From: Progressive Response [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 October 2002 01:01
To: Progressive Response
Subject: [PR] Clean Air, FTAA, North Korea, Iraq
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n33.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response 25 October 2002 Vol. 6, No. 33
Editor: Tom Barry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the Interhemispheric
Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) as part of its Foreign
Policy in Focus (FPIF) project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without Walls," is an
international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the
U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen
movements and agendas." FPIF is joint project of the Interhemispheric
Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. We encourage responses
to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and
Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network,
please consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/, or email
<[log in to unmask]> to share your thoughts with us.
Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the
Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at www.irc-online.org) and
codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at
<[log in to unmask]>.
**** We Count on Your Support ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 10 | CLEARING THE AIR ***
*** RESPONDING TO NORTH KOREA'S SURPRISES ***
By John Feffer
*** NAFTA: A CAUTIONARY TALE ***
By Timothy Wise and Kevin Gallagher
*** NEW FPIF ANALYSIS ON IRAQ ***
*** NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS ***
II. Letters and Comments
*** SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ***
*** IVORY TOWER BETRAYAL ***
*** FROM BAD TO WORSE IN VENEZUELA ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 10 | CLEARING THE AIR ***
(Editor's Note: Frontier Justice is a weekly column written alternately by
Tom Barry and John Gershman, foreign policy analysts at the Interhemispheric
Resource Center, chronicling instances of U.S. unilateralism and its assault
on the multilateralism framework for managing global affairs. It is part of
the new Project Against the Present Danger. These columns are now indexed on
the www.presentdanger.org site at:
http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/index.html.)
By John Gershman
From October 23rd until November 1st, governments will be meeting in New
Delhi, India, for the 8th Conference of the Parties to UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (COP8). The purpose of this round of UN climate
talks is to continue developing international rules under which the UN
Convention and the Kyoto Protocol can be implemented. The Kyoto treaty is
the only international treaty aimed at reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases, but it has not yet become international law. The Bush administration
pulled out of Kyoto in early 2001.
Thus far 96 countries have ratified Kyoto, but the Protocol requires 55
countries plus countries representing 55% of industrialized country
emissions ratify the treaty before it can enter into force. Without the
U.S., Kyoto will not be ratified unless Russia joins. During the recent
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Russian Prime Minister
Mikhail Kasyanov stated that Russia intends to ratify "in the very near
future," which now appears to be sometime in the first half of 2003.
Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien also announced his intention to put
the Kyoto Protocol before parliament for ratification, leaving Australia as
the only industrialized country aside from the U.S. that has stated that it
will not ratify. The EU and Japan have already ratified the treaty, along
with most Central and Eastern European countries and many developing
countries, including Brazil, China, and India.
Domestic pressure on the Bush administration has been unable to break the
lock of fossil fuel industry and other opponents of policies aimed at
addressing human-induced climate change. For the first time in six years,
this year's annual federal report on air pollution trends had no section on
global warming, a step taken by top officials at the Environmental
Protection Agency with White House approval. Advocates for policies to
address climate change have targeted state and local authorities--with
increasing but uneven success--to adopt climate policies. Globally, however,
the Bush administration continues to undermine multilateral action. For
example, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, a
U.S.-OPEC coalition forced the abandonment of a proposed global renewable
energy target.
U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson has alienated many at the New Delhi
meeting by arguing that the U.S. will never accept mandatory emissions
reductions, "Not today, not tomorrow, never in the first commitment period."
(The latter refers to the 2008-2012 period, during which countries have to
stay within their assigned amounts of emissions. Under the Protocol, the
overall emissions from industrialized countries should be reduced by 5.2%
below 1990 levels. Negotiations on reduction commitments for subsequent
periods are supposed to start no later than 2005.) Watson has also said that
the U.S. will not be attending the next negotiations on emissions
reductions, scheduled to begin in 2005. With Watson apparently finding no
difficulty in speaking in the name of subsequent administrations, it seems
that the arrogance of the Bush administration has reached new levels.
The Bush administration's effort to derail multilateral progress on climate
issues is even more scandalous in the face of recent successes in some
developing countries at reducing emissions growth. A study from the Pew
Center for Climate Change (www.pewclimate.org/projects/dev_mitigation.cfm )
details how six developing countries (Brazil, China, India, Turkey, South
Africa, and Mexico) have already reduced the growth of their combined
greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 300 million tons a year. Furthermore,
other industrialized countries are expressing firm leadership. According to
an Environmental Data Services report on the coalition agreement between the
German Social Democratic and the German Green Party, "Germany will push for
the EU to go beyond its current Kyoto protocol commitment to cut greenhouse
gases to agree to a target reduction of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020. In
this context, Germany should reduce its own emissions by 40%, the parties
have agreed."
In the face of science, common sense, and morality, the Bush administration
remains committed to pursuing a policy that enriches a few and undermines
the future for many, both at home an abroad.
(John Gershman <[log in to unmask]> is a senior analyst at the
Interhemispheric Resource Center (online at www.irc-online.org) and the
Asia/Pacific editor for Foreign Policy in Focus.)
For more see:
Equity Watch, published by the Center for Science and the Environment
(India)
http://www.cseindia.org/html/cmp/climate/ew/index.htm
ECO Equity (published by a coalition of environmental NGOs)
http://www.climatenetwork.org/
Ecoequity
http://www.ecoequity.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** RESPONDING TO NORTH KOREA'S SURPRISES ***
By John Feffer
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted
in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210nk.html .)
For a supposedly changeless, monolithic state, North Korea shakes up the
staid world of diplomacy with surprising frequency. In the past four months,
Pyongyang has initiated dramatic economic changes, stunned Japan with its
confession of abductions, appointed a Chinese-born tycoon to oversee its
newest free-trade zone, and sent its first-ever boatload of athletes,
musicians, and cheerleaders to South Korea to participate in the 2002 Asian
games. In the latest stunner, North Korea revealed in early October to a
visiting U.S. delegation that it has violated international agreements with
a secret uranium enrichment program.
Pyongyang has long recognized that nuclear weapons are one of the few
deterrents that United States takes seriously when contemplating regime
change. "We won't be next," they are telling a U.S. government bent on
replacing Saddam Hussein. At the same time, to improve relations with the
larger world, North Korea has to reveal the extent of its nuclear program. A
diplomatic solution requires international inspections and a suspension of
North Korea's nuclear program.
The first step, then, must be a renegotiation of the Agreed Framework. This
agreement has been, as analyst Peter Hayes notes, more a means "to conduct
diplomacy and to push forward on issues of concern to both sides" than a
specific deal on building two nuclear power plants in North Korea. North
Korea expected the agreement to lead to normalization of relations; the U.S.
architects of the agreement expected North Korea to collapse before the
plants were built. An agreement built on such contrary expectations cannot
last long. The current crisis represents an opportunity to build a better
agreement that would provide greater security guarantees for the United
States and its allies and a more sustainable energy future for North Korea.
Second, the United States must provide assurance that it will not launch a
preemptive attack on Pyongyang. A government under constant threat of attack
will seek out all deterrents within reach. As part of a package deal,
security guarantees such as suspension of exercises or troop reductions
should accompany verbal promises.
Finally, and most fundamentally, the United States must develop a more
nuanced understanding of what is happening on the ground in North Korea. The
Bush administration portrays North Korea as a totalitarian society frozen in
time and adamantine in philosophy. To the extent that an impoverished
country can do so in a globalized age, North Korea has insisted on
determining its own pace of change. To borrow from the language of science,
North Korea is engaged in a form of punctuated evolution--not a smooth
transition from Confucian communism to market socialism but a process
characterized by sudden bursts of diplomatic and economic activity. The past
four months have been just such a burst.
Granted, a changeless, evil society figures prominently in the very
structure of U.S. security doctrine, and it might be naove to expect the
Bush administration to understand North Korea's punctuated evolution. To do
so, however, is not simply of academic importance. There are important
benefits to engagement that so far the Bush administration has ignored.
The benefits can't be expressed in trade figures. Although North Korea has
key natural resources--gold, magnesite, even newly discovered off-shore
oil--it remains a poor investment. The country, however, plays a pivotal
role in the region. With North Korea more resolutely embarked on market
reforms, East Asia will be able to form a free trade area, Europe and Asia
will be able to connect by railroad and greatly expand trade, and the
natural resources of the Russian Far East will be more easily tapped for
Asian development. Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan all recognize this
potential. Only the United States, because of Bush's almost pathological
distaste for diplomacy, remains on the outside of what promises to be one of
the more remarkable economic shifts in the coming decade.
For any of the grander economic schemes involving North Korea to
materialize, a large infusion of capital into the country is required. The
only likely sources for such capital are the international financial
institutions. The International Monetary Fund has extended an invitation for
North Korea to participate in its 2003 meeting in Dubai and has offered
technical assistance even before membership. Market reforms and engagement
with international financial institutions are a two-edged sword. This kind
of engagement brings North Korea into the world, and thus reduces the risk
of war, particularly with the United States. But it also creates debt
dependency and accentuates what are already strong class divisions within
North Korea.
Before North Korea confronts these difficult choices, however, the essential
confrontation between the Bush administration's preference for regime change
and North Korea's preference for nuclear deterrence must be resolved. These
two destabilizing strategies have developed a toxic co-dependency on the
Korean peninsula, and the United States and North Korea must agree quickly
and equitably on a new framework to detoxify their relations.
(John Feffer <[log in to unmask]> is a member of the FPIF advisory board and
editor of the forthcoming book Power Trip: U.S. Foreign Policy after 9/11
(Seven Stories).)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** NAFTA: A CAUTIONARY TALE ***
By Timothy Wise and Kevin Gallagher
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted
in its entirety at:
http://www.fpif.org/americas/commentary/2002/0210nafta.html . This
commentary comes to FPIF courtesy of the Americas Program at the
Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org). For
more commentary and analysis on inter-American affairs, visit the IRC's
Americas Program at www.americaspolicy.org or FPIF's own Americas section at
http://www.fpif.org/indices/regions/latin.html .)
At the end of this month, trade ministers from throughout the Western
Hemisphere will gather in Quito, Ecuador for negotiations on the proposed
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Many FTAA proponents, including the
Bush administration, herald the FTAA as a NAFTA for the Americas. Indeed,
early drafts suggest that the proposed treaty is modeled closely on NAFTA,
which took effect in 1994. Less clear is why the Bush administration
believes NAFTA's spotty track record will help sell the FTAA to wary Latin
American governments.
** Trade Without Development
It is widely accepted that the goal of economic integration should be to
raise living standards. According to our review of the public record, NAFTA
has yet to fulfill that promise.
Official figures from both the World Bank and the Mexican government show
that trade liberalization has succeeded in stimulating both trade and
investment, and it has brought inflation under control. Mexico's exports
have grown at a rapid annual rate of 10.6% in real terms since 1985, and
foreign direct investment (FDI) has nearly tripled, posting a real 21%
annual growth rate. Inflation has significantly been tamed.
Unfortunately, this growth has not translated into benefits for the Mexican
population as a whole. The same official sources show that:
7 Economic growth has been slow in Mexico--less than one percent per capita
per year from 1985-99--compared with 3.4% from 1960-80.
7 The increase in exports has been far outstripped by rising imports,
leaving Mexico with a serious balance of payments deficit.
7 There has been little job creation, falling far short of the demand in
Mexico from new entrants into the labor force. The manufacturing sector, one
of the few sectors to show significant economic growth, has seen a net loss
in jobs since NAFTA took effect.
7 Wages have declined nationally, with real wages down significantly. The
real minimum wage is down 60% since 1982, 23% under NAFTA. Contractual wages
are down 55% since 1987. Manufacturing wages are down 12% under NAFTA.
7 Sixty percent of the employed do not receive any of the benefits mandated
by Mexican law. One-third of the economically active population is in the
informal sector.
7 The number of households living in poverty has grown 80% since 1984, with
some 75% of Mexico's people now below the poverty line.
7 Inequality has worsened, with Mexico's Gini coefficient--the standard
international measure of inequality--rising from .43 to .48 since 1984,
putting Mexico among the most unequal nations in the hemisphere.
7 The rural sector is in crisis, beset by grain imports from the U.S.,
falling commodity prices, and reduced government support. Four-fifths of
rural Mexico lives in poverty, and over half are in extreme poverty.
These figures make clear that economic integration in Mexico has come at the
expense of development. Our own empirical research on the social and
environmental impacts of integration contributes to this gloomy report card.
** Environment: Accelerated Degradation
Our research runs contrary to the pre-NAFTA predictions that economic
integration with Mexico would eventually lead to an upward harmonization of
environmental standards and performance. Between 1985 and 1999, rural soil
erosion in Mexico grew by 89%, municipal solid waste by 108%, and air
pollution by 97%. The Mexican government estimates that the economic costs
of environmental degradation have amounted to 10% of annual GDP, or $36
billion per year. These costs dwarf economic growth, which amounted to only
2.6% on an annual basis.
The surge in foreign direct investment (FDI) has largely failed to bring
cleaner technologies to Mexican industry. Although the Mexican cement and
steel sectors are now cleaner as a result of overseas investment, they are
the exception not the rule. Industrial pollution as a whole has nearly
doubled since 1988. Unless economic integration is coupled with strong
environmental regulations and enforcement, pollution will only continue to
worsen. Since NAFTA took effect, however, real spending on the environment
has declined 45%, and plant-level environmental inspections have shown a
similar drop.
** NAFTA: No Blueprint for the Americas
The conventional wisdom on economic integration is changing. In response to
the hard facts, a wide range of Latin American governments, prominent
economists, and civil society organizations are questioning the U.S.
approach to economic integration. A vibrant debate among these actors will
be occurring both inside and parallel to the official meetings in Quito.
These critics do not deny that trade and investment are essential tools for
development--the question is what kind of trade and investment, by what
rules, and to what end. NAFTA's track record in Mexico certainly does not
bode well for Latin American and Caribbean nations desperate for change
after over a decade of slow growth and worsening poverty.
(Kevin Gallagher and Timothy Wise are researchers at the Global Development
and Environment Institute of Tufts University and frequent contributors to
the IRC's Americas Program.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** NEW FPIF ANALYSIS ON IRAQ ***
The Cuban Missile Crisis versus the Crisis with Iraq
By Susan B. Martin
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210cmc.html
Mr. Bush would have us believe that the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis
support a preemptive war against Iraq. Mr. Bush is wrong, and his misreading
of the Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates what is wrong with the current
administration's policy toward Iraq.
Mr. Bush, The Answer Is In Your Hands
By Don Kraus
http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2002/0210answer.html
On September 12th, President Bush asked, "will the United Nations serve the
purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
U.S.-Iraq: On the War Path
By Stephen Zunes
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n12iraq.html
New FPIF policy brief on U.S.-Iraq relations, with prescriptions for a more
effective policy.
Also see FPIF's special focus pages:
Iraq in Focus
http://www.fpif.org/iraq/index.html
Project on the Present Danger
http://www.presentdanger.org/
Student Activism in Focus
http://www.fpif.org/students/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** NEW FROM SELF-DETERMINATION IN FOCUS ***
Indonesia: An Archipelago of Self-Determination and Communal Conflicts
By John Gershman (October 2002)
http://www.selfdetermine.org/conflicts/indonesia.html
There are two major types of violent conflicts in Indonesia: Self
determination conflicts and Communal conflicts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Letters and Comments
*** SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ***
Re: United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by
Countries Other than Iraq (available online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html )
Americans need to know all the facts before they give their seal of approval
to President Bush, to embark on a war against Iraq; under no circumstances
should Americans allow the U.S. government to initiate a war under false
premises. We have heard President Bush in repeated statements declaring that
we must wage a war against Iraq and achieve regime change, a new aphorism
for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, because his government has been the leading
culprit among nations who are in violation of UN Security Council
Resolutions; it is choking and appalling that the overwhelming majority of
the media in this country has allowed these misleading statements made by
the President to have gone unchallenged. I thank you for setting the record
straight, in addition, perhaps Americans should be informed about the
current prices of extracting a barrel of oil in various parts of the world,
In Saudi Arabia it costs 2 dollars, in Russia 8 dollars, and in Iraq 0.70
cents. Perhaps oil has more to do with President Bush's decision to occupy
Iraq than the violations of UN Security Council Resolutions. President Bush
should be reminded that the application of international law needs to be
even-handed; double standards will only help fuel the resentment felt toward
America throughout the Islamic world and in other parts of the world. Thank
you for setting the record straight.
- Bianca Jagger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** IVORY TOWER BETRAYAL ***
Re: "Silience is Betrayal" (available online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210iraqciv.html )
A time has come when stupid articles from leaders on our college campuses
constitute betrayal. Professor Hallinan, you would do well to remain silent
as your ignorance is readily apparent. Does it take a college Provost to
reach the astounding conclusion that wars kill people? Wars are designed
that way: that is what is supposed to happen. You write "... and the
Pentagon Projects Gulf War II will kill another 10,000 (Iraqis) ..." I think
the Iraqis will be extremely lucky if the number is, indeed, that small. The
Iraqis have the option of doing away with Saddam Hussein and sparing
themselves any loss of life, other than Saddam's. Iraqis have had this
option for 23 years, so it seems they do need motivating. I, for one
American citizen, am proud " ... all of this will be carried out in our name
... " because I am an American who is in strong support of our President and
our country's name and its War on Terrorism. Too bad our educators deign to
be different.
- T. D. Ponder <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** FROM BAD TO WORSE IN VENEZUELA ***
Re: "Venezuela--Not a Banana Oil Republic After All" (available online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0204venezuela.html )
I would like to know what Mr. Wilpert thinks about Chavez six months after
publishing this article. The president has radicalized his speech, has
become bolder with his threats and insults toward his political opponents
and the economic and political situation is more difficult than it was on
April. Even Peru's President Alejandro Toledo has called yesterday for the
Andean Pact countries to provide help for Venezuela and nobody knows better
than Toledo what it is to fight against a "democratic dictatorship." Even
though he was democratically elected, Chavez has concentrated all the power
in his hands and has shown no intention whatsoever to dismantle his violent
bolivarian circles or get involved in a consensus dialogue with the
opposition. I am one of the thousands of women who have opposed this regime
since the beginning and even if I were to recognize that I am also one of
the thousands who felt betrayed by Carmona in April, that doesn't mean that
my perspective about President Chavez has changed; rather, it has become
worse.
- Maria del Carmen Abreu <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Stay Connected to the World
OneWorld U.S.--Global Daily Headlines brings you the most engaging and
relevant articles on the environment, development, human rights, U.S.
foreign policy and globalization, direct from over 1,250 organizations
working in the field across the globe.
http://www.benton.org/OneWorldUS/dailyheadlines.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new
kind of think tank--one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh,
internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF
products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to
cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and
other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on
https://secure.webburner.net/fpif/donate/index.html to support FPIF online,
or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the
mail.
***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so
let us know how we're doing, via email to <[log in to unmask]>. Please put
"Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post
the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies
you may receive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html and follow the instructions.
To subscribe directly, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
