious reason why the various leaders are finding it difficult to solve such problems is that there is no clear consensus among them regarding the actions to take, which reflects the different and often directly opposed interests and standpoints of their respective nations.
For instance, not only are there differences between “rich” and “poor” nations regarding how to counter global warming, and the role that each nation must play, there are stark differences in the standpoints of the G8 nations regarding this issue, not to mention the political divisions within each nation.
Those same sorts of national and domestic differences came to the surface with regards to the rising food and fuel prices. Not surprisingly, each government has sought to frame the problem in a manner that lays the maximum blame on others. The root cause of the price rise has thus been identified, respectively, as the result of rising consumption in China and India, insufficient production by OPEC nations, or the flood of speculation on the commodities markets and declining dollar.
That is not to suggest, however, that such problems could be solved if only there was a clear consensus among the leaders and sufficient political will. The deeper issue is that the heads of state (with the backing, however tepid, of their electorate) have set out to solve problems that stem directly from the social system (= capitalism) that they are paid to serve and protect. (And it is worth emphasizing that their role is indeed as servants, rather than masters, of this system.) In other words, the reason that our self-styled “leaders” are unable to arrive at solutions is not that they are shortsighted, selfish and stupid—although more than a few fit that description—but that they are naturally reluctant to pursue the root causes of problems if it calls into question the capitalist system.
It does not take much digging, incidentally, to unearth the direct relation between a system of production for profit and a whole range of problems. This is particularly clear in the case of environmental problems. Capitalism is all about capital accumulation and the insatiable pursuit of profit is naturally accompanied by tremendous waste and destruction. If there are profits to be gained, capitalists are not too bothered by the long-term, or even short-term, consequences for other people or future generations. Political leaders lecture about the need to address environmental problems, while turning a blind eye to the role played by this rapacious system of profit chasing.
In the case of rising prices as well, it is rather absurd for politicians to bemoan the problem without fundamentally calling into question a system that revolves around prices and money. Granted, as long as the prices are “reasonable,” many people find this social system unobjectionable, or even natural. But a quick look at economic history reveals that inflation is a not uncommon side-effect of the money-centered capitalist system and that governments have had little success in bringing inflation under control once it picks up speed.
It is not surprising that inflation can be impossible to control, because commodity prices are not under our conscious human control to begin with. Simply put, prices are determined by the market. It is true that a business can set prices at whatever level it wants, but if that level is too far above or below that of their competitors the business runs the risk of losing sales or profit. Ultimately, therefore, businesses will tend to set the prices of their products according to the cost of production plus the average rate of profit. And, on a more essential level, these “production prices” are themselves ultimately determined by the amount of labor (or “socially necessary abstract human labor”) expended to produce the commodities.
In short, the very existence of prices reflects the fact, pointed out by Marx, that we live in “a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him” (Capital vol. 1). When prices are high, the absurdity of this anarchic social system comes into clearer view, but even in “normal” times our lives remain prey to forces outside of our control. The “solution” to the problem, at least as far as workers are concerned, is not to bring prices back to some acceptable level (assuming that were indeed possible), but to progress beyond this social system where production is just a means of generating profit and distribution is mediated by money.
If the businesses that carry out production are not free to ignore “market forces” and arbitrarily set prices, then it is foolish to imagine that national governments somehow possess the magical power to bring prices under control. To remain in power, heads of state need to convince the public that they are in control of the economic situation, or can at least curb the worst excesses of capitalism. In fact, their “control” over the direction of the capitalist economy resembles that exercised by a rodeo rider over an angry bull during those four seconds before he is tossed from the saddle into the dirt.
The powerlessness of world leaders was highlighted by a comment made during the G8 Summit by a Japanese government source who told Reuters that “there is a limit to what governments can do now” to stem the rising prices. The fact that this bland and exceedingly obvious statement was made on “condition of anonymity” speaks to the insecurity of world leaders who are desperate to pass themselves off as superheroes.
MS
Friday, July 11, 2008
Disaster Capitalism
Book Review from the July 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard
The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. By Naomi Klein
The author of No Logo has written another book strongly criticising features of capitalism while still arguing for reform of the system rather than for its replacement. In her earlier book Naomi Klein concentrated on the spread of globalisation. In The Shock Doctrine she aims to show that disaster capitalism treats natural and man-made disasters as exciting market opportunities.
She illustrates the main theme and associated sub-themes of the book by events in various countries over the last few decades.
In the USA the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that came to be known as 9/11 resulted in some 3,000 deaths. It also led to Bush's War on Terror, featuring big strides in privatisation, notably of the security industry. 9/11 exposed the security failures resulting from outsourcing government functions to profit-driven corporations: "the Bush team devised a new role for government, one in which the role of the state was not to provide security but to produce it at market prices."
After the New Orleans flood disaster in 2005 the public school system was almost completely replaced by privately-run charter schools. The teachers' union was shredded, the teachers were fired, and only some were rehired at reduced salaries. "Katrina was not unforeseeable. It was the result of a political structure that subcontracts its responsibility to private contractors."
In Chile in 1973 General Pinochet seized power by a coup d'état against the previously elected regime which was called "socialist" but was really welfare-state capitalism. Before the coup Chile's US-trained economists had tried to introduce a policy of privatisation, deregulation and cuts to social spending peacefully. When that policy was democratically rejected the ruling class resorted to the use of force. Pinochet's battle was one-sided: more than 3,200 disappeared or were executed, 80,000 were imprisoned and 200,000 fled the country. Government spending was cut by 25 percent, accompanied by a package of pro-business policies.
The Falklands war in 1982 was fought between Britain and Argentina over possession of some tiny islands off the Atlantic coast. It cost several hundred military lives. It also served to boost the reputation of Mrs Thatcher as the Iron Lady. She went into Churchillian battle mode: after defeating "the enemy without" (the Argentine forces) she turned her attention to what she called "the enemy within" – the trade union movement and particularly the National Union of Mineworkers. Between 1984 and 1988 the Thatcher government privatised, among others, British Telecom, Gas, Airways, Airport Authority and Steel.
Klein takes 57 pages and quotes over 200 sources to analyse the complex, chaotic and profit-driven situation in Iraq. Here are some highlights:
"Develop the private sector, starting with the elimination of subsidies… investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country, they would not be required to reinvest, and they would not be taxed… [the Iraq experiment] transformed the invasion, occupation and reconstruction into an exciting, fully privatized new market… BearingPoint, an offshoot of the major international accounting and consulting firm KPMG, was paid $240 million to build a 'market-driven system' in Iraq." (pp342-8)
In 2005 a hugely destructive tsunami caused much loss of life, suffering and hardship for many people, especially in Sri Lanka. When the emergency subsided and fishing families returned to where their homes once stood, they were greeted by police who forbade them to rebuild. Hotels were encouraged to expand onto the valuable oceanfront where fishing people had lived and worked. An $80 million redevelopment project was to be financed by aid money raised in the names of the victims of the tsunami. Loans from the World Bank and IMF were offered in exchange for agreements to open the economy to privatisation and public-private partnerships.
Stan Parker
The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. By Naomi Klein
The author of No Logo has written another book strongly criticising features of capitalism while still arguing for reform of the system rather than for its replacement. In her earlier book Naomi Klein concentrated on the spread of globalisation. In The Shock Doctrine she aims to show that disaster capitalism treats natural and man-made disasters as exciting market opportunities.
She illustrates the main theme and associated sub-themes of the book by events in various countries over the last few decades.
In the USA the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that came to be known as 9/11 resulted in some 3,000 deaths. It also led to Bush's War on Terror, featuring big strides in privatisation, notably of the security industry. 9/11 exposed the security failures resulting from outsourcing government functions to profit-driven corporations: "the Bush team devised a new role for government, one in which the role of the state was not to provide security but to produce it at market prices."
After the New Orleans flood disaster in 2005 the public school system was almost completely replaced by privately-run charter schools. The teachers' union was shredded, the teachers were fired, and only some were rehired at reduced salaries. "Katrina was not unforeseeable. It was the result of a political structure that subcontracts its responsibility to private contractors."
In Chile in 1973 General Pinochet seized power by a coup d'état against the previously elected regime which was called "socialist" but was really welfare-state capitalism. Before the coup Chile's US-trained economists had tried to introduce a policy of privatisation, deregulation and cuts to social spending peacefully. When that policy was democratically rejected the ruling class resorted to the use of force. Pinochet's battle was one-sided: more than 3,200 disappeared or were executed, 80,000 were imprisoned and 200,000 fled the country. Government spending was cut by 25 percent, accompanied by a package of pro-business policies.
The Falklands war in 1982 was fought between Britain and Argentina over possession of some tiny islands off the Atlantic coast. It cost several hundred military lives. It also served to boost the reputation of Mrs Thatcher as the Iron Lady. She went into Churchillian battle mode: after defeating "the enemy without" (the Argentine forces) she turned her attention to what she called "the enemy within" – the trade union movement and particularly the National Union of Mineworkers. Between 1984 and 1988 the Thatcher government privatised, among others, British Telecom, Gas, Airways, Airport Authority and Steel.
Klein takes 57 pages and quotes over 200 sources to analyse the complex, chaotic and profit-driven situation in Iraq. Here are some highlights:
"Develop the private sector, starting with the elimination of subsidies… investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country, they would not be required to reinvest, and they would not be taxed… [the Iraq experiment] transformed the invasion, occupation and reconstruction into an exciting, fully privatized new market… BearingPoint, an offshoot of the major international accounting and consulting firm KPMG, was paid $240 million to build a 'market-driven system' in Iraq." (pp342-8)
In 2005 a hugely destructive tsunami caused much loss of life, suffering and hardship for many people, especially in Sri Lanka. When the emergency subsided and fishing families returned to where their homes once stood, they were greeted by police who forbade them to rebuild. Hotels were encouraged to expand onto the valuable oceanfront where fishing people had lived and worked. An $80 million redevelopment project was to be financed by aid money raised in the names of the victims of the tsunami. Loans from the World Bank and IMF were offered in exchange for agreements to open the economy to privatisation and public-private partnerships.
Stan Parker
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Feeding the World?
President Bush in an interactive business session had argued that while prosperity in countries like India is good, it triggers increased demand for better nutrition, which in turn leads to higher food prices.The comments came close on the heels of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s controversial statement that ‘apparent improvement’ in the diets of people in India and China is among the causes of the current global food crisis.
The Truth
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report.
The figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush. The report confirms a British finding that the rush to develop biofuels has played a “significant” role in the dramatic rise in global food prices. And an estimates their impact as 20-30% rise.
“Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises,” said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam.
Production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.
“It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices,” said Dr David King, the government’s former chief scientific adviser.
However , the Indian apologists for capitalism should not feel too smug.
More than 1,300,000 tonnes of food grain rotted in storage stock-piles over the last decade in India according to a recent report.
“This amount of food grain could have fed over 10 million people in a year,” said activist Dev Ashish Bhattacharya.
-Reposted from Mailstrom
Oil and War
“A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say. The disclosure, coming on the eve of the contracts’ announcement, is the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism. In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts, advisers and a senior State Department official said.” (New York Times, 30 June) RD
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
