From rkmoore@iol.ie Sun Feb 1 22:26:28 1998 Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:26:20 GMT Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:26:20 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: EU & globalism (Dennis) I wrote >> Japanese TNC's, for example, are becoming entities whose stock is traded >> globally and which produce goods in Asia for exportation to world markets >> while paying minimal taxes to anyone - what has that, really, to do with >> Japan? 2/01/98, Dennis R Redmond responded: >Everything. Japanese TNCs are competitive because of a huge hidden >infrastructure of national subcontractors, small and medium-size firms, >plus a canny and effective developmental state which invests in education >and retraining and socializes the cost of R & D for big firms. Dennis, Again, you're presenting a familiar mainstream analysis, but one that is being rapidly outdated by globalization. Government subsidies and protectionist policies are being globally scaled down by reduced budgets (lower corporate taxes) and by WTO directives against "anti-competitive" practices. One example of the latter is the ruling that the EU could no longer subisidize imports of Carribean bananna growers. This is the direction things are clearly going. The global development model is substantially different now than it was for the first two decades or so of the postwar period. During that period development in the core had a national focus, as had been the case for centuries. But as the perspective of TNC's has become increasingly global, and with neoliberal downsizing of governments' budgets and prerogatives, government's role in economic planning is diminishing, along with the public benefit from corporate growth. You're describing the history of the Japanese economy, not its future. >Also, the >Japanese multis are not autonomous actors in the sense of American >corporations or their rentier elites: most of 'em are part of still larger >"keiretsu" This is a different topic altogether. Keiretsu may well be a pattern that spreads. What's been happening in all industries, at different rates, is a concentration of global ownership into the hands of a few mega-TNC operators, as we've long had in petroleum with the seven-sister majors. In other words, in each industry (automobiles, communications, transportation, food, etc.) there is developing a clique of global operators who dominate that industry. As these shakeouts begin to stabilize, keiretsu linkages may well emerge among the cliques. But under globalization, we can expect keiretsu links to jump national and even regional boundaries. If an automobile manufacturer needs a steel "partner" for example, the search will be for the best synergy-match on a global basis, not just the best match among companies which share the same home nation or region. In fact the whole concept of home-nation is becoming antiquated. Increasingly only the corporte headquarters has any sense of permanent location: everything else from R&D through manufacturing to sales might be anywhere. There may well be "German" and "Japanese" companies in the same keiretsu at some point (if not already). But Japan, Germany or the EU, as nations, don't play any particular role or gain any particular benefit from whatever success that keiretsu might enjoy. The creation of the EU is irrelevant to these developments, and the people of the EU nations can expect no significant long-term benefits from the arrangement. And whatever benefits do accrue are pence as compared to the pounds lost in democratic sovereignty and globalist exploitation. >In true dialectical fashion, >global capitalism is forcing firms to create what are essentially >non-market structures of sharing and cooperation in order to remain >competitive -- Yes, partnerships, joint ventures, mergers, acquisitions, and keiretsu's are all means by which corporations can grow and/or increase their competitiveness. But that has no relevance to whether the EU makes sense. Later clarification: >It means, basically, that in the midst of the current >relapse into neoliberal barbarism, capitalism is beginning to eat itself. >It's not just the increasing networking of the professional classes who >work for the TNCs, it's economic, too: that allegedly invincible and >autonomous market is requiring bigger and bigger Government bailouts and >regulation, in order to avoid a 1929-style implosion. We've gone from S & >L bailouts in the Eighties to Japanese bank bailouts in the Nineties, to >West Germany's bailout of the ex-GDR, and now the bailout of the whole >damn Pacific Rim economy (a neat one-third of the world economy). There is a dangerous instability in financial markets, and there will be corporate failures, but capitalism as a system is not threatened by the events you allude to, nor even by the global depression that many anticipate. Korea is not scrambling to socialism, it's scrambling to the IMF. And Korea isn't being bailed out, it's being sold off. It will be given a little dole money to bolster its currency, but it's indusrtries are being bought up at distressed prices. Korea is being robbed and the globalist weapon is financial destabiliztion instead of gunboats. The beneficiaries are the Western and Japanese corporations that are picking up the bargains. >At the >same time, global capitalism is spawning whole new techniques of workplace >input and democracy, via the electronic media as well as a multinational >labor-force with the potential of organizing itself into global unions and >Left parties. Which isn't to say it'll automatically happen -- this is our >job as activists, of course. But the potential for a 21st-century >socialism is being created in front of our very eyes. Organized labor is becoming weaker, not stronger, under globalization. There is certainly a job for activists, but every day globalization proceeds makes the task of counter-revolution more difficult. Despite whatever minor percs may filter down in the process, delay only increases the net dominance of the corporatist elite. >OK. I'm way, way over quota on my WSN postings, so I'll shut up now & let >other folks have their say for awhile. On the contrary. You've posted your perspective, repeated it a time or two, and you have yet to respond to critiques which have been offered. Your response would be quite in order. rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Sun Feb 1 22:26:33 1998 Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:26:26 GMT Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:26:26 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: inevitable collapse of global capitalism (Andrew) 2/01/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote re/ EU & globalism: >I envision a much more >revolutionary path, one that will grow out of the inevitable decay or >collapse of global capitalism Andrew: I challenge this assumption of collapse. There indeed must be a dialectic transformation in the economic system, for the simple fact that eternal growth is not possible. But that does not necessarily mean the global enonomy must collapse in the process of transformation, nor that the successor economy will be determined by popular will or action. My counter-scenario is based, once again, on the petroleum industry microcosm. Here you have the first fully globalized markets, run by the first fully globalized corporations, and you can see what the capitalist endgame has been in this case. There is still competition, but it is entirely sisterly - they aren't trying to drive one another out of business. They collaborate in the global management of production, distribution, and pricing. After the first century or so of rapidly growing markets, expanding territories, and shakeout battles, the industry now operates by a "cash cow" ethos instead of a "growth" ethos. That is more like feudalism than capitalism. Each "sister" has its traditional sources and markets, just like lords had their own estates. The adjustment to a limited-growth environment did not involve collapse, and it has not led to a diminshment of corporate/elite ownership, control, or power. My claim then, is that we must seriously consider the possibility that coporate neo-feudalism, rather than socialism, may be the dialectic successor to capitalism, and that the transtion may not involve revolution. (Other than the revolution of globlization.) I believe, in fact, that the empirical evidence favors the neo-feudalist outcome. I'd be interested in your (and others) response to this analysis. rkm From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Mon Feb 2 08:00:05 1998 by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:05:53 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Who needs to know what? On Thursday Dennis replied, >You mention the CAP program, but I'm talking about something much >larger: transnational democracy, regulation, trade unionism and whatnot. >Isn't this why the British ruling class fought to keep the UK out of the >EU for so long? And aren't environmental laws and welfare state >regulations much tougher on the Continent than in the UK? The four points you make are larger; I was giving an illustration on the ways of deception. And yes, continental laws on welfare are tougher. I seem to think it was De Gaulle who kept Britain out of the EU in the early stages, once he died the door was open for the UK to join. >Huh? You lost me here. What does Major's inward investment policy have >to do with the Greens, who have fought for sustainable, autonomous forms >of self-development? And why do you paint yourself in a box here, by >complaining about some local organizer who won't answer a phone call? >The European Greens have websites, mailing lists, and publications >galore. Do a random search on any World Wide Web search engine for >"Green Party" or "Greens", and you'll find a wealth of materials and >info on the topic. Well, I'm afraid I do get overexcited here, trying to condense material into a few lines, so it might be misleading. I do in fact look at the Green sites from time to time, I am also a card holding helper of a non-political organisation. The Green Party is not entirely effective; the home page contains this, >Instead of those heady dreams we have had to face a drop in membership and a (temporary) return to the margins of Scottish political life with approximately 2% support in elections. Membership has steadied at about 400 out of a population of just less than five million. In the manifesto for the 1994 election, a ten page document, I agree with every point made. To me it says all the right things. But this is the problem, all parties have appealing manifestos. Only the Green Party disagree with inward investment. "Instead of paying huge incentives for foreign "inward investment", we should develop local businesses." The paragraph ends with a very clear statement. "We must send a clear message to Brussels which says economics must be redefined for sustainability. Economics must be in the service of the people, not people in service of economics." So what had the Party in mind when it comes to 'local business'? "In the rural areas the cohesion fund should be directed at restoring the productivity of rural life through community forestry and value added rural industry which sustainably builds local economies." Now, what I wanted to know was the method of achieving this goal. It is easy to say the right things, another matter to have a working plan. For instance, how can a distributive process operate when the policy of the EU is one of concentration of wealth? This is what has taken a while to find. Richard K. Moore wrote on Mon 10th Nov >I was at a talk by (now former) Minister of Agricuture (for Ireland) >Ivan Yates where he said to a "rural development" planning group: "Big >scale farming and forestry are coming; there's no use debating it; you >might as well do your planning accordingly" (paraphrase). Also, the Green rep was not the first one to avoid me. Who was it that said there would be a struggle? William Kirk. From rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU Mon Feb 2 13:57:27 1998 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:53:50 -0700 (MST) From: Richard N Hutchinson To: Dennis R Redmond Subject: Re: EU In-Reply-To: You are right to emphasize the national and regional character of capital. It seems to me that, as opposed to RKM's argument, it is globalization that has become the new conventional wisdom. It is common to see all manner of commentators "sampling on the dependent variable" of globalization tendencies, often accompanied by all sorts of postmodern hand-waving, and failing to take note of the continuing central role of nation-states in the global political economy. The creation of the Bretton Woods institutions and the promotion of "free trade" by U.S. capital after WW II reflected U.S. dominance and the fact that U.S. capital would best be able to use this framework. Since the early 70s, the U.S., W. Europe and Japan have been jockeying for advantage within a less stable framework. To the extent that they can all reap benefits from a favorable institutional framework, then coordination can succeed (via the G7, Trilateral Commission, GATT/ITO, etc). But there is clearly competition as well as cooperation. It is the nature of capitalism -- anarchic, as Marx said. Back to Lenin -- he argued against "ultraimperialism," (the unity of global capital) and stressed instead inter-imperialist conflict. So far I'd say history bears out conflict overall. The ultraimperialist variant of the globalization viewpoint (it doesn't really seem to be a theory) is more speculative than the alternative. [Interesting side note relevant to inter-imperialist conflict -- the NYT reported last week that the U.S. intelligence agencies, in their annual report to congress, said that the U.S. faces no serious threat in the foreseeable future. No mention of China. Only a myriad of minor problems adding up to instability in the periphery -- nothing new there.] Richard Hutchinson From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 2 15:58:15 1998 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:58:09 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: EU & globalism In-Reply-To: On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > The global development model is substantially different now than it was for > the first two decades or so of the postwar period. During that period > development in the core had a national focus, as had been the case for > centuries. But as the perspective of TNC's has become increasingly global, > and with neoliberal downsizing of governments' budgets and prerogatives, > government's role in economic planning is diminishing, along with the > public benefit from corporate growth. This is true in America and Britain, but certainly not in Germany or Japan. There's a difference between what Governments say they're doing, and what they actually do: Germany and Japan talk the monetarist talk, but in fact, they've acted like good old-fashioned Keynesians. West Germany has been spending $100 billion a year since 1990 to finance the bailout of East Germany; the money has come from Keynesian deficit financing, not West German wages. Japan has been letting speculators go to the wall, while bailing out its big banks. Both countries have pushed their interest rates to superlow, liquidity-stimulating levels, far lower than in the US, where rates are slightly restrictive. Both countries still have huge developmental states, public financing of higher education, public investment in R & D consortia, nationalized/public health care systems, and relatively generous pension and benefits schemes which cover most of their working population. One good example here is the financing of universities in Germany: they're free to the public. The Conservatives want to introduce American-style loans for students, so what did the students do? Stage the biggest student strike across Germany since 1968. Some form of neoliberalism may triumph in Europe in the far future, but right now, the resistance to such is vast and growing. > There may well be "German" and "Japanese" companies in the same keiretsu at > some point (if not already). But Japan, Germany or the EU, as nations, > don't play any particular role or gain any particular benefit from whatever > success that keiretsu might enjoy. The creation of the EU is irrelevant to > these developments, and the people of the EU nations can expect no > significant long-term benefits from the arrangement. The point is that most of the German and Japanese economies are locked up in keiretsu networks of one sort or another, while only a small minority of American firms have similar arrangements. This is important, because what keiretsu do is to cheapen the cost of capital for members of a given network, and boost the long-term productivity gains in a given national economy. It's not just a marketing arrangement, it has to do with a fundamental shift in the mode of production (this is why, to me, the core of the EU is not Germany or any nation-state in particular, but what we might call the Eurokeiretsu which comprise the economies of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, the Benelux countries, Switzerland, Austria, northern Italy and to some extent southern and eastern France). GM has to worry about Warren Buffet and Wall Street takeovers; Daimler-Benz is 25% owned by Deutsche Bank and can concentrate on producing the finest cars in the world, using one of the most skilled and educated workforces in the world. Toyota and most of the big Japanese firms are similarly well-protected against meddling rentiers. Again, this could change in the future, but in 1998, the industrialists in Japan and Europe still have the upper hand over their rentier and financial class juniors. -- Dennis From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Mon Feb 2 16:37:29 1998 by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 21:56:59 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: EU & globalism On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Dennis Redmond replied to Richard K. Moore. >> Japanese TNC's, for example, are becoming entities whose stock is >>traded globally and which produce goods in Asia for exportation to >>world markets while paying minimal taxes to anyone - what has that, >>really, to do with Japan? >Everything. Japanese TNCs are competitive because of a huge hidden >infrastructure of national subcontractors, small and medium-size firms, >plus a canny and effective developmental state which invests in >education and retraining and socializes the cost of R & D for big firms. I think the way it works is as follows. A TNC says it is going to set up in Europe. The various countries then compete to get the business, with various grants, subsidies and special concessions. Mainly the UK has led the field, resulting in lower unemployment and a continuing decline that is evident over the past seven years. Therefore we have to accept that all of this has been good. Additionally the organisation will require servicing, the supply of goods and services, which in turn creates further employment, to give a 'trickle down' for the central organisation. For instance, in the Central Belt of Scotland, this area has seen all the traditional industries disappear, many of them converting primary resources such as the production of steel for local manufacture. The process of rundown began in the 60's and is almost complete. Indeed, everything is now geared to ensuring the TNC operates efficiently and effectively. This includes infrastructure, supply of power and water, plus a trained supply of workers. There are some failures, such as investments that backfire, and when the TNC decides to move nearer the market. Overall the history of the past forty to fifty years can be seen as some sort of natural evolution, of changing fortunes and the inevitable faith in belief that nothing stands still. Therefore we are made to believe had it not been for the coming of the TNC's then where might we be now? Now I shall give an alternative view. This has to be seen with regard the overall economy, where it was given in 1980 that by increasing the number of TNC's, along with privatisation and deregulation, was going to reduce government spending, which incidentally is a requirement demanded by the EU and the convergence criteria needed for the common currency. In 1980 the total government spend was about 44 per cent of GDP, and it was the main aim of the government at that time to reduce this to about 36 per cent or lower. One of the first actions of the Tory government in 1979 was to increase value added tax from 8 to 15 per cent, and now this is at 17.5 per cent. The last decree of the Tory government before being ousted was to increase value added tax on household fuel, in fact the plans had they been re-elected would have increased the scope of the tax to cover almost everything, such as all food products and water. >From 1979 the per cent of tax did decrease, it went down to about 38 per cent round about 1985 and from then on it has steadily increased. Now, what I suspect is that the reduction in tax through privatisation and the benefits from deregulation are simply a means of shifting the load, the public pay the same price, or more likely more, but since it doesn't go through the governments books then this is money 'saved'. So where has the increase in tax gone? I say it has gone to the TNC's. (As I am sitting here I see on the news the PM has agreed to give Ford- Jaguar £43M, so the jobs are saved!) Before 1970-80 there was a degree of democracy, local government was effectively devolved, there were over fifteen hundred local authorities, and nearly all government departments had a regional basis. All of this was wiped away more or less at a stroke, in 1974 the number of local authorities in England and Wales was reduced to forty, and a year later Scotland ended up with just twelve. Government departments were 'privatised' in to Quasi Autonomous National Government Offices, or QUANGO's. Now these offices are truly private, they are the Local Enterprise Companies, or LEC's. The reason for these offices was to speed up the process by employing professionals rather than elected and amateur representatives. The larger of these are headed up by members of the banking 'industry', and all offices have 'revolving doors'. They have overseas offices, in places such as Tokyo and San Francisco. The LEC's and regional development organisations work together and co-ordinate with other 'advisory' organisations. Thus, a TNC comes along and is given a handout, or if it is an established one and intimates it cannot continue then it gets a handout. The TNC will find itself in a development zone, all services provided by the local authority, highways built, power supplied, and then gets big tax concessions, plus a moratorium on the books for ten years. Next, those who can offer services to the TNC line up for grants and whatever. This is where the LEC comes into its own, it is there to sift out applications that are useful to the TNC. It also ensures there will be competition for the services, this is what is meant by the 'enterprise initiative'. Those organisations that do emerge have to save costs for the TNC, the idea of 'just in time' puts all of the costs of stock onto the server. Characteristically these server organisations compete amongst each other by reducing their prices, not by innovation. If a server did have patentable technology it is going to find the costs of maintaining the patent right is probably too high, and in any event the TNC can simply use the invention and let the server take them to the law, a completely erroneous strategy. The savings to the TNC are enormous, from services such as window cleaning to the barrow boys bringing in sandwiches, this is 'enterprise' as shown on television. Any application for assistance that has the potential to compete with a TNC or has a technological base to convert a resource into one with added value will be shown the door, the back door. Other 'enterprises' do of course get assistance, but here they too are 'competitive', such as offering, for example, a bakery. It is no coincidence if one specialist comes along someone else will get assistance for the very same service. At the extreme some people will get assistance for labour intensive occupations, generally where there is a limiting market. The failure of a server is of no consequence, there are always others in the pipeline, and the principle of the server system is based on price reduction so it is expected that one struggling on very low profit is adding to the profits of the TNC. TNC's do not compete, they are not part of the 'enterprise initiative'. All pharmaceutical organisations appear as if they 'compete' when you go into a chemists shop or drugstore. Look carefully and you will see there is no competition. Bread, there are two makers in the UK. Margarine, there must be over twenty on the shelf, and guess what, they are all made by the same company. Where is there any competition? Wherever you go all products go through a monopoly organisation at some stage, and this is where the bulk of profits are made. In total the cost of having TNC's, and the European system has cost the people of the UK dearly. Whatever is paid in additional tax, plus the supposed savings brought about by privatisation, has gone to TNC's. This acts like a vast silent siphon, or 'the hole in the economic tank' and one that is curiously unquantifiable. But then I might have missed something? William Kirk. From phuakl@sit.edu.my Tue Feb 3 00:39:37 1998 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:41:57 +0000 Subject: socialism vs capitalism I have been following (to some extent) the "Great Austin-Moore-Sanderson-Et Al Debate" on socialism versus capitalism. Speaking as a non-Marxist Social Democrat (with some lingering sympathy for the romantic Maoism of my undergraduate days in the late 1970s), my view is that we need to discard the "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" syndrome of much of the U.S. Left (and also much of the U.S. Right). (To put it a bit simplistically) U.S. Left --- "capitalism is bad and socialism is good" U.S. Right --- "capitalism is good and socialism is bad" I feel that there are "capitalist" regimes which are "less bad" (Sweden, Singapore) and also "socialist" regimes which "less bad" (Cuba). Conversely there are "capitalist" regimes which are pure evil (apartheid South Africa) and "socialist" regimes which are run by semi-unbalanced individuals ( the Democratic Kampuchea of the Khmer Rouge) The British periodical "The New Internationalist" used to publish a one-page profile series on the countries of the world. Each profile included ratings on political freedom, health and education indicators, and so on. Similarly, the progressive U.S. Left can use this combination of indicators to rate the regimes of the world to deem if they are worthy of support (rather than blindly support any regime which simply claims to be "socialist"). I don't know about Indonesia. But I would definitely prefer to live in capitalist Singapore than in socialist Vietnam. And, having lived for two years in Singapore, I definitely prefer living in capitalist Malaysia than in the more stifling and authoritarian capitalist Singapore! ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:52:59 GMT Reply-to: rkmoore@iol.ie From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: socialism vs capitalism (PHUA KAI LIT) 1/26/98, DR. PHUA KAI LIT wrote: >It was compulsory for everyone to vote and, >of course, all the candidates were also selected and >approved by the Communist Party. >Good example of the sham "democracy" >of Leninist regimes. One could with equal relevance (to whatever point) relate horror stories from Guatamala or El Salvador and call them good examples of the sham "democracy" of capitalist regimes. At a miniumum we need to look at individual countries if the discussion is going to be more than "yes it is", "no it isn't". "Leninist regimes" covers a broad space, from Stalin to Tito to the Sandinistas. The democratic rationale of a one-party system is that the party is to embody popular will, and that the government is to administrate party policy. That system is corrupted when the party becomes a top-down tyranny instead of a bottom-up system of representation. Similarly, the competitive electoral system is corrupted when a clique of parties achieve hegemony, and those parties are each controlled by the same elite interests. In both cases democracy is undermined by the formation of de facto hierarchical power structures. In fact one-party systems and electoral systems are political systems, not economic systems. Capitalism can exist in a one-party state and socialism can exist in a multi-party state (examples plentiful). It is wrong to equate socialist economics with one-party politics (corrupt or otherwise), or capitalism with competitive parties (representative or otherwise). I suggest that Vietnam's democratic failings are less relevant to a critique of socialism than, say, Indonesia's dictatorship is to a critique of capitalism. The Jakarta regime is charaterisic of capitalist perphery-management tactics. Ho Chi Minh arose from the ranks as a leader of national liberation, and his regime is, if anything, characteristic of that unique national experience. Socialism seems largely irrelevant to Vietnam's political structure. rkm From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Feb 4 13:10:22 1998 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 15:06:38 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: gunder's round To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Andre Gunder Frank has written a new paper on Eurocentrism and it is available for reading from the World-Systems Archive at http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/archive/papers/gunder/gunderpap.htm Here is the abstract of Gunder's paper: Part I begins with a brief review of how Western conceptions of Asia changed from pro to con and to denigration of 'Orientalism.' Its major late nineteenth and twentieth century theoretical consequences are notred, which continue to dominate much of popular thought and social theory as well as historiography to this day. Part II examines the beginnings of critiques of the same, grouped into: A. The 'Orient' was not really like it was made out to be; B. The 'West' did not really do it on its own the way it claimed: A re-examination of the Western 'exceptionalism' as explanations of 'The Rise of the West;' C. East/West comparisons can reveal and reflect what really happened: A review of some more systematic comparisons and their theoretical pretensions; and D. The West did invent 'capitalism' but its colonial imperialism was used to develop the west and underdevelop the rest, but still identify Europe and America as the birthplace and 'center' of a world-economy and world-system. Arguing that none of these revisions are sufficient, Part III offers a more holistic world systemic analysis of the early modern global economy, its transformation, the world economic reasons for the industrial revolution, and the only temporary rise of the West, which presage the renewed emergence of the East with China as the 'Middle Kingdom.' chris From SKSANDER@grove.iup.edu Fri Feb 6 12:41:24 1998 Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 14:41:07 -0500 (EST) From: s_sanderson Subject: returned messages To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu If anyone has been trying to send me a message and that message bounced, it was because my storage capacity had been overrun by too many files. The problem has now been fixed. If your message was important, send it again. Stephen Sanderson From rkmoore@iol.ie Sun Feb 8 01:50:13 1998 Sun, 8 Feb 1998 08:50:05 GMT Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 08:50:05 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: missing the chat Carolyn Ballard , Dennis R Redmond Is this list functioning? My last received posting is dated 2 Feb. rkm From futureu@teleport.com Sun Feb 8 07:53:14 1998 by user1.teleport.com (8.8.7/8.8.4) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 06:53:09 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Augustine To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: missing the chat In-Reply-To: On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Is this list functioning? My last received posting is dated 2 Feb. > > rkm Well Im a list member also,my prime directive tells me we should shape a better economic form on earth so thats what im addressing my energy towards,I havent been too active in the arguments because I prefer to keep my focus on creating a budgeted form of economy,which by the way would include each member of society no matter on which continent they lived. I read most of these comments on systems though and think about the problems suggested here. paul at future utopia :) > > futureu@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (1200-28800, N81) future utopia 17024 helbrock dr. bend or 97707 541-593-1664 24hrs UNITY :www.teleport.com/~futureu/ : UNION .Budget by census From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Sun Feb 8 10:07:50 1998 by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 16:24:37 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: inevitable collapse of global capitalism (Andrew) Richard K. Moore wrote: > > 2/01/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote re/ EU & globalism: > >I envision a much more > >revolutionary path, one that will grow out of the inevitable decay or > >collapse of global capitalism > > Andrew: > > I challenge this assumption of collapse. There indeed must be a dialectic > transformation in the economic system, for the simple fact that eternal > growth is not possible. But that does not necessarily mean the global > enonomy must collapse in the process of transformation, nor that the > successor economy will be determined by popular will or action. > > My counter-scenario is based, once again, on the petroleum industry > microcosm. Here you have the first fully globalized markets, run by the > first fully globalized corporations, and you can see what the capitalist > endgame has been in this case. > > There is still competition, but it is entirely sisterly - they aren't > trying to drive one another out of business. They collaborate in the > global management of production, distribution, and pricing. After the > first century or so of rapidly growing markets, expanding territories, and > shakeout battles, the industry now operates by a "cash cow" ethos instead > of a "growth" ethos. That is more like feudalism than capitalism. Each > "sister" has its traditional sources and markets, just like lords had their > own estates. > > The adjustment to a limited-growth environment did not involve collapse, > and it has not led to a diminshment of corporate/elite ownership, control, > or power. > > My claim then, is that we must seriously consider the possibility that > coporate neo-feudalism, rather than socialism, may be the dialectic > successor to capitalism, and that the transtion may not involve revolution. > (Other than the revolution of globlization.) I believe, in fact, that > the empirical evidence favors the neo-feudalist outcome. > > I'd be interested in your (and others) response to this analysis. > > rkm This analysis is sadly true. Within the definition of feudalism and the fief, I'd say it will be worse due to the rise of gangsterism. There are facts and figures given by Arno Tausch that indicate gangsterism and big business are looking for the same sort of deal from states and how the law is interpreted. A few years ago there was a TV programme that covered this theme. It was given that six tenth's of all the money in the world was held in three Caribbean islands, all of them British dependencies or former colonies. Since the islands gave a refuge to gangster money, the US was determined to end the free dealing; at the time most of the money was handled in suitcases. With the coming of electronic money new tactics had to be devised, and there were or are several departments in the US dealing with the problem. The commentator asked one official why nothing significant had happened, and suggested to him why not take the matter to higher levels in the government. The official replied it was at the highest level and always had been. He then added that the President (R. R.) had asked for help from handbag lady, but rather than the process speeding up, the official said since the discussion on the matter between the two heads of state, it had then 'proceeded at a snail's pace'. When we see the way the gangster of late, the late R. Maxwell, and how he had a clear run to accumulate hundreds of millions, leaving millions of people without pensions, it makes you wonder. He is not the only one. The department in the UK that deals with serious crime or gangsterism does not do al all well, and it is not through lack of effort. Trailing electronic money is a nightmare; to regulate it in a way that prevents gangsterism hinders 'free trade'. If money systems were made smaller, and were based on the exchange of goods, then I tend to think the problem would be reduced. Any comments on the fragmentation issue? William Kirk. From akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Sun Feb 8 11:40:19 1998 Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 13:38:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: financial regulation and unintended consequences In-Reply-To: <34DE4CC5.74FA@wml.prestel.co.uk> On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, William Kirk wrote: > A few years ago there was a TV programme that covered this theme. It was > given that six tenth's of all the money in the world was held in three > Caribbean islands, all of them British dependencies or former colonies. > Since the islands gave a refuge to gangster money, the US was determined > to end the free dealing; at the time most of the money was handled in > suitcases. With the coming of electronic money new tactics had to be > devised, and there were or are several departments in the US dealing with > the problem. The commentator asked one official why nothing significant > had happened, and suggested to him why not take the matter to higher > levels in the government. The official replied it was at the highest > level and always had been. He then added that the President (R. R.) had > asked for help from handbag lady, but rather than the process speeding > up, the official said since the discussion on the matter between the two > heads of state, it had then 'proceeded at a snail's pace'. > When we see the way the gangster of late, the late R. Maxwell, and how he > had a clear run to accumulate hundreds of millions, leaving millions of > people without pensions, it makes you wonder. He is not the only one. The > department in the UK that deals with serious crime or gangsterism does > not do al all well, and it is not through lack of effort. Trailing > electronic money is a nightmare; to regulate it in a way that prevents > gangsterism hinders 'free trade'. > If money systems were made smaller, and were based on the exchange of > goods, then I tend to think the problem would be reduced. Any comments on > the fragmentation issue? > > William Kirk. > Of course I hardly endorse the money laundering practices that you condemn, but there is something else worth considering. Over the last couple of decades, a large number of insurgent movements have benefited from their ability to conceal and transfer large sums of money. (Sendero Luminoso, for example, had some $20-30 million stashed away in Swiss accounts.) Centralising information may mildly inconvenience the gangsters and large-scale tax evaders, but it also may have unintended negative consequences for people who wish to see a proliferation of antisystemic activity in coming years. Revolution is not cheap. I can think of little more beneficial to the powers that be than to be able to bankrupt opposing organisations with a single keystroke. Let us not cut off our nose to spite our face.... Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From cemck@cs1.presby.edu Sun Feb 8 13:29:19 1998 Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 15:29:09 -0500 (EST) From: Charles McKelvey To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Seminar in Cuba Seminar in Cuba The Center for Development Studies is sponsoring a travel and research seminar in Cuba from July 5 to July 28, 1998 for professors and graduate students in the social sciences, history, and related applied fields. The program has been developed in cooperation with the Facultad Latinoamerica de Ciencias Sociales, Programa Cuba, and it will be conducted in English. The cost for participation in the program is $2995. The participation fee includes transportation, lodging, and most meals in Cuba, but it does not include air travel to and from Cuba. For more information, contact (prior to March 1) Dr. Charles McKelvey, Center for Development Studies, 210 Belmont Stakes, Clinton, South Carolina, 29325; phone: (864) 833-8385 or (864) 833-1018; FAX 864-833-8481; e-mail: cemck@cs1.presby.edu. From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Sun Feb 8 19:33:22 1998 Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:33:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:33:02 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: William Kirk Subject: Re: inevitable collapse of global capitalism (Andrew) In-Reply-To: <34DE4CC5.74FA@wml.prestel.co.uk> On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, William Kirk wrote: > When we see the way the gangster of late, the late R. Maxwell, and how he > had a clear run to accumulate hundreds of millions, leaving millions of > people without pensions, it makes you wonder. He is not the only one. The > department in the UK that deals with serious crime or gangsterism does > not do al all well, and it is not through lack of effort. Trailing > electronic money is a nightmare; to regulate it in a way that prevents > gangsterism hinders 'free trade'. > If money systems were made smaller, and were based on the exchange of > goods, then I tend to think the problem would be reduced. Any comments on > the fragmentation issue? Actually, it's not that hard to track all that money; computers do that constantly, and the superrich know exactly how much they're worth and where they're investing, otherwise they don't stay superrich for very long. The real problem isn't chasing electrons, it's Chase Manhattan Bank and its ilk -- all that liquidity ultimately ends up in some form of interest-bearing or dividend-paying instrument (cash by itself, even in electronic form, just sits around and gets devalued by inflation). So you have to go after the bond markets, the foreign exchange markets, and the foreign direct investment markets -- which means taxing the hell out of the giant multinationals, taxing Wall Street punters via a tax on speculation (a "Tobin tax", so named after the Keynesian economist who suggested it in the Seventies), and taxing large-scale capital via a Swiss-style wealth tax. -- Dennis From chriscd@jhu.edu Mon Feb 9 07:47:16 1998 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:30:42 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: Call for Papers on Globalization] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu 07 Feb 1998 16:40:11 -0600 (CST) by mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/mcfeeley.mc-1.21) 07 Feb 1998 16:37:49 -0600 (CST) 07 Feb 1998 14:37:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:34:50 -0800 From: Gerardo Otero Subject: Call for Papers on Globalization Sender: owner-lasnet@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu To: lasnet@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu, anthap1@oakland.edu Reply-to: otero@sfu.ca Preliminary Notice and Call for Papers Globalization and Its Discontents 23, 24 July 1998 Harbour Centre Campus Simon Fraser University Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada An international conference, including presentation and comparison of Australian and Canadian perspectives on globalization, hosted by the Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University in cooperation with the Department of Social Science and Social Work, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia. Major themes in the conference, which will be organized around both plenary sessions and workshops, include the clarification and reconceptualization of the concept of globalization; the consequences of globalization for society (labour, business, social movements, non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples) and the state at all levels - international, national, and sub-national; and the challenges posed to institutions (including governments and the third sector) and social groups as they respond to globalization. Proposals for papers, which should include a one page abstract, should be submitted by 15 March 1998 to: globe-98@sfu.ca A refereed publication of selected papers is expected to result from the conference. Subject to funding some travel subsidies may be available. Regularly updated information about the conference will be posted on the conference web page: http://www.sfu.ca/politics/globe98.html From chriscd@jhu.edu Tue Feb 10 07:21:28 1998 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:04:56 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Request to call Senators toll-free @ MAI tomorrow!]] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 17:56:51 -0400 (EDT) 09 Feb 1998 17:56:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 17:55:00 -0500 From: Barbara Larcom Subject: [Fwd: Request to call Senators toll-free @ MAI tomorrow!] To: Bill Harvey , Campaign for Labor Rights , Chris Chase-Dunn , Chuck Johnson , Howard Ehrlich , Jon Kerr , Mark Bevis , Mike Bardoff , Nan McCurdy , Peter Grimes , Richard Ochs This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_zCR8KV0Mr88nML69XXo/9Q) --Boundary_(ID_zCR8KV0Mr88nML69XXo/9Q) (207-172-129-72.s9.as6.col.erols.com [207.172.129.72]) 9 Feb 1998 16:35:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:31:00 -0500 From: lynn yellott Subject: Request to call Senators toll-free @ MAI tomorrow! To: LIZVH@annap.infi.net, dsnyder@goucher.edu, 110274.1012@compuserve.com, dschott@igc.apc.org, schneide@umbc.edu, iholas@mail.gwumc.edu, acmills@igc.org, larcom@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us, AB91@CATMUS.CAT.CC.MD.US, Reply-to: lyellott@erols.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_bFKT9qQE9HJg4vGnXkrmsg) Greetings! Please call our Senators tomorrow, 2/10. Details and toll-free number are in attached message. Thanks for your help! Lynn --Boundary_(ID_bFKT9qQE9HJg4vGnXkrmsg) 9 Feb 1998 10:45:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:45:57 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Dolan Subject: FWD: Reuters MAI story Sender: tw-list@essential.org Reply-to: mdolan@citizen.org Originator: tw-list@essential.org X-Comment: To unsubscribe from this list, send the message "unsubscribe tw-list" to "listproc@essential.org". Leave the "Subject:" line blank. REMINDER!!!! TOMORROW, TUESDAY 2/10, IS *ALL-CALL DAY* TO THE SENATE!!! ASK FOR THE STAFF MEMBER WHO WORKS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES AND SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE: THE U.S. IS RUSHING INTO A DANGEROUS NEW INVESTMENT TREATY. WE DEMAND THAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WITHDRAW FROM THE NEGOTIATIONS! EDUCATE THE SENATE! 1-800-522-6721 ---> TOLL FREE TO THE CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD ***************** Meanwhile, in case you missed this [Posted at 7:46 p.m. PST Friday, February 6, 1998] Groups to protest international investment treaty WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Environmental and consumer groups, worried that an international investment treaty under negotiation will undermine national laws and give too much power to investors, Friday announced a week of protests. ``This is a dagger in the heart of democracy and should be resisted,'' Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, told reporters. His environmental group and others, together with consumer advocate Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, plan a series of protests next week to draw public attention to the agreement being negotiated by the 29 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. They argue that the OECD's Multilateral Agreement on Investment gives investors too much power and protection for their investments at the expense of taxpayers while curbing governments' ability to regulate investments and protect the environment. Of particular concern, said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, is an expropriation and compensation provision that could allow investors to sue governments when new regulations or laws affected their ability to profit from an investment. ``It would allow any company to hold a government hostage for any action taken in the public interest,'' Wallach said. The group has posted the latest draft of the MAI and an analysis on its Internet site, www.citizen.org. As part of the protest, the groups plan to mail handcuffs to all 535 members of the House of Representatives and Senate and selected White House staff members to symbolize their concern, Friends of the Earth spokeswoman Lisa Baumgartner said. They are also planning a national call-in day Tuesday during which people will be encouraged to call their congressional representatives to protest against the treaty, which would have to be approved by the Senate. A politically activist telephone service company, Working Assets, said that with its January and February billings, it was urging its 280,000 customers to call Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to protest against the treaty. The calls are free, and the San Francisco company said it expected the State Department to get some 30,000 calls and letters by the end of February. The actions are designed to draw attention to the treaty before a Feb. 16-17 meeting of the OECD at which the grouping of wealthy nations will decide whether the treaty can be concluded by an April deadline or whether negotiations should be allowed to continue. A source close to the talks said negotiators were aware of the concerns of citizens' groups and were trying to respond to some of them in their bargaining. He said participants agreed that the expropriation and compensation provision needed some rewording to prevent lawsuits against regulatory actions by governments. ``We want to make sure the MAI will not give rise to a lot of cases of that nature,'' the source, who asked not to be identified, said. The OECD argues that a comprehensive agreement on international investment would give impetus to new investment for economic growth and employment. The organization said it was also posting progress on the negotiations on its Internet site, www.oecd.org. ===== Comments by MDOLAN@CITIZEN (Mike Dolan) at 2/09/98 10:03 am THIS IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WEEK OF ACTION AGAINST THE MAI -- 2/9 THROUGH 2/13. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD ARE MOBILIZED TO PROTEST THE ADVANCED STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS OF THIS DANGEROUS STEALTH TREATY. PLEASE BE A PART OF THIS MOVEMENT. Thank you. The same citizens' networks in this country that defeated fast track last fall are poised to stop the MAI. Tell everybody. Mike Dolan **************************************************************************** /s/ Mike Dolan, Field Director, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen Join the Global Trade Watch list server. We will keep you up to date on trade policy and politics. To subscribe, send this message: "SUBSCRIBE TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the state in which you live] to LISTPROC@ESSENTIAL.ORG Our web-site is also interesting ---> www.citizen.org/pctrade/tradehome/html WE EDUCATE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE THEM. WE DON'T ORGANIZE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO EDUCATE THEM. Fred Ross, Sr. --Boundary_(ID_bFKT9qQE9HJg4vGnXkrmsg)-- --Boundary_(ID_zCR8KV0Mr88nML69XXo/9Q)-- From ddas@clong.be Tue Feb 10 08:13:13 1998 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:45:16 +0100 From: ddas@clong.be (Debjani Das) To: chriscd@jhu.edu Subject: Re: MAI tomorrow! FYI Debjani --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ann leonard Dear Friends in South Asia, Attached is an important statement about the Multilateral Agreement on Investments, an international agreement which gives unprecedented rights to Multinational Corporations and has significant potential to undermine all our campaigns on environmental protection, economic justice, labor rights and other pro-people initiatives. Please take a minute to read this statement and if your group can sign on, email Chantell Taylor at ctaylor@citizen.org. I notice that there are very few signatories from South Asia, so please distribute this widely among your friends and colleagues so voices from your part of the world are also heard. In Solidarity, Annie Leonard JOINT NGO STATEMENT ON THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (MAI) NGO/ OECD Consultation on the MAI Paris: 27 October, 1997 updated: 3 February, 1998 INTRODUCTION As a coalition of development, environment and consumer groups from around the world, with representation in over 70 countries, we consider the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) to be a damaging agreement which should not proceed in its current form, if at all. There is an obvious need for multilateral regulation of investments in view of the scale of social and environmental disruption created by the increasing mobility of capital. However, the intention of the MAI is not to regulate investments but to regulate governments. As such, the MAI is unacceptable. MAI negotiations began in the OECD in the Spring of 1995, more than two years ago, and are claimed to be substantially complete by the OECD. Such negotiations have been conducted without the benefit of participation from non-OECD countries and civil society, including non-governmental organizations representing the interests of workers, consumers, farmers or organizations concerned with the environment, development and human rights. As a result, the draft MAI is completely unbalanced. It elevates the rights of investors far above those of governments, local communities, citizens, workers and the environment. The MAI will severely undermine even the meagre progress made towards sustainable development since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The MAI is not only flawed in the eyes of NGOs, but conflicts with international commitments already made by OECD member countries: The MAI fails to incorporate any of the several relevant international agreements such as the Rio Declaration; Agenda 21; UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection (1985); the UNCTAD Set of Multilaterally Agreed Principles for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices (1981); and the HABITAT Global Plan of Action. The MAI fails to comply with OECD commitments to integrate economic, environmental and social policies (1). The MAI removes responsibilities on transnational enterprises which were previously agreed by the OECD under the OECD Guidelines for Multilateral Enterprises 1976 (2). The exclusion of developing countries and countries in transition from the negotiations is inconsistent with OECD policy on development partnerships (3). Problems with the MAI stem both from the broad restrictions it places on national democratic action, and from its failure to include sufficient new systems of international regulation and accountability. As the MAI stands, it does not deserve to gain democratic approval in any country. All the groups signing this statement will campaign against its adoption unless changes, including those cited below, are incorporated into the body of the MAI. SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS As drafted, the MAI does not respect the rights of countries - in particular countries in transition and developing countries - including their need to democratically control investment into their economies. The level of liberalisation contained in the MAI has already been opposed as inappropriate by many developing countries. However, non-OECD countries are under increasing pressure to join. There are differing investment and development needs of OECD and non-OECD countries. In particular, the potential for economic diversification and development of the developing countries - especially the least developed countries - and countries in transition would be severely undermined by the provisions of the MAI. The standstill principle would cause particular problems for countries in transition, many of which have not yet developed adequate business regulation. The MAI's withdrawal provision would effectively bind nations to one particular economic development model for fifteen years; prevent future governments from revising investment policy to reflect their own assessment of the wisest economic course; and force countries to continue to abide by the agreement even if there is strong evidence that its impact has been destructive. The MAI contains no binding, enforceable obligations for corporate conduct concerning the environment, labour standards and anti-competitive behaviour. The MAI gives foreign investors exclusive standing under a legally binding agreement to attack legitimate regulations designed to protect the environment, safeguard public health, uphold the rights of employees, and promote fair competition. Further, citizens, indigenous peoples, local governments and NGOs do not have access to the dispute resolution system, and subsequently can neither hold multinational investors accountable to the communities which host them, nor comment in cases where an investor sues a government. The MAI will be in conflict with many existing and future international, national and sub-national, laws and regulations protecting the environment, natural resources, public health, culture, social welfare and employment laws; will cause many to be repealed; and will deter the adoption of new legislation, or the strengthening of existing ones. The MAI is explicitly designed to make it easier for investors to move capital, including production facilities, from one country to another; despite evidence that increased capital mobility disproportionately benefits multinational corporations at the expense of most of the world's peoples. WE CALL ON THE OECD AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS TO: With regard to substantive concerns: 1) Undertake an independent and comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, and development impact of the MAI with full public participation. The negotiations should be suspended during this assessment. 2) Require multinational investors to observe binding agreements incorporating environment, labour, health, safety and human rights standards to ensure that they do not use the MAI to exploit weak regulatory regimes. Ensure that an enforceable agreement on investor responsibilities takes precedence over any agreement on investor rights. 3) Eliminate the investor state dispute resolution mechanism and put into place democratic and transparent mechanisms which ensure that civil society, including local and indigenous peoples, gain new powers to hold investors to account. 4) While none of the undersigned NGOs object to the rights of investors to be compensated for expropriation by a nation state, there are adequate principles of national law and jurisprudence to protect investors in circumstances such as these. The current MAI exceeds these well accepted concepts of direct expropriation, and ventures into areas undermining national sovereignty. We therefore request that OECD members eliminate the MAI's expropriation provision so that investors are not granted an absolute right to compensation for expropriation. Governments must ensure that they do not have to pay for the right to set environmental, labour, health and safety standards even if compliance with such regulations imposes significant financial obligations on investors. With regard to process concerns: 1) Suspend the MAI negotiations and extend the 1998 deadline to allow sufficient time for meaningful public input and participation in all countries. 2) Increase transparency in the negotiations by publicly releasing the draft texts and individual reservations and by scheduling a series of on going public meetings and hearings in both member and non member countries, open to the media, parliamentarians and the general public. 3) Broaden the active participation of government departments in the official negotiations beyond state, commerce and finance to a broader range of government agencies, ministries and parliamentary committees. 4) Renegotiate the terms of withdrawal to enable countries to more easily and rapidly withdraw from the agreement when they deem it in the interest of their citizens. Developing countries and countries in transitions which have not been a party to the negotiations must not be pressurised to join the MAI. CONCLUSION The current MAI text is inconsistent with international agreements signed by OECD countries, with existing OECD policies, and with national laws to promote sustainable development. It also fails to take into account important work carried out by investment experts and official bodies such as the UNCTAD "development friendliness" criteria for investment agreements (4) and other work on investor responsibility. If the OECD policy statements are to have any meaning, the above provisions must be fully integrated in the MAI with the same legal force as those on economic liberalisation. Given our grave concerns about the MAI and the unrealistically short time frame within which the MAI is being concluded, we look to the OECD and its member governments to fundamentally reconsider both the process and substance of the draft agreement. We call on the OECD to make a specific and detailed written response to our concerns. We also call on the OECD to avoid talking publicly about its consultations with NGOs without also talking about the serious concerns raised at those consultations. Finally, we will continue our opposition to the MAI unless these demands are met in full. Notes: (1) OECD Ministerial Communique May 1997 (2) OECD Code of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises, Paris 1992 (3) "Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation", OECD 1997. (4) UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1997; UNCTAD Expert Meeting," Development Friendliness Criteria for Investment Frameworks", 1997. Non-governmental organisations supporting this statement include: Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), Inc Alternatives in Action!-GA American Nurses Association-DC Animal Welfare Institute-DC ANPED Association for Sustainability & Equity in the Americas BC Green Party Boulder Independent Business Alliance-CO California Fair Trade Coalition Canadian Environmental Law Association Carolina Interfaith Task Force on Central America Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)-DC/Switzerland Center for Sustainable Systems Center of Concern-DC Central and Eastern European Bankwatch Network CEECAP-Poland Coalition for Forests-NY Comboni Missionaries, Justice and Peace Resource Center Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) Council of Canadians Defenders of Wildlife-DC Democratic Reform News-NY Democratic Socialists of America-DC Epicenter-CO Ecoropa-France The Edmonds Institute Equipo Pueblo Fair Trade Coalition of Colorado Federal Land Action Group - NY Fifty Years is Enough-DC Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) Friends of the Earth United States-DC FOE Argentina FOE Australia FOE Austria FOE Bangladesh FOE Chile FOE Costa Rica FOE Curacao FOE Denmark FOE El Salvador FOE France FOE Germany FOE Grenada FOE Haiti FOE Indonesia FOE Luxembourg FOE Macedonia FOE Malaysia FOE Netherlands FOE Nigeria FOE Switzerland Focus on the Global South Forum Environment and Development Global Exchange Global Help Project Guideposts for a Sustainable Future Green Party of Rhode Island Hightower Radio-TX Howard County Friends of Central America & the Caribbean-MD ICDA Interhemispheric Resource Center International Law Center for Human, Economic and Environmental Defense (HEED)-CA International Forum on Globalization-CA International Study for Gandhian Studies (ISGS)-NY Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy-MN Institute for Food and Development Policy Kansas Farmers Union Kingston Anti-MAI Campaign-Canada Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center Labor Rights Task Force, Nicaragua Solidarity Committee- IL Long Island Progressive Coalition-NY McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis NABU National Family Farm Coalition-DC Native Forest Council Netherlands Committee of the IUCN Northern Santiam Watershed Council-NY Pacific Environment & Resources Center -CA Peace Action of San Mateo County California Peace and Justice Center of Vermont Pennsylvania Fair Trade Campaign Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network People's Forum 2001, Japan Pesticide Action Network North America Presbyterian Church USA-DC Progressive Review Project Biodiversity in Public Forests Network Project South: Institute for the Elimination of Poverty & Genocide Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch-DC Pure Food Campaign-MN Rainforest Action Network-CA Reform Party of Texas Rural Vermont SAWTEE, Kathmandu Sierra Club of Canada Sierra Club of USA Student Environmental Action Network Montana Sustainable Alternatives to the Global Economy (SAGE)-CA Swiss Coalition of Development Organisations Texas Fair Trade Campaign Third World Network Tools for Transition Tourism Industry Development Council-CA University of Victoria Students' Society Western Ancient Forest Campaign-DC Wetlands Preserve Witness for Peace Women's Environment & Development Organisation (WEDO) Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) World Development Movement World Economy, Ecology and Development Association (WEED) World Information Transfer Worldview World Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF-I) -- Ann Leonard -- Debjani Das Project - Decentralised Cooperation Liaison Committee of NGDOs to the European Union Telephone - 32 2 74338788. Fax: 322 735 0951 Http://www.oneworld.org/liaison From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Tue Feb 10 09:20:30 1998 by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:34:05 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: financial regulation and unintended consequences On Monday Adam K. Webb replied, > > On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, William Kirk wrote: > > > A few years ago there was a TV programme that covered this theme. It was > > given that six tenth's of all the money in the world was held in three > > Caribbean islands, all of them British dependencies or former colonies. > > Of course I hardly endorse the money laundering practices that you > condemn, but there is something else worth considering. Over the last > couple of decades, a large number of insurgent movements have benefited > from their ability to conceal and transfer large sums of money. (Sendero > Luminoso, for example, had some $20-30 million stashed away in Swiss > accounts.) Centralising information may mildly inconvenience the > gangsters and large-scale tax evaders, but it also may have unintended > negative consequences for people who wish to see a proliferation of > antisystemic activity in coming years. Revolution is not cheap. I can > think of little more beneficial to the powers that be than to be able to > bankrupt opposing organisations with a single keystroke. Let us not cut > off our nose to spite our face.... > > Regards, > --AKW I suppose this is too Utopian but my idea of a money system is where people have a democratic right to detailed knowledge and to end it at a keystroke. I'd say that if this facility was available the benefits would override any loss to potential antisystemic groups. In fact the idea of democratic control of a money system is antisystemic - it is not a tag-along system of any already existing. As wealth and resource are concentrated, almost by a natural process, the inevitable course; the only solution lies in a radical and antisystemic movement. I am also worried about the concept of revolution and the perceived mechanics of what this entails. At a guess, and this is my opinion, the idea of revolution is unnerving. Alright, you can call me a coward, I'll sink into feudalism in the hope it might not be just so bad, or I might fit in, or it might just not happen; how many others have this Panglossian attitude? Here again this is how I have been brainwashed, from the vodka adverts of storming the Winter Palace to the coups that occur world wide, fought with guns and where the 'revolution' is just the same old system but worse. A system that allows for democratic control of money is a revolution, and before it begins it can be said right away it will be different from anything that exists at present. A democratic system has to be small, and I see there are rumblings just now over the Euro. Daily Mail, Monday, Feb. 9th. Report by political editor David Hughes. 'Chancellor Kohl's problems were made worse by reports that a legal challenge to the single currency mounted by four academics will be allowed by Germany's highest court. One of the four, Professor Albrecht Schachtschneider, said the 'Bonn will shudder' when the ruling is made public.' 'There were also reports yesterday that a prominent member of the Bundesbank, Reimut Jochimsen, is publishing a book criticising preparations for a single currency and calling for a delay. For a member of Germany's central bank to break ranks in such a manner is unheard of.' The difficulty with this revolution is that it is not front page, and does not contain the word revolution. While this is going on it looks as if Scotland, or a large poll at least, have said they agree to tax rises, as long as it goes to the National Health Service. With that there was a headline in another tabloid to the effect that perhaps the people should have a vote on where their tax is spent, not just to say a proportion should be allocated to the health service. There is no name to this revolution, how long will it be before the RAIDERS OF THE LAST RESOURCE figure out it is a revolution? W. K. From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Tue Feb 10 09:20:30 1998 by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:43:40 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: inevitable collapse of global capitalism (Andrew) Dennis R Redmond wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, William Kirk wrote: > > > When we see the way the gangster of late, the late R. Maxwell, and how he had a clear run to accumulate hundreds of millions, leaving >>millions of people without pensions, it makes you wonder. He is not the >>only one. The department in the UK that deals with serious crime or >>gangsterism does > > not do al all well, and it is not through lack of effort. Trailing > > electronic money is a nightmare; to regulate it in a way that >> prevents gangsterism hinders 'free trade'. If money systems were made >>smaller, and were based on the exchange of goods, then I tend to think >>the problem would be reduced. Any comments on the fragmentation issue? > > Actually, it's not that hard to track all that money; computers do that > constantly, and the superrich know exactly how much they're worth and > where they're investing, otherwise they don't stay superrich for very > long. The real problem isn't chasing electrons, it's Chase Manhattan > Bank and its ilk -- all that liquidity ultimately ends up in some form >of interest-bearing or dividend-paying instrument (cash by itself, even > in electronic form, just sits around and gets devalued by inflation). > So you have to go after the bond markets, the foreign exchange markets, > and the foreign direct investment markets -- which means taxing the >hell > out of the giant multinationals, taxing Wall Street punters via a >tax on speculation (a "Tobin tax", so named after the Keynesian >economist who suggested it in the Seventies), and taxing large-scale >capital via a Swiss-style wealth tax. > > -- Dennis I agree that the superrich will know where their money is, the problem is do the government authorities know? And do the rich, less rich and moderately rich know where their money is? If I apply my simple model of a money system it appears to me that there are times for doing things in the life of the system. Keynes had it exactly right at the time, that time is now past, new ways have to be found to deal with present day problems, many of them at a tangent to the accepted institutional practices. With technological advance, all of the institutions you mention, banks, exchange markets, investment markets, stock markets, futures, all this is lag from a bygone age. It is baggage that can now be dispensed with, and it is a vastly overrated expense. Besides, it is far to complicated for most of us to understand, we like it if we have a money to spare and a profit is made, and is really only another grand horse race, a more elaborate form of the hippodrome. Punters and kleptoparasites have to go too. W. K. From Leering855@aol.com Tue Feb 10 17:01:13 1998 From: Leering855@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 9AMCa05584 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:00:54 EST To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK) Subject: Fwd: Your help urgently Needed For Chiapas World-Wide Online Campaign! boundary="part0_887155255_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_887155255_boundary --part0_887155255_boundary Return-Path: by relay29.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:09:38 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [203.16.214.237] From: "Hugh Callaway" To: anarchy-ireland@unamerican.com greenleft@peg.apc.org, sritten@juno.com Subject: Fwd: Your help urgently Needed For Chiapas World-Wide Online Campaign! Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 19:06:33 PST boundary="part1_887155255_boundary" --part1_887155255_boundary --part1_887155255_boundary Return-Path: by relay29.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:09:38 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [203.16.214.237] From: "Hugh Callaway" To: anarchy-ireland@unamerican.com greenleft@peg.apc.org, sritten@juno.com Subject: Fwd: Your help urgently Needed For Chiapas World-Wide Online Campaign! Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 19:06:33 PST >***Please immediately forward this message to all progressive websites, >listserves,*** newsgroups, and individuals with which you are aquainted. >This is an emergency. > > >To: All concerned individuals and webmasters >From: Chiapas Alert Network >http://www.stewards.net/chiapas/10.htm >staff@stewards.net > >Hi there, > >With just a two minute effort, you can help to end the brutal paramilitary >and military violence and intimidation currently directed by the Mexican >government and its ruling party against Indigenous civilians in Mexico's >southern state of Chiapas. Many respected international human rights >organizations such as Amnesty International have roundly denounced the >recent violence in Chiapas as an extreme violation of human rights. > >If you are an *individual*, please go to >http://www.stewards.net/chiapas/47.htm where you will find an automated >messaging system which will enable you to instantly and automatically send >copies of a strong pre-prepared letter of protest, or a letter of your own >design, to all three Nafta governments - Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, as >well as the European Union. These protest letters will carry both your own >name and your email address. > >If you are a *webmaster*, please go to >http://www.newhumans.com/chiapas/hotlogo1.html, where you will be able to >obtain an attractive and poignant animated icon which can be placed on your >website. When clicked by visitors to your site, this icon will take them to >the automated messaging page to send the protest letter. > >Help us bombard the Nafta governments and Eu with our message! > >Eric > >P.S. When the numbers warrant, we will also announce the campaign - and the >results - to the world media. > >P.P.S. There's a `notification system' at the page which allows you to >automatically inform your online friends and acquantances about the campaign. > > > BACKGROUND > >Right-wing violence and intimidation aimed at civilian Indigenous people in >Mexico's southern state of Chiapas has not ceased since a brutal massacre >(people were hunted like animals for 5 hours) in Chiapas at the little town >of Acteal took the lives of 45 people at prayer in a church, most of them >women and children, on Dec.22 last year. > >The Mexican government has used this massacre as the pretext to greatly >expand its aggression not only against the Zapatista Indigenous Army, camped >in the jungle at the extreme southern tip of Chiapas, and with which the >government has a supposed peace agreement. But the `crisis' has also been >used to justify using the army to attempt occupations of many civilian >communities in Chiapas, in an attempt to break the power of the civilian >Indiginous cooperative economic and political organizations, and the Chiapas >indigenous automony movement, which are consciously seeking to pursue a >path of cooperative ecological development in the region, and which in many >cases are not even closely aligned with the Zapatistas. > >Deaths, injuries, terrible fear, and thousands of refugees have been >generated by this military activity in the past 10 days. There is every >reason to fear that a still more aggressive campaign, and far more deaths, >may be on the immediate horizon. > >Your help is needed. Please forward this message. Please go to our website. > |o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o--o-o-o--o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o | |"The people have the power to redeem the work of fools upon the |weak." Patti Smith 1988 | |o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --part1_887155255_boundary-- --part0_887155255_boundary-- From rkmoore@iol.ie Wed Feb 11 09:36:11 1998 Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:35:34 GMT Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:35:34 GMT To: activ-l From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Iraq, Clinton, and the NWO Iraq, Clinton, and the NWO ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Copyright 1998 by Richard K. Moore rkmoore@iol.ie Once again the US is beating the war drums against Iraq. What does this signify? I wonder how many of you would respond that it's a matter of Clinton trying to distract attention from his personal scandals? I wonder how many would suggest that opposition by other countries indicates a turning of the tide against US interventionism? I wonder how many feel that Iraq deserves to be attacked? I ask anyone who answered yes to any of these questions to think again. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- The first observation I'd like to offer is that any decision to launch war operations is not Clinton's to make - he's entirely too far down in the chain of command. If you doubt this, I invite you to imagine the following scenario - suppose Clinton got it in his mind to invade Iraq, and that the NSC (National Security Council) was opposed. Can anyone seriously imagine that our non-inhaling lipstick-stained Arkansas playboy would assertively take the floor, stare down the heads of the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department, and issue stern orders for them to prepare for invasion whether they like it or not? Kennedy _might_ have had the balls to try that, under the right circumstances, or maybe even Nixon, but Billy? I think not. He's a spineless figurehead. Undertaking a major operation against the NSC's wishes, and incurring their implicit opposition, would be uncharacteristic of him under any conditions - but it is unthinkable when he's on the run, when his public image is tarnished and when the media is already full of suggestions that an invasion would be personally motivated. It would require but a few "leaks" from "high Pentagon officials" that the invasion idea was "unsound" and that it puts our boys at "unnecessary risk" - and Clinton would find himself a lone polar bear on an ice floe drifting ever closer the Political Arctic Circle. There's no way he could pull off such an operation, nor would he have the guts or imagination to try it in the first place. It is clear, I believe, that any planned attack must have purposes quite unrelated to Mr. Clinton's political dramas, and that it is the NSC who presents and explains such operations to Clinton, not the other way around. He's undoubtedly being told by his adviser/handlers that a bit of Old Glory and Bombs Bursting In Air is Just The Ticket to restore his Public Image - It Works Every Time, they surely cajole. He may be hoping to pull his irons from the fire, but that simply cannot account for the reality of the planned invasion. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- My second observation regards the strategic purposes served by the persecution of Iraq during most of the past decade, and in particular the purposes of this next attack. Foremost, of course, is the necessity to create a regime of world order in support of globalization and its neo-imperialist designs. Everyone knows that the US requires no outside authorization to justify its interventions "from the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli", not to mention Grenada, Panama, or the straits of Taiwan. Uncle Sam pretty much does what he wants, tells whatever cover story he wants to the American people, and the international community can go stuff itself, thank you very much. What was unique about Desert Storm One was the importance given to "UN authorization". Globalist planners want to expand the base of the global police force, to quit depending exclusively on the vagaries of the US political process and US funding to maintain global order. That's why NATO is being guided to a more activist role, and why Greece and Italy were encouraged in their little foray into Albania. The long-range goal is a "legitimate international elite strike force" that has the "right" to intervene anywhere it deems necessary to keep "criminal regimes" in line. Since authoritarian regimes have been installed by imperialism nearly everywhere in the Third World, any one of them that needs to be disciplined can easily be turned into a "criminal" simply by pulling some old CIA/State Department files and telling the press to run with them. The strike force, with its corporate mass-media allies, are to be the judge, jury, and executioners of the New World Order. The point of the Iraqi operation has been to achieve "legitimacy" for this Judge Dredd strike force. Iraq has been a convenient scapegoat "perp", with its obviously dictatorial regime, and as a convenient side effect, its suppression has bolstered world oil prices. If the US didn't want Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction, it would not have sold him the materials. If the US had wanted to keep Saddam out of Kuwait, it would not have given a "go" signal when he asked for permission to invade. If it wanted him out quickly, it could have simply responded unilaterally. If clearing Iraqi troops from Kuwait were the objective, Desert Storm would have been over in three days. If the US merely wanted Saddam out of power, that could have been easily accomplished when the tanks were still rolling. The whole operation was a setup, with Saddam as the fall guy, and has been carefully managed at every stage. The UN authorization and the image of an "allied" operation were obviously of great importance to the US, as a media blitz and countless dollars and diplomatic favors were invested in achieving them. The intent to create a precedent in international relations, the legitimatizing of intervention, was clear. It was articulated explicitly by Bush when he described the outcome as a New World Order, and was underscored when he appealed to Japan and others to subsidize the costs. The precedent has been largely established, and was important in smoothing the way for later interventions in Bosnia and Albania. The pattern being established includes not only the legitimatizing of intervention, via UN resolutions, but includes as well a "blank check" clause. The UN is to be the issuing agency for enforcement warrants, but is to be otherwise uninvolved. Once the warrant is issued, the details are the prerogative of the elite force itself. Even in the face of today's widespread international opposition to Desert Storm 2, the US will no doubt claim that existing resolutions constitute sufficient authorization. I frequently employ the Judge Dredd metaphor in describing the elite force, and I mean for the analogy to be rather closely drawn. The film was, it seems obvious, intended specifically to condition public opinion for the NWO - to propagandize an heroic image of a high-tech beyond-the-law enforcer, and to portray him as the One Hope for Maintaining Order in a world where Chaos Reigns. The film was released, if memory serves, just in time for the climax of the Bosnian intervention, where cruise missiles actualized the Butt-Kicking symbolized by Dredd on the silver screen, and US arrogance in running the operation echoed Stallone's brutish on-screen persona. Aside: By comparing Stallone with John Wayne, one can see how different is the globalist rhetoric and reality from that of traditional US nationalism. Wayne was slow to draw his gun and was glad for the battle be over, and peace to be restored; Stallone makes his entrance with all guns blazing and lives in a world of ongoing violence, with any hope for lasting peace long since abandoned. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- Besides the primary objective of establishing the legitimacy of the NWO strike force, several other objectives have been accomplished via Iraq as well, as is typical of covert operations - elite planners are great believers in the several-birds-with-one-stone theory. I've already mentioned bolstering the price of oil, which made Iraq just that much more attractive as the candidate fall-guy. More strategic has been the testing of hi-tech weapons systems: satellite command and control, stealth weaponry, cruise missiles, night warfare, blitzkrieg timing, electronic counter-measures, total-control-of-theater tactics, spent-uranium shells, laser-guided bombs, air-fuel explosives, biowarfare antigens, designer drugs for attack pilots, war-as-entertainment propaganda, and more. The operation must have been viewed within the military/intelligence/PR communities much like a Mars mission is viewed by scientists: So Little Time to carry out So Many Experiments. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- This brings us up to the present, and the question of Why Desert Storm 2? There are two answers, one related to consolidating the elite-force regime, and the other related to the question of China. The elite-force regime has been solidly established, in principle, and the regime can be easily fine-tuned over time. Where the precedent still needs to be significantly upgraded, I submit, is in the area of "terms of authorization". In Iraq, the authorization treated Iraq as a sovereign nation, but one whose aggression needed to be reversed. In Bosnia, we see a different picture - part of the joint mission of the UN and NATO was "nation engineering". The Camp David "Peace" Accords didn't just call a truce, they designed the structure of the new state, and provided for ongoing international supervision. The NWO is not just about containing trouble-makers, but about active nation-management and nation-engineering. The NWO is to be a world government, not just an international police force. My guess is that what the US wants ultimately, as the agent of globalism, is the explicit authorization to take out Saddam and to install a new regime, with the details to be left to the implementers. Then the precedent will be complete: the UN is to issue enforcement warrants, and the elite force will be authorized to clobber and then re-invent whatever hapless victim nation. Until this precedent is achieved, Iraq serves as a convenient punching bag for whatever exercises might be deemed necessary. Aside: One can also see this desire for nation-engineering in the policies of the IMF, and in particular in the treatment South Korea has been receiving in the wake of the externally caused financial collapse. Currency crises, in a world of online trading and super-computer market modeling, is just one more hi-tech weapon in the elite's blitzkrieg arsenal. One might also recall that in Grenada and Panama, the US was prompt to install its own stooges in government and to purge the military and militia forces. One of the exercises currently deemed necessary, I suggest, is additional weapons testing. It's been nearly a decade now since Desert Storm 1, and that's a very long time when measured in terms of high-tech development cycles - there must be many new generations of weapons, electronic systems, and propaganda tricks to be field-tested in the context of a sizable modern nation-target. Most notable among the devices to be field-tested are tactical nuclear warheads. And more important than the military data gathered will be the precedent thereby established. With nukes added to the already formidable arsenal, there is no nation which can effectively resist the elite force, no nation which can steer a course independent of the globalist regime. Not even China. Not that war against China will necessarily be required. China seems to be changing rapidly, and eagerly desires to increase its participation in the global economy. Perhaps it will steer a course acceptable to globalist strategists. Indeed the "legitimatizing" of tactical nukes provides extra incentive for China to play nicely. But China has made clear that it considers Asia to be its "rightful" sphere of influence, and China is pursuing a rapid course of upgrading its military capability. Meanwhile the US continues to hold strongly to the policy that no Asian power can be permitted to have hegemony in the region, and has drawn various lines in the sand (eg, Straits of Taiwan) across which China is not to pass. In order for the US to have a "credible threat" against a potential Chinese consolidation of Asian hegemony, Uncle Sam must have nukes in his kitbag, and he must upgrade his electronic capability to so that China could be prevented from launching successful strategic strikes on Japan or the US. Desert Storm 2 is necessary preparation so that all options in the China Scenario can be carried to a successful globalist conclusion. This final consolidation of the globalist regime, the taming of China, is not something globalist leaders want to leave to chance - all scenarios must be fully accounted for. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- With this perspective, I hope it is clear that little Billy and his dalliances are so far down on the list of considerations that they amount to less than a feather on the scales in determining what will happen in Iraq or when. He's only the tail on the dog. He has little more control over events than does Saddam, and he is equally expendable. Which brings me to my third observation. Recall my comments of 28 Jan: cj#763> re: WHO IS PUSHING CLINTON OUT? >In particular, Democrats are not allowed to preside over successful >(glorious) military campaigns, that's the prerogative of Republican >presidents. When Reagan was given the Grenada project, or Bush allowed to >invade Panama and Iraq, the media resonated with "respect for the chief". >Coverage was filtered to glorify events, attitudes of respect were >projected, awe surrounded press conferences, etc. Given the same war, the >media COULD have emphasized civilian casualties, the wasteful expense of >the whole affair, and pointed out that Bush had sold weapons to Iraq - the >glory is in the media, not on the ground. > >By contrast, with Carter (the helicopter rescue attempt) or Clinton >(Ethiopia or was it Somalia), they're given puny military opportunities, >bungled by the Pentagon, and the media covers it with mockery. Rather than Desert Storm 2 being a Clinton stratagem to divert attention from his scandals, I suggest that his scandals are an elite stratagem to prevent the Democrats from benefitting from a war that happens to be scheduled during their shift. Even though the war will be a "successful" one, Clinton will nonetheless end up disgraced. In his wake, as in Carter's, some reactionary Republican neandrathal can be elected to preside over the next stage of US destabilization and the further consolidation of the globalist NWO regime. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- My fourth and final observation regards the international opposition that is mounting against Desert Storm 2. Some of the opposition arises simply from the injustice of the situation, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, the absurdity of the always more humiliating demands made on Iraq by Washington, and the unnecessity of another attack. But some of the opposition, especially among China, Russia, and Arab nations, must surely arise from a recognition of the fact that everyone's sovereignty falls with Iraq's - a recognition of the same clear precedent I've been talking about in this posting. The US will, for the reasons we've discussed, hang tough on this one. Once again the scenario has been portrayed for us on screen. "Independence Day" shows a determined America, held back by short-sighted and timid international diplomats, but finally victorious over the deadly enemy through the use of nuclear weapons. The story has been written, the stage has been set, and history has only to unfold as scripted. With or without international approval, the US will get its weapons test and will establish, with China in mind, the legitimatizing of tactical nukes. The US can afford to ignore international scorn (as it has so often in the postwar era), especially when Britain and Germany are standing in its corner. And, as foretold in Independence Day, the scorn will ultimately be transformed into political embarrassment and Uncle Sam will once again become the globally popular "hero of democracy", the role he so enjoyed playing in World War 2. The final implementation of the US-led NWO strike-force regime will then be a mere formality. How will the scorn be transformed into embarrassment? The answer, Dr. Watson, is elementary... an appropriate incident will be arranged, an incident in the tradition of the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Tonkin Gulf Incident, the shooting of a GI in Panama, or the invasion of Kuwait itself. One cannot predict the exact incident, anymore than one can correctly answer the question "Is this bird in my hand alive or dead?" - the options are with the initiator. Perhaps Saddam will be manipulated into launching an Anthrax attack, or perhaps he'll be blamed for a dramatic terrorist explosion in the First World (UN headquarters?), or perhaps he'll take to shooting down airliners. But one way or another, mark my words, Saddam will once again walk into a well-laid trap, and political leaders will rue the day they urged compromise. This incident might occur in the next week or so, or it might be deferred to enable a Desert Storm 3, if such better fits the agenda of the various globalist programs being moved forward by the cat-and-mouse game with Saddam. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- The primary issue for humanity, vis a vis Iraq, is that of national sovereignty. Just as neoliberalism, the IMF, and the WTO represent the end of economic sovereignty, so does the Iraq episode represent the end of territorial sovereignty. Successful opposition to the US/globalist sovereignty-destroying game plan cannot come by simply resisting each increment of the script. Such reactive responses have been anticipated and appropriate countermeasures pre-arranged. This indeed describes how we've gotten to where we are. Only a radical response can be effective, a response which emphasizes the sovereignty issue and which calls the US to account for its not-very-secret manipulations in setting up the whole Desert Storm scenario. To effectively oppose Desert Storm The Sequel, one must undertake a more comprehensive indictment: one must condemn US war crimes in Iraq and one must demand an end to the sanctions. Only by a direct frontal opposition to the pattern of legitimatizing interventionism is there any hope of building a sufficiently broad coalition, with sufficient moral weight, to induce Uncle Sam to take notice. China and Russia, in protection of their own necks, have an imperative to take the high ground in this confrontation, and to do all they can to rally the rest of the world against the advance of globalism's military regime. Western governments, even without advice from China and Russia, need to wake up to the demise of their sovereign states, and say enough is enough. Even the US (and its UK Bulldog sidekick) cannot ignore all the countries all the time. -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- I'd like to close with a note to activists. I urge you, whatever your favorite cause might be, to take on board that the multi-front globalist blitzkrieg makes all other political issues irrelevant. Whether it be environment, womens rights, abortion (pro or con), guns (pro or con), prayers in schools (pro or con), or whatever - the triumph of globalism will make it much worse, and only the defeat of globalism generally can enable societies to address the problems that plague them. The time has come to drop the struggles against symptoms, and to focus our attention on the disease itself. The disease is capitalist domination of societies globally, and the terminal stage of that disease is called globalization. Either capitalism will be subjugated, or it will subjugate us. The capitalist elite is forcing the showdown, and if we go down, we should at least go down aiming our struggle at the appropriate adversary. By my count there are three significant front lines in the resistance to globalism - three fields of battle where the issues have been (or can be) drawn radically, and where activist energy and support globally deserves to be focused. Those three are (1) opposing the persecution of Iraq (territorial sovereignty), (2) supporting and emulaing Canada's anti-MAI movement (economic sovereignty), and (3) defending Cuba's revolution (political sovereignty). The engines of globalism are awesome, and many dismiss opposition as futile - "globalization is inevitable" they say, echoing the constant media messge to that effect. Resistance may be ultimately futile, but we don't know that, and in the meantime we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a bold effort to respond to the emergency. In fighting a formidable enemy, and with only limited resources, we must focus our forces in well-timed actions against vulnerable points. I suggest that the three front lines mentioned above are where our forces should be rallying. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - rkmoore@iol.ie - PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen) * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're subscribed): To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- unsub cyberjournal From gimenez@csf.Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 11 09:54:16 1998 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:54:13 -0700 (MST) From: Martha Gimenez To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: ON LINE SEMINAR WITH GARY MARX PSN Seminar on The Search for Meaning in Academic Life Gary Marx has written a thought provoking essay listing 37 moral imperatives for aspiring sociologists which he would like to discuss with others interested in the connections between intellectual endeavours and one's personal life. For that purpose, we have organized this e-seminar, the first of what we hope will be a number of creative and successful discussions around work written by members of PSN, the Progressive Sociologist Network. Date: February 18 - 24, 1998 Format: To participate in the seminar, send mail to LISTPROC@csf.colorado.edu in the message proper write sub psn-seminars firstname lastname Gary Marx will be on line and the discussion will be informal at the beginning. If the number of subscribers is large and the number of daily messages increase accordingly, the seminar will become moderated, so that only the best messages are posted. The proceedings will archived in the PSN archives. Location: you can find the seminar papers at the following url http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/seminars or you can send mail to listproc@csf.colorado.edu with this message: get psn-seminars aspiring-sociologists INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT The careers and lives that shape the work we do as academics are rarely discussed in the classroom or in our writing. There are of course good reasons for this. But in our training of graduate students and mentoring those starting out we need to give greater attention to making explicit the insights and wisdom that we pass on informally. In general, I find the image of the profession presented to our students to be unduly timid, antiseptic, laundered, formal and scholastic. It is important for teachers and mentors to discuss the more personal and professional sides of the discipline, even as we encourage students to find their own answers. We need to see the bigger picture, to locate ourselves within it, to reflect on why and how we do our work and on what gives meaning to our lives. A little anticipatory socialization might prevent many a mid-life crisis. This on-line seminar will discuss the search for meaning in academic lives taking off from a series of papers by Gary T. Marx. It primarily addresses those who have the good fortune to find permanent academic jobs. A core document for the discussion is "Of Methods and Manners for Aspiring Sociologists: 37 Moral Imperatives", The American Sociologist, Spring 1977. Parts of three other relevant papers may also be found on the web page created for the seminar: "Second Thoughts and Enduring Tensions" from "Recent Developments in Undercover Policing" on unresolved issues and choices in finishing a large research project in T. Blomberg and S. Cohen, Punishment and Social Control: Essays in Honor of Sheldon Messinger, 1995 Aldyne de Gruyter); "Seven Characteristics of Success" from "Reflections on Academic Success and Failure Making It, Forsaking It, Reshaping It" in B. Berger, Authors of Their Own Lives, 1990, Univ. of California Press; "Introduction" in Muckraking Sociology Research as Social Criticism, 1972 Transaction Books on social relevance and social research. A full version of the papers can be found at http://socsci.colorado.edu/~marxg/garyhome.html Gary Marx is interested in learning what kinds of mentoring advice others offer and welcomes criticism of this material and suggestions for further reading. ------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------ From fattina@sistemia.it Wed Feb 11 12:31:55 1998 From: "Fulvio ATTINA'" To: "Euromed Summer School" Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:24:14 +0000 Subject: Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Summer School The University of Catania, the ECPR Standing Group on the European Union and the Sicilian Region annouce the Summer School on "The Mediterranean and the New International Order: The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership" to be held at the EUROMED Centre, Department of Political Studies, University of Catania 5 - 12 July 1998 This Summer School is designed specifically for advanced graduate and doctoral students interested in Mediterranean issues. The School is co-directed by Fulvio ATTINA', Director of the EuroMed Centre, Department of Political Studies of the University of Catania, and Stelios STAVRIDIS, Director of the Centre for Euro-Mediterranean Studies, The Graduate School of European and International Studies of the University of Reading. The School will consist of four sections - aimed at aiding participants in the research and writing of their dissertation. For this sake, the School will be structured in lectures held by experts in the field, panel presentations made by participants, and discussions focusing on issue analysis and research methodologies. Two categories of participants will be selected: paper givers and non-paper givers. Paper givers will present a research draft and will receive travel cost reimbursement. Both categories will receive meal cost reimbursement, lodging in dormitory suites and access to computing, library and athletic facilities. A programme of excursions in the beautiful surroundings of Catania will complement the sessions. Further information can be obtained from: Valentina BARBAGALLO, Organizer (barbav@vm.unict.it), Prof. Fulvio ATTINA' (attinaf@vm.unict.it) or by visiting the Summer School website at: http://www.fscpo.unict.it/EuroMed/Sschool.htm where an application form can be found. Deadline for application is 20 April 1998. Euromed Centre, Department of Political Studies University of Catania Via Vittorio Emanuele, 49 95131 - Catania ITALY Tel and fax + 39. 95 .7347 256 See http://www.fscpo.unict.it/EuroMed/euromed.htm http://www.fscpo.unict.it/ http://www.fscpo.unict.it/vademec/attina.htm http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/lp/PolIR/polsbiogs/SSS.html From CMSJOYA@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Wed Feb 11 16:47:41 1998 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 98 18:43:57 EST From: Joya Misra Subject: World Systems Theory (fwd) To: W-S Network I have a query from an excellent colleague -- if you have ideas, could you please contact Elizabeth Watts-Warren at cmswatts@uga.cc.uga.edu? Thanks very much! Joya Misra ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I wonder if you could give me some information (or direct me to some relevant scholarship) on world systems theory. Specifically, in Wilma Dunaway's presentation, she argued that world systems theory posits that as capitalism incorporates "new zones", it sets into motion two antithetical "labor recruitment" mechanisms: (1) a proletarianization of males into laborers (and associated surplus production), and (2) a concentration of women's labor into arenas that are never fully integrated into the male-dominated economy. This, of course, is interesting and I guess all world systems theoris ts know this. But does any world systems theorist take this insight further an d relate this to the production of a criminal class. That is, it seems that as labor recruitment fails, lumpen proletarianization occurs (?) out of which criminals are produced. Crimininalization and containment (or what I call devalued labor) are the results of failed labor recruitment tactics and is, therefore, inherent in capitalist incorporation. Steven Spitzer looks at the functions of the production of criminals in relation to the economy but doesn't really draw this connection (ie. production of criminals is a function of failed incorportation mechanisms). Does any system's theorist do this cleanly? Any insight would be helpful. Elizabeth From phuakl@sit.edu.my Wed Feb 11 23:32:20 1998 From: "DR. PHUA KAI LIT" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:08:47 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) (Fwd) [sangkancil] Deadly smog returns to threaten Asia ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: yfyap@pop.jaring.my (Yap Yok Foo) To: sangkancil@malaysia.net Subject: [sangkancil] Deadly smog returns to threaten Asia Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 02:51:40 GMT Organization: Private Reply-to: yfyap@pop.jaring.my (Yap Yok Foo) ________________________________________________ This week's sponsors -The Asia Pacific Internet Company (APIC) Business Internet Services. Some talk. Some do. We talk and do! for instant info ________________________________________________ >From The Independent, UK 9th Feb 1998 Borneo's forests burn on the bonfire of big business Forest burning in Indonesia is no accident: nearly all the fires are man made. The real culprits are the huge industrial conglomerates which have encouraged the development of the rainforests. Richard Lloyd Parry reports from East Kalimantan. The strangest thing about the jungle near Muara Nayan, stranger than the smell of the air and the blank whiteness of the sky, is how autumnal it looks, closer to Hyde Park in October than the tropics. The smell is one of autumn bonfires and the tall trees are bare of leaves, or shedding them onto the road in orange piles. But we are just 40 miles from the equator, and the temperature here is close to 38C. These are tropical hardwoods, not elms and sycamores, and we are in the forests of Borneo, eight hours from the nearest city, where it is hot and humid all the year round and there are no seasons. The puzzle is answered a few yards off the dusty road, in what used to be a swampy grove of hardwoods and fruit trees. Now, for a few hundred yards on all sides, it is the skeleton of a forest - the swamp water has thickened to viscous mud, scattered with the fallen bodies of blackened trees and covered in a layer of white ash. Even from the unburned vegetation lines of smoke rise into a dazzling white sky in which the sun is visible only as a pale orange disc. In an area the size of a football pitch, there are no insects or birds, no frogs or snakes, and no monkeys. The Dayak tribesman who used to tend this land is at a loss. "It began three weeks ago in the middle of the night," he says, "and the first we knew was the smoke the next morning. "We came quickly, but the fire had spread so far, and there is no water. So we had to let it burn." His durian trees, his mangoes, jackfruit and rambutans were all destroyed. "Every year, there were fruit there, for my family to eat and to sell in the market. I have lost my income, my livelihood." In a normal year, he could rely on his rice fields - but with almost no rain since last year, the harvest is doomed to be a failure. His family have taken to weaving traditional textiles and making Dayak wood carvings - but the foreign tourists who might have bought them have been scared away by news of the enveloping smoke. A worse and bigger fire three months ago burned several years' worth of rattan, the pliable cane which is the other local standby. But if this looks like a natural disaster, the villagers do not see it that way. "There is no proof," says the village headman, "and it is possible that some of these are accidents. But in the past, even when it was as dry, there were never so many fires as this. They have begun only after the companies came in, the companies and their politics. But we cannot prove it, so we keep silent." Borneo is burning again. In November and December, the rains came at last, bringing respite from the fires which burned all summer, closing airports, causing deadly shipping and aviation accidents, and choking millions of people in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand with the so-called "haze". But in East Kalimantan, the biggest province of Indonesian Borneo, it has rained for no more than a few hours since the beginning of the year, at what is supposed to be the height of the wet season. Helicopter inspections last week revealed fires covering some 15-20,000 hectares in this province alone, and with no rains in sight the situation can only get worse. Indonesia, home of some of the world's biggest tropical rain forests, is once again on the way to becoming its biggest bonfire. But if the effects of the blaze are obvious enough, its causes are as complex and murky as Indonesia's politics, a product of greed, social engineering and the interaction of modern industry with a traditional way of life which has existed peacefully here for centuries. If there is one thing which everyone agrees on, it is that almost all the fires burning here are man-made, the result of deliberate burning rather than accidents with cigarette ends or spontaneous combustion. For centuries, fire has been an essential tool of the slash-and-burn agriculture of the Dayak tribes who still populate Borneo's interior, as well as the "transmigrants", more recent arrivals, freighted in by the government in a controversial programme to ease congestion in poorer, more arid islands. The former have lived here for thousands of years and their experience of the forest is enshrined in a detailed set of traditional precepts and religious rituals governing the use of fire. The latter, who often come to farming with no previous experience, lack this expertise. "The Dayak people don't cause forest fires," says Ludwig Schindler, a German expert who heads the Integrated Forest Fire Management (IFFM) project in the East Kalimantan capital, Samarinda. "They know when it's too dry and dangerous to burn. But the outsiders don't have the close relationship with the forest, and they're careless. A man might want to clear half a hectare for himself and end up burning 200." But the third and crucial element of the problem is the hundreds of commercial companies - rubber and palm oil planters, extractors of timber, gold and coal - who have descended on Borneo since the late 1960s, hacking and exporting its rainforests, which can be found in their virgin state only in the deep interior and in a few reserves. For these companies, just as for the small farmers, burning is the quickest way of clearing forest, both in order to clear land earmarked for mining or planting, and to convert logged land for agricultural use. The presence of these companies has created wounding rifts, as damaging to the local culture as they are to the environment. Many of the companies are affiliated to massive Indonesian conglomerates, run by the immediate family and cronies of President Suharto. Granted licenses by the central government, they arrive to "negotiate" with the local people who have almost no legal rights to their land, despite their ancient history. Dayaks in Lempunah, a village near Muara Nayan, have been offered lump sums to exchange their traditional land for a small share in a palm oil plantation. So far they have held out but ever since the offer was made the village has been stricken by mysterious fires. Evidence is sketchy, although foreign experts visiting the area say that they have seen fires being started by men who, when questioned, openly admit that they are acting on behalf of palm oil companies. And coincidentally or not, the loss of forest land benefits the companies in several ways. With their rattan and fruit trees destroyed, locals are more likely to yield to the temptation of a windfall buy-out. The company may pay less in compensation for burned land than for productive forest - and the ruin of farmers creates a labour force of needy workers. "The company pays just 6,000 rupiah [35 pence] a day," says the Dayak man who lost his fruit trees. "But we have no other choice." http://www.independent.co.uk/index.html ======================================================== ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM Don't let the bastards grind you down ======================================================== Uncle Yap Yok Foo yfyap@pop.jaring.my Tel : 603-7811648 Fax : 603-7812108 ======================================================== -________________________________________________ List Owner: M.G.G. Pillai Free Homepages on malaysia.net - send blank Check out the malaysia.net web site on List Postings to ________________________________________________ From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Feb 12 07:16:54 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:08:49 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: (long) AHA: *ReOrient* (fwd)] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank Subject: (long) AHA: *ReOrient* (fwd) To: Robert Denemark , Albert J Bergesen , Marianne Brun , "M. Rutten" , "NVAPS (helga Lasschuijt)" , giovanni arrighi , Chris Chase-Dunn , tom hall , islamoglu@wiko-berlin.de fyi - also in re ISA, leiden,etc. g/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:47:36 -0600, MDT From: J B Owens To: richards@acpub.duke.edu, dringrose@ucsd.edu, kwigen@acpub.duke.edu Subject: (long) AHA: *ReOrient* What follows is the text of the core pages of the panel proposal for next January's AHA meeting. There are signs of haste, but I hope it is good enough to do the trick. Obviously, you are receiving only text, not the presentation. Also included were the c.v.'s for the five participants. Following Pat Manning's suggestions, I cut the c.v.'s to include the necessary information and organized that so that the same sections came in the same order in each c.v. That way, the committee members would not have to waste time trying to grasp the organizational principles behind five different documents in order to find information: name, address, phone & fax, e-mail address, education, professional positions, publications (stress on recent), recent conference papers (stress on most relevant to panel), grants (stress on most recent and relevant), memberships. No more than three pages each. The package was sent priority mail yesterday morning so it should arrive in plenty of time to meet the Friday the 13th deadline :-) Again, my thanks to all for helping me to put this proposal together in such a short time. I couldn't have done that without so much cooperation. I will send news as I receive it. Warmest regards, Jack PROGRAM TEXT Panel Title: "Making Connections: The ReOrientation of World History" Joint session with the World History Association. The panel will discuss ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age by Andre Gunder Frank (University of California Press, 1998). Chair: J. B. Owens, Idaho State University Panel: John F. Richards, Duke University David R. Ringrose, University of California, San Diego Kaeren Wigen, Duke University J. B. Owens Response: Andre Gunder Frank, University of Toronto [Note: Permission for a join session with the World History Association given by WHA President Heidi Roupp .] ************************************************************ PANEL ABSTRACT Making Connections: The ReOrientation of World History The panel's purpose is to provide a critical evaluation of ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age by Andre Gunder Frank, to be published by the University of California Press in April, 1998. Frank argues that during the period 1400-1800, there existed a world economy which profoundly shaped developments in all of its parts and the relations among them. Therefore, the evidence about no region's history can be understood without employing a holistic global analysis. Such analysis entails the rejection of much received social theory, particularly that with roots in the work of Karl Marx and Max Weber, and a new purpose for comparative research. Frank proposes an alternative perspective from which to contemplate the contemporary global economy, and this perspective demands a reassessment of periodization, the nature of continuity and change, the form of historical explanation, and the way research questions are posed. Frank attacks all "Eurocentric" claims that 1500 represented a sharp break and opened a new age in which unique European characteristics (e.g., rationality, efficiency) and institutions (e.g., private property rights, political freedom) permitted that region to be the birthplace and center of "capitalism," born of a transition from "feudalism," which then spread through the incorporation of other regions (labeled as backward, stagnant, stationary, traditional) into a European (and later Europeanized North American) dominated system. Instead, he describes 1400-1800 as a period in which the pre-existing Afroeurasian (and increasingly global) economy expanded, but primarily in Asia where India and especially China were central regions for productivity and competitiveness. Europeans covered their region's deficiencies, represented by its chronic balance of payments deficits, through the infusion of American precious metals. Just as its design had changed in the past, the always unequal structure of interactions among regions inflected about 1800 to Europe's and then North America's advantage, a pattern which may now be shifting again toward East Asia. Frank offers the book as a preliminary step toward the holistic global theory and analysis he advocates. He describes the necessary approach as a three legged stool for which the supporting analyses would focus on (1) ecological, economic, and technological aspects, (2) political/military interactions, and (3) social, cultural, and ideological issues. However, he concentrates on the economic part of the first leg, because he feels it is the most neglected, and admits that even there, he gives too little attention to interactions involving Africa and the Americas. Because none of the panelists has read the book in its final form, it is not possible to include in this proposal the abstracts of the individual presentations. However, the intention is to evaluate the book on the basis of Frank's use of recent research on the economic history of East Asia, South Asia, Europe, and the Spanish Empire from his holistic global perspective. Moreover, attention will be given (1) to the way this perspective might shape research on the neglected ecological and technological aspects of the first leg and on the other two legs, and (2) to how to combine holistically the analyses of the three legged stool. Among them, the panelists have the variety of regional and topical research interests which permit such a complex evaluation. Although Frank appeared on the 1998 AHA program, we feel that one of the strengths of this proposal is his willingness to respond to the presentations, but the panel will stand on its own if the Program Committee would prefer not to have Andre Gunder Frank's name repeated in 1999. ************************************************************ Making Connections: The ReOrientation of World History HOW PANEL ADDRESSES ISSUES RELATED TO TEACHING Andre Gunder Frank's ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, April 1998) will have a major impact on the teaching of world history at all levels. For example, Frank rejects the automatic assumption of the reality of a number of stock historical categories around which such courses are often organized. Among these categories are the rise of the West, the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, the development of the "State" as a motor force of European and subsequently world history, the "modernization" of "traditional cultures," and the existence of discrete "societies" which can be understood on the basis of their internal characteristics and then compared to other such entities. Also, the book encourages greater attention to economic history, an area about which current world history teaching is generally deficient. Concern about this deficiency is one reason that the World History Association will sponsor this panel for the AHA program. In recent twin documents about the evaluation of History/Social Studies standards and textbooks (see AHA Perspectives [January 1998]: 29 and 31-32), the Council of the American Historical Association stressed the need to incorporate continuously "current research findings and best teaching practices." Frank's book demands a much more basic systematic global perspective than has been the case among even the most determined world historians and a fundamental reassessment of periodization, the enterprise of comparative history, and the interpretation of localized events, change, and continuity. Moreover, economic history is thrust into a more prominent place. Given its due, ReOrient will literally reorient the teaching of world history in the 21st century and will give a different form to courses on the various "national" and regional histories. Because ReOrient constitutes a demanding challenge to world history as a sub-field and instructional subject, it is necessary that those considering this "reorientation" in course design have available the proposed detailed examination of Frank's use of recent research and of the problems of tracing and presenting economic, political, and cultural interactions and their impact on people's lives within a holistic global analysis. Among the matters that panelists may consider is the degree to which the adoption of Frank's theoretical/analytical approach would entail the rewriting of the "National Standards for World History." Further, if it is true that prior European cultural preparation was not the decisive factor in the region's rise to predominance in the global economy, ReOrient has implications for larger issues of curricular and institutional organization. For example, the dynamics of discussions of race relations and diversity issues are transformed in fundamental ways. *********************************************************************** Making Connections: The ReOrientation of World History LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 1) Andre Gunder Frank 96 Asquith Avenue Toronto, Ontario Canada M4W1J8 Tel: 1-416 972 0616; FAX: 1-416 972 0071 e-mail: agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca 2) J. B. Owens Department of History CMS 8344 Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209 Tel.: (208) 236-2379; FAX: (208) 236-4267 e-mail: owenjack@isu.edu 3) John F. Richards 1012 Gloria Avenue Durham, NC 27701 Tel.: (919) 688-8828; FAX: (919) 684-3966 e-mail: richards@acpub.duke.edu 4) David R. Ringrose Department of History C-004 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0104 Tel.: (619) 534-1996; FAX: (619) 534-7283 e-mail: dringrose@ucsd.edu 5) Kaeren Esther Wigen Department of History Duke University Durham, NC 27708-0719 Tel: (919) 684-8359; FAX: (919) 681-7670 e-mail: kwigen@acpub.duke.edu From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Feb 12 10:53:17 1998 Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:52:59 GMT Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:52:59 GMT To: Joya Misra From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: World Systems Theory (fwd) 2/11/98, Joya Misra wrote: >Crimininalization and containment (or what I call >devalued labor) are the results of failed labor recruitment tactics and is, >therefore, inherent in capitalist incorporation. Joya, Why are you convinced it's "failed labor recruitment tactics" rather than "intentional structural unemployment"? rkm From gderlug@nwu.edu Thu Feb 12 10:53:54 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:57:19 -0600 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: "Georgi M. Derluguian" Subject: Crime in the world-system RE: Regarding the study of crime in the currently mutating world-system I don't deal specifically with the unorganized crime which your colleague seems interested in. But there are whole regions of the world-economy that appear redundant. Obviously, narcotics are the best (or even the last) cash-crop left to numerous peasantries and various groups that service such periphery to core commodity chains. Below is part of a recent grant proposal concerning the violent mutation of criminality in the former USSR. Yours, Georgi Derluguian Stephen Handelman's bestseller Comrade Criminal shows both the advantages and the pitfalls of the straightforward pursuit of "true story". The general picture painted in Comrade Criminal is arguably dazzling. The awed reader is tempted to believe everything except the chapters concerning the particular area of one's expertise (in my case this is Chechnya and the Caucasian migrants in Moscow). Wrong dates, misspelled personal names and toponyms could be minor fault in a research of such scope but the interpretations of events blaming almost everything on the hidden springs and underground entities smacks of conspiracy theories. My critique would be simple: why in the chaotic post-communist environment where nothing seems whole and properly functioning, we might presume the existence of institutions exempt from this unruliness, confusion and chaos? First step: reconstructing legendary reality of Thieves in the Law When hard, verifiable facts are near impossible to separate from fiction, let's go after fiction first. More precisely, the fictional accounts of the instituions, norms and values that governed the Soviet criminal community and the types of conflict that are considered central to the underworld of post-communist Russia. This may eventually allow us to sort out the presumed facts. I propose to study with the methods of historical and cultural sociology the romantic folklore generated by the criminals and its spin offs disseminated by the Russian mass media and the concomitant genre of cheap detective novels, pulp thrillers, and docudrama that has experienced veritable explosion in the Russia of the nineties. The mediocre inventiveness, simplistic hyper-realism of plots and details designed to provoke in the reader immediate recognition and self-association with the protagonists, plus the fact that the authors often are the moonlighting police investigators (Koretsky, Marinina) - in a nutshell, the same factors that contribute to making these texts quite awful literature, make them sociologically revealing sources. Furthermore, there are published memoirs of Russian criminals and cops which, regard-less of their actual authorship, reproduce a set of fixed elements in the description of underworld. Survey of such sources will be the first step in the proposed project. This should enable us to reconstruct the ideal-type picture of Russian organized crime and the vec-tors of its recent evolution. Particular attention will be paid to the mechanisms of power, patterns of co-optation into criminal elites, goals and norms of criminal conduct. It appears incontestable that in the Soviet period professionalized criminality functioned under the supremacy of Thieves in the Law (vory v zakone). It was a formal status group similar to a caste of territorially organized criminal authorities (avtoritety), akin to high priests, but one may rather say the nomenklatura of Soviet underworld. Thieves in the Law don't seem to be a very old institution. We will have to check in the pre-1917 literature but circumstantial evidence suggests that they likely grew from the Soviet penitentiary system and orphanages of the 1920s and the 1930s. I shall only chart this evolution relating it to the trajectory of Soviet state and society. More detailed his-torical reconstruction is unfeasible and non-essential at this stage. Existing published tes-timonials should be enough to outline a diachronic picture. I mean primarily the first-hand accounts produced by the reflecting intellectuals who had observed the criminals in the Gulag camps. The earliest to my current knowledge is the article of Academician Dmitry Likhachev on the criminal jargon (1932). More recent accounts which I hope to identify likely belong to Soviet dissidents. Another valuable source of historical informa-tion are the criminal ballads (blatnye pesni) which haven't been composed for at least a generation but instead recycled in popular culture. Just this fact suggests the ongoing la-tent shifts in the criminal culture and the society at large. The main focus of proposed re-search is the interrelation of the norms and practices generated in the criminal underworld and the evolution of society at large. For this purpose recapitulating the common stock of criminal legends would serve as only the point of departure. Initial hypothesis: Thieves in the Law as peculiar avatar of Soviet state Next stage is to frame the research in the world-systems perspective. My previous work made me aware of the curious correlations between the ethos of criminal organizations in various parts of the world and the local cultures, especially in the domain of historically structuring and legitimating the exercise of social power. For instance, Japanese yakudza still abide by Bushi-do, the samurai code, long after the samurais were gone, while the Chinese triads represent another cultural archaism - a syncretist incarnation of the Chinese rural clans, Taoist secret societies, and the Confucian concerns for filial piety and gentlemanly responsibility for maintaining governance. The Sicilian Ma-fia (i.e. the original Mafia) and, to another degree, the Neapolitan Camorra faithfully re-flect the patron-client networks of the old Italian Mezzogiorno as well as the earlier phe-nomenon of Hobsbawm's "primitive rebel" resistance against the state agents. American ethnically-structured criminal organizations (Cosa Nostra, if it existed in reality, and the more familiar Italian, Jewish, Irish examples) were quite different from the original Si-cilian Mafia because they were urban, ethnic in an multiethnic environment, and overall were a way for the new arrivals to assimilate themselves into the legal capitalist enter-prise and politics of the US previously monopolized by the WASP elite. Interesting par-allels are possible with the more recent African-American gangs that can no longer be considered a mere deviant phenomenon in the life of their communities. These examples suggest the following hypothesis: wherever the underworlds of organized crime existed in the twentieth century, they imitated and inevitably propha-nated the configuration of dominant elites, the associated status norms and symbols, pat-terns of behavior, etc. Furthermore, criminal cultures operated with a time lag. Figura-tively speaking, the pirates dressed themselves in the luxurious but invariably outfash-ioned garbs which they have appropriated from the "true" power elite. This hypothesis should be tested with the data from secondary literature on the organized crime in East Asia, Southern Europe, and the US. If it proves possible to sub-stantiate the correlation between the institutional design and social norms of the endemic criminal underworlds and the overall political cultures and class structures of the respec-tive societies, then what should we expect to find in the Soviet experience? Primary evidence suggests quite an astonishing peculiarity. Thieves in the Law apparently inherited their symbols and beliefs from Russian intelligentsia, perhaps, even from the professional revolutionaries. Here I would cite just two features that appear to me exceptional. Thieves in the Law from the outset were a non-ethnic institution. Their ranks could in-clude an Armenian like Svo, a Georgian like Djaba Ioseliani, or Tajic like Sangak Safarov (though formally never "crowned" and therefore formally a muzhik in criminal hierarchy). Ethnicity was shed along other pre-ordination identities, and it did not matter as long as the ruling communist elite remained multiethnic. Secondly, unlike any other gangster bosses elsewhere in the world, they abided by rigorously ascetic rules incom-patible with any civil status including marriage and ownership of property. In this respect Thieves in the Law resemble not only the professional revolutionaries but Russian hermit saints (startsy) in the classical patristic analysis of Georgi Fedotov. Evidently, the fictionary Rakhmetov, who slept on the bed of nails and ate raw steak with onions, or the real-life revolutionaries of imperial Russia, destined to languish in prison castles and Si-berian exile, constructed their image along the existing lines of sanctihood and the ultimate moral legitimation through martyrdom which was found in the popular Russian Christianity. Of course, this is an idealization. In private, the Bolshevik elite dumped its modesty right after the revolution, and by the Brezhnev period asceticism was no longer even part of official hypocrisy. With the predictable lag the criminal sub-elite followed the suit. Thieves in the Law perhaps persisted longer but perestroika and the end of the USSR were really the time of their undoing. The institution mutated (got "corrupted") from within and, at the same time, was violently challenged from without by the upstart new-comers into the world of organized crime - generically called in Russian bespredel-schiki, or those who respect no limits. These seem to be the principal vectors of the recent evolution of organized crime in the former Soviet states. Demise of tightly-knit national and regional criminal communities accompanied by the violent rationalization of their norms and instituions could be an important aspect of the occurring shift from the twentieth-century project of self-contained national states to the flexible transborder business enterprise which is usually implied by the word globalization. Further hypothesis: globalization causes the shift towards Weberian capitalist rationality If in the past organized crime imitated the configuration of the states which con-tained them and adhered to local cultural norms, what happens today when globalization unbundles states, dramatically increases the density of world market networks, and pro-motes globally uniform cultural patterns? Trajectory of Thieves in the Law offers a poignant case that potentially bears universal relevance. The endemic criminal communities of the past were precisely tightly-knit communities governed by traditional authority where value-oriented behavior enjoyed undisputed priority. According to the old Italian expression, the Mafia is not an organization, it's an attitude. Likewise, the originally Russian term intelligentsia, invented in the 1880s, used to describe not an objec-tively-defined social class but rather a self-described group justified and built around its critical attitudes towards the world and particularly towrds the state power. The intelligentsia appears in clear decline and disintegration. What about its unacknowledged avatar, Thieves in the Law? As state borders become increasingly permeable to the traffic of goods, people, information, and capitals, the noble criminalities of yesteryear face extinction. Thieves in the Law and possibly other criminal communities used to be parasites in the redistributive systems, as suggested by the original meaning of the word theft. Today they are merging with service and productive sectors, gain direct control of business enterprises and be-come managers themselves. Violence becomes an established mainstream way of business competition rather than deviance. This mutation is accompanied by the dramatic and inescapably violent shift towards the set of norms originally described by Max Weber as capitalist rationality. Transition from the locally-specific forms of patrimonialism to the brave new world of global markets and the formal, culturally unspecific capitalist rationality (the global Yuppie culture) renders previously parochial criminal organizations obsolete. The emergent organized crime is likely to become globally uniform and modular enabling its particular segments to operate beyond the frontiers of their home states and link up with their counterparts elsewhere in the world. If it is so, which seems plausible, former Soviet criminals are on their ways to founding their transnational corporations (TNCs). Will the global world engender an equally global underworld? Apparently so. What place will the criminal syndicates from the FSU manage to carve up? This is the central question for further research agenda that my project may help to formulate. Georgi M. Derluguian Assistant Professor Department of Sociology Northwestern University 1812 Chicago Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 (847) 491-2741 (rabota) From chewitt@uga.cc.uga.edu Thu Feb 12 14:49:16 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:46:47 -0500 From: "C. Hewitt" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Asian Economic "Melt Down" Hi, I have been following the crisis in debt repayment and currency devaluation occuring in the "Asian Tiger" countries and others with great interest mainly via Nat'l Public Radio. I would like to hear from anyone who is analyzing this situation--its implications for world-system theory (vindication), implications for global spread of recession, and for free-market export-led development theory. I'd like to correspond; I'd like information and analysis source references, both popular articles and research; and/or suggestions of researchers whose work I should check. I will return to this subject once I get a hang of how this list-serv is running. Thanks for your time. >From a new member, Cynthia M. Hewitt University of Georgia, Athens From wwagar@binghamton.edu Fri Feb 13 10:47:26 1998 From: wwagar@binghamton.edu Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:47:17 -0500 (EST) To: "Richard K. Moore" Subject: Re: Iraq, Clinton, and the NWO In-Reply-To: Your analysis of Desert Thunder is on the money. It prompts me to remark that if Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent them. Wait a minute. In the Reagan years, we DID invent them. Cheers, Warren From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 13 14:37:54 1998 Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:37:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:37:01 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: "C. Hewitt" mark selden , giovanni arrighi , Michael Perelman Subject: gunder frank Re: Asian Economic "Melt Down" In-Reply-To: <34E36DC7.7F49@uga.cc.uga.edu> As I recall, i already posted something to wsn on this some time ago the gist of which was [in ws terms] that this is the first time in recent memory that a world recession STARTS in Asia and spreads elsewhere from THERE, and that this implies that the WS 'center' has shifted form west to east. the fact that there is a financial crisis and/or a real recession does NOT mean that this is the end of the process in Asia. more lilkely it is only the BEGINNING, and in addition it will spur the East ASians on to 'regionalize' if not nationalize their trade and financial circuits more to get out from under the IMF etc. and THEY -real economy wise- probably CAN do that, which the Africans, Latin Ameriocans and East Europeans have NOT been able to do. How about somebody with finger on pulse coming up with some EVIDENCE pro or contra or to revise this argument? I made it off top of my head since i have retreated from the present real world to the past. gunder frank agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, C. Hewitt wrote: > Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:46:47 -0500 > From: "C. Hewitt" > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: Asian Economic "Melt Down" > > Hi, > > I have been following the crisis in debt repayment and currency > devaluation occuring in the "Asian Tiger" countries and others with > great interest mainly via Nat'l Public Radio. I would like to hear from > anyone who is analyzing this situation--its implications for > world-system theory (vindication), implications for global spread of > recession, and for free-market export-led development theory. I'd like > to correspond; I'd like information and analysis source references, both > popular articles and research; and/or suggestions of researchers whose > work I should check. I will return to this subject once I get a hang of > how this list-serv is running. Thanks for your time. > > >From a new member, > Cynthia M. Hewitt > University of Georgia, Athens > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Fri Feb 13 15:44:32 1998 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:44:23 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Asian Economic "Melt Down" In-Reply-To: On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Gunder Frank wrote: > As I recall, i already posted something to wsn on this some time ago > the gist of which was [in ws terms] that this is the first time in recent > memory that a world recession STARTS in Asia and spreads elsewhere from > THERE, and that this implies that the WS 'center' has shifted form west to > east. the fact that there is a financial crisis and/or a real recession > does NOT mean that this is the end of the process in Asia. more lilkely > it is only the BEGINNING, and in addition it will spur the East > ASians on to 'regionalize' if not nationalize their trade and financial > circuits more to get out from under the IMF etc. and THEY -real economy > wise- probably CAN do that, which the Africans, Latin Ameriocans and > East Europeans have NOT been able to do. Yes, the Asian situation is complex. On the one hand, Indonesia, Thailand and perhaps Malaysia are being thrown to the wolves, bespeaking a new, vicious kind of neo-colonialism in the making. On the other hand, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong are doing their damndest to plug the holes in the fiscal dike -- Singapore is propping up Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong are running air cover for China, while South Korea is being bailed out by Japanese and European banks (which own 75% of S. Korea's external debt). And this is merely in the initial, financial stages of the crisis -- compare this to the Latin American regimes in the 1980s, which never even came close to showing multinational solidarity for one another (there was talk of a "debtor's cartel", but nothing came of it). You have to conclude that, if things really get tough -- and they may -- then we're going to see even more state intervention in the Pacific Rim, not less. As for the previous question on this list, as to why Asia melted down, this isn't hard to see: foreign multinationals have been relocating/investing in the place like there's no tomorrow, jacking up production and keeping wages low. As long as Asian exports to First World (mostly American) markets were tiny, the strategy worked just fine; all that investment stimulated local economies, and jumpstarted local accumulation. Since 1985, however, the strategy started breaking down, due to the sheer volume of imports. In response, the US devalued the dollar and began going deep into debt on its international credit position (i.e. borrowing from Japan and Central Europe). This kept the export machine running for another ten years, but sooner or later, the overbuilding of Asian factories was going to collide with the inability of American consumers to buy all those products. So who's going to buy all those products? Japan, that's who. Their multinationals are the ones investing in SE Asian production, and their keiretsu have been raking in the dough on the export boom. Japan is a global creditor, to the tune of some $800 billion or so; what this means is that Japan (and that other global creditor, namely Central Europe) are going to have to create effective demand -- either by letting their currencies appreciate vis-a-vis the dollar, or by multinational Keynesianism, or by huge debt bailouts of their South Korean/Czech semi-peripheries or some combination thereof. So far, Japan is talking about applying a $50 billion stimulus package, and seems to have agreed to roll over South Korea's debts, so there's some initial, scanty evidence that East Asia will resist the Wall Street influenza. But we'll know more in a couple months or so, once the banking bigwigs from Europe make up their minds about what to do. -- Dennis From kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my Fri Feb 13 21:33:40 1998 From: kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:31:59 +0800 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Asian Economic "Melt Down" Some comments, not amounting to an argument. 1. Gunder Frank, as always, put a provocative slant on it with the merit of causing a second-take. I'm not sure that at the moment, after 7/8 months, there is the evidence yet to conclude with Gunder Frank that it signals a shift from west to east. Further, there are many layers to this thing, and a shift on one layer one way does not mean a shift in other layers in the same direction. To put a bold face to it, I think that actually the collapse has re-entrenched power in the old centre(s); the best face to put to it is that if there was a shift towards E Asia, then that has been brought to a halt and a deferment of any consolidation of that shift. 2. While there's great merit to distinguishing between the 'real economy' and the other 'unreal economy', there's a limit to this distinction and the links between them are important and real enough. In the circumstances of Asia today, the real economy is taking one hell of a beating. That would happen in any situation where market capitalization has been halved, and currency values have dropped by 20-400% (as there are various modes of reckoning, mine is simply take current value, less previous value, divide by previous value), with the exception of HK (because of the peg), India and China (because of non-convertibility) and Taiwan (because of regulations on currency trades, limiting to cover trade in goods) and, to a lesser degree, Singapore (also well regulated, although the currency has dropped by about 20% against USD) The obvious impacts are: - to directly and indirectly financially cripple locally-owned firms - to relatively cheapen exports ostensibly making them more competitive - to make imports, especially of capital and intermediate goods, much more expensive, off-setting the above - to cheapen labour and other locally-sourced inputs for foreign firms - all the familiar consequences for the wage earner In Indonesia, e.g., virtually all large local firms are technically bankrupt as they can't meet debt payments or service their debts -- not even well-run firms can escape a currency devaluation of 400% at today's rate; at one time it was down as much as 600%. In S Korea, it is estimated that some 50,000 businesses will disappear this year. There's an effective credit crunch, etc. Increases in export competitiveness for local firms due to currency devaluations are to some degree offset by the credit crunch, the need to import capital and intermediate goods payable in foreign currencies, and negated somewhat by the fact that the devaluations have taken place across a broad swathe of countries, all producing more or less similar goods for the export market. Further, many of these countries were already producing at near capacity, facing labour shortages, etc. and it's not likely that they can rack up productive capacity in the short term, or if they do, it will have implications for the necessary shift up the technological ladder. For foreign firms from Japan, US and Europe involved in manufacturing, it's generally good, i.e. benefits from reduced labour costs and local inputs, benefits from currency devaluation, and little difference in sourcing capital and intermediate goods: in brief it enhances their basic position of seizing advantage of localized markets and pricing in certain parts of production, with global markets and pricing in sales. 3. For a moment 7 months ago, the regionalization scenario on the economic level looked a possibility with the proposal for an Asian Fund. But as we know, that got shot down very quickly and the rapidity and ease with which it was shot down indicates something about where the centre remains and the centrality of links between centre and each of the countries in the region over the links between countries in the region. 4. Further, the recently concluded round on financial liberalization and the current MAI will further reduce state autonomy or ability to control the situation. If the MAI goes through, and via the pressures of the collapse, industrial policy will effectively become impossible. But of course industrial policy has been blamed as one of the causes of the collapse. Virtually all countries have had to open up to take-overs, hostile and otherwise -- and there's quite a bit of shopping going on amongst transnational capital: why not, at knock-down prices. Yes, mergers with and acquisitions by transnational capital might strengthen capital operating in these areas and yes, it could result in a geographical shift of centre, but it will be of a different sort from the previous shifts from southern to n-western europe, across the atlantic to the US. Maybe this is unimportant -- got to sort out my thinking and emotions on this. But equally, it could as well be a cheap means of acquiring manufacturing capacity, turning or entrenching these areas into low-cost production lines, as they have been. And as implicit social contracts, as in S Korea, are actively dismantled, the latter could well be the case what with nominal wage rates for foreign capital effectively halved, bring them back in real terms close to what they were in the early 1970s when in a place like Malaysia they were about USD2 per day. 5. And rather than getting out from under the IMF, it would appear that more than at any other time, IMF theology has triumphed if with resentment. Some of this has not a little to do with the middle-classes that have emerged in the course of the boom, some has to do with local political and economic structures resented by a majority or at least a significant minority which hopes that the IMF strictures will eliminate or ameliorate those structures, some has to do with the collapse of any visible alternatives other than the market as viewed in a broadly neo-liberal sense. So in an ironic twist, when Wolfensohn was in Indonesia recently, some local NGOs were condemning the World Bank for having extended loans, etc. without sufficient conditions, while Wolfensohn did a 'mea culpa' only to note that the critical issue was how to save the economy! 6. It surely cannot have escaped any one's attention that there was something of a turnaround - perhaps a flash in the pan, perhaps the end of the beginning - after the visits of Messrs Cohen and Summers, Camdessus and Wolfensohn, even ole Henry, and their making the right noises. It's clear who has the power of pronouncement. Even the 'nationalistic' Malaysian media has taken to hanging on to every word of the foreign investors, analysts, etc. So Mobius says buy and it's reported widely; George Shultz, poor man hardly seemed awake, was induced to say the right things, etc. 7. Placed within the context of the current phase of globalization, I would suggest that E Asia, with the possible exception of Japan, has been effectively put in its place -- and I think the media has caught on to this with alacrity. Of course there's also some alarm; after all, E Asia has been the only part of the former Third World where the past 30 years has seen an improvement over the previous 30. Everywhere else, for all the fluff, things are worse off. And E Asia was the convenient ideological model of how the market can make good. Hence now the concern to ensure that people do not mistake this for a usual capitalist collapse, rather that it is 'crony capitalism' or 'asian values' or what not -- shades of what socialists used to say about the Soviet Union -- state socialism, actually-existing socialism, or whatever, but never without a qualifying adjective. Finally, Dennis Redmond is right to say the situation is complex. But his response is a compound of what I think to be absolutely spot-on and some truly off-the-wall stuff that it's hard to unpack, perhaps lazy might be a better word. But one point: It blinds as much as illuminates to talk of E Asia/SE Asia as one entity. The classification into 1st tier and 2nd tier NICs may be more helpful. If accepted, that the statement of since 1985 the strategy started breaking down is false. For the 2nd tiers, the period since 1985 has been one of unprecedented growth until the collapse. In fact, it's been the boom fueled by the Plaza Accord of 85 that made them recognized as 2nd tiers, I think. Also one query: Dennis R writes that "Singapore is propping up Malaysia". What is the basis for saying so? Khay Jin From MAI-SUX@BigFoot.Com Sat Feb 14 14:48:47 1998 Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:26:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:28:42 -0500 From: CAP *Erie-Lincoln* Reply-To: Constitutional-Money@pobox.com To: MAI-SUX@BigFoot.Com Subject: MAI Treaty: Your ad in the New York Times (Feb. 13) "Its Dangerous To Be Right (When Your Government Is Wrong)" >From the album of the same name. Carl Klang - 1993 I have a few more posts from this fellow... they will follow shortly. Willy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Djurdjevic wrote: Thought you'd be interested... Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:42:26 -0700 To: Barlow Maude/Council of Canadians Dear Ms. Barlow, I wish to congratulate you and the other organizations which joined you in sponsoring the subject ad, for trying to raise the awareness of the American public and lawmakers about the MAI sneak-attack by the multinational corporations, including big banks, who are trying to wrest the national sovereignty from the peoples of the world. As an analyst, writer and columnist, I've written many times about the dangers of that, though not necessarily mentioning the MAI Treaty as a tool of new kind of human bondage. In such articles, I have referred to these multinationals as "The (Global) Princes of the 20th Century," drawing a parallel with the powers and privileges which aristocracy enjoyed in prior centuries. I will send you by a separate e-mail some columns on the topic of globalization which I have written for the WASHINGTON TIMES and the Chicago-based CHRONICLES magazine. I also invite you to visit the Truth in Media Web site (http://www.beograd.com/truth/) where you will find more of such articles, as well as the Annex Research home page (the first LINK below). We will also send you by snail mail a modest contribution to the address of the Committee on Global Finance in San Francisco provided in the ad - in appreciation of your efforts. Thank you for standing up for preservation of national sovereignty and cultures. Best regards, Bob Dj. P.S. You may also wish to check out by FORBES magazine column which deals with unproductive use of capital by some multinational corporations' stock buybacks (IBM in this instance): http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/returns0610.htm ---- Bob Djurdjevic e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Sat Feb 14 17:57:41 1998 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:57:38 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Asian Economic "Melt Down" In-Reply-To: On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my wrote: > 7. Placed within the context of the current phase of > globalization, I would suggest that E Asia, with the possible > exception of Japan, has been effectively put in its place -- and > I think the media has caught on to this with alacrity. Ah, but this is the problem with most analyses of East Asian capitalism -- which either talk about the evil things Western capitalism is doing, and talk about the poor, impoverished tigers, or talk about the evil things comprador elites in SE Asia are doing to their poor, impoverished citizens. The point is that Japanese capitalism is NOT identical with US capitalism or European capitalism; Japan is governed by keiretsu, gigantic cross-industrial shareholding structures, organized around giant banks and insurance firms. The Nikkei punters do NOT make Japanese economic policy, rather the government and the major multinationals and keiretsu organizations do, something with tremendous consequences for East Asia. Japanese foreign direct investment powered much of the Asian boom; and indeed the Asian crisis is, at least in part, due to Japan's failure to stimulate its domestic economy and thereby draw in more Asian exports. And Japan could indeed jumpstart Asia: Japan is a global creditor, to the tune of $800 billion or so, while the US is a global debtor, to the tune of $1 trillion or so. Asia has not been put in its place; the triumph of the rentiers is a hollow sham. The real story of the devaluations is not the fall of the rupiah versus the dollar, but the strength of the yen vis-a-vis the other East Asian currencies. > But one point: It blinds as much as illuminates to talk of E > Asia/SE Asia as one entity. The classification into 1st tier > and 2nd tier NICs may be more helpful. If accepted, that the > statement of since 1985 the strategy started breaking down is > false. For the 2nd tiers, the period since 1985 has been one of > unprecedented growth until the collapse. In fact, it's been the > boom fueled by the Plaza Accord of 85 that made them recognized > as 2nd tiers, I think. By "strategy breaking down" I meant the simple export-push strategy of the Sixties, where the point was to dump cheap textiles or labor-intensive goods in American markets. That strategy was gradually replaced in the Eighties by a more nuanced form of development: internal Asian markets began to expand, Japan became the major destination for Asian exports and not America, and the commodity mixture turned high-tech. Your typology, though, is basically correct; whereas the first NICs, like Taiwan and Singapore, built powerful developmental states and carefully screened imports and pushed exports, the second generation of tigers relied on foreign direct investment and the tap-on effect of the tiger boom, plus lots of hired money. But Thailand et. al. never developed a coherent developmental state, mostly for good historical reasons (lack of Cold War American subsidies, and the fact that the Vietnamese and Chinese, whose state apparatuses were forged in the heat of epic world wars and revolutionary struggles, beat them to the punch). > Also one query: Dennis R writes that "Singapore is propping up > Malaysia". What is the basis for saying so? Singapore has huge investments in Malaysia, and is tied in innumerable ways to the UMNO's developmental state. One interesting example: Singaporeans spend something like 3 billion in Singaporean dollars in Malaysia just as tourists. This is money which can be immediately recycled for investment, savings, defending the currency etc. This is undoubtedly why the collapse has been less severe in Malaysia than in, say, Indonesia. -- Dennis From barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au Sat Feb 14 19:16:11 1998 (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA081138960; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:16:00 +1100 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:37:38 +1100 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu From: barendse@coombs.anu.edu.au (Rene Barendse) Subject: Re: Asia Economic Meltdown I'm certainly no specialist on this since I'm supposedly working on things which are completely `irrelevant to our present urgent concerns'. But more than fifty people here at the Research for Pacific and Asian Studies at ANU in Canberra are working full-time on this `relevant issue' of East - and Southeast Asian economic development since 1990, so nobody will miss me. The irony of this is that all those 50 pundits did not predict the present economic crisis. Thus books from 1995 and 1996 of which I have review copies laying in front of me are all presenting `irrefutable' evidence that Southeast Asian economic growth is sure to last for several more decades. What is even more ironic is that the same pundits who were praising authoritarian regimes as being more friendly to investment a few months ago are now pleading that Indonesia or Singapore should adopt democracy - and what I find irksome is that the same people who five months ago had a very good explanation of why the `Asian model' worked now have a good explanation of why it couldn't have worked. So much for the `scientific' claims of economics. What good would astronomy be if it couldn't predict the course of a commet - or, rather, if some had predicted it but three years too early, others had expected it hunderd years later and still others denied the existence of a commet altogether ! When the Romans conquered Greece they took a number of Greek orators as captives to Rome - one of those orators dazzled the Romans by making a speech in which he irrefutably showed one thing to be true and subsequently making a speech in which he equally irrefutably showed precisely the opposite to be true. The senators urged that these Greeks were to be executed as they had a bad influence on youth and on the public morale and I sometimes wonder what the Romans would have done with our economists and social scientist working on `relevant' topics. Anyhow, those personal grudges aside, I have four questions: 1.) Dennis Redmond says the SE Asian countries are going to sell their products in Japan since Nippon has heavily invested in SE Asia. Surely, the Japanese were already considering bail-out packages for Asian countries six months ago, but is there any indication they are going to open up their market or at least facilitate imports ? This would constitute a true revolution in global trade since, if they were going to do this, I don't see how they could refuse access to other Pacific rim countries - in casu US or Australian or Canadian agricultural products which would destruct the Japanese farmers. I think all of this is very unlikely but who knows - maybe the keiretsu are now more powerful than the farmers' lobby. I don't know - in the rest of the core - e.g. in the European Community the farming interests are nearly as powerful as industry - perhaps more: as European - or US - politician there are two groups you should never tamper with as that equals political suicide: pensioners and farmers. 2.)Dennis Redmond writes too that Japan has vast reserves of capital - no doubt - but why should the keiretsu want to `jumpstart Asia' ? Capitalists - let alone if they are pension-funds who in Japan as elsewhere dominate investments - normally invest in what promises to be the most safe and profitable investment - thus, I think that already more Japanese capital has been invested in safe US-state bonds and US real estate than in Southeast Asia. Given that this crisis shows that Southeast/East Asia is a risky investment - as the Barring-crisis already had shown - one should rather expect more investment in the US and in Europe. 3.)Regarding Khay Jin's excellent posting I don't see why liberalisation of restraints on global banking, anti-trust regulation etc. should lead to shifts within the core. Because banking very much depends on information, something which is build up through a wide network of contacts very gradually, labour costs are hardly a consideration and banking is not necessarily dependent on the location of commodity-trade, I think banking is one activity which tends to stick pretty much to a single location for long periods - essentially because all the main banks are already there. Amsterdam was the world-banking center in the seventeenth/eighteenth century and Dutch banks are still amongst the biggest European banks and its successor, London, is still the biggest center of capital trade in the world. In fact, the collapse of several Japanese banks over the last months would give London even a bigger edge over Tokyo - theoretically its main competitor - and the apparently structural problems with the German economy would give an edge over Frankfurt too - one reason why Britain now wants to join the EMU of course. 4.)My main problem - is the Asian economic meltdown a world-wide crisis as most contributors are arguing or at least a portent of it ? If so - one would have expected a fall of the index-rates of stock-exchanges throughout the world. But in Amsterdam, for example, the rates slightly dropped and then went up again, likewise the Asian economic meltdown had no influence whatsoever on the Dutch economic growth-figures (and the Netherlands is actually a country which has relatively big interest in Indonesia). Nor do I see a world-wide drop or rise of commodity-prices, a deep rise or fall of the dollar etc. This seems to me rather one of those typical cases in which one peripherial region for some time shows rapid export-led growth and then begins to stagnate again. Latin America is the typical case throughout the twentieth century but who still talks about the Persian Gulf as a new rich boom region too ? But probably I am altogether wrong, I promise sincerely that my next posting will be about something which is interesting but completely irrelevant again. Dr. R.J.Barendse RSPAS - Canberra Peace Research Centre Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Tel: +61-6-2492259 (Wk) Tel: +61-6-2675324 (Hm) Fax: +61-6-62490174 From kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my Sun Feb 15 02:46:41 1998 From: kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my In-Reply-To: <199802150216.TAA04965@csf.Colorado.EDU> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 14:51:49 +0800 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Asia Economic Meltdown At 2:37 am +0800 29/9/97 [date is due to mis-setting of your computer clock], Rene Barendse wrote: > The irony of this is that all those 50 pundits did not predict the > present economic crisis. Thus books from 1995 and 1996 of which I have > review copies laying in front of me are all presenting `irrefutable' > evidence that Southeast Asian economic growth is sure to last for several > more decades. What is even more ironic is that the same pundits who were > praising authoritarian regimes as being more friendly to investment a few > months ago are now pleading that Indonesia or Singapore should adopt > democracy - and what I find irksome is that the same people who five months > ago had a very good explanation of why the `Asian model' worked now have a > good explanation of why it couldn't have worked. So much for the > `scientific' claims of economics. Agreed that economics should cast off its pretensions and return to the bumbling fold of the humanities. Don't get me wrong, I'm no economist. But, to be fair, while I don't know about your 50 pundits, there were enough signs and even articles (in, e.g. Business Week) of an impending down-turn. What no one did predict was the form and severity of the crisis. I think the expectation was of a normal business cycle downturn. As for the scuttling around now - well, would it be too much to suggest that for many, what was perceived as 'Asian hubris' stuck in the craw and the crisis was just too tempting an opportunity not to stick it to 'them'? The more sober seem to take a 'convergence' approach - the Asian model did work, but it came to a point where it needed to adopt a 'western model', etc. Some others happily fly in the face of the evidence of the transformation of E Asia over the past 30 years. > Anyhow, those personal grudges aside, I have four questions: > > 3.)Regarding Khay Jin's excellent posting I don't see why > liberalisation of restraints on global banking, anti-trust regulation etc. > should lead to shifts within the core. Because banking very much depends on > information, something which is build up through a wide network of contacts > very gradually, labour costs are hardly a consideration and banking is not > necessarily dependent on the location of commodity-trade, I think banking is > one activity which tends to stick pretty much to a single location for long > periods - essentially because all the main banks are already there. > Amsterdam was the world-banking center in the seventeenth/eighteenth century > and Dutch banks are still amongst the biggest European banks and its > successor, London, is still the biggest center of capital trade in the > world. In fact, the collapse of several Japanese banks over the last months > would give London even a bigger edge over Tokyo - theoretically its main > competitor - and the apparently structural problems with the German economy > would give an edge over Frankfurt too - one reason why Britain now wants to > join the EMU of course. I agree about the character of finance and financial centres. Perhaps in being somewhat circumspect I gave a wrong impression. I think that too rapid financial liberalisation without the institutional framework to manage it was one of the sources of the crisis (as it was one of the sources of the boom). Further liberalisation in the present circumstances would be more of a problem as it would likely ensure that SE Asian financial entities would never be able to compete. There's a desperate scramble to merge mosquito enterprises (by world standards), but under unfavourable conditions. Perhaps only Singapore's merger of financial enterprises will result in entities that would be world competitive. Even then, there is that historical stubbornness to contend with when it comes to financial centres, and not just financial centres. If we put this together, then there would be little or no state influence over finance. Many might say that's wonderful - greater transparency, accountability, no cronyism, etc. I'm not so sure that this wouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the context of developing economies. And I have no greater faith that big financial institutions are anymore transparent or accountable in the sense that we'd all like to see, nor that they are free of their own version of cronyism, etc. > 4.)My main problem - is the Asian economic meltdown a world-wide > crisis as most contributors are arguing or at least a portent of it ? If so > - one would have expected a fall of the index-rates of stock-exchanges > throughout the world. But in Amsterdam, for example, the rates slightly > dropped and then went up again, likewise the Asian economic meltdown had no > influence whatsoever on the Dutch economic growth-figures (and the > Netherlands is actually a country which has relatively big interest in > Indonesia). Nor do I see a world-wide drop or rise of commodity-prices, a > deep rise or fall of the dollar etc. This seems to me rather one of those > typical cases in which one peripherial region for some time shows rapid > export-led growth and then begins to stagnate again. Latin America is the > typical case throughout the twentieth century but who still talks about the > Persian Gulf as a new rich boom region too ? I hope you are wrong on your last two sentences - speaking from personal interest. With some exaggeration, I think it's worse to have grown to this level and then stagnate than not to have grown at all; you know what they used to say about being consigned to limbo. For Indonesia, one suspects it would be disastrous. But I do think there are reasons to be faintly optimistic, at least for some of the countries and in the medium-term. Asia - there's been some discussion in H-ASIA on the meaningfulness of the term - is effectively bounded by India on the one hand and China on the other. I think we can't ignore the sheer weight of size and population (you know, the cynical bit of if every Chinese and Indian were to consume only one tin of condensed milk every five years, that would still mean a market of some 800 million tins a year). Then, both countries are 'opening up' in ways that may well put paid to the ambitions of a Malaysia, make life very difficult for those still in generally low- and middle-tech assembly operations, but could just offer the niches to allow the smaller countries to grow, servicing those economies and benefitting from the economies of scale that they provide. This is not thought through - and there are all the 'if's' and 'but's' to consider. As for whether the Asian meltdown is to become a worldwide crisis - that does depend on what various actors do or don't do, perhaps not to much in terms of the Asian countries as in terms of covering creditors. But yes, I tend to agree that the moment appears to have passed. However, I don't think European growth figures for 1997 can be taken as indicative; 1998 would be a better indication and the OECD (and World Bank/IMF) has had to revise their figures at the end of last year. European banks are heavily exposed, partly because they came late into the game; major sectors are also affected, ranging from 'luxury goods' (the cosmetics, fashion and branded-goods industry; in some cases, Asia accounted for almost 1/2 of their market) to engineering (firms such as ABB, etc.). Coupled with the continuing problems of W Europe trying to juggle the post-war social contract with the 'discipline' of the current world order and the emerging European one, and those of E Europe 'marketizing' of their economies, Asia might well have a significant impact yet. In some regions, as in Wales, I think there has already been an impact as S Korean investments are deferred or abandoned, etc. The US might be a different matter, despite concerns about the hi-tech sector. I may be completely misinformed, but this does have something to do with the US$ being effectively a reserve currency, thus why so much of the noise about the US trade deficit was somewhat misplaced (if politically relevant). Thus, the Asian meltdown extends a lease of life to the so-called 'new economy'. The US$ had of course appreciated significantly in the 2-3 years preceding the meltdown and was also one of the sources of the meltdown as local currencies were informally pegged to the US$. Now, oil prices are falling. As for agricultural commodities, there's El Nino (the poor infant has become everyone's favourite fall-guy); I think edible oils are already seeing significant price rises as Indonesia extends its ban on palm oil exports and El Nino plays havoc with weather around the world. As for a possible crisis of over-production, haven't thought that through. Clearly, that's true of some industries -- but in general? Having said all this, there is another level of the crisis which is not so much talked about -- and this may be the 'real' crisis: what happens at the level of the people especially in countries such as Thailand and Indonesia. Even if we've seen the end of the beginning, i.e. currencies stabilising and stock exchanges bottoming out, the ramifications of the past 7 months are just starting to work their way through to 'civil society'. And while some commentators are suggesting that the meltdown spells the end of the authoritarian style, it is one of the ironies that it took the meltdown and Kim Dae Jung to cut the S Korean unions down to size. Nor should one be surprised that, after some initial negative market reaction, a declaration of martial law in Indonesia would not be welcomed. Further, the crisis will also likely translate into increased movements of people as individuals seek to make ends meet by becoming illegal immigrants all over the place, including to Europe, Australia and the US, not to mention within the region itself. Khoo Khay Jin From kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my Sun Feb 15 02:47:16 1998 From: kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:47:02 +0800 To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Asian Economic "Melt Down" At 8:57 am +0800 15/2/98, Dennis R Redmond wrote: > On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my wrote: > > > 7. Placed within the context of the current phase of > > globalization, I would suggest that E Asia, with the possible > > exception of Japan, has been effectively put in its place -- and > > I think the media has caught on to this with alacrity. > > Ah, but this is the problem with most analyses of East Asian capitalism -- > which either talk about the evil things Western capitalism is doing, and > talk about the poor, impoverished tigers, or talk about the evil things > comprador elites in SE Asia are doing to their poor, impoverished > citizens... Whatever in what I wrote merited this retort is beyond me. So I'll let it pass, with the exception of the last phrase - "the evil things comprador elites in SE Asia are doing to their poor, impoverished citizens". I would not wish to cast it in such moralistic terms, but yes, do take at look at what's happened and what's happening to the citizenry. Without nationalist intent, I would just point out that Malaysia is an exception of sorts (it is largely without the sort of grinding poverty and hardship found elsewhere), but not altogether. I do not wish to expose my ignorance regarding the organization of Japanese capital, except to note: a. did I suggest Japanese capitalism to be identical with US or European capitalism? Deferring to your greater knowledge, I accept your point that Japan is governed by keiretsu, gigantic cross-industrial holdings, organized around giant banks and insurance firms, that economic policy is not made by the Nikkei punters, but by government and the major multinationals and keiretsu. However, would you care to explain to what degree is this that much different from other places? Is US economic policy made by Wall Street punters (is it ever made by 'punters' anywhere?), or is it made by the interaction between government, major multinationals and their lobbies? Aren't the US and European economies organized around giant banks and insurance firms, major multinationals, and a significant degree of cross-enterprise holdings? Wait; don't jump -- yes, the Japanese state does play a different role if compared to the US or European states. b. there are indeed some doubts as to Japan's ability to jumpstart Asia at this juncture -- put it to policy failures, put it to the financial collapse of 1989/90, to mean-mindedness, whatever; I can't say -- but I do believe that there's a consensus of sorts that Japan's not in too great shape these days. Again, a signal is the media -- including pieces saying how Japan should adopt flexible manufacturing, just-in-time production, etc. All a little laughable in the context of the books and articles coming out in the latter half of the 1980s, but there it is. Apologies if I'm ill-informed on the matter, just going by the Financial Times, Economist, Business Week; don't have much access to the works of scholarship. But I hasten to add that the laughable stuff is not in the likes of the FT, although it does sometimes show up in the Economist and Business Week. c. as for "the real story of the devaluations is not the fall of the rupiah versus the dollar, but the strength of the yen vis-a-vis the other East Asian currencies" -- I don't quite follow. As for the direction of exports, let me just speak for the little corner of the globe I know a little about. Take 1975, 1985, 1990 and 1996 percentage shares for Malaysia's direction of exports: US Europe Aust Japan S Korea PRC HK Taiwan ASEAN 1975 16 23 2 14 na 1 na na 24 1985 13 14 2 24 na 1 na na 26 1990 17 15 2 16 5 2 3 2 23 1996 18 14 2 13 3 2 6 4 28 1985 was a recession year, globally I believe. Total value (in Malaysian currency, nominal) was 9.2 billion in 1975, 38 billion in 1985, 80 billion in 1990 and 197 billion in 1996. These figures, of course, don't tell the whole story. A healthy proportion of the exports to ASEAN went to Singapore and a good proportion of that was for re-export to onward destinations. A bit more below. But the table does suggest that your scenario of Japan becoming the major destination does not quite hold, at least for Malaysia. d. I guess what got your goat up was the phrase "put in its place". Aiya, a manner of speaking-lah. Wouldn't want to string a whole structure of explanation on that; nor any hint of conspiracy. But you'll forgive me if I stick by my view that the meltdown has been seized upon with alacrity by the media -- you want quotes, chapter and verse, whole articles, whatever -- by now I have a few megabytes of them, courtesy of the Internet. > By "strategy breaking down" I meant the simple export-push strategy of the > Sixties, where the point was to dump cheap textiles or labor-intensive > goods in American markets. That strategy was gradually replaced in the > Eighties by a more nuanced form of development: internal Asian markets > began to expand, Japan became the major destination for Asian exports and > not America, and the commodity mixture turned high-tech. OK, again I'll only speak for the tiny corner of the globe I know somewhat. The EOI of the late 1960s, as far as Malaysia was concerned, had much to do with off-shore processing in the semiconductor industry. So much so that by the end of the decade, manufacturing was the second largest export after commodity exports, and semiconductors were the single largest component, I believe 1/2 of value, of manufactured exports. By 1990, manufacturing was the largest export, with semiconductors continuing to dominate. As for the commodity mixture turning hi-tech, that depends on destination. That was true of the US which in 1985 was the destination of 18% of manufactured exports (SITC 1+5-8), compared to 11% for Japan -- and 1985 was a recession year when export proportion to the US fell overall while that to Japan rose (table above). By 1990, the US absorbed 27% of manufactured exports, while Japan only took 8%; Singapore took 27%, but with the note regarding Singapore, and Europe 19%. This pattern holds good into 1997 (Jan-Jul) where the proportions are 22% to the US, 11% to Japan and 23% to Singapore. In 1996, the last full year for which statistics are readily available, the proportions were 23% to the US, 11% to Japan, 22% to Singapore and 15% to Europe. Total value of manufactured exports (Malaysian currency, nominal) was 4.5 billion in 1985, 44 billion in 1990, 141 billion in 1995 and 152 billion in 1996. In comparison, in 1996 (last full year) Japan absorbed 58% of the saw logs exports, 14% of sawn timber exports and 22% of petroleum exports. Evidently, at least for Malaysia, what happened between 1985-1990 when we went from recession to 10% growth doesn't exactly accord with the picture you paint. I believe -- at the risk of seeming foolish -- that the same picture broadly holds for NE/SE Asia. Aiya, the period from 1987, when the upturn started to 1997 was one crazy time-lah. > Your typology, though, is basically correct; whereas the > first NICs, like Taiwan and Singapore, built powerful developmental states > and carefully screened imports and pushed exports, the second > generation of tigers relied on foreign direct investment and the tap-on > effect of the tiger boom, plus lots of hired money. But Thailand et. > al. never developed a coherent developmental state, mostly for good > historical reasons (lack of Cold War American subsidies, and the fact that > the Vietnamese and Chinese, whose state apparatuses were forged in the > heat of epic world wars and revolutionary struggles, beat them to the > punch). While it may be tempting to do so, I don't think one should lump Taiwan with Singapore. Better Taiwan and S Korea -- the pattern of development, the Cold War, the state trajectory, somewhat parallel. Then perhaps HK and Singapore -- a lumping of political contrasts but of significant geo-economic parallels. Then the other ASEAN states, more or less. I have a special affection for Thailand simply because they show that governments can come and go, but things sort of carry on; they can have one coup after another and yet have perhaps the freest press outside the Philippines; also the only place where one can go demonstrate (risk getting killed) but get some support from the king, bring down a government. And Thais can have no illusions about their government, yet willingly put their gold down for their country. So don't bad-mouth Thailand, OK? But I'd think that Indonesia and Malaysia both qualify as having developmental states, if doing things somewhat different from Taiwan/S Korea. And you perhaps overestimate the coherence of the Vietnamese developmental state -- for various reasons, including the Hot/Cold War, Vietnam was perhaps even less coherent than Thailand as a developmentalist state in the material period in question; it's coherence was directed towards other concerns. > > Also one query: Dennis R writes that "Singapore is propping up > > Malaysia". What is the basis for saying so? > > Singapore has huge investments in Malaysia, and is tied in innumerable > ways to the UMNO's developmental state. One interesting example: > Singaporeans spend something like 3 billion in Singaporean dollars in > Malaysia just as tourists. This is money which can be immediately recycled > for investment, savings, defending the currency etc. This is undoubtedly > why the collapse has been less severe in Malaysia than in, say, Indonesia. Hey, you got to share this with me -- the way in which Singapore is tied in with UMNO's developmental state. I knew there was something going on with all this tap-dancing, but haven't been able to put my finger on it. As for your suggestion that Singapore is "undoubtedly why the collapse has been less severe in Malaysia than in, say, Indonesia", I'm sorry I can't give you the comparative figures without some work, but I would recommend that you do look again. Again, no nationalist intent at work, just that I don't think it squares up. Khoo Khay Jin From athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca Sun Feb 15 17:01:29 1998 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:25:25 -0500 To: rkmoore@iol.ie, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" Subject: Re: Iraq, Clinton, and the NWO In-Reply-To: At 11:35 AM 11/02/98 -0500, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Iraq, Clinton, and the NWO > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Copyright 1998 by Richard K. Moore > rkmoore@iol.ie > > >Once again the US is beating the war drums against Iraq. What does this >signify? I wonder how many of you would respond that it's a matter of >Clinton trying to distract attention from his personal scandals? I wonder >how many would suggest that opposition by other countries indicates a >turning of the tide against US interventionism? I wonder how many feel >that Iraq deserves to be attacked? I ask anyone who answered yes to any of >these questions to think again. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- > Ritchard, So far, I have found your lengthy posts informative, scary, and I think right on mark, but in view of the urgency I need (and I am sure many others also) another post just like this one detailing and expanding on the issue of WHO are the Globalist/Capitalist Elites that "drive" the various globalist/hegemonic agendas - in other words, what, for instance, drives the NSC elite to "plan" the various shifts that the various US puppet presidents will fill? Who are they (the NSC elite) in turn receiving orders from? Who are the architects of the NWO? of the IMF? Who are the current (most current) players on the globalist front? Who are the "architects" of the new order - after all - Bush and cronies (republican and/or democrat) are just the "workers" - Who are the managers? What is the name of the "Company" they all are members of? Who are the major players in the new reshaping of NATO? Of the UN? Of the WTO? Of the MAI? If such a comprehension and concertedness of action is evident on a global scale, then who is privy to the "Master Plan"? Are we talking about a World Government and the coming of the Anti-Christ with the entourage of the elite global police force as the instrument of subjugation? Finally, (and there are countless more particular points that need to be adressed) what are the Political, Philosophical, Religious, Economic (if that category is to be taken separately) and many other dimensions of the "Master Plan"? It seems clear to me that from what you are saying, there indeed seems to be a plan at work here; one that is well defined, explicated, researched, studied, rehearsed, elaborated, tested (eg., Desert Storm 1 as just one of the military phases of its dimension of immplementation) at the Most elite of levels: In other words, it seems evident from all the foregoing that there is a PURPOSE here. What is that purpose - global domination of this planet by the capitalist elite does not tell me what I need to hear. What is the purpose of the planet being dominated by capitalist forces/elites/group elites/etc? To increase the pleasures of those few elite at the expense of billion others? Seems reason enough where I come from, but it also seems to me there is more to it than that here. The picture I have in my mind (after reading all I've read so far on the list, in books, everywhere else) is one of Biblical proportions. There is a cataclysm coming. My question is: Why is there a cataclysm coming? For the benefit of whom in particlular? For the members of the Club of Rome? Who are they, by the way? For the benefit of the global corporations/TNCs?...etc The way you are portraying the picture it is clear to me that it recalls a certain measure of prehension here. You are directly or indirectly referring to a Master Plan that is dubbed Globalization, but which prehends globalization - What is its purpose - Its purpose is surely not JUST the subjugation and immiseration of the world's populace - this to me, is just the way of getting there...The question becomes, to where is this plan plannning to get? In other words, globalization as the instrument of the consolidation of the capitalist forces on a global scale underscores a deeper plan in the works. What is that plan? >From ALL the foregoing it seems evident that this DEEP plan - this Master Plan seems to be the Plan to end all Plans - it is the Mother of all Plans. It seems to be the plan foreshadowing the end of civilization as we know it and experience it and it foreshadows a Nothingness. An abyss. There seems to be no Purpose working underneath it besides the nihiistic puspose of its own demise. It seems to be the perfect example of the suicidal plan itself! A world ruled by the Few Elite who slave-drive the billion rest and enjoy a perpetual fancy in the midst of a Judge Dredgeian universe...A psycho-technical-feudal nightmare come to life where freedom is vanished from any horizon..... Is the Deep Master Plan perhaps having to do with freedom? Is human freedom at the core here? If that is even remotely the case, then the Master/Slave metaphor must be explained/elaborated in greater detail. In all of the forefoing, I need to get a better picture of where this is going....I am not rhetorizing here, I am asking questions which I think need answers. But specifically, I need to know more about the Master Plan. Do you see where I am coming from? Is the Master Plan of the Elite one that is geared only towards politico-economic ends and means or is oriented out of a historical trajectory that aims towards consolidation of philosophic/value struggles that have raged since humanity began to war? In essence, I guess what I am asking is simply: What is the World View Inherent in the Master Plan? What is the "Ultimate" World View (read - the future world view) that underlies the Plan? And if that world view is the creation of the plan's creators, then what is THEIR world view? What or who has created their world view - one that drives them to create the world view inherent in all of the above and in your post? As you can see from the length of this post, I am desperately seeking answers: I would deeply appreciate a response as well as any one else's. Kind regards, Tom From austria@it.com.pl Mon Feb 16 07:34:28 1998 Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: "<" Subject: Fw: Crime in the world-system - comments by Arno Tausch on Derluguian Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:39:20 +0100 ---------- > > let me reiterate: all that stuff, that Georgi Derluguian sent around the world system network, sounds extremely interesting I have to be short: > > > 1) theory: Schumpeter - capitalism, socialism and democracy: it is far more > adapted to catch the real problem of organized crime in the cap world economy - the disappearance of the capitalist > class and its substitution by the Dreigroschen-Opera style capitalism of > the gutters and Nobel hotels of Moscow, Tel Aviv, Syracuse and many other places today! > > 2) cycles: as all arrangements, also criminal "social contracts" change - > note that in the history of the Italian mafia, most clearly (1830, 1880, > 1930/45, 1990s). Flexible specialization is the cathword for today< Piore > and Sabel find their parallel in Tom Behan's excellent book (Routledge, > 1997): The Camorra. Read that, and parallel: Bornschier (1996), my old > favourite! > > > Still, one point: > > http://www.dialogselect.com > > newsbundle > > Reuters archive will be an important source of information for you. Please > keep me up to date on new research about this subject. > > Kind regards > > > Arno > > > > PS: The Asian meltdown and international criminal organizations - an > interesting point to watch. I don't find as yet a real coherent scheme of > interpretation, but Yakuza capital seems to flow heavily into Europe now > (in advance of the Euro?) - rock the boat, or what? > > > > > Georgi M. Derluguian > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Sociology > > Northwestern University > > 1812 Chicago Avenue > > Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330 > > (847) 491-2741 (rabota) > > > > From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Mon Feb 16 08:31:43 1998 Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:30:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:30:51 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: iraq-think again >Once again the US is beating the war drums against Iraq. What does this >signify? I wonder how many of you would respond that it's a matter of >Clinton trying to distract attention from his personal scandals? I wonder >how many would suggest that opposition by other countries indicates a >turning of the tide against US interventionism? I wonder how many feel >that Iraq deserves to be attacked? I ask anyone who answered yes to any of >these questions to think again. This time around, I am only thinking, since i dont know anything more than what i see on TV - and a couple of e-mail things.But last time around I DID know something, since i spent much work on reading/writing about it then [its somewhere on wsn or psn archives]. and that 'informs' my 'thinking' now. I dont know what to think about the Wash scandal except that it IS a scandal to make a scandal. whether/how that bears on Iraq, I dunno, but 1. people being against the attack - they were last time too. the entire political and MILITARY [including chieff of staff] establishment was AGAINST. In fact, 7 our of 8 of the previous secretaries of defense came out AGAINST. The congress and public was AGAINST. THAT is why Bush delayed announcement of sending more troops until 2 days AFTER the congressional elections, although the decision was made the week before [indeed HIS decision to go to war was made on Aug 7, that 5 days after the invasion]. that is also why he said the troops were 'only replacements' to rotate when he knew that they were to DOUBLE the number. 2. that is also why the crucial Security Council resolution was rammed through and deliberatly worded so ambiguously, to shore up Bush's war. 3. the Congress and US public did not come around until the day the bombs started dropping, that is when they were faced with a fait acompli that hoodwinked the Congress and public. and it was done despite at least 7 public international Iraqi and other concessions/attempts to negotiate an avoidance of war 4. There was a RECESSION and Bush popularity was down, and this was an clearly electoral attempt to shore it back up [same as Maggie Thacher who advised him between Aug 2 and 7 when she was in Wash DC, who started the Falklands/Malvians War for the same reason just when negotiations in Lima threatend to de-fuse the war- it woreked for Maggue but not for Bush]. But in the US, EVERY recession since WWII generated military escalation. so did this one. [now is not a recession - although the Asian one threatens to arrive soon in the US also , and Clinton is not running for re-election] 4.Even then, but of course the US Congress and people dont care or even know about that, it was a US war and NOT a UN war. Not only did the UN Secretary General SAY so publically, but at least 7 different Sections of the UN Charter were VIOLATED by this US war. Perez de Cuellar SHOULD have resigned]. That time China abstained and USSR voted yes because it was in an economic bind to the US. France voted yes, becaus of Mittreran [ his defense minister resigned]. If France had voted no or even abstained, USSR could have abstained at least and China could have voted NO, and scotched the UN resultion that Bush used. This time all three are against, and a similar UN resultion is not possible [never mind being vs the UN charter]. That is why the US is arguing that the previous 1990 resolution is still in force and enough for it to act on legally. But it was NOT legal last time, and it is even LESS legal now. This issue is not even raised anywhere in/by the US press, which only asks if 'the American people' are for or against this war. Under the UN charter, it is not for the American people or even the American president to decide what the UN should do or not, or even what the US can do in the UN's name. The Security Council must DIRECT any war, not a member state [its even more complicated in the charter, thats why the war violoated 7 sections, and not just one]. 5. The last time ,apart from the terrible damage to the Iraqi people, and to South Asians kicked out of nearby areas,the Palestine/Israel problem [again a boost to diversiionary war] etc. etc. three of the most terrible tning about that war were a. the violation and abuse of the UN, a bad one but the only one we got b. the de facto if not de jure violation of the American constitution /war act etc. c. the undercutting of social movements around the world, including the womens movement. 6. A RELATIVELY minor matter was the 99.44/100 percent pure brain-washng of the public by the media, and especially by CNN [CNN war],, including about the great weapons, like the patriotic PATRIOT. It was a total failure, despite being toutet as such a great thing. moreover only 7 percent of all bombs were 'smart' bombs [the other 93 were too dumb to be mentioned] and only half of that 7 percent even reached their targets. 7. what WAS successful was the use of DEPLETED URANIUM as ammuniton heads. That has caused untold cancer in Iraq and is the most unmentioned probable cause of the "Gulf War Syndrome" among the allies. 8. That is STILL on the warheads, or at least no one has said that it has been taken off. on the other hand, there have been technological 'advances' in other weapons and their guidance systems. This time there does seem to be military support/pressure for making a war to 'test' them out, but not to send troops in! [if you dont know where the alleged chemical/biological weapns are, then of coursse accurate guidance is not enough to pinpoint them either. but no matter, you can pin-point any place and see if it works]. Or is it that the UN=US inspectores HAVE found some places? ... and the US wants to bomb these with the new penetration bombs the military wants to test and that were not available last time around. 9. One of the problems the last time arond was that the recession reduced demand and price for oil. and it remained low for a while, so the embargo on Iraq = oil was made and continued. But when a couple of years ago during the recovery the price of oil rose and gas price at the pump in the US shot up, the embargo was immediately lightened to let Iraq export more oil! NOW gas prices have fallen all over, because the recesision in Asia has reduced world demand there and EL Nin~o has reduced demand for fuel oil etc in North America. What better time to DO something to bolster oil prices? what better way to do so than start a war? - even if the recession is not world wide yet and Clinton cannot run for re-election no matter what w/y/x/z gate. Whatever is going on, the only thing we can know for sure is that what we are TOLD about it is NOT it. Like Napoleon, I apologize for having lacked them time to write a short letter or to think faster. gunder frank ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From thall@DEPAUW.EDU Mon Feb 16 12:02:41 1998 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:02:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas D. [Tom] Hall, THALL@DEPAUW.EDU" Subject: Reagan airport To: Sociology Network Progressive , Network World-Systems I received this from a colleague, thought it worth passing a long. tom Thomas D. [tom] Hall thall@depauw.edu Department of Sociology DePauw University 100 Center Street Greencastle, IN 46135 765-658-4519 HOME PAGE: http://www.depauw.edu/~thall/hp1.htm ------------------ > In keeping with the renaming of National Airport to Ronald Reagan > National Airport, the FAA has required the following changes to be > made on all flights: > > 1. A portion of all ticket sales must be routed to Iran > > 2. Vegetarian meals will consist only of ketchup > > 3. I don't recall > > 4. First class seating will drastically improve, while coach class > will be moved to the baggage section. > > 5. No flights will depart between the hours of 1-4pm for "naptime" > > 6. Should quality concerns arise, baggage handlers are required to > invade Dulles to distract critics. > > 7. Ticket prices for wealthy passengers will be slashed to increase > air travel by the poor. > > 8. All passengers are required to shred all travel documents before > boarding. > > 9.I don't recall > > 10. Sleeping accommodations on all flights should include: pillow, > blanket, and a chimp named "Bonzo" From dredmond@gladstone.uoregon.edu Mon Feb 16 21:34:31 1998 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:34:27 -0800 (PST) From: Dennis R Redmond To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Asian Economic "Melt Down" In-Reply-To: On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my wrote: > Whatever in what I wrote merited this retort is beyond me. So > I'll let it pass, with the exception of the last phrase... My goodness, was my post that harsh? That was not the intent. I do apologize if my text rubbed you the wrong way. American listserv culture tends to be very conflict-oriented, unfortunately, in contrast to many of the Pacific Rim cultures, where disagreements get smoothed over. I'm not an economist per se, just a Ph.D. student in Comparative Literature, so please don't regard me as an expert authority on anything! > Is US economic > policy made by Wall Street punters (is it ever made by 'punters' > anywhere?), or is it made by the interaction between government, > major multinationals and their lobbies? Wall Street is clearly the dominant class fraction of American capitalism right now. Sure, CEOs and industrial interests still have a say in what goes on, but they don't set the central priorities. Just think of the Federal Reserve's policy of tight money since the Eighties: this has been a disaster for industry, but great for Wall Street. The US government has most disinvested in education, research and development and whatnot, and has continued to spend $280 billion a year on a useless, predatory military establishment. Central Europe and Japan are vastly different: German interest rates are 3%, rockbottom levels, while Japan's are barely positive -- a huge boon to their industries. Both countries invest heavily in education, R & D, and practice a modified state-led capitalism which mobilizes resources for investment in industry, not finance. > These figures, of course, don't tell the whole story. A healthy > proportion of the exports to ASEAN went to Singapore and a good > proportion of that was for re-export to onward destinations. A > bit more below. But the table does suggest that your scenario of > Japan becoming the major destination does not quite hold, at > least for Malaysia. True for now, though this may change in the future. But looking at the broader trade picture, there was indeed a striking transformation in East Asia from 1985 to 1997, namely the shift from an American-centered export model to a much more diverse, polycentric set of trade flows. According to the 1997 Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook published by the IMF, total trade (manufactured goods plus raw materials plus everything else) between Malaysia and the other East Asian countries reached a total of 55.8% of total Malaysian trade in 1996; by contrast, Malaysia-US trade is only 16.8% of the total. The other East Asian countries show similar results: Hong Kong does 63.1% of its trade with Asia and only 14.2% with the US; Singapore does 54.9% with Asia and 17.4% with the US; South Korea does 41.5% with Asia and 19.7% with the US. In most of these countries, the Asian figures have been rising steadily for some time; back in 1990, for example, Taiwan did 29.1% of its trade with the US and 42.8% with Asia. In 1996, the comparable figures were 22% with the US and 51% with Asia. Even Japan has experienced something similar: back in 1990, it was almost as dependent on American markets as Asian markets (Japan-US trade: 27.5%, Japan-Asia: 28.2%). But by 1996, all those foreign direct investments and bank loans had changed this dramatically: Japan-US trade is 25.4% of the total, while Japan's Asia business is now 39.2% of the total. > Hey, you got to share this with me -- the way in which Singapore > is tied in with UMNO's developmental state. I knew there was > something going on with all this tap-dancing, but haven't been > able to put my finger on it. The 'ol Lee Kuan Yew foxtrot, you mean? A tango to the rhetorical Left, the whack of a cane on some dissident's knuckles to the right -- all in the name of efficiency, of course. Hey, Lee learned a lot from Malaysia's emergency laws and the ISA: he figured out that, if you really want to stay in power, you need state enemies. Of whatever kind. Communists, Socialists, labor unions, whatever -- a state without enemies is no fun at all. People might start demanding things like, well, human rights and stuff, and then you wouldn't need a bunch of crabby, power-mad bureaucrats getting their rocks off by jailing people for the heck of it. More seriously, Singapore is hooked up with Malaysia's economy, so there's no question that if a bailout was needed, Singapore's $100 billion in hard currency reserves would most likely be made available. Malaysia takes up one seventh of Singapore's total trade, and Singapore has already provided $5 billion in public assistance to the Indonesian bailout; presumably much, much more would be provided to Malaysia, if need be. As to why this hasn't happened yet -- well, maybe it already has, and we don't know about it. Lee and Mahathir don't like each other -- every authoritarian leader hates the thought of competition -- but they are good at keeping mutual secrets, yes? After all, you wouldn't want to scare the hell out of markets by actually saying that you're providing a bailout fund -- just look at the South Korean won after the IMF announced its bailout, it fell even *faster*. And don't forget, Singapore not only invests a great deal in Malaysia, Singaporean tourists spend around 41% of all the tourist income in Malaysia -- around a couple billion US dollars a year. My guess is, Malaysia is in a better fiscal position than Thailand or Indonesia, so Mahathir is trying to ride out the storm by delaying some of the big infrastructure projects and using what reserves it has for the time being; still, it's certainly in Singapore's long-run financial and political interest to make sure its neighbor remains economically stable. -- Dennis From austria@it.com.pl Tue Feb 17 01:22:01 1998 Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:21:36 +0100 (MET) Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:21:28 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: From: "Austrian Embassy" To: "<" Subject: Fw: February 1998 Le Monde Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:24:33 +0100 even at the risk of your receiving this thing twice let me post this important issue of Le Monde around the wsn network. Kind regards from Warsaw. Don't miss to read the latest issue of Business Central Europe, February 1998, on the possible East European melt-down ahead of us. Arno Tausch ---------- > From: Le Monde diplomatique > To: English edition > Subject: February 1998. > Date: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 1998 16:27 > > LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE > _________________________________________________________________ > > Le Monde diplomatique > > english edition > > February 1998 > > edited by Wendy Kristianasen > > > > LEADER > > France divided > by Ignacio Ramonet * > > The recent protests in France come as no surprise. For the Jospin > government has focused on the convergence criteria for the euro and > neglected the needs of the three million unemployed and millions > more struggling to get by on the bare minimum. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/01leader.html > > > > IN THE DARK SHADOW OF TERROR > > The Algerian army holds the levers of power > by Lahouari Addi > > The month of Ramadan was marked by a further escalation of violence > in Algeria, with serial massacres ravaging villages in the west of > the country in the Islamist heartland. To try to understand what > lies behind these dreadful events, we need first to examine the > country's power structure. In this article, Lahouari Addi analyses > the role of the army and its dominant role in the Algerian state. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/02algeria.html > > Translated by Francisca Garvie > > > > GLOBAL ECONOMY IN TURMOIL > Heading for deflation? > > From overproduction to financial crisis and into recession > by François Chesnais > > It is more than seven months since the financial meltdown that > began in Thailand with the collapse of the baht. Despite > intervention by the IMF, the situation remains unstable. The > much-vaunted Asian tiger economies, South Korea in particular, will > be subject to structural adjustments which will almost certainly > entail massive job losses, company closures and increased poverty. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/03deflation.html > > Translated by Julie Stoker > > > > Muddled measures by the IMF > by Ibrahim Warde * > > The problems of Southeast Asia's economies were seen as glitches > along the road -- that is, until last November when South Korea, on > the verge of default, applied to the IMF for help. The IMF has > responded by transposing the remedies it knows and has already used > in Latin America to the vastly different Asian context. A > heavy-handed reshaping of Southeast Asia is under way. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/04imf.html > > Translated by Sally Blaxland > > > > On the web * > > Internet addresses and information on world economic organisations. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/05websites.html > > > > Time for a change in the Indonesian leadership? > by Françoise Cayrac-Blanchard > > The rice harvest has failed and, at the start of the year, the > rupiah collapsed. This has led to a social and political crisis. > General Suharto, standing for a seventh term as president, has had > to agree to IMF reforms, but there have been riots in Java and the > opposition is calling for him to go. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/06indonesia.html > > Translated by Barbara Wilson > > > > A dangerous new manifesto for global capitalism > by Lori M. Wallach * > > The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) proposes to grant > inalienable rights to multinational corporations at the expense of > national governments, which would find themselves forced to defend > their own laws in court and pay compensation for any infringement > of the proposed treaty. Those negotiating it in the OECD have kept > very quiet. But late in the day, the public and their > representatives may be beginning to wake up to a new threat. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/07mai.html > > Original text in English > > > > POLITICAL VIOLENCE AND DEMOCRACY IN SPAIN > > Basque nationalism undermined by ETA > by Barbara Loyer > > On 12 January a fourth Basque local councillor was murdered by ETA. > After hundreds of killings, ETA now seems to be targeting members > of the People's Party, which is part of the Madrid government, as > well as waging a campaign of violence against the governing party > in the Basque Autonomous Community. Barbara Loyer explains the > meaning of this, giving a rare insight into the little-known > origins of Basque nationalism. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/08basque.html > > Translated by Barry Smerin > > > > PUTTING AN END TO ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM > > Americans fight for ecological justice > by Eric Klinenberg > > Wherever industry buys up land as dumps for its waste, it is > putting the most vulnerable at risk. In the United States, this has > provoked an unexpected response. Different groups - Blacks, > Indians, environmentalists and others - have got together in the > name of "environmental justice" to fight for their right to live > free of pollution. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/09ecojustice.html > > Original text in English > > > > CONFOUNDING THE CRITICS > > Uganda, nearly a miracle > by Gérard Prunier > > Uganda is often cited as one of Africa's rare success stories. > Yoweri Museveni may have seized power in 1986 in the traditional > manner, but he has guided Uganda to an unusual degree of economic > progress and political stability. The country also has a key role > in the continent's new geopolitics, but the unrest that surrounds > it does not make for domestic tranquillity. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/10uganda.html > > Read also: Facts and figures * > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/11ugandaf.html > > Translated by Lorna Dale > > > > HARD, BUT NECESSARY > > Conflict resolution, the new challenge > by Virginie Raisson > > The West is constantly torn between the need to intervene in > fratricidal conflicts, like those in Algeria, Burundi or > Afghanistan, and the real risks for its own soldiers. One of the > new approaches being looked at is "conflict prevention". But > serious questions have first to be addressed. How can we identify > wars in the making? What are the criteria for intervention: likely > success, numbers of victims or just visibility on the evening news? > And should we try to stop "just" wars? > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/12conflicts.html > > Translated by Barry Smerin > > > > PEACE-KEEPING OR HIGH-TECH WARFARE > > Developing the weapons of the 21st century > by Maurice Najman > > Space platforms, drones, hypersonic attack aircraft, cruise > missiles, space-based action. This is not science fiction, but part > of the United States' arms programme. The aim is to remain the sole > superpower and to be capable of winning two conflicts - on a par > with the Gulf war - simultaneously and without losses. > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/13warfare.html > > From space platforms to electronic warfare (M. N.) * > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/14weapons.html > > Translated by Malcolm Greenwood > > > > ISRAEL AT THE MERCY OF THE RELIGIOUS PARTIES > > The irresistible rise of the Orthodox establishment > by Joseph Algazy > > As a result of his intransigence, Israel's prime minister, Binyamin > Netanyahu is having to rely more closely than ever on his coalition > partners of the religious right, who are trying hard to increase > their hold on the state. This is causing resentment among Israelis > at large, most of whom fiercely resent the power of the Orthodox > establishment and its control over their daily lives -- to the > point where the divide between the secular majority and the > religious minority is assuming the proportions of a "war of > cultures". > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/15israel.html > > Who is who (J. A.) * > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/17israelwho.html > > Glossary * > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/1998/02/16israelglo.html > > Translated by Wendy Kristianasen > > > > (*) Star-marked articles are available to every reader. Other > articles ar available to paid subscribers only. > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > For more information on our English edition, please visit > > http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/en/ > > To subscribe to our free "dispatch" mailing-list, send an > (empty) e-mail to: > dispatch-on@london.monde-diplomatique.fr > > To unsubscribe from this list, send an (empty) e-mail to: > dispatch-off@london.monde-diplomatique.fr > > > From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Feb 17 12:18:44 1998 Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:18:34 GMT Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:18:34 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Asian Economic Melt Down My reading of the meltdown is different that the others expressed on this list, and I'd like to hear some feedback. Consider the situation prior to the meltdown. SE Asia was doing very well in the global economy, and was doing so precisely because of NOT abiding by the principle of global market forces. That is, they were organizing their economies on a national (and regional) basis and providing subsidies of various kinds (to workers and companies) to increase their collective competitiveness in global markets. Greider (in One World Ready or Not) characterized SE Asian successes as being an embarrasment to neoliberal theology. The IMF, who is now the self-appointed expert on SE Asian economic failures, saw fit in its 1997 annual report to give the region high marks on economic management. Politically, there were signs of a growing sense of regional power. In the International Herald Tribune of 2 August 1997 (p. 4) there's an article called "ASEAN Aims to Test Balances of Power". The article begins: "When the nine countries of ASEAN hold their first summit meeting with China, Japan, and South Korea in Malaysia later this year, they will take another major step in a strategy to shape a blance of power in the region in which the United States will play a less dominant, though still important, role. "By meeting for the first time without the presence of Western nations, the Asian heads of government will also send a signal to the United States and Europe that they cannot afford to take the region for granted, Asian officials and analysists said Friday. "'People haven't yet woken up to the fact that the summit December will be a momentous event,' said an official of an ASEAN country. 'Neither North America nor Europe has paid enough attention to this part of the world. This summit is a wake-up call for them to do so.'" My thesis is that North America and Europe (ie, the ruling elites thereof) have in fact "paid attention" to this regional-upstart challenge by engineering the financial crisis. Does anyone know what the December summit was actually devoted to? Somehow I suspect the focus shifted to the meltdown. In any case, with the IMF auditors in charge of the countries, as if they were wayward bank branches, the above rhetoric about "shaping a balance of power" now has a very hollow ring to it. I suggest that the meltdown was an arranged affair and that it accomplished two major objecives. The first was about balance of power. North America and Europe have simply re-asserted their traditional imperialist power. They've slapped down an upstart, as thoroughly as they did Hitler and Tojo in WW II, only with more skill and subtlety. As the IMF oversees "reconstruction", the economies will find themselves largely owned by outside interests and permanently subjugated to international bankers. The second was about addressing the global crisis of over-production. In one fell swoop, thousands of sound producers were put out of business, thus reducing global supply. _Instead_ of a global depression we have the managed economic destruction of a single producing region. Another region could have been picked instead; the choice of regions was left to political considerations (above). --- As usual, I'm arguing that more attention should be paid to agency. It is necessary to _look_ at the situation and _learn_ what is due to agency and what due to economic determinism: it is unscientific to try to force all data to fit a favorite formula. Incidentally, I'm still hoping for more responses to my posting of 2 Feb 1998: Re: inevitable collapse of global capitalism (Andrew) rkm From Kim@uwyo.edu Tue Feb 17 12:59:30 1998 17 Feb 1998 12:59:07 -0700 (MST) (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:59:00 -0700 From: Quee-Young Kim Subject: RE: Asian Economic Melt Down To: "'WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK'" , "'rkmoore@iol.ie'" The more you stress the role of the agency, the more you are likely to fall into the trap of unverifiable conspiracy theory. No one really knows what was agreed upon "in secret" at these summit meetings. No one has - bankers or not, oh how much they wish - the power to shape the crisis in the direction they want. I tend to believe in the law of supply and demand. It may have some flaws, and it may not work at the time and place that everyone expects to work, but sooner or later, the events and patterns of capital and goods in the global economy tend to be governed by the law of supply and demand, and the production and consumption. Instead of the role of agency, in this particular case, the role of the rules of the game that characterized the nature of capitalism and the use of money may account for the crisis. It is true, however, the ASEAN countries, under the "leadership" of Japan are trying to maximize their "comparative advantages" over the American and European hegemonic control. Japan has enough CAPITAL to create YEN as the main international currency in the ASEAN sphere. That is the reason why so many "finance ministers" made urgent requests and frequent visits to Tokyo during the early phase of recent crisis. What is new in the 20th century global capitalism is an institution, called IMF. The role of this institution is comparable to the that of earlier institutions, like banking and insurance company that practically saved capitalism from crisis and actually globalized and institutionalized capitalism. We must include IMF in any equation of explaining changing patterns of global capitalism. The time will come when the gravity of capitalism shifts from the West to the East, but this may happen not because of a conspiracy, but because of economic forces, compelling and beyond the control of any single agency. Quee-Young Kim Department of Sociology University of Wyoming Kim@uwyo.edu ---------- Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 12:19 PM To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Asian Economic Melt Down My reading of the meltdown is different that the others expressed on this list, and I'd like to hear some feedback. Consider the situation prior to the meltdown. SE Asia was doing very well in the global economy, and was doing so precisely because of NOT abiding by the principle of global market forces. That is, they were organizing their economies on a national (and regional) basis and providing subsidies of various kinds (to workers and companies) to increase their collective competitiveness in global markets. Greider (in One World Ready or Not) characterized SE Asian successes as being an embarrasment to neoliberal theology. The IMF, who is now the self-appointed expert on SE Asian economic failures, saw fit in its 1997 annual report to give the region high marks on economic management. Politically, there were signs of a growing sense of regional power. In the International Herald Tribune of 2 August 1997 (p. 4) there's an article called "ASEAN Aims to Test Balances of Power". The article begins: "When the nine countries of ASEAN hold their first summit meeting with China, Japan, and South Korea in Malaysia later this year, they will take another major step in a strategy to shape a blance of power in the region in which the United States will play a less dominant, though still important, role. "By meeting for the first time without the presence of Western nations, the Asian heads of government will also send a signal to the United States and Europe that they cannot afford to take the region for granted, Asian officials and analysists said Friday. "'People haven't yet woken up to the fact that the summit December will be a momentous event,' said an official of an ASEAN country. 'Neither North America nor Europe has paid enough attention to this part of the world. This summit is a wake-up call for them to do so.'" My thesis is that North America and Europe (ie, the ruling elites thereof) have in fact "paid attention" to this regional-upstart challenge by engineering the financial crisis. Does anyone know what the December summit was actually devoted to? Somehow I suspect the focus shifted to the meltdown. In any case, with the IMF auditors in charge of the countries, as if they were wayward bank branches, the above rhetoric about "shaping a balance of power" now has a very hollow ring to it. I suggest that the meltdown was an arranged affair and that it accomplished two major objecives. The first was about balance of power. North America and Europe have simply re-asserted their traditional imperialist power. They've slapped down an upstart, as thoroughly as they did Hitler and Tojo in WW II, only with more skill and subtlety. As the IMF oversees "reconstruction", the economies will find themselves largely owned by outside interests and permanently subjugated to international bankers. The second was about addressing the global crisis of over-production. In one fell swoop, thousands of sound producers were put out of business, thus reducing global supply. _Instead_ of a global depression we have the managed economic destruction of a single producing region. Another region could have been picked instead; the choice of regions was left to political considerations (above). --- As usual, I'm arguing that more attention should be paid to agency. It is necessary to _look_ at the situation and _learn_ what is due to agency and what due to economic determinism: it is unscientific to try to force all data to fit a favorite formula. Incidentally, I'm still hoping for more responses to my posting of 2 Feb 1998: Re: inevitable collapse of global capitalism (Andrew) rkm From rkmoore@iol.ie Tue Feb 17 18:16:47 1998 Wed, 18 Feb 1998 01:16:38 GMT Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 01:16:38 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: follow up re: Asian Economic Melt Down >From the 22 Feb Guardian Weekly, Le Monde section: -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- US sees silver lining to the cloud over Asia Erik Izraelewicz IS THE financial crisis that has swept Asia the result of an American conspiracy? Many South Koreans and Thais who have suddenly been plunged into a terrible economic depression have no doubt that it is. Their argument goes that, threatened by economies that had become too big for their boots, the United States decided to call a halt to their insolent growth. Expressed in equally undiplomatic terms, the idea that the whole thing was a plot hatched by Washington has also gained currency in Europe, and particularly in France. Is there any truth in it? What can be ruled out from the start is that a group of conspirators -- politicians or speculators in New York or Washington -- decided to bring down the Asian currencies like dominoes and thus halt the long period of growth that those countries have enjoyed. It is a convenient argument, and has been extensively exploited by some political leaders in the region to draw a veil over their own responsibility for the present crisis, which is considerable. But the argument does not square with the facts. Conspiracies do not affect economics. The search for a scapegoat is man's favourite sport. [new subject] -=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=- What I find interesting here is the non-argument that is used to dismiss agency. We are given a build-up "What can be ruled out..." and "does not square with the facts..." as if we were to be presented with an argument or facts - instead we get only a single sentence "Conspiracies do not affect economics" - which is simply a statement of an assumption, and one refuted by history. What is imperialism, after all, besides structuring economics via force and conspiracy? Then we get a "clincher" on the "argument": "The search for a scapegoat is man's favourite sport". Hence not only has a conspiracy been "refuted", but a reason is provided to explain why anyone might have thought otherwise. How easy is the job of a journalist who sets out to "establish" consensus reality. People will actually cite this article: "Oh yeah, I heard about that conspiracy theory, but a guy in the Guardian showed that was hogwash." The only real information in the article is that the US gains from the crisis, and that a lot of people suspect agency, especially ones experiencing the crisis on the ground and observing first hand how it is being exploited. rkm From ESishi@iss.co.za Wed Feb 18 01:40:25 1998 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:37:56 +0200 From: Enough Sishi Reply-To: ESishi@iss.co.za To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Security debate New thinking on Security I would very like to inntroduce a different dimension to the topic which is has very much evolved. Security in the post cold war era is no longer shaped by the bi polar that characterised it. The balance of power has shifted, but there are more than 50 armed conflicts which are taking place at the moment. These cconflcts are taking the form of intrastate rather than interstate. The complex interplay of historical and cultural forces is leaving a very small role for foreign intrevention to assist in conflict resolution. Does that mean that the world should stand and look when Sierra Leon, Algeria, Afghanistan, Sudan burn into ashes. I say no. A collective effort needs to be initiated to deal with the most distructive weapon of morden age that is small arms. Relationship between culture of violence and small arms proliferation Introduction The relationship between small arms and culture of violence is an understudied area. Previous research has only looked at these issues seperately. Therefore too little is known about the impact of the former to the latter. International security research on arms trades has focused mainly on major weapons like nuclear proliferation. As a result of this ignorance, small arm’s trade, black market and its impact on conflicts is not known. The end of the Cold War and “new world order” have reshaped the security debate altogether. One of the noticeable changes is the decline in inter-state conflicts that characterized the Cold war era. Instead there has been a rise in intra-state conflicts carried out by religious extremists, warlords, ethnic and criminal organisations, seperatists or insurgents groups. The changing nature of the conflicts has also changed the tools of the trade. Assesment has revealed that these groupings rely more on light weapons than major conventional weapons to carry out their mission. Several reasons account for the prominence of small and light weapons among these groupings. The nature and course of the insurgents, seperatists and ethnic groups make the small arms more suitable for their missions. Since most of these groupings are non-state actors they rely on black market and clandestine routes that is most appropriate supplying small arms. Most of these groupings are formed by volunteers who lack training to operate complicated weaponry thus they rely on user-friendly small arms. Logistical problems and lack of access to port and airstrips mean they have to rely on poor transport like the civilian vehicles that are suitable for transporting light weapons. There are clear signs that use of violence is on the rise. The rising violent crimes in South Africa and growing banditry in Mozambique are the testimony to this rise. Conflict is being accepted as the only means of resolving conflict. Peaceful strategies for resolution of disputes have fallen on deaf ears. In some other cases even democratic election results have been ignored, instead violence resumes afresh e.g Angola in 1992. There is a culture of violence that is deeply entrenched in the society. The converging of small arm’s proliferation with culture of violence has created an explosive situation in many parts of the world. For example in Angola out of the population of 9 million, 55 000 are amputees. Economies of the affected countries have suffered heavily. In Angola for instance is estimated that there are 20 million mines, covering one third of the country, making it unworkable. It is important to understand that the impact and relationship between small arms and culture of violence are not a clear cut. Nevertheless as Louise’s said “the hypothesis of a link must be considered since these contrasting phenomenon appear to be two sides of the same geopolitical coin the currency of which is shaping the security debate of the post - Cold war world.” The first section of this paper will look at different origins of small arms, past and present and try to analyze the flow, statistics or the value of the trade in Southern African region. The second section will look at different perspectives on the origins of the culture of violence. On the last section I will take South Africa as case study of the convergence of these two phenomena, culture of violence and small arm’s proliferation. Origins and flow of small arms in Southern African Region The Southern African region is awash with weapons especially small and light weapons. A large percentage of these weapons is the material legacy of the Cold War. During 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s the superpowers pumped the regional countries with massive amount of ammunition. These weapons were issued as Cold war goverment grants. This was part of Soviet Union strategy to support Marxist regimes and groups, while the US was trying to counter that by pumping pro-capitalists with weapons. With the decline of the cross border raids and inter-state wars these weapons have taken a new meaning. In Mozambique these weapons are falling into banditry groups, while in Angola they are in the hands of unemployed demobilised soldier and opportunistic black market syndicates. Let us first study the origins of the weapons before trying to understand their flow. During the Cold war era superpowers used different means to provide these weapons but their intelligence organisation played the facilitating role. The US through the military assistance programme MAP pumped millions worth of weapons to UNITA and FNLA. The statistics of US military aid to Unita reveals a massive growth. The US aid increased from $15 millions of weapons in 1986 to $50 million in 1990. By the time the US suspended military aid in 1992 in it had reached a massive $300 million. China also supported the FNLA with weapons. South Africa also played a very big role in supplying this kind of military grants to UNITA. South Africas capability of granting this aid was boosted by the established internal armament industry. Until the 90s South Africa supplied more than $80 million of military aid to Unita. Russia is said to have supplied most of the military aid to Angola’s Marxist aligned MPLA goverment than any other country. The Soviet case like other one was operating in a clandestine manner through KGB routes. These also makes it difficult to get to exact figure of this aid. The available figures reveal that Russia pumped $2 billion of weapons annualy to MPLA, while Cuba supplied $200 million of Soviet arms. It is important to understand that even though military goverment grants was open, this was complemented by covert deliveries. For obvious reason the statistic for this kind of support are not available. The few sources that are available reveal that between 1975 - 76 the CIA secretly supplied anti-Communist insurgents in Angola with 622 crew served mortars, 42.100 anti-tank rockets, 20.900 rifles, and millions of rounds of ammunition. On top of all these supplies both the MPLA and Unita spent huge amounts on weapons. By the mid 1980s MPLA was running a debt of $4 billion on weapons. Mozambique is one of the main source of illegal arms smuggle throughout the region. Since the civil war broke out in 1975 the country became the recipient of massive weapons support. Like most other regional countries the Cold war was fought in the Mozambican soil. Freelimo goverment received military support from USSR while Renamo rallied support from World anti-Communist League. Throughout the 16 years of war weapons were distributed alarmingly on both sides of the war. It is estimated that the Freelimo goverment supplied 1.5 million assault rifles to civilians who supported their course. The detailed figures of the Freelimo military supports are not been available. The war was terminated with a peace agreement in 1992 followed by the United Nations sponsored demobilisation and disarmament. Unfortunately United Nation Operation in Mozambique (UNOMOZ) was plagued by problems that made it unsuccesful and it is estimated that 6 million AK47s are ‘still at large.’ Though the general sources of weapons in Mozambique are known, the actual value of this support is not known, so we can rely on indirect revelations to estimate this support. Recent news bulletin has also given some intensity of this support. “Mozambican police in conjunction with their South African counterparts recovered arms cache in Mozambique” Sept. 5, 1997. This article revealed a list of firearms that included 11.734 firearms of all sorts, 7.718 hand guns, 14.000 landmines, 8.039 ammunition clips, 378 boxes of assorted munition and 24.000 rounds of loose ammunition . In the region South Africa became the major suppliers of Renamo until the 1980 signing of the Nkomati Accord. There are countries in the region who survived this massive pump of weapons because of their internal political dynamics. Swaziland is one such case. The stable mountain Swazi Kingdom political system did not experience any internal or external conflict throughout the Cold war era, thus there has not been huge demand for arms. Swazilands source of weapons has been from theft of legal firearms. Another origin of weapons has been the use of this country as arm smuggling transit point to South Africa until last quarter of 1993. Throughout this use of the Swazi borders as transit many weapons ended in Swaziland without moving on to intended destinations. This route stopped after the opening of the direct border crossing between Maputo and KwaZulu-Natal. Botswana is another country that did not experience this massive injection of weapons. The main source of firearms in Botswana is the licenced firearms. The strict rules governing the issuing of firearm licences has made sure that they do not have a big firearms problem. It is only those firearms that are stolen from legal owners that creates a problem. Recently this country has only been used as a transit for arms smugglers, its south borders made it suitable for arms smuggling destined for South Africa. During the apartheid era, arms smuggled from ANC camps in Zambia went to Zimbabwe and through Botswana to South Africa. It is this use of Botswana as transit point that is creating firearm problem. It is only through the use of its borders that it is experiencing a firearm problem. Zambia acquired the problem of weapons through its support of the regional liberation movements. Throughout the Cold war Zambia harbored the liberation movements like the ANC inside its borders. Since these movements were involved in wars in their respective countries, they accumulated arsenals in Zambia. This acceptance of liberation movements and their weapons has created an arms proliferation in Zambia. Arms from superpowers destined for leftist liberation movements in South Africa and Mozambique landed by plane in Zambia and smuggled by road through Swaziland or through Botswana to South Africa. Zambia claimed to have been in control of the arms flow in their borders. Staff and resource shortage this has open this flow to abuse by corrupt officials. Namibia on the other hand was a scene of tense battles between Peoples Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN) and South African Defence Force SADF. Independence was achieved through Resolution 435 of United Nations and calmed down the situation. Demobilisation and disarmament through United Nations Transitional Assistance Group (UNTAG) were succesful. The main problem with Namibia is its proximity with Angola. This country is also used as a transit point for arms smugglers from Angola through its south borders to the eastern Cape. The end of the Cold War has dramatically reduced this form of goverment military support in the region. The security threats that drove the bi-polar world to arms supports programmes has vanished, but the weapons themselves have remained and they have taken a new meaning. One of the new meanings of small arm proliferation that has received little attention is the black market. The decline in inter-state military support has led to the growth of the black market. In Mozambique for instance large stockpiles of weapons that were seized during the UN disarmament were never destroyed. When the UN mission withdrawn in the country, these arsenals were open for sale by corrupt officials. In Angola also the black market has also grown extensively Firstly the international dealers have cashed in from supplying UNITA during the arms embargo that was instituted by the UN. It is known that UNITA has been able to collect more weapons in spite of the embargoes. Secondly Angolans themselves who are poor and hungry because of decades of war have been accused by Zambians of illegally crossing the border to Zambia and exchanging their weapons for food. Another dangerous dimension that has emerged out availability of weapons is alliance between criminal organisations, insurgent groups and ex-soldiers who still retain their weapons of war. The recently alleged link of ex-MK soldiers to the multi-million rand robberies in South Africa is the testimony to above relationship. The flow of guns between these groups takes place in many forms, while they do sell to each other there are also favors. These favors may be because of ideological leniency or some other secret understanding. In the region where wars have destroyed the economy to its knees and demobilised soldiers face zero job opportunities, weapons have become the only means of survival. For obvious reasons there is no available statistics on the value of the black market. The huge number of non-state actors including criminals who are engaged in acts of violence, without access to legal arms market constitutes a big demand of the light weapons. Culture of Violence Theoretical Consideration ‘Violence is everywhere in our culture. on television, music, art, literature, newspaper, people’s minds- second only to sex. Violence is ever present in the world today, with daily reports of slaughter specifically in intra-national armed conflicts. The use of violence in all facets of our lives have grown extensively in recent history. Violence is so deeply entrenched in the society, that it is being viewed as part of life. There is even biological explanation of the sources of violence. It is this social acceptance of violence as part and parcel of natural and social relations between human beings that creates a “culture of violence.”Violence takes many forms in different countries therefore it is important to try to outline the different views on the origins of this culture of violence. In many countries the dynamics that lead to conflicts, differ. Batchelor divides conflicts into four typologies. There is the conflict over political participation, conflict over distribution of resources, political identity conflict and conflict related to the termination of the war . Kumar on the other hand divide internal conflicts into four that is ideological conflicts, governance and authority conflicts, racial conflicts and identity conflicts .These typologies are actually interrelated, but they help in identifying similarities and differences in each country. These typologies help to get the wide view of the sources of conflict but it is very much important also to get the deeper bases of this culture of violence.Psychologists are one group that has studied the deeper sources of the culture of violence. Psychoanalysts, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein both agreed that human beings are aroused to engage in war. From his writings Freud goes farther to observe that human beings as animals have an inborn tendency for hatred and destruction, which is instinctual. McDougall and Lorenz took the point farther by arguing that man has an inherited disposition of aggression, although it needed frustration to make it active. Lorenz went as far as to extend his findings on animal aggression to man. He concluded that since aggression is instinctual to animals and humans, therefore murder and warfare are an inevitable characteristic of human race. The instinct theory of aggression was challenged by R. L. Olukayode Jegede, who argued that aggression can be learned. He supports his argument with the results of his observation on learning in experimental animals, based on the laboratory observation of rats in learning simulations. The Lorenz’s theory of aggression as a source of frustration was also challenged by Berkowitz. He argued that not all instances of aggression result from frustration, moreover every frustration increase the instigation to aggression. Berkowitz then concluded, that if aggression is learned therefore ‘social rather than biological characteristics determine the aggressiveness and the warlikeness of nation’ Another group who has studied the culture of violence argued that social relations are the main cause of conflicts and violence. This view developed by Jacklyn Cock, argues that violence is identity based. There are many variants of identity like religious, ethnic and the soldier, etc. Identity encompasses a sense that one is safe in the world physically psychologically, socially and spiritually. Any events or factors that try to invalidate the core sense of identity elicit violent responses. This violence is aimed at avoiding physical annihilation. We will only focus on three identities that is political and ethnic belonging, because of their relevance to Southern African region. We will try to identify the role these identities play in violence. It is natural for man to have a feeling of belonging. The strong feeling to has driven man closer to their ethnic groups. These ethnic identities are not naturally conflictual, rather it is the circumstances that surround them that create violent response and antagonism. The relationship between ethnicity and violen ce is based on the social interaction theory. It is only when these identities feel threatened, insecure or manipulated in their political and social interaction that they become violent. Conflict over the distribution of resources or ideological can take an ethnic dimension if manipulated. The violence 1980s between United Democratic Front and the Inkatha Freedom Party was ideological at the beginning but Buthelezi introduced an ethnic dimension to conflicts by mobilising support among the Zulus to the conflict. Unequal power relations have also been identified as one of the sources of conflict among the ethnic groups. It is these kinds of insecurities and threats, politicization or plainly manipulation that has driven ethnic groups to become defensive and survivalistic. This argument fits into Michael Klares concept of relocation of authority. Klare observed that global interdependence, mass media and influence of international organisations are shifting the power away from the nation states. The relocation of authority from the national goverment to powerful international forces is creating anxiety and insecurity among ethnic identities, thus strengthening them. Mordenisation and the concept of “global village” that it was supposed will erode these identities, has instead created anxiety among individuals and they are turning to these smaller ethnic identities for support. Mordenisation has also created new ethnic elite who have skills to provide new dynamic leadership and competitive leadership to their group. A population of group-based unequal social classes rootless morden individual is vulnerable to ascriptive mobilisation. The case of Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi and the IFP is an example of political mobilisation along ethnic lines. Individuals rely on ethnic identities either for economical and political favors, and it is this competition for favors that creates antagonism that usually burst into conflict. This links to the argument by Malvern Lumsden when he says the main source of violence in the international system result from the competition between expanding population and limited resources. While it is not the main source his argument worth taking note. To conclude this section on identity it important to note that in ‘an environment where we create rootless individuals, who may turn to their ancestral collective identities in their search personal meaning, where new elite are created by the mass media and globalisation, elites who may mobilise group membership and where inequalities and ideologies provide a ready basis for socio-political mobilisation we should not be surprised by the recent rise in ethnicity.’ To sum up this chapter I must first dismiss the instinctual bases of violence in human, espoused by Freud and Einstein as pessimistic and invalid. They apply their finding on animals observation to human but their argument lack practical evidence. While human do sometimes react violently to frustration there are exceptions to frustration aggression model. The model fails to explain the rise of violence that was not triggered by any frustration, as in the case of ideological differences. The applicability of the model in real life situations is also complicated by the vague use of concept of “frustration,” which have many meanings. The socially oriented definition of the culture of violence holds much truth. Cock who espoused this theory while optimistic she does raises some valid analysis and concerns. Identities, racial, ethnic, political, national and gender are part of social relation and they play a huge role in conflict situation. The antagonism mentally of “us” and “they” are based on these identities. In the modern world of scarce resources and complex power relation it is very easy for these identities to be manipulated into conflict for economic or political purposes. The Inkatha Freedom Party is South African example of the political organisation that has rallied for support through ethnic lines. Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi leader of the IFP manipulated the Zulu ethnic group throughout the transition, by raising insecurities and anxieties to rally political support. South Africa: Identity, violence and small arms. Identity and small arms play a big role in violence in South Africa. In order to analyse the role of identity in violence of South Africa we need to study the dynamics that were involve in each stage of the conflict. One of the most important institutions that played a role in forming a link between identity and violence is the army. The MK and the SADF both as armies played a big role in shaping up this link. The “solder” identity and the army taught insensitivity, aggressiveness and violence. It is on this bases that we should view armed struggle by MK and the counter insurgency measures by the SADF as an identity based violence. The ideologies that drove the different sides “soldier” identities in South Africa legitimised violence as means of obtaining and mantaining power. The slogan by the PAC of “one settler, one bullet” and the popular one by the then - ANC youth league president Peter Mokaba “ kill the boer, kill the farmer” are examples of violent indoctrination that accompanied the “soldier” identities of the resistance - apartheid era. The middle of the 1980s came up with a different dimension to violence of South Africa. In 1983 the United Democratic Front (UDF) was formed which was a mouthpiece of the ANC while it was banned. From its formation the relationship between the UDF and IFP soured, because of the number of reasons. The main ones were the challenge the UDF posed to the IFPs over the monopoly of African politics especially in KwaZulu-Natal and the close relationship between the IFP and National Party. The National Party relied on the IFP to challenge UDF. The main basis for this relationship was that, because of the lack of significant number of Afrikaner population in KwaZulu Natal, NP relied on IFP alliance to counter the UDF. The IFP on the other hand saw the relationship as a way of holding on to political control of KwaZulu Natal. The situation cycled into violent outburst, ambushes and attacks between the IFP and UDF, and culminated in the formation of IFP aligned Self Protection Units and ANC aligned Self Defence Units. The death statistics vary with sources but the general figure reveal that from 1987 to 1990, 4 000 people died in KwaZulu Natal. Political identity was the dividing line between both sides of the conflict In the 1990s violence taken another turn. Period subsequent to the elections was accompanied by deadly violence. The ANC was unbanned in 1990 and immediately won the support of majority of blacks. With such a strong opposition Buthelezi decided to introduce a new strategy. He manipulated the ethnic loyalities of the Zulu nation by mobilising around ethnic consciousness. IFP boycotted the elections demanding the clarity on the status of the Kingdom on KwaZulu in the new dispensation. Buthelezi went even farther as to draw the support of King Goodwill Zwelithini of the Zulu Kingdom to win the support of the Zulus. Through this period ethnic identity played a role in the violence. This was a clear manipulation of ethnic identity for political gains of IFP. Violence that accompanied this period claimed 3000 people in East Rand alone between 1990 and 1994. A different form of identity was taking a center stage in the conflict. Manipulation of ethnic identities became the electioneering strategy for the IFP. Finally the IFP was taken aboard the election through the last minute promise of consideration of their worry over the Zulu Kingdom, after the election. The passing of the 1994 election has dramatically reduced violence. Both sides of African political spectrums in South Africa has dismissed themselves to the violence. Our concern for this chapter has been to determine the impact of identity in the violence. From armed struggle to political violence to 1990s identity has played a role in the violence. The political identity and ‘soldier’ identity played an important role in 1980s. Violence based on these identities continued in the beginning of the 90s but a different dimension was included to the conflict. Ethnic dimension was introduced by Buthelezi when he mobilised the Zulu nation. Proliferation of small arms in South Africa started long before the political violence of the 90s. The major source weapon in South Africa was through smuggling by liberation movements. During the apartheid era, the liberation movements in S.A. (especially ANC) were engaged in the deadly armed struggle with the Nationalist Party goverment. As in most other regional countries Russia, China and Cuba backed the liberation movements with military equipment. Most of the weapons were small arms because of the nature of the operations. These weapons were smuggled into South Africa by ANC operatives to carry out their offensive mission. Arms caches were created inside the country. General Bantu Holomisa of the then Transkei opened up the small bantustan for liberation movements for use as launch base for its operations. Large amounts of weapons entered Transkei. To counter these developments and further the strategy of ‘divide and rule’ the Nationalist Party through its National Security Management System trained and militarily equipped the IFP paramilitary force, the SDUs. There are also no figures for this support we can only asses the value by looking at the types of weapons that were used in the violence especially in KwaZulu Natal during the 80s and early 90s. Between 1993 and 1995, 3000 people were killed and 60% of these involved the use of light weapons (AK47s, pistols, homemade guns) After the election, disarmament strategies were not succesful at all. In October 1994 a disarmament operation called ‘Rollerball’ was started. It was also a disaster. In February 1995 Chief of Staff,Lt. Col Siphiwe Nyanda released the seizure statistics for this operation that were as follows 70 AK47s, 93 handgrenades, 53 pistols, 316 limpet mines. This figure is nothing compared with the millions worth of military equipment supplied to IFP by NP and the superpowers to ANC. The second major source is the internal armament industry. During the violent 80s and sensitive transitional stage the white population armed themselves alarmingly. They relied mostly on legal firearms. The anxiety was raised by the uncertainty and fear of the resumption of war. By the early 1990s the white population was well armed and the proliferation of weapons was at its peak. This trend of acquiring legal firearms is still continuing in South Africa. Recent statistics reveal that the Central Firearm Registry still receives the average of 18 000 applications. Theft of legal firearms is still a major problem per month there are still 2700 reports of stolen firearms every month. I therefore conclude that in South Africa the flow of small arms had and still has a great impact in the culture of violence that rose during the 80s and continued until the early 90s. Socio-political dynamics of South Africa created identities that were impregnated with violence. These identities legitimised violence. Violence was seen as the only means to achieve (in case of ANC) and mantain (in case of NP) power. Small arms became the suitable tools, because of the nature of conflict Assasinations, ambushes and attacks by ‘faceless’ killers were better carried out in light weapons. Flow of small arms grew with the violence. Without the huge amount of light weapons that entered South Africa and massive legal militarisation of white community, South Africa would not have experienced violence in massive scale. By Enough Sishi Researcher: Institute for Security Studies Small Arms Programme South Africa ESishi@iss.co.za +27-11-315 7096(phone) +27-11-315 7099(Fax) From ESishi@iss.co.za Wed Feb 18 07:05:42 1998 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 16:04:16 +0200 From: Enough Sishi Reply-To: ESishi@iss.co.za To: WSN@csf.colorado.edu Subject: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION What can happen in the world if all coutries could print as much money notes as they need, and export as much as they need for their populations in their countries. Also those countries which have the capacity to produce, produce to their full capacity so that they can meet the demand of all the importers. I am suggesting this because I have the feeling that this world have the enough resources to support all the world population to an extent that no one can be poor and no one can die of hunger. If this world does not have enough resources to support, so why do we bother ourselves with world economic issues research because we will never solve the problem of imbalances in world economy. This is a hypothetical suggestion but I would like to find a practical answer. Thanks Enough Sishi From latasha@jhu.edu Wed Feb 18 09:02:11 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:02:00 -0500 (EST) From: "L. China Terrell" Subject: INFORMATION REQUEST GRANTED In-reply-to: <34EAEA5C.303C@iss.co.za> To: Enough Sishi hey enough, the problem of the world is not solely lack of resources...that is to say, enough good things to go around (no pun intended)...even if there were plenty for all, how would we handle the more mammoth problem of fair and equal distribution? hmmmmm.... On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Enough Sishi wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 16:04:16 +0200 > From: Enough Sishi > To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK > Subject: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION > > What can happen in the world if all coutries could print as much money > notes as they need, and export as much as they need for their > populations in their countries. Also those countries which have the > capacity to produce, produce to their full capacity so that they can > meet the demand of all the importers. > > I am suggesting this because I have the feeling that this world have the > enough resources to support all the world population to an extent that > no one can be poor and no one can die of hunger. If this world does not > have enough resources to support, so why do we bother ourselves with > world economic issues research because we will never solve the problem > of imbalances in world economy. > > This is a hypothetical suggestion but I would like to find a practical > answer. > > Thanks > Enough Sishi > ________________________________________ L. China Y. Terrell 3030 North Dale Lane Bowie, MD 20716 (301) 249-4647 "we shall not always plant, while others reap the golden increment of bursting fruit..." From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Feb 18 13:51:41 1998 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:53:47 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: session on "Industrial Relations and Labor Politics in Asian Industrialization," To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu > Dear Colleagues: > > I am organizing a session on "Industrial Relations and Labour Politics in Asian Industrialization," for the International Sociological > Association's World Congress, to be held in Montreal, July 26 - Aug.1, > 1998. The official deadline has just passed but I received surprisingly very few paper submissions. If you would like to present a paper, please let me know immediately. Or if you know of any colleagues who would be interested in attending this Montreal meeting, please pass this information to them. My session is relatively open in terms of paper topics as long as they address important issues concerning contempoary labor relations or the labor movement in Asia. A paper on changing labor relations in the context of globalization would be particularly welcome. > If you are interested please send me the title and one-paragraph > abstract of the paper. I would appreciate your suggestion of other > prospective participants. Thank you very much. > > Hagen Koo > Professor, Department of Sociology > University of Hawaii, Honolulu, H 96822 > FAX: (808) 956-3707 > hagenkoo@hawaii.edu From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Wed Feb 18 18:33:15 1998 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 20:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: "L. China Terrell" Subject: Re: INFORMATION REQUEST GRANTED In-Reply-To: I understand the problem of poverty to be distribution not scarcity. So the problem of not enough good things to go around is the problem of fair and equal distribution. Andy From kpmoseley@juno.com Thu Feb 19 01:41:45 1998 To: agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Subject: Re: iraq-think again X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-7,10,12-13 From: kpmoseley@juno.com (Katharine P Moseley) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 03:39:56 EST Most mysterious, indeed. Client Israel is some excuse for US, but why is so much heat being generated, once again, in ruling circles in the UK? In the meantime - a group called DC Coalition against the War in Iraq iscoordinatnng a protest in DC on Sat. the 21st, starting at Dupont Circle at noon , leading into a march to the White House at 1PM. White House Comment line is (202)456-1111... jump over (the terribly loaded wording of) the recorded survey items, and you will eventually reach a human being who will record your views. Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee is also organizing protests... Their number is (202)244-2990. KPM _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From TERRENCE.MCDONOUGH@UCG.IE Thu Feb 19 04:07:41 1998 Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:02:18 GMT 19 Feb 1998 10:57:57 +0000 ([gmt]) 19 Feb 1998 10:57:21 +0000 ([gmt]) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:55:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Terrence Mc Donough Subject: Job Opening To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Dear WSN, Below is a job listing for a new position here in Galway, Ireland. The level is equivalent to an assistant professorship in the U.S. The department is heterodox friendly, but is not a heterodox department. Anyone interested should probably contact me first. Official literature on the post may give you the impression you have to be able to speak Irish. This is NOT the case. There is some opportunity for postgraduate teaching and advising. Don't pay too much attention to the specialisms listed. Terry McDonough Dept. of Economics NUI, Galway Galway Ireland Work 353-91-524411 ext. 3164 Home 353-91-555706 email: terrence.mcdonough@ucg.ie (don't rely entirely on email; its been wonky lately) Job Opening National University of Ireland, Galway Junior Lectureship in Economics The Department of Economics wishes to invite applications for the above post. Although applications are invited from all areas of the discipline, the Department would like to attract candidates, in particular, in the area of Applied Microeconomics, with good quantitative skills and with a research interest in Health Economics, Social Policy or related areas. Applicants should have a postgraduate degree in economics (a Ph.D. is considered desirable), have good communications skills and demonstrated research capacity. Application forms and particulars can be obtained from the office of the registrar, NUI, Galway. Closing date for receipt of applications is April 24, 1998. Further information on the posts and the department of economics can be obtained from Professor Michael Cuddy: Tel.: 353-91-750324; Fax: 353-91-524130; E-mail: michael.cuddy@ucg.ie From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Feb 19 05:52:22 1998 Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:52:11 GMT Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:52:11 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: iraq-think again 2/19/98, Katharine P Moseley wrote: >Most mysterious, indeed. Client Israel is some excuse for US, >but why is so much heat being generated, once again, in ruling circles in >the UK? Same reason that UK generally acts as US sidekick in globalist takeover. Having lost its empire, with Commonwealth decreasingly signficant, and being a bit of a Euro outsider, a special tie to the US allows UK elite to maintain illusion of being a world power. Convenience for US is that its aggressions can be tagged "allied". Besides, the US is a UK spinoff, and the imperialist elite cultures (interventionist, capital-dominated, intelligence-community oriented) are compatible. rkm From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Feb 19 09:11:45 1998 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:08:22 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: Work Conference] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:20:35 +0100 From: isa@sis.ucm.es (International Sociological Association) Subject: Work Conference Apparently-to: chriscd@jhu.edu To: chriscd@jhu.edu Reply-to: isa@sis.ucm.es To: Members of the International Sociological Association CALL FOR PAPERS WORK EMPLOYMENT & SOCIETY The journal "Work Employment & Society" Conference 14-16 September 1998, Cambridge University, United Kingdom Papers are requested in the following areas: * globalisation, flexibility & post-fordism * access to employment, exclusion & unemployment * alternative conceptions of work * the new unionism * transitions in work: life history, age and the family * gender, sexuality and work * work and the millennium: the future of work These streams are not exclusive; papers are invited on themes that fall within the general area of interest of the journal. Send abstracts (under 1200 words) to: Dr Wendy Bottero, Sociological Research Group, SPS, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RQ, UK, email: wb201@cam.ac.uk, fax 44-1223-334550, Closing date for abstracts 1st March 1998. Early applications are encouraged. From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 19 11:19:54 1998 Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:18:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:18:58 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank Reply-To: Gunder Frank To: H-NET List for World History Michael Perelman , "Lev S. Gonick" , Martha Gimenez , agf Subject: Iraq in Columbus, Washington, New York et al It is difficult to comprehend the premises of this h-world net posting that says that Koffi Aman going to Bagdhad evoke soemthing about appeasing Quadaffi and/or putting the USA in the position of perhaps turning 'imperialist'. The fact is that the whole Iraq thing has been a US run and manged show from the very beginning, which already in 1990- 1991 violated at least a half dozen sections of the UN Charter and which its then Secretary Genral Perez de Cuellar denounced as being 'not a UN war but a US war." That was one of its most troubling aspects already then, and a fortiori it is now that 3 permanent members of the Security Council are opposed, not to mention most of the rest of the world including the US allies. At it has been one of the most troubling aspects of the 'debate', including especially the town meeting yesterday in Colombus, that the vital issue of US vs. UN is never even raised. CNN [which after President Bush, whom it just interviewd egain to drum up support for war] already was the worst war monger in 1990, is at it again including its sponsorship and airing of the Columbus spectacle. Note that CNN showed in its opinion poll citations - and the discussants at Ohio State talked about - US opinion ONLY, as thought that were all that matters. Even the US sabre/missile [not to mention nuclear] rattling is in violation of the UN Charter. Any use of force by one or more member states against another violates the very UN Charter Article 42 and various of its sections under whose cover resolution 678 about 'all necessary means' was made in 1990 and used to make war in 1991. Since according to the Charter - 1. before these means are used, several sections of Articles 41 and 42 are to be complied with that were not last time around and even less this time [only one of which is to also satisfy Article 27 Clause 3 that requires athat all five permanent members of the Security Council must cast an AFFIRMATIVE vote, which they failed to do last time and certainly will not do this time] - 2. It is the Security Council that must DECIDE if and when what means are necessary, and no member state can decide that on its own within the Charter, but the US does not want even a Security Council meeting, since it knows that it would veto US policy, and -3. It is the United Nations under its Charter, and NOT any member state/s, that must implement any such Security Council decision, which was not done in 1991, and is not even contemplated this time, vide that there has been NO mention of the Security Council deciding anything or the UN doing anything or not and any US [and or UK or any other member] decision to act violently against another member state is in total VIOLATION of the UN Charter, no matter what resolutions may have been passed by the Security Council even if there were such a resolution, which there is not [and that is why US argues that the old resolution 678 which violated international law then is still in force [not to mention il/legal] now -precisely because the US knows that it can no longer ram through any similar resolution now]. 4. so the entire 'debate' is beside the point of the UN and outside of international law and the UN. The US government spokesmen' and women's 'appeal' to any and all UN resolutions as an alledged cover for US policy is nothing more than the height of cynicism and alas the denigration of the very UN whose mantle the US seeks to use. So whether the US Congress and/or public supports or not military action vs Iraq is totally beside the point of the respect for and implementation of international law and the UN Charter, to which the US formally subscribes while it actively circumvents and emasculates it [and does not even PAY for it!] [another verysignificant case was the transfer of decision making about the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia from the UN Security Council to NATO]. Now the transfer of world decision and military action is to be simply to the White House, with or without congressional War Act approval [which makes even the US constitutionality more than dubious] - and the total DISregard for all UN Charter and international conventions, which no longer even receive any public mention in Columbus, Washington, the media or anywhere. Beyond the long suffering people of Iraq, it is the people of the whole world, including those of the United States, that do and will SUFFER this loss of international law, which is as great as the deadly silence about it. respectfully submitted andre gunder frank On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, whitney howarth wrote: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:36:53 -0500 > From: whitney howarth > Reply-To: H-NET List for World History > Subject: Is Saddam Pulling a "Qaddafi"? > > From: Edward Brown II > Digital-Diary@classic.msn.com > > UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's trip to Iraq gives me great concern. The > reason is the Iraqi Government is using him. Annan's trip reminds me of > the Libyan situation of the mid-eighties, Muammar al-Qaddafi, during his > confrontation with the lame-duck Reagan Administration, invited Rev. Jesse > Jackson (Mr. "Keep Hope Alive") to negotiate a peace treaty amongst the two > countries. The US media criticized Jackson for "embarrassing the > President." Political analysts opined that Qaddafi was hoping to use > Jackson's Rainbow Coalition race politics to drum up support against > "arrogant Anglo-(American) imperialism." The much-hyped Qaddafi/Jackson > situation was diffused by American spin-doctors that said "that Jackson was > playing partisan politics" (which could not be denied since Jackson was > campaigning for the next Presidential election). > However, Annan has not any apparent hidden agendas similar to Jackson, > therefore Saddam can and will exploit the racial/cultural situation (masked > by the issue concerning weapons of mass destruction), a situation Qaddafi > so much wanted to exploit. Since the UN is an international/global > institution that is in the interest of protecting human rights, and is > looking to broker successfully an diplomatic agreement with Saddam, the > Iraqi Government may decide to bow to Annan (the UN) with conditions that > are just short of US demands. Saddam, by bowing to the UN, will expect the > "arrogant Western power" to do the same. The soon-to-be lame-duck > President Clinton has already played his cards by saying (as Reagan did), > "No compromise!" > Hoping that Annan will play his "part" in brokering peace, Saddam will be > successful in his standoff with the US if he can make the Clinton > Administration bow to the UN (thus the creation of a NOW, placing the UN as > the leader of global peace). If the Clinton Administration does not bow to > the UN, Saddam hopes that those countries that have invested interest in > the UN will then begin to question the actions of the US (especially if > bombing occurs). Then the US has placed itself in the imperialistic role > of "World Police" (thus the creation of a NOW, placing the US in an > imperialistic role). With the US already dominating popular culture in the > west (with a tentative acceptance in the east), Saddam hopes to rally a > (counter-culture) regime against the US, regardless of whether the > counter-culture is pro Iraqi or not. In these two scenarios, Saddam has > obtained a win-win situation. > > Saddam Hussein just wants to go into the history books as being the David > that slew the 21st century Goliath-not with weapons of mass destruction, > with the stone-throwing masses. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 19 17:32:01 1998 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 19:31:07 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: THE END OF HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY! (fwd) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 19:17:07 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: agf Subject: THE END OF HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY! THE MORAL OF THE HA HA-STORY IS: [from a friend in Basel to Paulo Frank in Geneva to Andre Gunder Frank in Toronto. who transmits as received, except to add that it has been claimed that the patent office guy did not really mean it] > > > > "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." > > --Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of > > science,1949 > > > > "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." > > --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 > > > > "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked > > with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing > > is a fad that won't last out the year." > > --The editor in charge of business books for > > Prentice Hall, 1957 > > > > "But what ... is it good for?" > > --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of > > IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip. > > > > "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." > > --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital > > Equipment Corp., 1977 > > > > "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously > > considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently > > of no value to us." > > --Western Union internal memo, 1876. > > > > "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who > > would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" > > --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for > > investment in the radio in the 1920s. > > > > "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn > > better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." > > --A Yale University management professor in response to > > Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight > > delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal > > Express Corp.) > > > > "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" > > --H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927. > > > > "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and > > not Gary Cooper." > > --Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role > > in "Gone With The Wind." > > > > "A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports > > say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like > > you make." > > --Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' > > Cookies. > > > > "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." > > --Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962. > > > > "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." > > --Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895. > > > > "If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. > > The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this." > > --Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique > > adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads. > > > > "So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, > > even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about > > funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. > > Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' > > So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, > > 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" > > --Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to > > get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve > > Wozniak's personal computer. > > > > "Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action > > and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum > > against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge > > ladled out daily in high schools." > > --1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's > > revolutionary rocket work. > > > > "You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across > > all of your muscles? It can't be done. It's just a fact of life. > > You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an > > unalterable condition of weight training." > > --Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolvable" > > problem by inventing Nautilus. > > > > "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? > > You're crazy." > > --Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his > > project to drill for oil in 1859. > > > > "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." > > --Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, > > 1929. > > > > "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." > > --Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole > > Superieure de Guerre. > > > > "Everything that can be invented has been invented." > > --Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, > > 1899. > > > > "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". > > --Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872 > > > > "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from > > the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon". > > --Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed > > Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873. > > > > "640K ought to be enough for anybody." > > -- Bill Gates, 1981 Cheers, Paulo ________________________________________________________ Paulo Frank Translation: German, French, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch => Br/Am English Annemasse, Haute-Savoie, France Tel. (33) 450 84 12 99 Fax (33) 450 84 09 54 paulo.frank@wanadoo.fr From podobnik@jhu.edu Thu Feb 19 20:40:49 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:40:37 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce M Podobnik Subject: The Media, the US, and Iraq To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu As frequently noted, CNN and other mainstream media outlets typically operate to constrain the terms of the debate regarding the US plan to attack Iraq. However, as revealed by the CNN-organized town hall meeting in Ohio, it seems that a sizable segment of the US population is gravely concerned about the US government's apparent intention to take military action in the near term. (In fact, it was interesting to read in a New York Times article that people at the Ohio town hall were raising much tougher questions regarding the human and even long-term geopolitical costs of military action than have been raised by the President's national security advisors.) And widespread opposition to a US military strike on Iraq is further revealed by the organization of other protest actions. Here in Baltimore, Maryland, for instance, notification went out via email Wednesday night that President Clinton would be lunching Thrusday at a hotel downtown. When he arrived, a crowd of over 50 demonstrators had gathered. As we stood waiting for the President to arrive, a surprisingly large number of people driving by in their cars honked and waved in support of our banners. Other protests are being organized in Washington, New York, and numerous additional US cities. So, although the mainstream media may be limiting the terms of the debate on Iraq, this doesnt necessarily mean that US citizens themselves are blind to the potential long term consequences of taking immediate military action. In fact, it appears to me that significant segments of the US population are ahead of the curve when compared to the US government and mainstream media. Through the use of grassroots organizing efforts (with the speed of email messages playing an important role), it should be possible for people who are historically and globally informed (and there are a lot of people like this out there) to shadow administration officials and local political representatives wherever they go in public, and force them to address our concerns -- even if the mainstream media does not. |--------------------------| | Bruce Podobnik | | Department of Sociology | | Johns Hopkins University | | email: podobnik@jhu.edu | |--------------------------| From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Feb 19 23:43:09 1998 Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:41:11 GMT Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:41:11 GMT To: cyberjournal@cpsr.org, activ-l , wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: cj#780> Desert Holocaust - ongoing Crime Against Humanity Dear cj et al, I can't find words strong enough to express the horror and shame of this cowardly and deadly game the US is playing in Iraq. The callousness of those perpetrating this outrage, this pre-publicised savaging of a population, beggars description. It would be different if they actually feared Saddam, or even if they actually hated him, but they don't. They couldn't care less. He's no worse than most of the dictators the US supports and has supported on a regular basis for many decades, and he's probably practiced no evils that aren't on the curriculum in Uncle Sam's "School of the Americas". They know the last thing on Saddam's mind is anthraxing his neighbors - his concern has been getting his oil back on the market, getting the sanctions lifted, getting his realm back on its feet. Even if Saddam is fully as demented as the media tells us he is, he still knows enough not to invite cruise missiles back to visit. He knows they can get himself this time if they have a mind to. He and all the Iraqis, and all the Iraqi children, as well as the whole chain of US military command, are simply pawns in the game. The game, as I've endeavored to establish in previous postings, is simply the establishment of a new world order - a replacement of the sovereign-nation international regime with a centrally controlled global regime. Such a regime is precisely what is necessary to support globalization. World economic planning has been centralized (WTO, IMF) and its policies reflect one specific constituency, and one only: the capitalist elite. It is natural and appropriate that a global policing regime be established which is centrally controlled by the same elite. In a federated system - which is what globalization is all about - it is central _policing_ that is appropriate, not provincial _warfare_. If Arizona, for example, is violating US federal law, one would not expect New Mexico to launch an assault across the border to enforce discipline. That's job for the Feds. And the knowledge of Federal power is what makes the scenario one that never occurs. Or almost never - a concerted effort was made _once_, but it's now gone with the wind. What makes sense under globalization is for there to be an elite global strike force that can enforce discipline without going through the rigamarole and hoopla of a "war". One offending installation, one cruise missile, one mention on the evening news - much like a crime report. That's efficient law and order, global style. Conditioning the world to that scenario is what the carnage in Iraq is all about, and has been all about since the US first tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait. Have I adequately characterized the cold, calculating monsters behind this whole affair? Think of Hitler chuckling at SS films of concentration camps, which he did, and you can get some idea of the mentality of those who plan their weapons tests and engineeer their legal precedents while concocting propaganda cover stories to sell to the masses. Will they lift a champagne glass when the first air strikes begin? Will they be watching satellite hooked-up video from the lead plane? Will they be chuckling at Ted Koppel (He's still around isn't he? I don't get him in Ireland) as he effects his serious demeanor and delivers his script ever so sincerely? But the human story isn't up in Monster Olympia, it's down on the ground in Iraq. Please allow me a one-paragraph diversion to make a certain emotional point. I just got back from seeing "Titanic". It is a _really_ brilliant film, quite unexpected from such a high-budget product (I had fears of Spielberg fare). After the old lady survivor tells her (incredible but very satisfying) story, and the hardened salvage crew all have tears in their eyes, the salvage chief says: "For three years my whole life has been the Titanic, but I never let it _in_ before." That is, he never really let himself FEEL the panic and suffering of the victims, the utter helplessness, the lack of life boats, the failure of those in boats to help those freezing to death in their life jackets. There's a documentary by (former US Attorney General) Ramsey Clark (one of those welome elite turncoats) that conveys the feeling that all of us should be feeling at this moment - it's called "Nowhere to Hide". You probably haven't seen it, for obvious reasons, but it was shot in Iraq soon after Desert Storm and attempted to capture the helplessness and vulnerability of the civilians who were subjected to endless night-time terrorism, perpertrated by drug-hyped flyboys in multi-million dollar machines and black outfits looking at computer imaging screens, pressing joysticks, and swapping stories about target-rich missions and butt-kicking. If that isn't the Evil Empire instantiated, the Klingons made real, I don't know what else you could ask for. This is the time to "let it in". To realize what it's all about on the ground. To understand what a fuel-air explosion means if you're in the vicinity. Or to appreciate what it means to find the scraps your starving children have been playing with are deadly spent-plutonium shells. The pictures were hidden from us. One photo of a charcoaled head leaning out of a burned-out truck hulk, which made the press in Europe, was deleted from the US news wires by some New York UPI editor. You remember, surely, all those television replays of laser bombs striking some X-marked building, presumably uninhabited during non-working hours. But have you learned subsequently that 90% of the bombing was by conventional B52's carpet bombing their target areas? Did you know that military targets were of minimal concern, and that the main point was simply to destroy the Iraqi national infrastructure? With minor exceptions, the Iraqi military never left their bunkers. One US pilot, in a press interview, said there wasn't any war, there was a slaughter - "like a professional football team playing a primary-school team". The gall(!) of the officers sitting around discussing "The Art of Strategy", as if they were Alexander outfoxing Darius. What assholes. Give them video games and send them home to play with themseleves to their heart's content. Do you remember the footage of all the squashed vehicles streaming out of Kuwait? Like a stream of ants that had been sprayed with Raid, and then stomped on? The voice-over told us the Iraqi military had commandeered civilian vehicles. That turns out to be largely a lie. The military, for the most part, had their own transport. Thousands of Palestinian guest-workers and others, who were in some sense "liberated" by the Iraqi invasion, feared for their lives with the expelling of Iraqi troops. It was mainly civilians who were fleeing, and the US knew that. I talked to a fellow who was there, and he said the orders were to kill every single person who fled Kuwait city. First they bombed the roads with their fuel-air explosions that make napalm look like a kid's firecracker. Then they sortied back and fired rockets at individual vehicles that had gone cross-country. Then they came back yet again and strafed people running from the burning cars. Those clever young men in their flying machines. Maybe they're only propandized pawns, but goddammit they're responsible too, just as much as the SS troops who "only followed orders". Lots more of this footage reached European audiences than reached American audiences. For Americans it was to be a clean and glorious war, for Europeans there was also a note of subliminal warning: don't cross Uncle Sam, he's one mean son-of-a-bitch. Did you read on page three the report of 3,000 Iraqi troops being buried alive by bullozers? An "innovative tactic", said the officer being interviewed. The troops, obviously, posed no military threat - but they didn't surrender quickly enough, so they were fair game. Can you imagine the outrage if a single GI were to be buried alive while undergoing capture? How many Americans read that story without having their faith in the whole game shattered? _That_ is what I call racism. Did you hear about the "turkey-shoot" division? An armoured Iraqi division that didn't surrender quickly enough? This was after the supposed cease fire. With their depleted-Plutonium magic bullets the US Air Force systematically destroyed every vehicle in the division, an exercise that can only be described as target practice for the new stubby tank-killer plane they were field testing. Sorry to go on for so long, I don't mean to be repetitive, but you've got to understand that this is serious crime-against-humanity bullshit. If history were to be written by the victims, it is you and I who would be the silent Good Germans; it is our leaders who would be on the dock at Nurenberg; it is you and I who would need to invent stories for our children and grandchildren about how we hadn't been part of it. --- At this point, I can think of only one effective counter tactic for people- who-give-a-damn to apply against the horrendous course of events. That would be for plane-loads of people from the US, the UK, and Germany (the Knights on the rampage) to make their way to Baghdad with battery-powered short-wave transmitters, establish contact with various publicity venues world wide, and thereby link arms in solidarity with the innocent civilians of Iraq. Sort of like the folks who put up Anne Frank. Funny how we remember her name, and not theirs. I don't mean to put anyone in danger as a voluntary hostage, but rather hope by this suggestion that innocent lives might be saved. --- Below are some very recent publications that I'd like to share. The first two are particularly thoughtful analyses of the Iraqi situation by gentlemen I don't always agree with, but in this case whom I heartily endorse. Following that are clips from some recent publications that claim to have insider knowledge of US tactics and timing. I can't vouch for their validity, but I'd give them more weight than anything you'll see on television, and I'd keep what they say in mind as events unfold. rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 From: Gunder Frank To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Iraq in Columbus, Washington, New York et al X-Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK , -=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=- The fact is that the whole Iraq thing has been a US run and manged show from the very beginning, which already in 1990- 1991 violated at least a half dozen sections of the UN Charter and which its then Secretary Genral Perez de Cuellar denounced as being 'not a UN war but a US war." That was one of its most troubling aspects already then, and a fortiori it is now that 3 permanent members of the Security Council are opposed, not to mention most of the rest of the world including the US allies. At it has been one of the most troubling aspects of the 'debate', including especially the town meeting yesterday in Colombus, that the vital issue of US vs. UN is never even raised. CNN [which after President Bush, whom it just interviewd egain to drum up support for war] already was the worst war monger in 1990, is at it again including its sponsorship and airing of the Columbus spectacle. Note that CNN showed in its opinion poll citations - and the discussants at Ohio State talked about - US opinion ONLY, as thought that were all that matters. Even the US sabre/missile [not to mention nuclear] rattling is in violation of the UN Charter. Any use of force by one or more member states against another violates the very UN Charter Article 42 and various of its sections under whose cover resolution 678 about 'all necessary means' was made in 1990 and used to make war in 1991. Since according to the Charter - 1. before these means are used, several sections of Articles 41 and 42 are to be complied with that were not last time around and even less this time [only one of which is to also satisfy Article 27 Clause 3 that requires athat all five permanent members of the Security Council must cast an AFFIRMATIVE vote, which they failed to do last time and certainly will not do this time] - 2. It is the Security Council that must DECIDE if and when what means are necessary, and no member state can decide that on its own within the Charter, but the US does not want even a Security Council meeting, since it knows that it would veto US policy, and -3. It is the United Nations under its Charter, and NOT any member state/s, that must implement any such Security Council decision, which was not done in 1991, and is not even contemplated this time, vide that there has been NO mention of the Security Council deciding anything or the UN doing anything or not and any US [and or UK or any other member] decision to act violently against another member state is in total VIOLATION of the UN Charter, no matter what resolutions may have been passed by the Security Council even if there were such a resolution, which there is not [and that is why US argues that the old resolution 678 which violated international law then is still in force [not to mention il/legal] now -precisely because the US knows that it can no longer ram through any similar resolution now]. 4. so the entire 'debate' is beside the point of the UN and outside of international law and the UN. The US government spokesmen' and women's 'appeal' to any and all UN resolutions as an alledged cover for US policy is nothing more than the height of cynicism and alas the denigration of the very UN whose mantle the US seeks to use. So whether the US Congress and/or public supports or not military action vs Iraq is totally beside the point of the respect for and implementation of international law and the UN Charter, to which the US formally subscribes while it actively circumvents and emasculates it [and does not even PAY for it!] [another very significant case was the transfer of decision making about the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia from the UN Security Council to NATO]. Now the transfer of world decision and military action is to be simply to the White House, with or without congressional War Act approval [which makes even the US constitutionality more than dubious] - and the total DISregard for all UN Charter and international conventions, which no longer even receive any public mention in Columbus, Washington, the media or anywhere. Beyond the long suffering people of Iraq, it is the people of the whole world, including those of the United States, that do and will SUFFER this loss of international law, which is as great as the deadly silence about it. respectfully submitted andre gunder frank @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Feb. 19, 1998 From: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com To: foreignc@foreigncorrespondent.com Subject: ForeignCorrespondent ONWARD, CLINTON SOLDIERS! Foreign Correspondent Inside Track On World News By International Syndicated Columnist & Broadcaster Eric Margolis ,,ggddY"""Ybbgg,, ,agd888b,_ "Y8, ___`""Ybga, ,gdP""88888888baa,.""8b "888g, ,dP" ]888888888P' "Y `888Yb, ,dP" ,88888888P" db, "8P""Yb, ,8" ,888888888b, d8888a "8, ,8' d88888888888,88P"' a, `8, ,8' 88888888888888PP" "" `8, d' I88888888888P" `b 8 `8"88P""Y8P' 8 8 Y 8[ _ " 8 8 "Y8d8b "Y a 8 8 `""8d, __ 8 Y, `"8bd888b, ,P `8, ,d8888888baaa ,8' `8, 888888888888' ,8' `8a "8888888888I a8' `Yba `Y8888888P' adP' "Yba `888888P' adY" `"Yba, d8888P" ,adP"' `"Y8baa, ,d888P,ad8P"' ``""YYba8888P""'' ONWARD, CLINTON SOLDIERS! by Eric Margolis February 19, 1998 NEW YORK - Two fascinating events this week. First, presidential spokesman Mike McCurry floated a trial balloon by suggesting the truth about the Lewinsky 'affaire' was a "complicated story." McCurry later claimed he "misspoke." But this was clearly step one in an eventual admission by President Clinton that he did, in spite of all his denials, have an 'affaire' with the young intern. Second, faced with worldwide criticism over what he hoped to gain by attacking Iraq, President Clinton admitted air strikes, likely to begin next Wednesday or Thursday, would only "seriously diminish" the threats he claims Saddam poses. Call it, War-Lite. This tricky Clinton-speak - akin to "I do not NOW have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky" - left everyone scratching their heads. What do weasel words, "seriously diminish," mean? Clinton was obviously lowering expectations in case the attack produces nothing more than piles of dead Iraqi civilians and demolished buildings. But is "seriously diminishing" worth the couple of billions of taxpayers dollars the campaign against Iraq is costing, or American lives? Former CIA analyst Tony Cordesman, America's leading military expert on Iraq, predicted Tuesday air strikes would not eliminate Iraq's ability to produce chemical or bio weapons. What, he asked, would 4,000 air strikes accomplish that 40,000 failed to do so in 1991? President Husni Mubarak of Egypt warns attacking Iraq will ignite anti-American rage across the Mideast, gravely endanger pro-US regimes in the region, and turn Saddam into a hero. Syria, a foe of Iraq, also opposes strikes. A senior diplomat from an important Arab ally of the US, who knows President Hussein well, tells me: "Saddam is a stupid thug, an embarrassment to the Arab World. But America is behaving as stupidly as Saddam. We can't sit back any longer and see the Iraqi people tortured. Only Israel benefits from this horrible mess." A majority of the permanent members of the UN Security Council opposes attacking Iraq. So do the Pope, the Non-Aligned Nations, a majority of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League. Stripped of the fig-leaf of UN support, the US now claims the attack is justified by "America's self-interest." Translation: might makes right. But where is it written only America has the right to police the Mideast? For perspective, consider the following shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario: The Mideast is in Russia's backyard, not America's. Russia announces it will no longer tolerate Israel's ongoing violation of Security Council resolutions to (a.) withdraw from Israeli-occupied Southern Lebanon, and (b.) cease building illegal Jewish settlements on occupied Arab territory. Russia demands Israel open its massive nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities to thorough international inspection, something Israel has persistently refused to do, and dismantle missiles with nuclear warheads pointed at Russia. Moscow delivers an ultimatum: either comply with Security Council resolutions and eliminate your weapons of mass destruction - as the US now demands of Iraq - or face air and missile attack. Outrageous, of course. But this is precisely how many nations, and certainly the Arab World, feel towards America's threats to further savage Iraq. Besides, once the latest "surgical" bombing is over, Iraq will likely expel all UN weapons inspectors, ending any hope of effective supervision. If he survives, Saddam will proclaim another great victory. Interestingly, Iran, the only nation to actually suffer chemical attack by Iraq, bitterly opposes America's latest crusade. This week, Bahrain joined Saudi Arabia by refusing to allow its air bases to be used to attack Iraq. Only the disco-loving Kuwaitis firmly back the US. Clinton's military half-measures will make Americans feel good, and certainly divert attention from the Lewinsky case, which looks to go critical in the coming weeks. Most revealingly, White House spokesmen now argue the attack is needed to "maintain the credibility of the Clinton Administration." At last. The truth. Copyright: E. Margolis, February 1998 -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- To receive Foreign Correspondent via email send a note to majordomo@foreigncorrespondent.com with the message in the body: subscribe foreignc To get off the list, send to the same address but write: unsubscribe foreignc WWW: www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com FAX: (416) 960-4803 Smail: Eric Margolis c/o Editorial Department The Toronto Sun 333 King St. East Toronto Ontario Canada M5A 3X5 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Friday 13 February 1998, London-UK [SRTV-i0255-00004] From: Parveez Syed Global Media Monitoring Unit Shanti Communications One Stuart Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey CR7 8RA1 UK Telephone: London-UK 44-0831-196693 E-Mail INTERNET: PARVEEZ@CR78RA1UK.WIN-UK.NET Copyright 1998 by Shanti Communications news agency. Clinton-Blair jingoism to provoke mass killings by Parveez Syed (c) Shanti RTV news agency LONDON-UK (SC-SRTV) - US president Bill Clinton is ready to launch upto ninety Scuds on Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to help US justify bombing Iraq, a Western intelligence source told Shanti RTV news agency. "Upto ninety unarmed and some 'loaded' Scuds would be fired from the US bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. The Scuds would be aimed at Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They would give Clinton the pretext needed to bomb and kill Iraq civilians," the source told Shanti RTV news agency. "The 'friendly fire' has the full covert support of top US, British and the Israeli officials. The Scuds were captured by the US forces in the 1991 assault on Iraq, and covertly tranported to a number of US bases and secret sites in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, Jordon and Turkey. The US-UK pretext and its subversion of the UN is set to provoke endless mass killings," the source explained. The Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz has affirmed that Iraq has no intention of attacking Israel. Aziz said Iraq will only attack countries that attack Iraq. "We don't have any plans or intentions to strike against anybody except an aggressor inside our territory," Aziz confirmed. -=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=- "Fax attack the British war efforts," [British Labour MP] Galloway said. "Send your faxes before they switch them off," he said. British prime minister Phony Flair MP on 0044-171-930-2144; British foreign secretary Robin Cock MP on 0044-171-270-2144; British state minister Derek Hatchet MP on 0044-171-270-3731; British defence secretary Georgie Robertsony MP on 0044-171-218-7140. ends Presented by: Shanti RTV (c) 13 February 1998. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 From: jslakov@TartanNET.ns.ca (Jan Slakov) Subject: fwd from IWW re: Iraq Hi Richard, Feb. 18 From: "Janet M. Eaton" To: jslakov@tartannet.ns.ca Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 Subject: (Fwd) The Iraqui Situation (fwd) ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 From: MichaelP To: unlikely.suspects:; Subject: The Iraqui Situation (fwd) In the department of rumor mongering - this fwd at least carries a hint of credibility, namely that a suprise bombing has been set for a time where the UN Secretary is likely to be still negotiating under terms set by the perm. members of the security council. Of course, Clinton's statement that the results of the negotiation must also pass US scrutiny, over and beyond what the Security Council may have agreed to, is one which sounds like NOTHING negotiated can possibly pass that scrutiny. As to the stated date of prospective attack, is it relevant that the US Congress is scheduled to debate its "Senate Conc.Res. 71" after return from recess, with a vote expected in the week beginning Feb 22? At least we have a few days to mail the congress. And remember the Tonkin Gulf resolution to support Lyndon Johnson's military objectives was a response to fake reports of North VietNam bellicosity. Michael P ==================================== Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 From: "David Brock (RevDrDB2)" To: iww-news@iww.org Fellow Workers, Here is a portion of an interesting email I received from a friend of mine that is a member of our socialist workers group. I think that everyone will find this quite intriguing. After all of the talk of "diplomacy" in the Iraq situation, this angered me quite a bit. We have organized a large protest at the Federal Building in Nashville to coincide with the visit of Clinton stooge Madeline Albright, who will be visiting Nashville to sell the war. I think everyone will be horrified... -=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=- Subject: Re: Protest Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 From: Roland K Frye "I talked to my girlfriend, who is in Kuwait. She told me that the US plans to bomb Iraq at 500am Mon. 23. This is Sunday at 200pm our time. She said that the citizens of Kuwait have been told to give them time to prepare and were given instructions on the guidelines in case of a chemical attack. She also said that the the company that she works for (A British company) are evacuating all American and British nationals..." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by: Richard K. Moore | PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland rkmoore@iol.ie | www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal * Non-commercial republication encouraged - with this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're subscribed): To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- unsub cyberjournal To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there From p34d3611@jhu.edu Fri Feb 20 00:33:28 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:33:07 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Grimes Subject: CLASS INEQUALITY & DEATH RATES To: WSN Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:09:02 -0500 From: Nichols.Nick@epamail.epa.gov To: p34d3611@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu, cfleming@agu.org Subject: Rachel #584: Major Causes of Ill health ---------------------- Forwarded by Nick Nichols/DC/USEPA/US on 02/17/98 10:13 AM --------------------------- peter@rachel.clark.net 02/06/98 03:31 AM Please respond to peter@rachel.clark.net To: rachel-weekly@world.std.com Subject: Rachel #584: Major Causes of Ill health =======================Electronic Edition======================== .. . .. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #584 . .. ---February 5, 1998--- . .. HEADLINES: . .. MAJOR CAUSES OF ILL HEALTH . .. ========== . .. Environmental Research Foundation . .. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . .. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net . .. ========== . .. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . .. E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP . .. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . .. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com . .. and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ . .. Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . .. with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . ================================================================= MAJOR CAUSES OF ILL HEALTH Numerous studies in England and the U.S. have shown consistently that a person's place in the social order strongly affects health and longevity.[1] It now seems well-established that poverty and social rank are the most important factors determining health --more important even than smoking.[2] This conclusion has been a long time in the making. A British study in 1840 observed that "gentlemen" in London lived, on the average, twice as long as "labourers." Starting in 1911, British death certificates have been coded for social class based on occupation. (In the U.S., death certificates are coded for race or ethnicity without reference to class or occupation.) The British database of deaths coded by class has allowed many studies, which have shown consistently that lower social status is associated with early death. For example, in 1980, Sir Douglas Black, who was then the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, published a study covering the period 1930-1970 in England. The so-called Black Report concluded that "there are marked inequalities in health between the social classes in Britain." Specifically, people in unskilled occupations had a two-and-a-half times greater chance of dying before retirement than professional people (lawyers and doctors).[1] Furthermore, the Black Report showed that the gap in death rates between rich and poor had widened between 1930 and 1970. In 1930, unskilled workers were 23% more likely to die prematurely than professional people, whereas in 1970 they were 61% more likely than professionals to die prematurely. Several subsequent studies confirmed the findings of the Black Report and demonstrated that, even within privileged groups, those with less status lived shorter lives. In other words, social rank affects health even among those who are well off. The so-called Whitehall studies in England examined the health of 10,000 British government employees (civil servants) over 2 decades and found a 3-fold difference in death rates between the highest and lowest employment grades. The Whitehall studies showed (and later a U.S. study confirmed) that conventional risk factors such as smoking, obesity, physical activity, blood pressure and blood-levels of cholesterol could explain only 25% to 35% of employment-grade differences in mortality.[2] In other words, social rank was more important a determinant of health than were all the conventional risk factors. In sum, being lower in the pecking order makes you sick and shortens your life. Researchers have examined the opposite hypothesis, that perhaps health status determines social class --that being sick makes you poor, instead of the other way around. They have found that this explains only about 10% of the health disparities between social ranks.[1] In the U.S., a study in Chicago during 1928-1932 examined death certificates in relation to place of residence at time of death. Chicago was categorized into 5 socioeconomic levels based on average monthly rental payments. The study showed a fairly smooth curve: the higher the rent, the lower the death rate for people of similar ages. This study was redone in 1973, looking at changes between 1930 and 1960. There had been "no relative gain" in recent decades for those paying the lowest rents. So even though the general standard of living may rise, those lower on the income scale die at younger ages. In 1986, researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics showed that Americans with annual incomes of $9000 or less had a death rate 3 to 7 times higher (depending on gender and race) than people with annual incomes of $25,000 or more. Furthermore, they showed that this situation had worsened between 1960 and 1986.[1] In the U.S., within groups of people having similar incomes, African-Americans have worse (and worsening) health status, compared to whites, for many diseases including asthma, diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), major infectious diseases, and several cancers.[3] Among researchers who have studied these problems, the basis of these health differences is thought to be racism, not genetics.[1] As we have reported previously (REHW #497), several studies have now revealed two important facts about the relationship of wealth to health: 1. Between countries, there is no relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) --a conventional measure of wealth --and health. In other words, comparing countries at similar levels of industrialization, it is quite possible for people in poorer countries to be healthier than people in richer countries. The absolute level of income does not determine health or longevity. 2. On the other hand, within individual countries there is a consistent relationship between health and the size of the gap separating rich from poor. Countries with the longest life expectancy at birth are those with the smallest spread of incomes and the smallest proportion of people living in relative poverty. Such countries (for example, Sweden) generally have longer life expectancy than countries that are richer but tolerate larger inequalities, such as the U.S. Within the U.S., comparisons between states have come to similar conclusions: it is not the average level of income in a state that determines health status --it is the size of the gap between rich and poor in a state that determines health. George Kaplan and his colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the percentage of total household income received by the less well off 50% of households.[4] It ranged from 17% in Louisiana and Mississippi to 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the most UNEQUAL distribution of income. This measure of income inequality was then compared to the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern emerged: the more unequal the distribution of income, the greater the death rate. For example in Louisiana and Mississippi the age-adjusted death rate is about 960 per 100,000 people, while in New Hampshire it is about 780 per 100,000 and in Utah it is about 710 per 100,000 people. Adjusting these results for average income in each state did not change the picture: in other words, it is the gap between rich and poor within each state, and not the average income of each state, that best predicts the death rate. Inequality is growing throughout the world, both between countries and within countries. As of 1996, 89 countries (out of 174) were worse off, economically, than they had been a decade previously. In 70 developing countries, incomes are lower now than they were in the 1960s and 1970s.[5] And the level of inequality is already astonishing. For example, in 1996, 358 billionaires controlled assets greater than the combined annual incomes of countries representing 45 percent of the world's population (2.5 billion people).[5] Between 1961 and 1991, the ratio of the income of the richest 20% of the world's population to the poorest 20% increased from 30-to-1 to 61-to-1.[2] Within the U.S., inequality is wider than it has been for 50 years, and it is getting worse. The U.S. now finds itself among a group of countries, including Brazil and Guatemala, in which the national per capita income is at least four times as high as the average income of the poorest 20 percent.[5] In the U.S. between 1980 and 1990, inequality of income increased in all states except Alaska.[1] Inequality in the distribution of income and wealth[6] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 years.[7,8,9,10] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British ECONOMIST magazine.[11] Inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is even greater than the inequality in income. In 1983, the wealthiest 5% of Americans owned 56% of all the wealth in the U.S.; by 1989, the same 5% had increased their share of the pie to 62%.[10,pg.29] These tremendous inequalities translate directly into sickness and death for those holding the short end of the stick. As Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a Boston pediatrician, said recently, "Tell me someone's race. Tell me their income. And tell me whether they smoke. The answers to those three questions will tell me more about their longevity and health status than any other questions I could possibly ask."[3] Isn't it time that the public health community --physicians, public health specialists, and environmentalists --recognized that poverty, inequality and racism cause sickness and death? Given what science now tells us, medical policy --including medical training --should aim to combat and eliminate poverty, inequality, and racism just as it now aims to combat and eliminate infectious diseases and cancer.[2] With U.S. health care costs now exceeding $1 trillion each year, anti-poverty and anti-racism initiatives would be economically efficient as well as humane. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) =============== [1] Oliver Fein, "The Influence of Social Class on Health Status: American and British Research on Health Inequalities," JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE Vol. 10 (October, 1995), pgs. 577-586. [2] Andrew Haines, Michael McCally, Whitney Addington, Robert S. Lawrence, Christine Cassel, and Oliver Fein, "Poverty and Health: The Role of Physicians," ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (in press). [3] Peter T. Kilborn, "Black Americans Trailing Whites in Health, Studies Say," NEW YORK TIMES January 26, 1998, pg. A16. [4] George A. Kaplan and others, "Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pgs. 999-1003. [5] Barbara Crossette, "U.N. Survey Finds World Rich-Poor Gap Widening," NEW YORK TIMES July 15, 1996, pg. A3. [6] Wealth is the net worth of a household, calculated by adding up the current value of all assets a household owns (bank accounts, stocks, bonds, life insurance savings, mutual fund shares, houses, unincorporated businesses, consumer durables such as cars and major appliances, and the value of pension rights), then subtracting the value of all liabilities (consumer debt, mortgage balances, and other outstanding debt). [7] Sheldon Danziger and others, "How the Rich Have Fared, 1973-1987," AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Vol. 79 (May, 1989), pgs. 310-314. [8] McKinley L. Blackburn and David E. Bloom, "Earnings and Income Inequality in the United States," POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Vol. 13, No. 4 (December, 1987), pgs. 575-609. [9] Johan Fritzell, "Income Inequality Trends in the 1980s: A Five-Country Comparison," ACTA SOCIOLOGICA Vol. 36 (1993), pgs. 47-62. [10] Edward N. Wolff, TOP HEAVY; A STUDY OF THE INCREASING INEQUALITY OF WEALTH IN AMERICA (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1995). Although this is a study of wealth inequality, chapter 6 deals with income inequality. [11] "Up, down and standing still," THE ECONOMIST February 24, 1996, pgs. 30, 33. Descriptor terms: u.s.; uk; poverty and health; income and health; wealth and health; inequality; longevity; morbidity statistics; race and health; african americans; la; nh; ut; ms; chicago; medical policy; equity; environmental justice; black report; whitehall studies; brazil; guatemala; ################################################################ NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################ From chriscd@jhu.edu Fri Feb 20 11:51:45 1998 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:53:45 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: COCTA Session] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:50:11 +0100 From: isa@sis.ucm.es (International Sociological Association) Subject: COCTA Session Apparently-to: chriscd@jhu.edu To: chriscd@jhu.edu Reply-to: isa@sis.ucm.es To: Members of the International Sociological Association ISA XIV World Congress of Sociology, July 26 - August 1, 1998 Montreal, Quebec, Canada ANNOUNCEMENT AND INVITATION The ISA Research Committee on Conceptual and Terminological Analysis (RC35) will be sponsoring a roundtable on concepts of "globalization" at the forthcoming ISA Congress in Montreal. You are invited to participate by e-mail and in person if you have used this term in your writings, and especially in the title of a paper or book. Increasingly, globalization has penetrated our world and our consciousness. This may not astonish you, but it at least points to the growing importance of global context as a replacement of the state-oriented basis of most thinking in the past - we tend to equate "society," "country," "wherever!" with a state, usually the one we live in. As our world system has become increasingly interdependent at all levels, we need to abandon our state-centrism and learn to think globally, to realize that we are part of a world-system which fundamentally affects our lives - for better or worse - at many levels. However, we are still uncomfortable doing that and our vocabulary is haunted by contradictions, among which the meanings of "globalization" are highly expressive. If you have used "globalization" in the title of a paper or book, please send the title, an abstract, and/or any paragraph in which you discuss the word and its meaning, to Henry Teune at To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: THE MASTER PLAN Tom, This is it - all those questions I wanted to ask but didn't - in the World Systems perspective. I am not sure, or at least the idea of there being no Master Plan as drawn up by humans, or is the Master Plan there is no Master Plan, where the vultures have yet to appear over the horizon. There seems to me four approaches to the problem; only the first will produce answers to the question. 1. Ask the establishment or put the question to authority. 2. Analysis, synthesis and mechanistic techniques that if scientific come up with a model of the system. 3. Historical perspectives. History repeating itself. 4. Speculation, intuition, analogy and folklore. A lot of time is devoted to (3), some argument is made over (2), and (4) is not altogether acceptable. Has anyone tried (1)? If not then should not those of us on wsn start asking authority all the difficult questions? The problem I have is I don't think there is a Master Plan. I say this not because I doubt any real answers will be given by authority, more from the systems perspective - a plan of this kind, so complex, so novel, so effortless in the way it is happening, defies what humans are capable of conceiving. The Mother of all Plans is the human race working as a complex organism. All that the organism lacks is a brain. An organism with the characteristics of a necrophagous parasite, it kills the host, consumes it, then dies. It seems to me the human race has built up partnerships, organisations, where they are stratified in some way according to size and profitability. The strong prey on the weak, the weak either die or are consumed by the larger, and the larger grows and grows. Each of the parts have an agenda, the banks have to make profits to survive, or go under; the TNC's have to make profits to survive, or go under; everyone has to make a profit to survive, or they will go under. Everything is competition above and below the stratum. This is to me a natural process, of organisation, of creating order. As a single organism this has now, at the end of the twentieth century, grown into a MONSTER. >From a historical viewpoint if there was a Plan then I think it would be known. With a World Order in the traditional sense then some leader would have emerged, probably telling us how good things are going to be in the future. Since this hasn't happened I doubt someone working behind the scenes, the desire to become known is much too great, and human nature being what it is, anyone with the facility to get the attention of the World will do so. That is if the intentions are good. Never mind how they will turn out, invariably their plan will go wrong. With a plan taking a lifetime there is no Master Plan. In general the sons of the big businessmen do not perform likewise. If a Plan requires the detailed planning necessary then someone is going to expose it. Alright, perhaps not in the media that are told not to publish, but I think the information would get through. Then again, a Plan might not be believable. The individual could well be considered paranoid. I would say the major players are not acting as a team, to any plan, and THIS IS THE PLAN. What is also historical and a World System to many is their Biblical text. The big message running through the Old Testament is how a community will crash when they make up rules to suit themselves, or rules by a few individuals within the community. The word covert appears often: avaricious, greed for gain, the eager desire to acquire what belongs to another, property, goods, resources etc. Sounds very much like the current system, or the common practice of exchange of goods and services. Nowadays these qualities are sought after if you work for the big organisations; the opposite is no use, for example, simple kindness is taken as a sign of weakness. What might be lost to many is the message that it just takes one person to overcome the massive armies of those who have a Plan. The intuitive sense of the Plan is felt by many in phrases that sum up the feeling, such as 'where will it all end', meaning that it has to end, it cannot continue indefinitely, and 'dog eats dog', meaning that the avaricious are the winners in the present system. Most communities, when social justice is cast aside, often revert to means that undermines and worries the few who by stealth and theft acquire all resource; it is the only means left to them. It is an invention of the community and it is witchcraft. The mechanism is not unlike aircraft and missile defence, where a double image or decoy is created, to cause hesitation in decision by authority. This ensures there is a fifty-fifty chance of a decision that works against authority. Locally the long standing 'witch' is a seer or an augur, the Brahan Seer, or the Seer of Kintail. The way this works is subtle; when the establishment suffer form some mishap it was 'predicted' long ago by the Seer. This is unnerving and unsettling to any authority, particularly when it concerns their wives and children, a common prediction of the Seer. If a poll is taken then a large majority will say it had been predicted, without any reference to the various works on the Seer. There are things to come. . . When there is a crash of any kind, and here we are dealing with the economic (environmental crashes are predicted by science), some 'witch' will have 'predicted' it, or at least take the credit. Thus, the closer we come to a crash so the predictions of 'witches' will increase. Well, makes a change from mechanisms. William Kirk. From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Sat Feb 21 09:30:12 1998 by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 15:47:25 -0800 From: William Kirk To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: CLASS INEQUALITY & DEATH RATES There does appear to be an unmistakable correlation between concentration of wealth and the well-being of a nation. I copied this from the Scientific American in 1990? I think, from an article by Amartya Sen. Again I think he was employed by the World Bank, and he might have had something to do with this organisation giving up on GDP as a measure of well-being. "In England and Wales, the decades of World War I and World War II were characterised by the most significant increase in life expectancy found in any decade this century. War efforts and rationing lead to a more equitable distribution of food and the Government paid more attention to health care - even the National health Service was set up in the 1940's. In fact, these two decades had the slowest growth of Gross Domestic Product per capita: indeed, between 1911 and 1921, growth of GDP was negative. Public effort rather than personal income was the key to increasing life expectancy during those decades". The reference to the Word Bank giving up GDP as a measure follows. Martin Ravallion was a former director of the World Bank. This was mentioned in 1993 by Paul Wallich writing in the Scientific American and his comment, or part of it, is given below. "What measures is the World Bank using? According to Ravallion, development planners are looking at 'what people can actually do and be' - whether they are properly fed, clothed and housed, whether they can read and have access to medical care - rather than how much money the national accounts declare they have. It is perhaps paradoxical that economists are now saying that 'money isn't everything', but the results of their new focus may be instructive" Is this true today? Is GDP one of the issues in the MAI? Does the World Bank say 'money isn't everything'? William Kirk. Original message: Peter Grimes wrote: > > >From Nichols.Nick@epamail.epa.gov Tue Feb 17 14:30:18 1998 > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:09:02 -0500 > From: Nichols.Nick@epamail.epa.gov > To: p34d3611@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu, cfleming@agu.org > Subject: Rachel #584: Major Causes of Ill health > > ---------------------- Forwarded by Nick Nichols/DC/USEPA/US on 02/17/98 > 10:13 AM --------------------------- > > peter@rachel.clark.net > 02/06/98 03:31 AM > > Please respond to peter@rachel.clark.net > > To: rachel-weekly@world.std.com > cc: (bcc: Nick Nichols/DC/USEPA/US) > Subject: Rachel #584: Major Causes of Ill health > > =======================Electronic Edition======================== > . . > . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #584 . > . ---February 5, 1998--- . > . HEADLINES: . > . MAJOR CAUSES OF ILL HEALTH . > . ========== . > . Environmental Research Foundation . > . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . > . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net . > . ========== . > . Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . > . E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP . > . in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . > . ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com . > . and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ . > . Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . > . with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . > ================================================================= > MAJOR CAUSES OF ILL HEALTH > Numerous studies in England and the U.S. have shown consistently > that a person's place in the social order strongly affects health > and longevity.[1] It now seems well-established that poverty and > social rank are the most important factors determining health > --more important even than smoking.[2] > This conclusion has been a long time in the making. A British > study in 1840 observed that "gentlemen" in London lived, on the > average, twice as long as "labourers." Starting in 1911, British > death certificates have been coded for social class based on > occupation. (In the U.S., death certificates are coded for race > or ethnicity without reference to class or occupation.) The > British database of deaths coded by class has allowed many > studies, which have shown consistently that lower social status > is associated with early death. > For example, in 1980, Sir Douglas Black, who was then the > President of the Royal College of Surgeons, published a study > covering the period 1930-1970 in England. The so-called Black > Report concluded that "there are marked inequalities in health > between the social classes in Britain." Specifically, people in > unskilled occupations had a two-and-a-half times greater chance > of dying before retirement than professional people (lawyers and > doctors).[1] > Furthermore, the Black Report showed that the gap in death rates > between rich and poor had widened between 1930 and 1970. In > 1930, unskilled workers were 23% more likely to die prematurely > than professional people, whereas in 1970 they were 61% more > likely than professionals to die prematurely. > Several subsequent studies confirmed the findings of the Black > Report and demonstrated that, even within privileged groups, > those with less status lived shorter lives. In other words, > social rank affects health even among those who are well off. > The so-called Whitehall studies in England examined the health of > 10,000 British government employees (civil servants) over 2 > decades and found a 3-fold difference in death rates between the > highest and lowest employment grades. The Whitehall studies > showed (and later a U.S. study confirmed) that conventional risk > factors such as smoking, obesity, physical activity, blood > pressure and blood-levels of cholesterol could explain only 25% > to 35% of employment-grade differences in mortality.[2] In other > words, social rank was more important a determinant of health > than were all the conventional risk factors. In sum, being lower > in the pecking order makes you sick and shortens your life. > Researchers have examined the opposite hypothesis, that perhaps > health status determines social class --that being sick makes you > poor, instead of the other way around. They have found that this > explains only about 10% of the health disparities between social > ranks.[1] > In the U.S., a study in Chicago during 1928-1932 examined death > certificates in relation to place of residence at time of death. > Chicago was categorized into 5 socioeconomic levels based on > average monthly rental payments. The study showed a fairly > smooth curve: the higher the rent, the lower the death rate for > people of similar ages. > This study was redone in 1973, looking at changes between 1930 > and 1960. There had been "no relative gain" in recent decades > for those paying the lowest rents. So even though the general > standard of living may rise, those lower on the income scale die > at younger ages. > In 1986, researchers at the National Center for Health Statistics > showed that Americans with annual incomes of $9000 or less had a > death rate 3 to 7 times higher (depending on gender and race) > than people with annual incomes of $25,000 or more. Furthermore, > they showed that this situation had worsened between 1960 and > 1986.[1] > In the U.S., within groups of people having similar incomes, > African-Americans have worse (and worsening) health status, > compared to whites, for many diseases including asthma, diabetes, > hypertension (high blood pressure), major infectious diseases, > and several cancers.[3] Among researchers who have studied these > problems, the basis of these health differences is thought to be > racism, not genetics.[1] > As we have reported previously (REHW #497), several studies have > now revealed two important facts about the relationship of wealth > to health: > 1. Between countries, there is no relationship between gross > domestic product (GDP) --a conventional measure of wealth --and > health. In other words, comparing countries at similar levels of > industrialization, it is quite possible for people in poorer > countries to be healthier than people in richer countries. The > absolute level of income does not determine health or longevity. > 2. On the other hand, within individual countries there is a > consistent relationship between health and the size of the gap > separating rich from poor. Countries with the longest life > expectancy at birth are those with the smallest spread of incomes > and the smallest proportion of people living in relative poverty. > Such countries (for example, Sweden) generally have longer life > expectancy than countries that are richer but tolerate larger > inequalities, such as the U.S. > Within the U.S., comparisons between states have come to similar > conclusions: it is not the average level of income in a state > that determines health status --it is the size of the gap between > rich and poor in a state that determines health. > George Kaplan and his colleagues at the University of California > at Berkeley measured inequality in the 50 states as the > percentage of total household income received by the less well > off 50% of households.[4] It ranged from 17% in Louisiana and > Mississippi to 23% in Utah and New Hampshire. In other words, by > this measure, Utah and New Hampshire have the most EQUAL > distribution of income, while Louisiana and Mississippi have the > most UNEQUAL distribution of income. > This measure of income inequality was then compared to the > age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and a pattern > emerged: the more unequal the distribution of income, the greater > the death rate. For example in Louisiana and Mississippi the > age-adjusted death rate is about 960 per 100,000 people, while in > New Hampshire it is about 780 per 100,000 and in Utah it is about > 710 per 100,000 people. Adjusting these results for average > income in each state did not change the picture: in other words, > it is the gap between rich and poor within each state, and not > the average income of each state, that best predicts the death > rate. > Inequality is growing throughout the world, both between > countries and within countries. As of 1996, 89 countries (out of > 174) were worse off, economically, than they had been a decade > previously. In 70 developing countries, incomes are lower now > than they were in the 1960s and 1970s.[5] And the level of > inequality is already astonishing. For example, in 1996, 358 > billionaires controlled assets greater than the combined annual > incomes of countries representing 45 percent of the world's > population (2.5 billion people).[5] Between 1961 and 1991, the > ratio of the income of the richest 20% of the world's population > to the poorest 20% increased from 30-to-1 to 61-to-1.[2] > Within the U.S., inequality is wider than it has been for 50 > years, and it is getting worse. The U.S. now finds itself among > a group of countries, including Brazil and Guatemala, in which > the national per capita income is at least four times as high as > the average income of the poorest 20 percent.[5] In the U.S. > between 1980 and 1990, inequality of income increased in all > states except Alaska.[1] Inequality in the distribution of income > and wealth[6] has been increasing in the U.S. for about 20 > years.[7,8,9,10] In 1977 the wealthiest 5% of Americans captured > 16.8% of the nation's entire income; by 1989 that same 5% was > capturing 18.9%. During the 4-year Clinton presidency the > wealthiest 5% have increased their take of the total to over 21%, > "an unprecedented rate of increase," according to the British > ECONOMIST magazine.[11] > Inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is even > greater than the inequality in income. In 1983, the wealthiest > 5% of Americans owned 56% of all the wealth in the U.S.; by 1989, > the same 5% had increased their share of the pie to 62%.[10,pg.29] > These tremendous inequalities translate directly into sickness > and death for those holding the short end of the stick. > As Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a Boston pediatrician, said recently, > "Tell me someone's race. Tell me their income. And tell me > whether they smoke. The answers to those three questions will > tell me more about their longevity and health status than any > other questions I could possibly ask."[3] > Isn't it time that the public health community --physicians, > public health specialists, and environmentalists --recognized > that poverty, inequality and racism cause sickness and death? > Given what science now tells us, medical policy --including > medical training --should aim to combat and eliminate poverty, > inequality, and racism just as it now aims to combat and > eliminate infectious diseases and cancer.[2] With U.S. health > care costs now exceeding $1 trillion each year, anti-poverty and > anti-racism initiatives would be economically efficient as well > as humane. > --Peter Montague > (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) > =============== > [1] Oliver Fein, "The Influence of Social Class on Health Status: > American and British Research on Health Inequalities," JOURNAL OF > GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE Vol. 10 (October, 1995), pgs. 577-586. > [2] Andrew Haines, Michael McCally, Whitney Addington, Robert S. > Lawrence, Christine Cassel, and Oliver Fein, "Poverty and Health: > The Role of Physicians," ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (in press). > [3] Peter T. Kilborn, "Black Americans Trailing Whites in Health, > Studies Say," NEW YORK TIMES January 26, 1998, pg. A16. > [4] George A. Kaplan and others, "Inequality in income and > mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and > potential pathways," BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol. 312 (April 20, > 1996), pgs. 999-1003. > [5] Barbara Crossette, "U.N. Survey Finds World Rich-Poor Gap > Widening," NEW YORK TIMES July 15, 1996, pg. A3. > [6] Wealth is the net worth of a household, calculated by adding > up the current value of all assets a household owns (bank > accounts, stocks, bonds, life insurance savings, mutual fund > shares, houses, unincorporated businesses, consumer durables such > as cars and major appliances, and the value of pension rights), > then subtracting the value of all liabilities (consumer debt, > mortgage balances, and other outstanding debt). > [7] Sheldon Danziger and others, "How the Rich Have Fared, > 1973-1987," AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Vol. 79 (May, 1989), pgs. > 310-314. > [8] McKinley L. Blackburn and David E. Bloom, "Earnings and > Income Inequality in the United States," POPULATION AND > DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Vol. 13, No. 4 (December, 1987), pgs. 575-609. > [9] Johan Fritzell, "Income Inequality Trends in the 1980s: A > Five-Country Comparison," ACTA SOCIOLOGICA Vol. 36 (1993), pgs. > 47-62. > [10] Edward N. Wolff, TOP HEAVY; A STUDY OF THE INCREASING > INEQUALITY OF WEALTH IN AMERICA (New York: Twentieth Century > Fund, 1995). Although this is a study of wealth inequality, > chapter 6 deals with income inequality. > [11] "Up, down and standing still," THE ECONOMIST February 24, > 1996, pgs. 30, 33. > Descriptor terms: u.s.; uk; poverty and health; income and > health; wealth and health; inequality; longevity; morbidity > statistics; race and health; african americans; la; nh; ut; ms; > chicago; medical policy; equity; environmental justice; black > report; whitehall studies; brazil; guatemala; > ################################################################ > NOTICE > Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic > version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge > even though it costs our organization considerable time and money > to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service > free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution > (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send > your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research > Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do > not send credit card information via E-mail. For further > information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. > by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL. > --Peter Montague, Editor > ################################################################ From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Sat Feb 21 12:47:00 1998 id MAA03494; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:46:47 -0700 (MST) Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:45:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:45:53 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: Metta Spencer , WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK , psn@csf.colorado.edu, "Lev S. Gonick" , jeff sommers , Paulo Frank , Fiona Godfrey <100412.1015@compuserve.com>, sallinge_j@GRUMPY.FORTLEWIS.EDU Subject: ah, the "free press" (fwd) is this for real? agf ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 07:24:21 -0800 From: doug norberg To: Doug Norberg Subject: ah, the "free press" Goebbels would have been proud... DAN RATHER: NOT KNOWN HOW MANY CASUALTIES CBS NEWS hit total embarrassment Friday afternoon when anchor Dan Rather, in full pancake makeup, and Pentagon correspondent David Martin were caught rehearsing coverage of a U.S. bombing run on Iraq -- a rehearsal that was mistakenly beamed to television affiliates via satellite! For 20 minutes, Rather could been seen on the satellite going through the motions of a bombing. According to one viewer who witnessed the spectacle, Rather at one point described how it was not known how many casualties were caused by the bombings. "It felt like WAG THE DOG," a senior news producer at a major-market affiliate told us. "I bet the network is living in fear that someone on the receiving end of the transmission had tape rolling." "It looked like a real broadcast of what was going on," Bill McClure, master control operator at WTAP-TV in Parkersburg, W.Va., an NBC affiliate, told the ASSOCIATED PRESS. The network wanted to test new graphics and theme music that would be used to cover the story, according to CBS NEWS spokeswoman Kerri Weitzberg. No word on testing camera angles that would work best during February sweeps. From agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca Sun Feb 22 12:59:45 1998 Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:58:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:58:28 -0500 (EST) From: Gunder Frank To: Marianne Brun WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK , "Lev S. Gonick" , psn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: URGENT:INVOKE HAGUE ARTICLE 8 AGAINST US&IRAQ (fwd) In-Reply-To: Yes BUT [as quoted in New York Sunday Times Feb 22, 1998, sect WK, p. 17, upper right hand corner] "We are talking about using military force, but we are not talking about war. That is an important distinction" "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future." both are direct quotes from US SECRETARY OF STATE Madelein Albright submitted for the record gunder frank On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Marianne Brun wrote: > Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 11:56:56 +0100 (MET) > From: Marianne Brun > To: Andre Gunder Frank > Subject: URGENT:INVOKE HAGUE ARTICLE 8 AGAINST US&IRAQ (fwd) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 18:48:33 -0500 > From: Carlota&Fern Lopesdasilva <100571.502@compuserve.com> > To: WILPF-news > Subject: URGENT:INVOKE HAGUE ARTICLE 8 AGAINST US&IRAQ > > --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- > > From: Ak Malten, INTERNET:A.Malten@net.HCC.nl > To: INTERNET:amok@amok.antenna.nl > INTERNET:K.Koster@inter.nl.net > INTERNET:epp92@antenna.nl > INTERNET:tom@motherearth.knooppunt.be > INTERNET:paxchristi@antenna.nl > INTERNET:hmathieu@xs4all.be > INTERNET:vredesb@iaehv.nl > INTERNET:krista@motherearth.agoranet.be > INTERNET:serfo@tornado.be > INTERNET:office@motherearth.agoranet.be > INTERNET:forum@vredesaktie.ngonet.be > INTERNET:ccd@xs4all.nl > INTERNET:B.v.d.Sijde@phys.tue.nl > INTERNET:wiseamster@antenna.nl > INTERNET:tni@antenna.nl > INTERNET:rridder@bart.nl > INTERNET:laka@laka.antenna.nl > INTERNET:bries11@mail.euronet.nl > INTERNET:ann.vrede@antenna.nl > INTERNET:jan@jarasoft.xs4all.nl > INTERNET:guido@stopwawe.antenna.nl > INTERNET:straeter@worldonline.nl > INTERNET:omslag@antenna.nl > INTERNET:aktielijst@antenna.nl > 100571,502 > Date: zat, 21 feb 1998, 01:34 > > RE: URGENT:INVOKE HAGUE ARTICLE 8 AGAINST US&IRAQ > > Sender: A.Malten@net.HCC.nl > Received: from altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net (altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net > [193.67.237.6]) > (EST) > Received: from grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net by > altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net > Received: from akm by grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net > id BAA07666 (8.8.4/3.2); Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:33:08 +0100 (MET) > Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980221001104.0076cbc4@pop4.inter.nl.net> > X-Sender: amalten@pop4.inter.nl.net > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:11:04 +0100 > To: aktielijst@antenna.nl, omslag@antenna.nl, straeter@worldonline.nl, > guido@stopwawe.antenna.nl, jan@jarasoft.xs4all.nl, > ann.vrede@antenna.nl, bries11@mail.euronet.nl, > laka@laka.antenna.nl, > rridder@bart.nl, tni@antenna.nl, wiseamster@antenna.nl, > 100571.502@compuserve.com, B.v.d.Sijde@phys.tue.nl, ccd@xs4all.nl, > forum@vredesaktie.ngonet.be, office@motherearth.agoranet.be, > serfo@tornado.be, krista@motherearth.agoranet.be, vredesb@iaehv.nl, > hmathieu@xs4all.be, paxchristi@antenna.nl, > tom@motherearth.knooppunt.be, epp92@antenna.nl, > K.Koster@inter.nl.net, > amok@amok.antenna.nl > From: Ak Malten > Subject: URGENT:INVOKE HAGUE ARTICLE 8 AGAINST US&IRAQ > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Beste Mensen, > > Misschien kunnen jullie met de volgend E-mail iets doen. > > Natuurlijk ben je, zoals Francis A. Boyle al aangeeft, vrij om > dit zo breed mogelijk te verspreiden. > > Sorry, het bericht is in het Engels. > > Met vriendelijke groeten, > > Peace, > or saved by > the pigeon, > > Ak Malten. > ---original message follows--- > >From FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU Fri Feb 20 21:44:37 1998 > Return-Path: > From: "Boyle, Francis" > Subject: URGENT:INVOKE HAGUE ARTICLE 8 AGAINST US&IRAQ > To: "'Abolition Caucus List (E-mail)'" , > "'a-days@motherearth.org'" , > "'peace@prairienet.org'" , > "'msanews@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu'" > , > "'Rich Winkel'" > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:44:03 -0600 > Return-Receipt-To: "Boyle, Francis" > > PLEASE FORWARD! > Dear Friends: > > Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Hague > Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1907. > Article 8 thereof establishes a procedure for "special mediation" with a > mandatory 30-day "cooling-off period" while the mediation goes on. The > text of Article 8 of the 1907 Hague Convention reads as follows: > > Article 8 > > The contracting powers are agreed in recommending the application, when > circumstances allow, of special mediation in the following form: > > In case of a serious difference endangering the peace, the states at > variance choose respectively a power, to whom they intrust the mission > of entering into direct communication with the power chosen on the other > side, with the object of preventing the rupture of pacific relations. > > For the period of this mandate, the term of which, unless otherwise > stipulated, can not exceed thirty days, the states in conflict cease > from all direct communication on the subject of the dispute, which is > regarded as referred exclusively to the mediating powers, who must use > their best efforts to settle it. > > In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations these powers are > charged with the joint task of taking advantage of any opportunity to > restore peace. > > > Your government joined by others could formally and publicly > invoke article 8 of the 1907 Hague Convention against both the United > States and Iraq, and demand a 30-day cooling off period for this special > mediation procedure to take place. Your government could also invoke > the requirement of article 33 (1) of the United Nations Charter > providing that parties to the dispute in the Gulf "shall, first of all, > seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, > arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or > arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." You will > note that U.N. Charter Article 33 would expressly by name require the > pursuit of the "mediation" procedure set forth in Hague Article 8, > including the 30-day cooling off period. In addition, Article 2(3) of > the UN Charter provides that : "All Members shall settle their > international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that > international peace and security , and justice are not endangered." In > regard to these arguments you should also note that all five permanent > members of the UN Security Council are contracting parties to this 1907 > Hague Convention. > To invoke Article 8 of the Hague Convention of 1907, you must > have your Government publicly specify that a serious difference > endangering the peace arising from the threat of war between the United > States and Iraq that will directly affect your country exists . A third > party state willing to serve as a mediator should be designated. > You should formally serve notice of your invocation of Hague > Article 8 to the UN Ambassadors of the United States and Iraq and all > other parties to the Hague Convention, and especially to the Permanent > Members of the Security Council. The United States and Iraq should be > requested to select mediators. > A public announcement of this effort at pacific resolution of > the dispute should be made. A country proceeding to use violence during > the 30-day period bears the onus of ignoring the invocation of the > treaty and its potential for peace. > Austria, Belgium, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Yemen and Zimbabwe are > parties to this Hague Convention with nearly 70 other states. > May God be with you this weekend as you try to convince your > Government to invoke Hague Article 8 against the United States and Iraq. > Francis A. Boyle > Professor of International Law > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, Ill. 61820 > Phone: 217-333-7954 > Fax: 217-244-1478 > fboyle@law.uiuc.edu > > > ============================================================= > The Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance (GANA) -- is a member of > The Abolition 2000 Network, A Global Network to Eliminate > Nuclear Weapons > > Address: c/o Ak Malten > Irisstraat 134 Tel:+31.70.3608905 > 2565TP The Hague Fax:+31.70.3608905 > The Netherlands E-Mail: A.Malten@net.HCC.nl > > GANA's website: > > http://www.inter.nl.net/hcc/A.Malten/welcome.html > > The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, > **including ALL the Separate Opinions of ALL the Judges**, > the Canberra Report, the CTBT Text and Protocol, > the NPT text (*new*) and the 1925 Gas Protocol (*new*), > the Nuremberg Principles (*new*) and > the MODEL Nuclear Weapons Convention can be found at: > > http://www.inter.nl.net/hcc/A.Malten/docs.html > ============================================================= > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Andre Gunder Frank University of Toronto 96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616 Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071 CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu Sun Feb 22 14:11:42 1998 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 16:11:38 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: URGENT:INVOKE HAGUE ARTICLE 8 AGAINST US&IRAQ (fwd) In-Reply-To: On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Gunder Frank wrote [quoting Albright]: > "We [the United States] see further into the future." The United States as oracle. The psychic friends network. Andy From rragland@csir.co.za Sun Feb 22 23:08:31 1998 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:15:13 +0200 From: Richard Ragland To: agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca, wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: The REAL WAR yet to come This Iraq/US stand off business is just international snow ball fights. Get this, the US says they want Iraq to honour UN decisions but says in the same breath "we (the USA) will not honour UN decisions. The Americans fall for that ? The REAL WAR will come when the USA will be attacked by people of conscience from the ground through the Internet. The US Govt will subversively attempt to close down or disturb internet comunications to disrupt ground swells. The only interests the US has is oil ! Fuelled by the Oil Companies. Think about it. This GREAT Technologically advanced nation is not a nation of electronic vehicles in the late 1990's. Amateur futurists like myself could have predicted this scenario in 1960. I think it is time that the world citizens of this planet set the record straight. Be prepared however for disconnection through the Internet ! Rick From MAI-SUX@BigFoot.Com Mon Feb 23 00:18:24 1998 id AAA04364; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:18:18 -0700 (MST) Mon, 23 Feb 1998 02:01:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 02:04:26 -0500 From: CAP *Erie-Lincoln* Reply-To: Constitutional-Money@PoBox.Com To: MAI-SUX@BigFoot.Com Subject: "Wall Street's Imperialism" - a CHRONICLES column (March 1998) NOTE: If you do NOT wish to receive the e-mail editions of our reports, please send us your e-mail address and write REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE. We'll be happy to oblige. Just be sure to specify your EXACT address to which this is being sent. My appologies for any cross-postings resulting from this missive: I have 2 quotes hanging above my computer. The first reads : "A secret's and/or information's importance is directly correlated to the effort to keep it that way." The second came from Chris Carter, creator of the X-files: It is Deep Throat talking to Mulder. Deep Throat asks Mulder : "Why are those like yourself not dissuaded by all of the evidence to the contrary?" Mulder answers: "Because all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Djurdjevic wrote: Thought you may be interested in my inaugural column for the Chicago-based CHRONICLES magazine. CHRONICLES is "A Magazine of American Culture" (its masthead line) published monthly by The Rockford Institute. My Global/Economic Affairs column is supposed to appear 10 to 12 times a year. Best regards, Bob Dj. --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRONICLES A Magazine of American Culture Vol. 22, No. 3, March 1998 WALL STREET'S FINANCIAL TERRORISM By Bob Djurdjevic General Section: VITAL SIGNS; Sub-section: BUSINESS --------------------------------------------------------------- Parallels between the British Empire and the New World Order Empire are striking. It's just that the British crown relied on brute force to achieve its objectives, while the NWO elite mostly use financial terrorism (except for occasional raw power demonstrations, such as in the Gulf War or in Bosnia). The Great Asian Banking Crisis has just accentuated both the similarities and the differences between the two empires. The British Empire was built by colonizing other countries, seizing their natural resources, and shipping them to England to feed the British industrialists' factories. In the wake of the "red coats" invasions, local cultures were often trampled and replaced by a "more progressive" British way of life. The Wall Street-dominated NWO Empire is being built by colonizing other countries with foreign loans or investments. When the fish is firmly on the hook, the NWO financial terrorists pull the plug, leaving the unsuspecting victim high and dry. And begging to be rescued. In comes the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Its bailout recipes - privatization, trade liberalization and other austerity reforms - amount to seizing the target countries' natural and other resources, and turning them over to the NWO elites - just as surely as the British Empire did by using cruder methods. "We cannot help but question the IMF's attitude. The IMF is acting as if it is an economic conqueror," the governing Grand National Party of Korea declared on December 4. Korean newspaper headlines also lamented the country's humiliation over the $57-billion IMF rescue package. "South Korea has virtually lost its economic sovereignty for the next three years," said the Joongang Ilbo. In the wake of the IMF invasions, local cultures are also under assault world over, just as in Queen Victoria's time, being replaced by the "more progressive Western" (read materialistic) way of life. Whether McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Nike or the Hollywood film studios really represent a "progressive" culture is a dubious notion even in the U.S., let alone in East Asia, Russia or elsewhere in the world. Just as is the perception that these multinational companies are "American" - presumably because of their headquarters' U.S. addresses. The truth of the matter is that these "Princes of the 20th Century" honor only one flag - the Almighty $$ Dollar. As a result, the Main Street Americans are among the NWO's exploited victims, just as are their brethren in East Asia or Russia. Such misconceptions aside, there is no question, that McDonald's, Coke, Nike or Hollywood represent the visible symbols of the NWO's neo-colonialism. They are the innocent-looking facades which mask the destructive work of Wall Street's financial terrorists which operate deep in the bowels of national economies. "The financial turmoil in East Asia is a case in point," Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, said on November 24 at the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Community) conference in Vancouver, Canada. "Two decades of growth was wiped out in two weeks... Vibrant economies have been reduced to begging for aid from the IMF." Dr. Mahathir added that the free markets were "a recipe for slavery." True. But during the post-Cold War market globalization and expansion (1990-1996), the Asia/Pacific region attracted about $375 billion in foreign investments, according to UNCTAD, a United Nations agency. That's about 74 cents of every dollar the multinational companies had invested anywhere in the developing world ($505 billion). And it is almost a quarter of all foreign investments made in the world during the same period ($1.6 trillion - including the developed countries). The rate of growth of the Asia/Pacific investments was also the highest in the world - 29 percent compounded annually during the 1990s, almost double that for the world as a whole (16 percent compounded annually). And then the bubble burst in the fall of 1997, and the recriminations followed. "Power corrupts," Dr. Mahathir lamented in Vancouver. "As much as government can become corrupt when invested with absolute power, markets can also become corrupt when equally absolutely powerful. We are seeing the effect of that absolute power today - the impoverishment and misery of millions of people and their eventual slavery." Also true. But too late for East Asia. And for Dr. Mahathir, whose country is supposed to host the next APEC conference. Because GREED and quest for POWER of the East Asian leaders has already enslaved them. "Dr. Mahathir, et. al." should have thought about that BEFORE taking the NWO bait (money). Now that they are a penny short and a day late, remorse won't save them from the NWO/IMF brutal collection methods, anymore than pleading for mercy would work with Mafia debt enforcers. Witness the quick buckling under of Indonesia, Thailand and Korea, for example, and even of Japan. The once powerful and petulant "Asian Tigers" are all turning into obedient pets, wagging their tails fast and furiously to please the NWO masters. But "one man's loss is another man's gain," they say. The enormous flight of capital from East Asia, about $1.3 trillion between mid-August and late-November (the aggregate reduction in total capitalization of the 11 East Asian stock exchanges), has landed mostly on the U.S. and European shores. This positive cashflow (from the Euro-American perspective) has temporarily helped stabilize the Western stockmarkets after the October 27 crash. Also, Bill Clinton, that unabashed champion of the Wall Street elite's causes, was all smiles at the Vancouver summit. He reveled in the triumph which APEC's endorsement of the IMF represented. Clinton even confidently predicted that he would eventually overcome his recent setback when he and Newt Gingrich failed in their efforts to cajole, bribe or muscle the majority of the House into approving the "fast track" trade bill. But the victory which Clinton delivered to his Wall Street and Big Business backers at the APEC summit was a loss for America's Main Street, including the small U.S. entrepreneurs - by far the most vibrant and productive element of the U.S. economy. They created 21 million American jobs in the 1980s, while the FORTUNE 500 companies downsized to the tune of three million people, according to a Wall Street Journal report. For their efforts, these American Main Street eager-beavers are about to be hit again by our NWO-controlled government - to help fund the Wall Street elite's Asian bailouts. Lest we forget, the IMF is a Western GOVERNMENT-supported "bank" in which the U.S. taxpayer is by far the largest guarantor. When Clinton, Gingrich, and other U.S. globalist politicians tell us that the IMF solution is the way to solve the current Asian banking crisis, they forget to mention that about 40 cents of every IMF bailout dollar comes out of the U.S. taxpayer's pockets. Just like they forgot in the Mexican bailout in early 1995. Thanks to their control of the U.S. media, the NWO elite and their fair-haired boy - Bill Clinton - are still able to claim credit for the recent strength of the U.S. economy, while helping themselves to the pockets of the true American Main Street entrepreneurs - by using PUBLIC funds to bail out PRIVATE interests in FOREIGN countries. Out ELECTED politicians get to make the calls about things like using taxpayers' money for private rescue missions. The NWO's APPOINTED proxies in the Clinton cabinet do. Case in point: On October 30, U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (a former Wall Street tycoon), reportedly called the top Treasury and White House officials to tell them that he had agreed to contribute $3 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money to the IMF bailout of Indonesian banks. Get this - the Treasury Secretary told the President what sort of a deal HE had cut with his Wall Street banking pals! This kind of sums up who is really running this country and for whose benefit. And these Wall Street and Washington hyenas will help themselves to a few more tens of billions of dollars before the Great Asian Bailout is over. The money needed to resuscitate other Asian countries could amount to more than $100 billion, double the Mexican rescue of 1995, according to a Business Week report last November. The potential price tag involves not only the $40 billion commitment to Indonesia, but an additional $23 billion to Thailand and the Philippines. Financial markets are now betting that Korea, where debt-choked companies have also triggered a banking crisis, and the government is running low on foreign reserves, will need as much as $40 billion to clean up its mess. Six of the top 30 corporations in Korea have filed for bankruptcy this year alone. If all of the bad loans were written off, the entire equity of Seoul's commercial banks would disappear. But not just of Korean banks. The Japanese banks are also on the hook to the "Asian tigers" for some $263 billion; the European banks for about $155 billion, while the American banks have lent them some $55 billion. But the biggest troubles may be brewing in Japan and China, the largest Asian markets. Japan is in line for "a truly world class banking crisis," a world authority on international finance predicted in an interview with the Australian Financial Times. Dr. Morris Goldstein, the former deputy head of research for the International Monetary Fund, now with the Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, said that "systemic risk" is the highest in Japan. Subsequent failures of Hokkaido Takushoku Bank, of the 100-year old Yamaichi Securities, of and of Tokuy Bank bore out the validity of Dr. Goldstein's forecast. In late November, Moody's also downgraded the credit ratings of Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Nippon Credit Bank, Mitsui Trust, Yasuda Trust and Chuo Trust. A Jardine Fleming report suggested that the non-performing loans held by all Japanese banks could account for almost 23 percent of Japan's gross domestic product - a level surpassing even Thailand's failures (13 percent). The notorious US savings and loan crisis was insignificant by comparison. The cost to the public sector of solving that crisis was "only" around 3 percent of the GDP. Jardine Fleming estimates that the ultimate cost to the Japanese government will be 11 percent of the GDP or about $500 billion. No question that would be "a truly world class crisis." Then there's China, that darling of the NWO globalist elite. During the 1990s, China attracted $158 billion of foreign investments, more than any other country in the world except for the U.S., according to UNCTAD, a United Nations agency Japan, by contrast, got only about $8 billion during the same period. During the 1990s, foreign capital spending in China had grown at a compound annual rate of 52 percent - more than three times faster than the average world increase of 16 percent per year. And the pace of investment in China had been accelerating. In 1996 alone, China received over $42 billion in foreign investments. That's about one-third of all investments made in the developing countries last year. And no wonder. The master bailer had helped set the bait for the victims of its future bailouts. In September 1996, the IMF predicted that Asia would lead the world in 1997 with an 8 percent GDP growth. Now that a financial tsunami has hit Asia, and as analysts and economists scramble to lower their Asia forecasts, investors' enthusiasm is starting to ebb even in China. Foreign investments contracted by about 35 percent in the first 10 months of 1997, in part because China's top banks have about $90 billion in problem loans. Despite nearly two decades of economic reform, the Chinese state still owns about 30 percent of the economy, employs two-thirds of the urban work force, and accounts for more than 50 percent of industrial assets, according to an October report by the Sunday Telegraph of London. There are more than 300,000 state enterprises in China, and at least half are in debt. To an economist, these behemoths cry out for sweeping reform, the Telegraph concluded. Read - PRIVATIZATION, downsizing and layoffs, the IMF specialty. The country is wallowing in excess manufacturing capacity, and real estate in Shanghai and Beijing has been over-built. A British visitor who has recently returned from a trip to China wrote to me on Nov. 6 that a member of the Shanghai Real Estate Board enthusiastically proclaimed: "Shanghai property is hot." To which the Briton replied: "No, Shanghai property is empty." The newly built malls and commercial buildings which she had visited "were all eerily empty." Why? Because the foreign investors had talked themselves into spending hundreds of billions of dollars against the grossly inflated Asian economic growth projections. And because the greedy local chieftains had talked themselves into believing that they can buy economic prosperity with borrowed money. Now that the bubble has burst in Asia, both bankers and politicians are talking containment. Which is why Clinton agreed at the APEC summit in Vancouver to hold a global conference on the banking crisis. Meanwhile, while the financial elite debate how best to protect themselves by using public funds, much more than jobs and real estate are at stake in China and its neighbors in East Asia. When factories falter so do cheap or free education, medical care, housing, and the broader sense of community that is part of urban life. In Tianjin, for example, an industrial city an hour's drive from Beijing, some families have been plunged into poverty almost overnight after being laid off, the Telegraph reported. All this has led the London Telegraph to conclude that "China edges to the brink of a social breakdown" as tens of millions of Chinese workers face unemployment or even starvation. We always hear about these communist victims, but the same fate awaits the tens of millions of workers in Korea, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia... They will bear brunt of The Great Asian Banking Crisis, not the NWO bankers and politicians who caused it. Stories about such a human impact of NWO's financial terrorism have been woefully absent from the front pages of the world's newspapers. The recent stories about Asia also do not discuss the role of the big Japanese investors who, with the ailing banks, owned $291 billion of U.S. Treasury bills as of last July, or (8.5 percent of bills outstanding). That's up from 5.4 percent or $176 billion as of December 1994. In other words, in today's intricately interwoven global financial system, it is virtually impossible that a failure of the Japanese banking system would not affect other countries, including the U.S. We've already seen how a stockmarket crisis which began in Hong Kong soon spread like a wildfire around the globe. Even if the fire seems to be temporarily under control now, thanks in part to the Asian crisis (flight of capital), we are evidently not out of the woods yet. Maybe that's why the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Rubin, warned his Japanese counterpart in a private letter, disclosed by the New York Times on November 13, that the Japanese "should not be tempted to export their way out of their troubles." Which is kind of like telling a drowning victim to keep gulping water instead of swimming. Rubin is concerned (and rightly so) because one effect of the industrial globalization has been a huge U.S. trade deficit, which stood at $192 billion in 1996. And if current trends continue, America's trade deficit with the rest of the world could expand to $250 billion to $300 billion by early 1999, according to David Hale, a trade economist with Zurich Insurance Group. As of August, the U.S. trade deficit with China ($5.2 billion), for example, was even bigger than that with Japan ($4.5 billion), or that with the entire Western Europe and Canada - combined! ($3.6 billion). In 1997 to-date, our deficit with China is running 30 percent ahead of last year's pace. So Rubin's remark seems to have been driven by a parochial concern - losing market share to low priced imports from Japan or other Asian countries. Yet those are precisely the benefits to consumers which the NWO globalists have hailed during the recent debate on "fast track" trade legislation. "Free trade" advocates evidently have no trouble talking out of both sides of their mouths. Another important conclusion one can draw from Rubin's remark is that, if the Japanese are not allowed by the NWO Empire to export their way out of trouble, then they may have no choice but to dump their huge U.S. T-bills holdings and other U.S. securities so as to feed the Nippon banking beast. And if the Japanese pull out of the U.S., that would hardly be good news for the stockmarket, would it? If you are a Wall Street investor, stand by for a few more roller-coaster rides of the Dow. But if you are a Main Street entrepreneur or worker, brace yourself for a possibility of a global recession. "If it (recession) spreads (from Korea) to Japan, then it goes all over the world," a Korean analyst told the Sydney Morning Herald. What goes around, comes around - especially in globally integrated markets. The U.S. is no exception, just as the British Empire wasn't. The only question is if the social unrest caused by the gouging of the NWO elite may also become a global affair and the ultimate downfall of the NWO. ------------------------- Bob Djurdjevic is a market researcher and consultant who analyzes global economic and geopolitical affairs (http://www.djurdjevic.com). He is also the founder of Truth in Media, a non-profit organization (http://www.beograd.com/truth). ------------------------- ---- Bob Djurdjevic TRUTH IN MEDIA Phoenix, Arizona e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth From dws@scs.howard.edu Mon Feb 23 08:09:12 1998 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:12:14 -0400 From: David Schwartzman To: wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Subject: Re: CLASS INEQUALITY & DEATH RATES I thought your quote regarding England and Wales might be from Sen's powerful article in Scientific American, The Economics of Life and Death, May 1993, but I couldn't find it there. The latter article is highly recommended. It points out for example that African American men above the age of 40 in Harlem, N.Y.C. have lower survival rates than men from Bangladesh. Also see Sen's Population: Delusion and Reality (New York Review of Books, Sept. 22, 1994). From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Feb 23 14:24:30 1998 Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:22:15 GMT Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:22:15 GMT To: cyberjournal@cpsr.org, cyber-rights@cpsr.org From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: cj#781> *ALERT* Internet Vulnerability * COUNTERMEASURES * Phil Agre , activ-l , wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) >From: rkmoore@iol.ie >To: cyberjournal, cyber-rights, CuDigest, activ-l, wsn >Cc: Phil Agre / RRE Dear netizens, Are you fully aware of how extremely fragile and vulnerable are Internet infrastructures such as this list? Did you know that any Internet server (eg, "@sun.soci.niu.edu" or "@cpsr.org" or "@weber.ucsd.edu") can be taken off the air at any time with no warning by a "mailbomb" attack? ...that your personal email address and web site can be incapacitated in the same way? ...and that there is no effective way to prevent such an attack nor to defend against it? Did you know such an attack can be conveniently mounted by any sizable group of people who have an ideological axe to grind, or by a smaller group with only minimal software support (to automatically generate thousands of pseudo messages)? ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ ~-=-=-=-=-=-=~THE DANGER IS REAL~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ A successful attack of this kind was carried out last Summer against IGC (Insitute for Global Communications), and IGC was promptly forced to close down a Basque-related web site that a Spanish citizens' group had deemed to be objectionable. Phil Agre (RRE news service) published the first announcemnt of the event that came to my attention: ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ | Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT) | From: Maureen Mason | Subject: IGC censored by mailbombers | | Hi Phil, | | [...] | | We host a site (http://www.igc.org/ehj) for a US group supporting Basque | independence in Spain and France, and have gotten protest letters over the | past 4 months saying that the site "suppports terrorism" because a section | of it contains material on ETA, an armed group somewhat like the IRA in | Northern Ireland, at http://www.igc.org/ehj/html/eta.html (the rest of the | site includes material on human rights, politics, other Basque | independence groups and hyperlinks to site with opposing views). | | But now the protest--fueled by ETA's kidnapping and killing of a | Spanish politician this month--has turned into a serious | "mailbombing" campaign against that is threatening to bring our | servers to a halt. We are also getting hundreds of legitimate | protest messages, which we can handle. What is damaging us is | thousands of anonymous hits to our mail servers from hundreds of | different mail relays, with bogus return addresses; there's not | much we can do about these short of blocking access from hundreds | of mail servers as new sources of mailbombings appear. | | Our other email users (we have 13,000 members) are having their | mail tied up or can't reach it, and our support lines are tied | up with people who can't access their mail. | -=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=- | ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Shortly after this posting, IGC (a "progressive" non-profit service-provider) submitted to the demands of the attack and took down the Basque-independence site. The mailbombing then ceased. The attack was not only successful, but it was very selective (a surgical strike on IGC) - there was no general disruption of the net, minimal collateral opposition was generated, and media and officaldom simply ignored the episode (as far as I know). If it had been an attack on some corporate-operated server, and it had disrupted financial transactions, one could well imagine headlines about "net terrorism" and perhaps prompt legislation to "crack down" on "excessive" net freedoms. (Notice how we lose either way if such attacks become more prevelant.) ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ -=-=-=-=-=-=~WHY YOU SHOULD BE CONCERENED~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Is this something we need to be concerned with? I suggest that it is; I will explain why; and I will recommend some simple counter measures - cheap "fire insurance" if you will - that should be promptly implemented by anyone who wants to retain some ability to "stay in touch" in the event of determined mailbombing campaigns (or net-attacks of any description). Fast forward to "-=~COUNTER MEASURES~=-" if you're already sufficietly "conerned" and want to skip to the chase. The means by which serious, but selective, net disruption could be brought about should be clear at this point... here's a fully plausible scenario: -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- Imagine that a group of the Christian-Coalition genre were to make an issue of the fact that many "liberal" servers and web-sites on the net support discusson of abortion, gay liberation, revolution, pornography, and socialism. We've seen how even murder (of abortion doctors) has been a result of fundamentalist fervor - is there any reason to assume that a mail-bomb attack on "liberal God-denying net servers" would be considered "out of bounds" as a tactic to "stop the anti-christ" and slow the further erosion of "family values"? -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- Substitute your own scenario if you prefer, but I hope it's clear that only _intention_ stands between us and the loss of our networking. If some activist group - on their own or via encouragement and support of "others" - takes it in their head to bring an end to widespread progressive networking, they can do it. And if legal remedies are attempted, it is difficult to imagine anything effective coming out of Washington (or the UK or Germany or etc) that wouldn't do us more harm than good. My first recommendation (:>) is to knock on wood and say "God willing" each time you dial in to the net. So the means and the danger are clear, and have been established by precedent. The remaining question is: Do we have any reason to expect that such an attack will in fact be mounted? Here is one person's view, received this morning over the wsn list: ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ | Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 | From: | To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK | Subject: The REAL WAR yet to come | | This Iraq/US stand off business is just international snow ball | fights. | | Get this, the US says they want Iraq to honour UN decisions but | says in the same breath "we (the USA) will not honour UN | decisions. The Americans fall for that ? | | The REAL WAR will come when the USA will be attacked by | people of conscience from the ground through the Internet. The | US Govt will subversively attempt to close down or disturb internet | comunications to disrupt ground swells. The only interests the US | has is oil ! Fuelled by the Oil Companies. Think about it. This | GREAT Technologically advanced nation is not a nation of | electronic vehicles in the late 1990's. Amateur futurists like myself | could have predicted this scenario in 1960. I think it is time that | the world citizens of this planet set the record straight. | | Be prepared however for disconnection through the Internet ! | ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ The Oil Theory re/ Iraq is a bit simplistic, but the Effective Progressive Activism Scenario is one to take very seriously. There hasn't been a "real" protest movement during the Internet era, not one within an order-of-magnitude of, say, the sixties movements. If such a movement were to arise, if it were to create political discomfort for those in power, and if the net were being used effectively for coordination and news distribution (eg, worldwide distribution of videos of 'blacked out' protest events) - then it would not be at all surprising if counter-measures were undertaken. In such an event, various governments might simply close down servers, under some kind of conspiracy or riot-act charges. Or a "spontaneous" attack of the variety described above could be covertly encouraged and supported. The choice would be "theirs", and the tactics could be selected on the basis of PR-effect & political expediency. And the targets wouldn't just be extremist groups, they'd be the whole progressive communications infrastructure. At least that's what would make obvious Machivellian sense in such a scenario: nip problems in the bud, as it were. As the US persists in its determination to deploy new weapons systems against Iraq, and as global opposition grows and generalizes to the sanctions as well, we could be on the very verge of a political movement significant enough to show up on Washington's early-warning radar. If the net is doing its part in such a movement - as many of us are endeavoring to encourage - we should not be surprised by a bud-nipping reactionary response, in some adequately disguised or rhetorically justified form. If not Iraq, then the MAI And National Sovereignty, or Disgust With Corporate Political Domination, or, if we get our act together, All Of The Above. Corporate globalization has had easy sailing for too long, and has made too many enemies - an energetic opposition movement is only a spark-in-dry-grass away, by the estimate of this observer. You may think Internet is Unsinkable, but even the Titanic had _some_ lifeboats; I suggest we don't steam unprepared into uncertain waters. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ -=-=-=-=-=-=~COUNTER MEASURES~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ What countermeasures are available to us? The goal of countermeasures, I suggest, should be to facilitate communication-by-other means among people and groups who have come to depend on Internet in their political and educational activity. Obviously alternative communication means would be less effective than the net, but in time of emergency _some_ connectivity will be preferable to total isolation (ie: dependence on mass media for information). My recommendation is to identify who your "key net contacts" are - people whose presence you take for granted in your net communications, people you are collaborating with, people who provide you with important information, people who are likely to be in touch with others in an emergency situation. The next step is to contact those people NOW - while you still can conveniently - and exchange with them your phone numbers, fax numbers, and postal addresses. You might even go so far as to make preliminary arrangements for "phone-tree" or "photocopy-tree" protocols for distributing information, but most of us probably won't get around to that, life being what it is. The important thing is to have the necessary data on hand well in advance of need. If serious net disruption does occur, for whatever reason, it is critically important to observe certain common-sense protocols in the use of phone and fax numbers. Effective anarchic communications require a certain finesse and forethought. For example, if you're a member of somone's email list (eg, cyberjournal) you SHOULD NOT send faxes to the moderator such as: "Please tell me what's going on, I'm curious". That would jam up communications, and would lead people to disconnect their fax machines. Only contact "information source" people if you have important information that needs to be shared, or if you want to volunteer to be an "echo node" - to redistribute information to others. Other than that you should use your fax bandwidth to build up a "peer" network and then try to connect as a group with wider neworking efforts. Much of our technology would continue to serve us: we could still use our email software (Eudora or whatever) to create and manage our messages, but we'd fax them to lists of recipients or we'd print them - for posting on physical bulletin boards and kiosks or for copying and distributing. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ -=-=-=-=-=-=~A REQUEST~=-=- re: NOW -=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ I hereby invite those of you with whom I reguarly correspond, or who would like to be on an emergency information-distribution network, to please send me whatever contact details you'd like to make available. Don't expect accompanying comments to be read, but please indicate your informational needs and your willingness to assist in communications support in the event of emergency. The information will simply be filed away (and backed up at trusted international sites) for the time being. I will do my best to see that this information is used only in emergency, and that any "unsubscribe" requests, so to speak, would be prompty honored. My own emergency contact information is below. Phone and fax will be made available on a TBD basis. ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by: Richard K. Moore | PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland rkmoore@iol.ie | www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal * Non-commercial republication encouraged - with this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ From chriscd@jhu.edu Wed Feb 25 07:34:47 1998 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:43:45 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: ISA Presidential Letter no.8] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:29:37 +0100 From: isa@sis.ucm.es (International Sociological Association) Subject: ISA Presidential Letter no.8 Apparently-to: chriscd@jhu.edu To: chriscd@jhu.edu Reply-to: isa@sis.ucm.es To: Members of the International Sociological Association Presidential Letter No. 8 Sociology and Useful Knowledge by Immanuel Wallerstein Robert Lynd asked us fifty years ago, "Knowledge for What?" Max Weber adjured us, about a century ago, to strive to create value-free (wertfrei) knowledge. The implications of the two exhortations seem to be opposite. The intent of the two authors may have been less totally opposite than it may seem, or that many have claimed. Max Weber was writing in a context in which one of his major concerns was the appropriation and utilization of social science knowledge by German nationalists to pursue particular political objectives. One implication of calling for value-free knowledge was to insist on the necessity of scholars to disentangle themselves from the social pressures of powerful forces within their country which were pushing them to conduct their work and engage their writings in particular directions. Robert Lynd was writing in a context in which he believed that many social scientists, under the cover of value-neutral research, were pursuing agendas and describing the world in ways that were in reality dictated by the powerful of their countries, seeking to reinforce the status quo. By posing the question, "knowledge for what?", he intended to persuade social scientists to reflect on the uses made of their knowledge, the biases inherent in their premises, and the alternatives available to them. Finally, we are all conscious of the many ways in which those who finance education and research (first of all governments, but also private foundations and corporations) channel our teaching and our scholarly work by creating priorities and/or insisting on education and research is practical, that is, applicable to activities in the world of work and legislation, as this "practicality" is defined by the funding agency. We are also conscious of the parallel insistence of social movements that the world of social science reflect their concerns and their priorities, and that our work be useful to them, as they define usefulness. It is obvious that we are in the midst of a cauldron which is incessantly boiling, and that there is no simple egress from this cauldron, no simple solution to our dilemmas. There have been two classic responses of individual scholars. Some have opted for open commitment (to whatever side of the political spectrum), and have defended this commitment as one required by their social values. Others have claimed to withdraw from the combat and sought to pursue a path that they said was exclusively "scientific," without fear or favor to political combatants, and also without any immediate concern about the uses to which others might put the findings they made and published. Today, increasingly, there are many who find themselves very uncomfortable with either of these classic responses. They believe that, on the one hand, their role is not to be the mouthpieces of the ever-evolving political agendas of either the powerful of the world or the social movements in opposition to the powerful. But they also doubt that it is really possible to withdraw from the fray and stand above it, that there can be any truly value-free knowledge, that knowledge is always for something, or at least is always used for something, and that this something is in the end something political (that is, something about which there is conflict in the world outside the world of knowledge). This dilemma is not unconnected with another dilemma, much in discussion today - what we mean by "truth." Is there an objective reality out there that can (ultimately) be known, if only we use the appropriate methods and put in the necessary (cumulative) effort? Or is all so-called truth merely a mask for some ideological position which has defined in advance what it will permit to be called truth? And in this case, is not everyone the author of his/her own truth, equally valid with that defined by everyone else? In which case, is there anything we can call science, or social science, or even scholarship? Here again, we have had a classic conflict between the "universalist/positivists" and the "relativist/social constructionists," a conflict which seems to be more acute today than before. And yet, despite the acuteness and the loudness of this debate, I have the sense that the majority of social scientists in the world today do not wish to have the question defined for them as an either/or choice. This group recognizes the social bases and social origins of truth claims, but also recognizes the solipsistic implications of a total relativism. They are searching for a path that will allow them to incorporate what William McNeill has called "mythistory," what others talk about as the centrality of metaphors, in ways that will enable to emerge with knowledge that they can consider useful (in Lynd's sense) yet unsubordinated to the passing claims of ideologues (Weber's concern). Is this possible? Is there socially-located truth that is useful, and has at the same time some basis of credibility beyond the assertions of the author? That is, can there be truth that is collectively validated and controlled but beyond the imperative claims of the current participants in the immediate political battles? And if so, how may we arrive at it? ------------------------------------------------------------- From dgrammen@prairienet.org Wed Feb 25 10:38:36 1998 Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:38:31 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:38:31 -0600 (CST) From: Dennis Grammenos Subject: COLOMBIA: Reports of More Massacres in Antioquia and Cesar To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:19:13 -0600 From: Dennis Grammenos Subject: COLOMBIA: Reports of More Massacres in Antioquia and Cesar ************************************************************************ * COLOMBIA SUPPORT NETWORK: To subscribe to CSN-L send request to * * listserv@postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu SUB CSN-L Firstname Lastname * * (Direct questions or comments about CSN-L to csncu@prairienet.org) * * VISIT THE COLOMBIA SUPPORT NETWORK WEBSITE AT http://www.igc.org/csn * * For more info contact CSN at P.O. Box 1505, Madison WI 53701 * * (608) 257-8753 fax: 608 2556621 csn@igc.apc.org * ************************************************************************ The following is a report of more massacres in Colombia conducted by paramilitaries. Please excuse any rough spots in the translation. Solidarity, Dennis Grammenos Urbana, Illinois _____________________________________ RCN -- RADIO CADENA NACIONAL -- COLOMBIA Wednesday, 25 February 1998 _____________________________________ http://www.rcn.com.co/general.htm#001 _______________________________________________________________________ Paramilitaries assassinate 14 people in Antioquia and Cesar ----------------------------------------------------------- At least 14 people were assassinated by paramilitaries who invaded three localities of the departments of Antioquia and Cesar, police sources reported. Six of the victims were assassinated by the United Self-defense of Colombia (AUC) in the municipality of La Ceja, in the department of Antioquia, while other eight suffered a similar fate in two settlements in Cesar. At dawn yesterday, a group of heavily armed and hooded men appeared in the location La Loma, jurisdiction of La Ceja. They proceded to remove several inhabitants --whose names were on a list-- from their houses, and after they had tied the victims to posts, they shot them dead. The authorities learned of the fact because farmers from La Loma, who had fled from the paramilitaries, trekked to the hamlet of La Ceja, where made the denunciation and requested protection. The farmers gave accounts of six victims who had been killed, the majority women, but they indicated that they could more because the shootings continued even after they had fled from that location. In the other incidents, in the municipality of Gamarra in the department of Caesar, the Self-defense Farmers of Cordova and Uraba (ACCU) assassinated a woman whom, as in the previous case, they had forcefully removed from her house; following the same procedure, they killed another other seven people in the settlement of Codazzi. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From MAI-SUX@BigFoot.Com Wed Feb 25 16:57:30 1998 Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:39:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:42:25 -0500 From: CAP *Erie-Lincoln* Reply-To: Constitutional-Money@PoBox.Com To: Constitutional-Money@PoBox.Com Subject: Canadian petition opposing Canada's role in Iraq crisis Canadian petition opposing Canada's role in Iraq crisis "But liberty, when men act in GROUPS, is POWER." -- Edmund Burke For those of you who are interested, email me and I will forward to you the text of SC Resolution 687. As you will see if and when you read it, it does not authorize any state to use force against Iraq for any reason. The United States and Britain are currently engaged in the illegal threat and use of force against Iraq in violation of Article 2(3), Article 2(4) and Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, inter alia. And the UN Secretary General has just publicly given his purported imprimatur to their illegal threat and use of force. In the meantime, if you would like to sign an online petition protesting Canada's role in supporting what the U.S. is doing in the Iraqi crisis, click on the following URL: Petition: http://w-3productions.com/cgi-bin/miva?/petition/petition.hts Body of the petition is as follows: We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Prime Minister of Canada to withdraw allCanadian military forces from the Gulf and to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisisrather than a military one. We call on the Government of Canada to condemn the actions of the United StatesGovernment in its self-assigned role as "World's Policeman" and to develop anindependent foreign policy in keeping with Canada's historical role as a peacemaker not awarmonger. Further we call on the Government of Canada to work for the removal of those sanctionsagainst Iraq that have resulted in so much misery, suffering and death of innocent Iraqi citizens. From Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk Thu Feb 26 05:24:27 1998 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:25:13 +0000 From: "M.A.&N.G. Jones" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Immanuel Wallerstein's "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit" I have just been reading "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit". This was by Immanuel Wallerstein's Keynote address at PEWS XXI, "The Global Environment and the World-System," Univ. of California, Santa Cruz, Apr.3-5. 1997. Wallerstein began the address by saying attitudes to eco-doom range from complacent to panic-stricken, with most people in the middle, where he puts himself: "the degree of seriousness of the contemporary problem ranges from those who consider doomsday as imminent to those who consider that the problem is one well within the possibility of an early technical solution. I believe the majority of persons hold a position somewhere in-between." In fact, no-one can sit in the middle between ennui and hysteria. It is either one thing or the other. Wallerstein is actually a catastrophist, because he thinks the collapse of world-capitalism is both inevitable and imminent. Not bad for president of the International Sociological Association (I think that's right) and well-funded Gulbenkian fellow. Interestingly, tho', his version of doom is not actually ECO-catastrophist after all. It's economic, Marxian at that: he speaks of 'deruralisation' as capitalism's main problem, ie, the world's peasantry has become proletarianised, and this lack of new simple-minded draftees from the countryside puts upward pressure on the wage, squeezing profits and leaving nothing over to finance the ecological clean-up necessary if capitalism is to survive. This is Marxism in its purest form: the creation of a proletariat is capitalism's historic task. It is a notion I agree with. Then capitalism will founder, unable to satisfy rising expectations, because it cannot raise productivity enough and will not redistribute wealth enough (thus the Final Crisis becomes objectively a crisis of the ruling class itself, of its displacement thru a coup etc). So Wallerstein is a Marxist-Leninist Gulbenkian fellow, then? Not exactly. It's when you come to policy that Wallerstein loses the plot. And this is why those of us who doggedly cling to Leninist models of political organisation and to revolutionary perspectives, are more credible than the professors. On Wallerstein's reading, 1917 was a century too soon, and that BTW is mostly what Lenin himself thought as far as I can see, and that explains its shortcomings and its ultimate fate. Only when capitalism has exhausted the historical space available to it will its doom become unavoidable, as Wallerstein says it now us. Capitalism is backing into a historical impasse, torn between the inexorably rising environmental costs of growth, and the unassuagable and incessantly-growing expectations of the huge masses of humanity now living under its wing. (This also explains capitalism's popularity according to Wallerstien, and implicitly the unpopularity of socialism, with its savour of the barracks, the soup kitchen and levelling-down executed under dreary and watchful bureaucratic eyes). I want to make a reservation here about Catastrophism: I am not a Castastrophist! It's obvious enough to anyone who reads me attentively, not that I blame those of you who don't. I have a strong belief in capitalism's resilience. Corpocrats live in the same world we do, and not for nothing does the Gulbenkian pay Wallerstein's wages. I just read a report about how Dow, IBM, GM, Hoechst and other big players are investing hugely into 'green' technologies and it's not just a matter of cleaning up their act: they are very seriously thinking about what 'sustainable' capitalism means. They want to hang onto their privileges and don't like the sound of historical impasses, bifurcations, nodal points, disequilibria etc. They are not facing a wall of impotence either. Shell are spending big money on forestry, biomass fuels, photovoltaics and a Shell lobbyist is proposing to the British government that all new homes must be built with solar panels enough to provide 10% of their own electricity - which strikes at the heart of several other Shell core businesses, showing as clearly as possible that Shell is serious about such issues as global warming. As usual with sociologists and people on the soi-disant left, Wallerstein is long on big thoughts and declarations, and short on substantiating empirical detail, which in many cases actually does not back him up or is less supportive of the catastrophist view than you might think. There is one other way that capitalism can survive ALL social pressures, apart from cleaning up its act, and that is by removing society. This option can be less extreme than it sounds, and in any case dead men tell no tales. Our world is built on the fragments of ruined societies, unrecognised and unmourned. Gunder Frank does not want to call it Capitalism any more. Let's call it Exterminism, then, as Edward Thompson did. The easiest way is to kill people and genocide can be silent. According to Russian government figures, between 1990-95 3,000,000 Russian men aged between 23-40 died. This demographic catastrophe, almost unique in peacetime history, means that the shortage of eligible mean may reduce the Russian population by almost half in the next forty years, to around 90m. I was in Moscow when it all fell apart, and no-one there really noticed because of the floods of cheap EU (mostly French) vodka (made of apples a lot of it) which came in fleets of tankers and sold for a dollar a bottle. That's how we did them in, same we we stole America from the First Nations, so it's not a new trick. Such demographic disasters can and will be repeated whenever chunks of the world system go into collapse. It can happen in China, India, Africa. Capitalism meanwhile can be expected to roll triumphantly on, with Wall Street singing hosannas and tolling its bells. So Wallerstein is too fatalistic by half. No-one really knows what will happen. My guess, and it's barely more than that despite having spent MUCH time reading, in the past 18 months, is this: yes, world-capitalism is in a scissors, caught between rising population, energy-shortage and environmental default. You know what I think about oil. It won't run out for a while, and production is rising strongly right now. The Norwegians think they've discovered a new supergiant N Sea oilfield. But the indicators are set this way: there is way too little oil to satisfy the burgeoning requirements of the Third World developers. And there is no subsitute for oil, the irreplaceable commodity on which urban industrial life depends. But oil is a slow-motion, chronic problem, not a catastrophe. Unless real catastrophes occur (CATASTROPHE: great and usu. sudden disaster: OED) like thermonuclear war or runaway global warming, then the 'bifurcation' Wallerstein speaks of will be indefinitely postponed. Capitalism is by nature unstable, and never more than at present, and I think the emperor has few clothes behind the hurrah-triumphalism. But short of some cusp-event, it will stagger on. And on. Nevertheless, as time goes by, the probability of such events presumably increases. And this is where Wallerstein fails to live up to his promise (or where he DOES live up to the promise he made to the Gulbenkian...). Because if he really believes some such debacle is inevitable, then his rallying cry isn't worth a hill of beans is it? > It is here and now that > we must raise the banner of substantive rationality, around which we must > rally. > Yes, that was always the banner I wanted to serve, that old 'substantive rationality' one: "So comrades, come rally, to sub-STANT-ive ration-ali-TEE." > To be substantively rational is to make choices that > will provide an optimal mix. But what does optimal mean? In part, we could > define it by using the old slogan of Jeremy Bentham, the greatest good for > the greatest number. The problem is that this slogan, while it puts us on > the right track (the outcome), has many loose strings... > Poor ole J Bentham, whose bones are kept in a closet. Dem bones, dem bones. Someone from Cambridge has had the bright idea of taking the bones (metaphorically) to St Petersburg where a big seminar on morality and utilitarianism will be held for the benefit of the Natives, next month. Never underestimate the enemy. Mark Jones From chriscd@jhu.edu Thu Feb 26 09:08:45 1998 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:36:44 -0500 From: christopher chase-dunn Subject: [Fwd: ISA Special Session] To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Reply-to: chriscd@jhu.edu Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 18:29:48 +0100 From: isa@sis.ucm.es (International Sociological Association) Subject: ISA Special Session Apparently-to: chriscd@jhu.edu To: chriscd@jhu.edu Reply-to: isa@sis.ucm.es To: Members of the International Sociological Association ISA XIV World Congress of Sociology, July 26 - August 1, 1998 Montreal, Quebec, Canada Come All! Hear All the Buzz Words! See All the Experts (physically, and not virtually) New Technologies and Sociology, All in One Session! Don't Miss the ISA World Congress Special Session! NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, DOCUMENTATION, PUBLISHING AND TEACHING by Karl M. van Meter LASMAS-CNRS, 59 rue Pouchet, 75017 Paris, France; tel/fax 33-1-40518519, bms@ext.jussieu.fr; web http://www.ccr.jussieu/bms Presentation of this Special Session of the ISA World Congress of Sociology with representatives from the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and France. These persons have been instrumental in setting up some of the first professional sociological web sites, electronic journals ("Sociological Research Online", "Solaris", "Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique"), and extensive sociological research resources (the Dutch Social Research Methodology Documentation Centre, the British Question Bank, the German Social Science Information Center, the Canadian "Wired Suburb" Project, the French BMS-RC33 Listserv). From J.HENDERSON@fs2.mbs.ac.uk Thu Feb 26 09:24:29 1998 by curlew.cs.man.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.81 #4) From: "JEFF HENDERSON" To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:22:45 GMT Subject: East Asian Crisis Paper Dear All, DECIPHERING THE EAST ASIAN CRISIS by Jeffrey Henderson, Noriko Hama, Bernie Eccleston and Grahame Thompson Available on the web at: http://www.mbs.ac.uk/faculty/Research/Crisis.html This paper is an edited transcript of a discussion which was recorded at the BBC in mid-December. In spite of (or because of) this, it's one of the more interesting attempts to comprehend the crisis and its significance, currently available. The authors are all based in Britain. Jeffrey Henderson is in the Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. His books include, States and Development in the Asian-Pacific Rim (Sage, 1992) and Industrial Transformation in Eastern Europe in the Light of the East Asian Experience (Macmillan, 1998). Noriko Hama is at the Mitsubishi Research Institute in London, and Bernie Eccleston and Grahame Thompson are at the Open University. Grahame Thompson's books include, Globalisation in Question (Polity Press, 1996) and Economic Dynamism in the Asia-Pacific (Routledge, 1998). Comments on the paper are most welcome. They can be forwarded by the wsn or ipe networks, or directly to two of the authors for onward transmission to the others: J.henderson@fs2.mbs.ac.uk G.F.thompson@open.ac.uk With best wishes, Jeffrey Henderson Professor of International Economic Sociology Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, England. J.henderson@fs2.mbs.ac.uk 44-(0)-161-275-6470 (tel.) 44-(0)-161-275-6598 (fax) From dassbach@mtu.edu Thu Feb 26 12:07:04 1998 From: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" To: "WSN" Subject: Re: Immanuel Wallerstein's "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:16:16 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: M.A.&N.G. Jones To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 7:28 AM Subject: Immanuel Wallerstein's "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit" >I have just been reading "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: >No Exit". >This was by Immanuel Wallerstein's Keynote address at PEWS XXI, "The >Global Environment and the World-System," Univ. of California, Santa >Cruz, Apr.3-5. 1997. ----- snip ---- Actually, IW has been predicting the end of the system for some time now. As I recall, the first limit was simply physical - the problem of "broadening" (as I think it was called), namely, the world-system would simply run out of new areas to incorporate. Later, the "deepening" of capitalism - that is, the commodification of more and more areas of life (the colonization of new life spheres) in the core countries, the proletarainization of new groups and commodification of more realtions in the periphery and semi-periphery - were seen as the solution to that impasse. But, IW has, as far as I know, always maintained the inevitable demise of capitalism on what can be called "logico"-historical grounds: . capitalism, is a historical system and, as such, is finite, it has a beginning in time and must also have an end. The mechanism of the end however has always been somewhat problematic. Now, it seems we have a new mechanism - eco-catastrophe on top of the rise in wages in peripheral areas. I also don't buy either and agree with Mark Jones on the first one - capitalism (and capitalists) are tricky - they are not just going to sit by and watch the world-wide eco-collpase. Instead, they are going to invest, and make profits selling, new green technologies. Regarding the upward pressure on wages in the periphery - I think it will be a very long time before that happens. There are huge numbers of non-proletarianized individuals in peripheral areas which can be brought into the work force and exert a downward pressure on wages. On the other hand, the devaluations in many Easten countries are also exerting a considerable downward pressure on wages. BTW, I didn't know that Shell was lobbying to have PV (photovoltaic) panels put on new homes in Britain. I have always advocated personal PV as a solution. People should invest $5K to put a set of panels on their house and sell the power back to the company at the same rate the compnay sells it to them. $5K is nothing today in terms of an investment in real property (or even toys such as snowmobiles or boats) and the payback has, in many areas dropped to less than 8 years. After that, you are ahead of the game. The nice thing about PV is that they produce the most electrcity when demand tends to be the highest - hot days. Lots of people don't want to call it Capitalism any more - Daniel Bell thought becuase of the rise of the middle class, we should call it "industrial society" (and like Galbraith and many other talked about the convergence between industrial societies, regardless of who owns the means of production). Names are unimportant what is important what matters is that the existing society, whatever its calle, is a class society) where a minority own or control the means of production and appropriate the majority of surplus. How this surplus is generated - whether offerrings to priets, agricutral products given as rent, surplus labor/value extracted in the industrial process, or forms of surplus extraction which still need to be identified and specificed - is immaterial. What matters is that the class structure must be eliminated and not, as in the fomer Communist countries, recreated on an new basis. Mark Jones appears to ridicule IW observation that "we must raise the banner of substantive rationality" but what does he propose as an alternative? As far as I am concerned, IW is saying is that we must educate people, must make people think, make them aware of their common and collective interests (instead of letting them labor under the mytsification of individualism that is so pervasive in American society) and have humanity move, collectively and consciously, towards a future which offers benefits to all who inhabit the planet and not just a small elite. After all, isn't a fundamental tenet of all humanistic political and social philosophies (and Marx in particualr) that mankind is capable of formulating rational (not as logical but as "discurvely redeemable') goals for social life and the means to achieve these goals. Carl Dassbach .. From Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk Thu Feb 26 18:09:45 1998 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:36:12 +0000 From: "M.A.&N.G. Jones" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Immanuel Wallerstein's "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit" Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote: > $5K is nothing today But $1 a day is the UN's official poverty line BELOW which live around a billion people (actually it's not clear to me how you establish the presence of that kind of income; I mean, do you go up to crossing-sweepers or homeless urchins, clipboard in hand: 'I say, I'm from UNESCO, I wonder if you could tell me your net income in dollar terms?') What I think will happen is that there will be catastrophes and they will take a political form, ie, their 'substantive' content will be veiled; and the political form will exactly be a demand, more or less politely expressed, by those same 3 or 4 billion unwashed denizens of the barrios, for a SHARE; and I look forward to seeing the expressions on our faces when that day comes. I hope said proles remember that 'as someone said' (as IW likes to say, when he actually means Karl Marx), 'political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'. Mark From rkmoore@iol.ie Thu Feb 26 23:22:25 1998 Fri, 27 Feb 1998 06:21:56 GMT Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 06:21:56 GMT To: cyberjournal@cpsr.org, activ-l , wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: cj#784> Iraq: Fiction, Truth, and Response -=-=-=-=-=-=~What It's All About~=-=-=-=-=-=- The dynamics of the Iraqi situation are extremely complex. There are many levels of real and fake agendas, and many layers of deception. It is very difficult to unravel who is doing what to whom and why. One must start, I suggest, with the outermost skins of the onion - the most obvious lies - and gradually peel away layers until one finds what's left at the center. When we get to the core, we will find that China is more central to the Desert Storm series than is Saddam. The easiest layer to strip off and discard is the notion that the US is motivated by a desire to support a regime of international law and justice by enforcing UN resolutions. The US has an ongoing policy of ignoring Israel's violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions, and members of the Security Council are in strong opposition to US policy. With the new Clinton Doctrine - an explicit declaration that the US will invade whomever it desires whenever it chooses - it is clearly the US that is the international pariah, the flouter of international law, the irresponsible wielder of weapons of mass destruction. The absurdity of US hypocrisy in this regard has become so extreme that nearly the whole world is able to see the absence of the Emperor's New Clothes, to appreciate the criminal nature of the US-sponsored New World Order. The next layer that can be peeled away is the notion that Clinton's domestic scandals are the prime motivator - an attempt to bolster Clinton's public-opinion ratings. He is simply not that strong politically. His public power base is fragile, his inflence over Congress is negligible, and it is absurd to imagine that he could dictate policy to his senior military advisors on a major geopolitical issue like Iraq. He is in fact laughably weak - he is reguarly kicked around by the media, his appointments have been rejected by Congress on trivial grounds, and all of his major "liberal" legislative packages (health care et al) have been defeated. US policy on Iraq must be considered a _deep_ policy, not one based on superficial party politics. The next layer to go in the dustbin is the idea that Iraq is perceived by the US to be a particularly evil or threatening power, and that "the rules" must therefore be ignored in suppressing him. Iraq is very weak militarily, in the aftermath of Desert Storm and the sanctions, and Saddam is no more evil many other dictators the US actively supports. The greatest evil going on in the world today may well be in East Timor, and from the beginning the US has supported that massive genocide and suppressed news coverage of it. The US is in fact the world's greatest supporter of dictators, oppression, and genocide, and one must certainly look elswhere than moral outrage for an explanation of US policy. Another layer that can go is the theory that Oil Real-Politik is the core issue for the US. Certainly the US regularly engages in war in order to maintain control over global petroleum, and oil considerations are involved in US policy in Bosnia, East Timor, Iraq, and many other places. But the US goal with respect to Iraqi oil - namely to keep it off the market so world prices won't drop further - is already being accomplished without an invasion. There are only two layers of the onion which survive scrutiny - precisely two important US/globalist objectives which would be accomplished by the Iraqi invasion. The first is the testing of the latest US weapons systems, and the second is the further establishment of a globalist Elite Strike Force as the paradigm of international order - ie. the further establishement of the New World Order and the termination of the principle of national territorial sovereignty. As I've argued in previous postings, such a New World Order regime is simply the military dimension of globalization. As global economic and social sovereignty is being transferred to fat-cat elite institutions - in the form of GATT, NAFTA, the WTO, and the IMF - there will obviously need to be a means of enforcing the implementation of gobalist polices which is also under elite control. To some extent the NWO has already been established: in Bosnia and Albania we saw interventions which the world did not perceive as invasions, but interpreted rather as reasonable policing actions. In Iraq, the US is simply "pushing the envelope" on this neo-interventionist globalist policy. It has been nearly a decade since Desert Storm, and the weapons tested there are now outdated. I'm attaching below an article by Eric Margolis which outlines in detail the various new weapons systems and their test scenarios. But why does the US feel such an urgent need to upgrade its hi-tech arsenal? It is already leagues ahead of any challengers to its military hegemony. **--> THE ANSWER IS CHINA <--** Neither fat-cat globalism nor traditional "American interests" wish to permit a strong nationalistic China to attain Asian military hegemony. And such hegemony is both the policy which China has signalled and the policy which it is obviously pursuing with its rapid and intense buildup of strategic military forces. The US hi-tech arsenal provides a means to defeat China (or credibly threaten the defeat of China) without resort to full-scale nuclear war. And to be credible, the arsenal must be both tested and demonstrated. When all the layers have been peeled away, it is the US/globalist's China policy which is behind the Desert War Games, and it is to intimidate China that the show is being put on. Just as it was America's Soviet containment intentions that were beind earlier hi-tech weapons tests in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was to intimidate the USSR that the tests were carried out on populated targets. Iraq and its population are expendable pawns, just as were thousands of Japanese civilians in 1945. -=-=-=-=-=-=~Revolutionary Potential~=-=-=-=-=-=- The massive global opposition to US Iraqi policy is very interesting, and could potentially develop into a significant counter-force to globalization and the NWO. This opposition is occuring at all levels - it involves citizen activist groups, civil disobedience, labor groups, and entire nations (France, China, et al). Continued US intransigence and flouting of international opinion - though disastrous for the helpless and innocent Iraqi civilians - may be the factor that pushes global consciousness over the edge: beyond mere outrage at genocide, and on to genuine revolutionary consciousness. As outrage meets intransigence, conscousness expands and becomes radicalized. This was the pattern in the sixties' civil-rights and anti-war movements, and it has been the pattern in every revolutionary movement, including the American, French, and Russian Revolutions. Opposition to the bombing expands into opposition to the sanctions. Opposition to US Iraqi policy expands into opposition to high-handed US actions generally, and the issue of national sovereignty is beginning to be on the lips of more and more people. "Sovereignty consciouness" is also being fed by IMF policies in Korea and by the growing international movement against the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments). All these developments taken together seem to be creating a critical mass of anti-globalist, pro-national-sovereignty sentiment. I suggest that that the iron is now hot, and that this is an auspious time for revolutionary ativists to strike. More precisely one should say COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES, for globlization is in fact already a revolution-in-progress - an elite sponsored revolution - which is advertised as something else in the elite-controlled mass media. The current tactics of counter-revolutionaries should be to connect the dots in the public mind, to draw the connections between the IMF, the MAI, the WTO, deteriorating Western societies, and the neo-interventionist NWO regime. In solidarity, rkm ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~Forwarded under Fair Use~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=~ Date: Feb. 23, 1998 From: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com To: foreignc@foreigncorrespondent.com Subject: ForeignCorrespondent Sender: owner-foreignc@foreigncorrespondent.com Foreign Correspondent Inside Track On World News By International Syndicated Columnist & Broadcaster Eric Margolis ,,ggddY"""Ybbgg,, ,agd888b,_ "Y8, ___`""Ybga, ,gdP""88888888baa,.""8b "888g, ,dP" ]888888888P' "Y `888Yb, ,dP" ,88888888P" db, "8P""Yb, ,8" ,888888888b, d8888a "8, ,8' d88888888888,88P"' a, `8, ,8' 88888888888888PP" "" `8, d' I88888888888P" `b 8 `8"88P""Y8P' 8 8 Y 8[ _ " 8 8 "Y8d8b "Y a 8 8 `""8d, __ 8 Y, `"8bd888b, ,P `8, ,d8888888baaa ,8' `8, 888888888888' ,8' `8a "8888888888I a8' `Yba `Y8888888P' adP' "Yba `888888P' adY" `"Yba, d8888P" ,adP"' `"Y8baa, ,d888P,ad8P"' ``""YYba8888P""'' SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL by Eric Margolis 23 Feb 1998 NEW YORK - Secretary General Kofi Annan's eleventh-hour mission to Baghdad may have averted war between the US and Iraq. As of this writing the situation remains fluid. Should the Baghdad talks fail, the likliest start date for Gulf War II would be the dark moon phase next Wednesday or Thursday. Should the US-British attack come later, it must end well before millions of Muslims begin the annual pilgrimage to Mecca in the third week of March. The anticipated air campaign against Iraq, a nation of 22 million, will be like shooting fish in a barrel. Iraq, in spite of wildly exaggerated claims about the threat it poses, has very little military capability. Seven years of crushing sanctions have left its armed forces in shambles. Iraqi air and ground forces are at 45% operational capability due to serious shortages of arms, spare parts and munitions. Out of Iraq's 350,000-man army, only 6 Republican Guard divisions - about 72,000 troops - are considered combat effective. Iraq has 2,700 tanks, but 2,000 are obsolete T-54/55/62's. The army has only 700 modern T-72's, of which 400-500 are operational. During Gulf War I, their shells bounced off the thick armor of US M1 tanks. The Iraqi Army still retains a powerful artillery arm of 1,800 guns. Half of Iraq's air force is grounded by lack of spares, leaving about 150 mainly obsolescent fighters and attack aircraft airworthy. Deprived of an integrated air combat system and attendant radars, Iraq's air force will be totally destroyed, unless it flees to Iran, in the first two days of fighting. US AWACS radar planes, flying over the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, will vector US F-15E's and F-16's to attack the Iraqi warplanes on the ground the moment they light up their engines. The few that get airborne will be shot down in short order. The American attack will begin with strikes by hundreds of cruise missiles against Iraqi air defense installations, air bases, communication hubs, command headquarters and power plants. Iraq's anti-aircraft missiles and guns will be blinded or destroyed. The new generation of cruise missiles, guided by the GPS satellite system, is far more accurate than the one used in the first Gulf War. Simultaneously, the US will unleash the most secret of its new weapons, information warfare. US military hackers will enter Iraqi computer networks, which control air defenses and military communications, and either wreck them by inserting viruses, or fill them with false information. American UAV drones will spoof Iraqi radars and intercept communications, including previously secure microwave transmissions. US special ops ground units will tap into Iraqi fibre optic land lines, sending out fake orders to air and army units. Specialized Tomahawk missiles will short out Iraqi electronic grids with metallic wires, and spray clouds of minute carbon fibres that coat electronic equipment and antennas, rendering them useless. Microwave generators will be used for the first time to burn out Iraqi electronics. Iraq will become a giant test bed for America's 21st Century high tech electronic warfare. Once Iraq's feeble air defense are eliminated by missiles and F-117 Stealth fighters - and possibly B-2 Stealth bomber attacks - US Air Force and Navy planes will attack 90 key sites in Iraq. These will include all military and security force headquarters, barracks, power and transportation systems, military depots, bridges, dams and oil distribution facilities. Prime targets will be, of course, Saddam Hussein, and Iraq's hidden stores of chemical/biological warfare agents. US satellites and electronic intelligence systems constantly hunt the Iraqi leader. New bombs have been rushed into service, capable of penetrating up to 18 feet of reinforced concrete, designed to attack Saddam and the Iraqi leadership in their deep, underground bunkers. Suspected storage sites of VX-series nerve agents, mustard gas, and biological agents will come under sustained attack. If released, these agents could cause enormous civilian casualties. The mainstay of Saddam's regime, Iraq's Republican Guards and the 100,000-man security forces, will be precision and carpet-bombed by US strike aircraft, B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers. Extensive use will be made of new generation wide-area cluster bombs, and enormously powerful fuel air explosives, "mini-nukes" that produce devastating overpressures on dug-in troops and equipment. Iraq's 500 helicopters will be another key target, since Saddam used them after the Gulf War to crush internal rebellion by Kurds and Shias who make up half of Iraq's population. CIA may attempt to mount another Kurdish uprising. The two main Kurdish groups can field 25,000 fighters and 40,000 tribesmen - provided they stop fighting one another and march on Baghdad. However, the CIA's last attempt in 1996 to turn the Kurds against Saddam was a bloody fiasco. Some 4,000 air sorties are planned, spanning at least 4-5 days, or possibly spread, after bombing assessments, over two weeks. Unlike Gulf War I, US aircraft will not be able to operate from Saudi Arabia. Flying from distant air bases, Kuwait, Oman, and off aircraft carriers, the effectiveness of US air power will be more limited this time, but still deadly. Iraq is largely open terrain: ground targets will again be sitting ducks. In the Mideast, air power is everything: without air cover, war becomes a sustained massacre, as Gulf I so vividly showed. Iraq's ability to retaliate is extremely limited. US intelligence estimates Iraq may have a few Scud missiles left. Of Iraq's original 819 Scuds, all but two have been destroyed or fired. Iraq may have hidden five chemical warheads for Scuds, and Scud components that could be assembled into 3-5 missiles. The Iraqis might fire one or two Scuds at Israel - which Iraq blames for pressuring the Clinton Administration into the new war- but probably not with chemical or biological warheads. Israel and the US have made plain they will retaliate with nuclear or chemical weapons if attacked by Iraqi chemical/bio agents. Iraq might launch a few air suicide missions against US forces, or shoot off some car bombs in Kuwait, but beyond that Baghdad has little retaliatory capability. Unless, of course, an enraged Saddam initiates a Gulf Gottedammerung by releasing deadly anthrax into southerly winds. This is unlikely, but not impossible. A US-British attack on Iraq will spark enormous outrage across the Muslim World. Retaliation by various free-lance terrorist groups against American installations and citizens abroad is likely. A few terrorist attacks on the US and even Canada are possible. The impending attack on Iraq is seen by many Mideasterners as modern colonial warfare by the US and Britain against a nasty but helpless nation. A small number of American or British pilots may die. Many thousands of Iraqis, civilians and soldiers, will certainly perish. Iraq will again be "de-industrialized," i.e. bombed back into the Stone Age. But Iraq will still retain its 22,000 military technicians and the ability to rebuild its weapons program within five years. An assault on Iraq will be a useful, if enormously expensive, testing ground for the US military, but will bring no glory on America's armed forces. It will be a high-tech massacre, akin to Imperial Britain's slaughter, a century ago, of the spear-armed Dervish army at Omdurman, or America's brutal Indian Wars - certainly not a battle in the heroic tradition of Midway, Guadalcanal and the Chosen Reservoir. copyright eric margolis 1998 -=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=- To receive Foreign Correspondent via email send a note to majordomo@foreigncorrespondent.com with the message in the body: subscribe foreignc To get off the list, send to the same address but write: unsubscribe foreignc WWW: www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com FAX: (416) 960-4803 Smail: Eric Margolis c/o Editorial Department The Toronto Sun 333 King St. East Toronto Ontario Canada M5A 3X5 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by: Richard K. Moore | PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland rkmoore@iol.ie | www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal * Non-commercial republication encouraged - with this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're subscribed): To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- unsub cyberjournal To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there From p34d3611@jhu.edu Fri Feb 27 02:15:41 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:15:27 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Grimes Subject: Ecology, Catastrophe, Capitalism To: WSN Friends; I'd like to add a few brief points to the questions around global capitalism and global catastrophe. 1. I agree with both Mark & Carl that capitalism is a SOCIAL RELATION of class exploitation, and could well survive a major demographic contraction. Nevertheless, such a contraction could certainly qualify as a "catastrophe." Hence one can believe both in the survival of some form of capitalism AND a global collapse of contemporary civilization. 2. The supply of fossil fuels may yet last a while longer, thereby prolonging agricultural collapse (such fuels can be replaced as sources for electricity and transport, but NOT as sources for fertilizers, pesticides, etc). However, the prolonged, delayed, and extremely powerful forces of global warming as diverted into thermal circulation via the oceans have already been set in motion, with unpredictable results. Once unleashed, these forces now are largely outside of our control, and no amount of green technology can undo what has already been set in motion. Those of us that oppose capitalism should be wary of falling prey to the same arrogant ideology of human omnipotence that enticed capital to lead us down this path to begin with. --Peter Grimes From dassbach@mtu.edu Fri Feb 27 06:43:50 1998 From: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" To: "WSN" Subject: Re: Immanuel Wallerstein's "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit" Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:53:01 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: M.A.&N.G. Jones To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Immanuel Wallerstein's "Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit" >What I think will happen is that there will be catastrophes and they will take a >political form, ie, their 'substantive' content will be veiled; and the >political form will exactly be a demand, more or less politely expressed, by >those same 3 or 4 billion unwashed denizens of the barrios, for a SHARE; and I >look forward to seeing the expressions on our faces when that day comes. I hope >said proles remember that 'as someone said' (as IW likes to say, when he >actually means Karl Marx), 'political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'. The quote, btw, is from Mao. Marx lacked the practical revolutionary experience needed to make such an observation. In part, I still see the potential for a classic crisis of overproduction but I also believe that potential is diminishing. Wait, I thought you didn't subscribe to catastrophe theories but a revolution of 3 or 4 billion of the great unwashed certainly sounds like one. This prediction has been around almost as long as Marx's prediction of the final crisis of overproduction but unlike Marx's prediction, where we have seen smaller versions of this crisis, I am hard pressed to see an example of the world poor advancing some COLLECTIVE CLAIM to a greater share of global resources. Carl Dassbach From rkmoore@iol.ie Fri Feb 27 07:10:48 1998 Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:10:39 GMT Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:10:39 GMT To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu (world-system network) From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Ecology, Catastrophe, Capitalism 2/27/98, Peter Grimes wrote: >1. I agree with both Mark & Carl that capitalism is a >SOCIAL RELATION of class exploitation, and could well survive a >major demographic contraction. Nevertheless, such a contraction >could certainly qualify as a "catastrophe." Hence one can >believe both in the survival of some form of capitalism AND a >global collapse of contemporary civilization. I'm going to re-post something I posted on this topic on 2 Feb, because it didn't get much response and the topic has resurfaced. Hope it gets more notice this time around... rkm ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ I challenge this assumption of collapse. There indeed must be a dialectic transformation in the economic system, for the simple fact that eternal growth is not possible. But that does not necessarily mean the global enonomy must collapse in the process of transformation, nor that the successor economy will be determined by popular will or action. My counter-scenario is based, once again, on the petroleum industry microcosm. Here you have the first fully globalized markets, run by the first fully globalized corporations, and you can see what the capitalist endgame has been in this case. There is still competition, but it is entirely sisterly - they aren't trying to drive one another out of business. They collaborate in the global management of production, distribution, and pricing. After the first century or so of rapidly growing markets, expanding territories, and shakeout battles, the industry now operates by a "cash cow" ethos instead of a "growth" ethos. That is more like feudalism than capitalism. Each "sister" has its traditional sources and markets, just like lords had their own estates. The adjustment to a limited-growth environment did not involve collapse, and it has not led to a diminshment of corporate/elite ownership, control, or power. My claim then, is that we must seriously consider the possibility that coporate neo-feudalism, rather than socialism, may be the dialectic successor to capitalism, and that the transtion may not involve revolution. (Other than the revolution of globlization.) I believe, in fact, that the empirical evidence favors the neo-feudalist outcome. I'd be interested in responses to this analysis. ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ From dassbach@mtu.edu Fri Feb 27 07:21:00 1998 From: "Carl H.A. Dassbach" To: "WSN" Subject: Re: Ecology, Catastrophe, Capitalism Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:30:11 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Peter Grimes To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 4:19 AM Subject: Ecology, Catastrophe, Capitalism >Friends; > > I'd like to add a few brief points to the questions around >global capitalism and global catastrophe. > > 2. The supply of fossil fuels may yet last a while longer, >thereby prolonging agricultural collapse (such fuels can be >replaced as sources for electricity and transport, but NOT as >sources for fertilizers, pesticides, etc). Agreed, but agricultural productivity is so high that it might be possible to offset the declines in productivity resulting from the use of less fertilizers and pesticides with more labor. Of course, this might also result in a decline in the standard of living in that society and further contribute to what I see as the growing polarization of post-industrial societies. Concretely, for example, it wouldn't surprise me if our sage local governments decided that welfare recipeients should earn their way as agriculutrual workers. In fact, that could even use children after after school is dismissed. However, the >prolonged, delayed, and extremely powerful forces of global >warming as diverted into thermal circulation via the oceans have >already been set in motion, with unpredictable results. Once >unleashed, these forces now are largely outside of our control, >and no amount of green technology can undo what has already been >set in motion. Here is where I part company - I am not convinced that global warming is the result of the increased emmision of greenhouse gases. I agree it is not a good idea to release these into the atmosphere and everything possible should be done to reduce these emissions but it is, in my mind, too great a leap to attribute recent climatic changes to greenhouse gases. For example, we know of significant shifts in the earth's climate well before industrialization - the coming and going of the Ice ages - and even a major shift as recently as (I think) the 17th c. - the so-called "Little Ice Age." In fact, I just read an article this morning which reported that scientists found a very strong (and surprisingly inverse) correlation between the earth's average temperature and sunspots over the last 400 years - namely, temperature increases with increased sunspot activity (the article is in this week's ECONOMIST). The belief is global warming due to industrial activity is, in my mind, simialr to the belief that increased rates of cancer are due to increased industrial activity. In my opinion, we have neither enough data nor adequate control over all the variables to make these infereneces so they have become "articles of faith." As I said, I think we should reduce the emissions of green house gases and decrease the production of carcinogens (although probably as many occur naturally as have been created). As a final word about eco-catastrophe - I have always said that a society that exploits and destroys human beings - capitalism - has no problem exploiting and destroying nature. Moreover, the fact that the so-called "socialist" countries wreaked even greater havoc on nature was damning evidence that these were not socialist. End the exploitation of human beings and we will have a foundation on which to end the exploitation of nature. Hegel tell us in the Philosophy of History that history is the process of Spirit overcoming its alienation from Nature, through human activity and struggle, and discovering its identity with nature. The end of history is absolute self-knowledge. Marx also spoke of the end of history - as the end of struggle but I think implicit in Marx's end of history was also a residue of Hegel's end of history. The end of history for Marx was not simply the elimination of all classes and class struggle but the realization of humanity, as specieis being, of its identity with nature and the transformation of humanity's relation with nature from one of exploitation to one of harmony. This, in a certain sense, is, if you will, the historical mission of the development of green technologies. Capitalism is not simply the womb of a yet-to-be-relaized better society but it may also be the womb and midwife of a more harmonious relationship between humans and nature. I will be gone for a week and unable to reply to any messages until I return. Carl Dassbach From akwebb@phoenix.princeton.edu Fri Feb 27 12:08:34 1998 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:56:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Adam K. Webb" Reply-To: "Adam K. Webb" To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: misunderstanding the enemy In-Reply-To: On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > My counter-scenario is based, once again, on the petroleum industry > microcosm. Here you have the first fully globalized markets, run by the > first fully globalized corporations, and you can see what the capitalist > endgame has been in this case. > > There is still competition, but it is entirely sisterly - they aren't > trying to drive one another out of business. They collaborate in the > global management of production, distribution, and pricing. After the > first century or so of rapidly growing markets, expanding territories, and > shakeout battles, the industry now operates by a "cash cow" ethos instead > of a "growth" ethos. That is more like feudalism than capitalism. Each > "sister" has its traditional sources and markets, just like lords had their > own estates. > > The adjustment to a limited-growth environment did not involve collapse, > and it has not led to a diminshment of corporate/elite ownership, control, > or power. > > My claim then, is that we must seriously consider the possibility that > coporate neo-feudalism, rather than socialism, may be the dialectic > successor to capitalism, and that the transtion may not involve revolution. > (Other than the revolution of globlization.) I believe, in fact, that > the empirical evidence favors the neo-feudalist outcome. > I wonder why you find it necessary to cast "elite" motives in solely material, profit-oriented terms. I hardly deny that economic factors are of substantial importance in globalisation, but it seems that there is a more fundamental ideational and sociocultural bedrock here as well. Profit is an object of elite addiction only because it concretely manifests and mediates certain moral sensibilities and virtues, which are enshrined in the "thick" value system of the transnational elite and the upper-middle 15% or so that constitutes its breeding ground. What of self-absorbed moral relativism, a desire to eviscerate the public sphere, and the centrality of competitive meritocracy in the self-conception of these strata? You forget, in your enthusiasm for "fat-cat" rhetoric, that the principal managers, apologists, policymakers, etc. of the NWO/McWorld are, by and large, not of megacapitalist personal background. Rather they have risen in an educational system ever more devoid of moral content, imbibing its conventional wisdoms, and lack any sense of self-worth beyond the cutthroat competition that they so desperately wish to see writ large throughout society as a macrocosmic validation of their own perversities. Maybe it discourages some of us to appreciate that the "enemy" is larger than just a handful of "fat cats," and maybe it opens up a discomforting can of worms when I suggest that we delve into the deeply rooted psychology of 90% of the world's educated upper-middle strata. But by failing to confront the real underlying issues head-on we are at risk of misunderstanding 1) the world's most profound cleavages, 2) the potential for historical critique and revolutionary appeals based on those cleavages, and 3) the need to avert system-refining adjustment by an elite that, based on this interpretation of its fundamental identity, conceivably could make major structural concessions while preserving the present ideational framework. Regards, --AKW =============================================================================== Adam K. Webb Department of Politics Princeton University Princeton NJ 08544 USA 609-258-9028 http://www.princeton.edu/~akwebb From p34d3611@jhu.edu Sat Feb 28 03:42:02 1998 by jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 05:41:53 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Grimes Subject: Global Warming To: WSN Friends, I first became aware of global warming in 1974, when I read Paul Colinvaux's _Introduction to Ecology_ in a course on Human Ecology that I took as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan. I have since maintained an active interest in the issue, and became a dedicated student of the literature in 1985. In 1992, I received (along with my colleague Timmons Roberts) a NSF grant to apply world-systems analysis to the question. Hence I feel well qualified to speak on the matter. Natural and dramatic fluctuations in climate are well documented from ice cores, tree rings, and ocean sediment samples going back over 250,000 years. Changes in solar output do indeed accompany sunspots, and such changes are plausible causes for the "little ice age" that Carl mentioned in his post. Further, this long record of data shows that the global climate has jumped (and dipped) as much as 10 degrees (f) in a single decade. These flip-flops appear to have been jumps between different "equilibrium" states that were prompted by alternative shut-downs and restarts of the gulf stream in the Atlantic, which in their turn were triggered by prior & gradually building complex interactions between vegetation and polar ice sheets, which collectively alter the reflectivity of the Earth's surface to solar radiation. Another key factor affecting the reflectivity of the Earth to solar radiation is the composition of the atmosphere. The chemistry of the atmosphere changes its clarity--its ability to bounce solar energy back out into space. While the incoming radiation spans the entire spectrum from UV through to Infra-Red, it is the visible portion that passes most easily through the atmosphere. This visible inflow does not bounce-back unchanged. Instead, it typically gets absorbed by the surface rocks, soil, and plants and changed into heat. Only then does it "bounce- back", but now as heat, or Infra-Red radiation. Here things get interesting. The "clarity" of the atmosphere to heat/Infra-Red radiation is extremely sensitive to the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2. CO2 is OPAQUE to Infra-Red radiation. That is, it absorbs light at those wavelengths, thereby trapping heat. In general & on average, the atmosphere is 60% Nitrogen, 20% CO2, 8% Oxygen, & the rest misc. However, small changes in CO2 translate into large changes in heat retention, a fact noted as long ago as the 1890's, when the scientific plausibility of global warming was first advanced. Over the 200 years 1790-1990, measured levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen 30%, with most of the increase occurring since 1950, precisely matching the global extension of fossil fuel technology throughout the periphery in order to expand markets and increase automation. It is no coincidence that the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1985; glaciers globally have been receding at unprecedented rates, both plants and insects have been documented abandoning traditional locations for cooler environments higher up on mountains and further north, while diseases associated with the tropics have been marching steadily northward (eg Dengue, Malaria). This has been only a cursory skim over the top of the most obvious theory and data. However I hope that this can serve to alert many of you that the science, theory, and empirical support for the reality of human-induced warming is solid, and backed up by a thorough body of serious research. Should anyone wish more information, I would be happy to prepare a lengthy bibliography of sources upon request. --Peace, Peter Grimes From athan.kokkinias@utoronto.ca Sat Feb 28 04:06:55 1998 Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 05:40:27 -0500 To: p34d3611@jhu.edu, WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: "Athanasios (Tom) Kokkinias" Subject: Re: Global Warming In-Reply-To: Peter, If you could post a bibliography of sources I (at least) would be most grateful. Thanks, Tom At 05:41 AM 28/02/98 -0500, Peter Grimes wrote: >Friends, > > I first became aware of global warming in 1974, when I read >Paul Colinvaux's _Introduction to Ecology_ in a course on Human >Ecology that I took as an undergraduate at the University of >Michigan. I have since maintained an active interest in the >issue, and became a dedicated student of the literature in 1985. >In 1992, I received (along with my colleague Timmons Roberts) a >NSF grant to apply world-systems analysis to the question. Hence >I feel well qualified to speak on the matter. > Natural and dramatic fluctuations in climate are well >documented from ice cores, tree rings, and ocean sediment samples >going back over 250,000 years. Changes in solar output do indeed >accompany sunspots, and such changes are plausible causes for the >"little ice age" that Carl mentioned in his post. Further, this >long record of data shows that the global climate has jumped (and >dipped) as much as 10 degrees (f) in a single decade. These >flip-flops appear to have been jumps between different >"equilibrium" states that were prompted by alternative shut-downs >and restarts of the gulf stream in the Atlantic, which in their >turn were triggered by prior & gradually building complex >interactions between vegetation and polar ice sheets, which >collectively alter the reflectivity of the Earth's surface to >solar radiation. > Another key factor affecting the reflectivity of the Earth >to solar radiation is the composition of the atmosphere. The >chemistry of the atmosphere changes its clarity--its ability to >bounce solar energy back out into space. While the incoming >radiation spans the entire spectrum from UV through to Infra-Red, >it is the visible portion that passes most easily through the >atmosphere. This visible inflow does not bounce-back unchanged. >Instead, it typically gets absorbed by the surface rocks, soil, >and plants and changed into heat. Only then does it "bounce- >back", but now as heat, or Infra-Red radiation. Here things get >interesting. The "clarity" of the atmosphere to heat/Infra-Red >radiation is extremely sensitive to the percentage of the >atmosphere that is CO2. CO2 is OPAQUE to Infra-Red radiation. >That is, it absorbs light at those wavelengths, thereby trapping >heat. In general & on average, the atmosphere is 60% Nitrogen, >20% CO2, 8% Oxygen, & the rest misc. However, small changes in >CO2 translate into large changes in heat retention, a fact noted >as long ago as the 1890's, when the scientific plausibility of >global warming was first advanced. > Over the 200 years 1790-1990, measured levels of CO2 in the >atmosphere have risen 30%, with most of the increase occurring >since 1950, precisely matching the global extension of fossil >fuel technology throughout the periphery in order to expand >markets and increase automation. It is no coincidence that the >10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1985; >glaciers globally have been receding at unprecedented rates, both >plants and insects have been documented abandoning traditional >locations for cooler environments higher up on mountains and >further north, while diseases associated with the tropics have >been marching steadily northward (eg Dengue, Malaria). > This has been only a cursory skim over the top of the most >obvious theory and data. However I hope that this can serve to >alert many of you that the science, theory, and empirical support >for the reality of human-induced warming is solid, and backed up >by a thorough body of serious research. Should anyone wish more >information, I would be happy to prepare a lengthy bibliography >of sources upon request. > >--Peace, Peter Grimes > > From Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk Sat Feb 28 06:21:34 1998 Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:21:25 GMT Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:53:52 +0000 From: Mark Jones To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK marxism-international@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re: Global Warming There is an abundance of sources on the Web on climate change. I shall post a selection later today. A good one is Jay Hanson's website: http://www.dieoff.org/page1.htm (he has around 200 pages). A similar debate is going on at Pen-L where the subject of tradable emissions permits is being debated. I am therefore posting this to Pen-L too. I am strongly of the opinion that 'tradable permits' is not just a corporate scam or a way of getting the US off the greenhouse hook by 'selling' its pollution 'rights' to countries like Russia which has now experienced the 'benefits' of becoming a wholly post-industrial society. There is a moral issue: creating markets out of pollution, especially planet-wrecking greenhouse emissions, is intrinsically wrong. I have the same feeling about the 'valuing natural capital' theoreticians. Putting a price on nature is not going to save it. It is just another way of eternising (or anyway, giving another lease of life to) capitalism. It is capitalism that is the problem. There has been a very full debate on the issues, focussing on the hard science, on Marxism-International, and prompted by the presence on the list of Living Marxism supporters. LM are global-warming denialists, fond of quoting the likes of Fred Singer and other eco-nihilists. I very much appreciated Adam Webb's posting 'Misunderstanding the enemy'. World capitalism as a social order is buttressed by large masses of what used to be called the petty-bourgeoisie, and by a metropolitan proletariat which is both cowed and corrupted. These are decisive facts of the era. It is simply useless to suppose that some kind of educative process is going to change these people; it is not. In any case, the education is all in the opposite direction. Large numbers of people in these social groups actually consider themselves to be Greens, but they have no conception of what the issues involved really are, and will go into denial when they do begin to understand. Because it is simply useless to imagine that 'sustainability' is an option. What has happened to Russia must happen throughout the west, ie, industrial capitalism must be destroyed. Perverse as it seems, only major socio-economic collapse can save the planet now. It's that simple. As Peter Grimes properly says, the fate of the planet has very possibly already been decided by changes to the ocean conveyor, which are likely to trigger self-amplifying feedback mechanisms so that even if we don't get runaway warming (which is more possible than many suppose) we are still likely to have wrecked the climate ireversibly in other ways. I shall post more data on these issues, and I thank Peter and Tom for raising it now. When climatologists began to home in on the the fact that global warming will manifest itself chiefly in the form of intensified and more exteme weather events, making it necessary to construct regional as well as global climate models, understanding of the whole issue and the dangers global warming presents moved on a notch. But the downside to this more refined understanding is that it has taken the focus away from the longer-term but more dangerous effects of anthropogenic climate-forcing on the world climate as a whole and the biosphere as a whole. In particular, this localising of focus has enabled the strategists of capital to focus on the possibility of local, partial solutions (now they've tacitly accepted that it will happen). And the greens, who lack a coherent politics, are following in their footsteps. Greenpeace in the UK at least is now firmly in bed with big corporate partners like Shell, BP, Dow, ICI etc. The first truly GLOBAL effect of global warming is not going to show up in the climate, but in the aggravated and multiform crises which are now already deepening the chaos and disarray into which whole regions are sinking. The population of the earth has increased by one billion since 1982, and most of them live in ecologically-vulnerable regions, coastal floodplains and the like. War or revolution? Disease, famine, or militant, disciplined socialism, fought for in the form of peoples' wars and popular risings? Organising the masses and seizing state power in the disintegrating peripheries, or succumbing to US fascism? Those are the issues. The metaphor of the frog boiling is a common one, and it has a social as well as ecological significance. The triumphalism of hurrah- capitalism is tinged with despair. Who now even remembers the optimism surrounding decolonialisation and development of half a century ago? Then the air was full of talk about the Non-aligned movement, development in the ex-colonies and the like. It is hard to recall the atmosphere in the UK of optimism (as well as pain among imperial sentimentalists), that attended decolonisation when almost every week the queen watched the flag come down for the last time over some new corner of empire. Post-independence leaders like Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah had vast and plausible plans for economic progress; they echoed the Bolshevik dreams of economic progress in Russia. Everywhere and without exception those dreams have turned into contemporary nightmares and the life-chances of the multimillioned masses in the peripheries have been destroyed by the rapacity of the metropoles. But the underlying reason is the chronic secular under-production of capital, and its material consequences: the inability to transform its technical basis to overcome the limitations of the original, hydrocarbon, non-renewal industrial model, that plus the grotesque inflation of the reserve army. The geophysiological limitations on this model are what climate-warming is about and they put a final seal on any hope that western living standards are attainable outside the west. They are not, and are only sustained in the west itself by savage and predatory forms of combined and unequal development. Socialism on a world scale cannot bring with it the benefits of industrialism. Depending on the scale of the next century's die-off and the particular legacy left by capitalism, it will be barracks socialism for decades, perhaps longer than a century, until the world population falls to a sustainable level. That's what you get when you eat the seed-corn. Even China is no exception to looming crisis: development is as chimerical as the neon signs over Shanghai, as the next downturn will prove. Industrialisation, affluence, consumer goods, large public health and education programmes: all are fanciful dreams become cruel jokes at the expense of two-thirds of the world's people. Only socialist planning on a global scale, organised through the dictatorship of the proletariat, can provide solutions and then only in the context of a massive and fundamental redistribution of resources, and an irresistible historical tidal wave pushing post-capitalism towards sustainable social systems. That, as I say, seems inconceivable short of major breaches in the world system and the engulfing immiseration of large tracts of the metropolitan working class, in short a calamity worse than either world war. Yet such a calamity is not only likely, it seems inevitable, as Wallerstein says. This is where Julian Simon may not end up the clear winner in his famous bet. Even the most persistent and pernicious deflationary policy, pursued on a world scale without regard for the devastating consequences to peripheries, cannot compensate for impending absolute energy shortages resulting in a permanent militarisation by the US of the Gulf and the Caspian, with almost incalculable internal political consequences in the metropoles and the mid-East, leaving aside the real risk of a general war with China and its Islamic allies. In any event enormous efforts (which are highly likely to be too late, because like it or not the damage is already done) will be needed to restore the radical global environmental disequilibria - for example, attempting to correct the changes in the deep ocean circulation, organising the sequestration of carbon, etc. Perhaps we shall need exotic, heroic measures indicative of last-resort desperation, such as spreading reflective kevlar screens in earth orbit to keep the sun off and help stop the ice-caps melting and the trapped methane hydrates from releasing enough methane to trigger runaway warming -- these are the kinds of things which only a world socialist state can mobilise the resources of a post-national, global human society for. Mark From Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk Sat Feb 28 06:21:46 1998 Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:21:33 GMT Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:20:42 +0000 From: Mark Jones To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Global Warming #2 [following is a response to three questions posed by Living Marxism. The questions are standard denialist stuff, but they deserve an answer:] >>Some simple questions anyone who wants to be taken seriously in >>the discussion of the climate ought to be able to answer: >>1. Abstracting from the supposed effects of CO2 emissions, what was the >>trend in average world temperature levels over the last 500 years? >> >>2. In natural historical terms do CO2 levels lead or follow temperature >>levels? >> >>3. Is it always the case that CO2 levels move in the same direction as >>tmperature levels? james m blaut wrote: > Evaporation from an open water surface varies with > the temperature of the air and with air movement. Now, if the avg. > temperature above the sea surface increases, evaporation will also > increase. And so will precipitation, hence the increased rainfall, storms and higher snowfall over the poles from warm air moving there from the tropics. This is why the climate models show increased intensity of weather events. Increased soil temperatures dramatically increase evaporation rates. Most of the rain falls on the ocean, of course. Freshwater and meltwater from the icecaps lies on the surface of the northern seas and interferes with the thermohaline circulation, the so-called 'heat-conveyor' - which conducts the flow of water right round the planet. It takes a thousand years for the process to complete itself, the flow is very slow, which is why the oceans tend to buffer and mask the climate changes which are going on. It's like pulling a brick away from your face on a piece of elastic, you don't notice anything at first, until you let go of the brick... There is no no doubt that something has gone wrong with the north atlantic thermohaline, which is one of the reasons why no serious researcher pays attention to James Heartfield's list of questions, which are familiar from the propaganda activity of the Global Climate Coalition (a corporate funded entity which does not believe in global warming, a politics learnt from Nero, Marie Antoinette and Tsar Nikolai). In this post I answer Heartfield's questions. > Has anyone done any quantitative research on this matter? Yes, oceans of it. NASA, the NOAA, and leading institutes like Scripps in the US, the UK's Hadley Centre, the University of East Anglia and many other leading centres. > An increase in the world's avg. air temperature will ceertainly > lead to some melting of ice in the Arctic Ocean and on Antarctica. But how> much? The question of questions. Will the tendency to thaw prevail, or will it be over-compensated by increased snowfall, also the result of warming? But the omens are not good. Last year a chunk of the Antarctic ice- shelf the size of the English county of Surrey disappeared. The Larsen "B" shelf recently disintegrated. These are ominous signs. In 1993 the journal Nature reported that Ice stream 'C', one of the Ross ice streams that is part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, has come to a halt, and glaciologists are scrambling to find out why, and what the implications might be. They estimate that the lower, wide part of the ice stream came to a halt 130 years ago and various explanations are advanced as to why. The stoppage could be a random event of the basal topography below ice stream C, or any or all of the ice streams might experience excessive basal water and cease moving. It is even possible that this might happen in response to global warming, potentially counteracting part of the sea level rise due to thermal expansion of the seas. More research since then has confirmed both the existence of counter-tendencies (collapse of the ocean circulation leaves more stagnant, cold water in the Antarctic ocean floor to help sustain the ice shelves) and also tendencies (thinning of the ice-sheets). In Greenland, the rate of calving of icebergs has increased from a handful a year to last year more than a 1,000, a deeply-ominous development since the collapse of the Greenland ice-sheet, which that probably heralds, will have momentous planet-wide consequences. If the ocean-circulation stalls, as some models predict, it will cause a collapse in the ocean eco-systems: the elimination of coral-reefs, the elimination of fisheries, dramatic changes in phtyoplankton production and the all-important algae blooms. One problem is that change is likely to be sudden and stepwise. The last ice age ended about 15,000 years ago and warmer temperatures reined. Then 2,000 years later, the climate chilled again, dropping 7 degrees C in the Younger Dryas. Then it appears that the Earth switched very rapidly, perhaps in as little as three years, to the relatively warm conditions we have today. If the evidence of these swings is accurate, the swings may reflect massive shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. The world's climate has more than one equilibrium state... Warming of the oceans also reduces their ability to trap CO2, and the further sequestering by phytoplankton which actualy one of the main forms of carbon draw-down. So ALL the indicators are set to negative. Some climatologists have taken heart from the idea that increased snowfalls over the poles may stave off warming, and that sulfate aerosols (plumes of microscopic particles rising from the world's industrialised areas) would also stave off warming. Sulfate aersols are coolants. They reflect heat back into space. They have mitigated the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in recent decades, which is one answer to most of James's questions. But sulfate aersols last only a few years; CO2 is forever. So more pollution is not really an answer, as more recent research has conclusively shown. The presence of sulfate aerosols is another brick in your face; all that happens is that warming is masked TODAY, allowing rightwing ideologues to pretend nothing is happening, only to become more catastrophic in the decades ahead. The journal Nature on 2/11/93, Pages: 497-498 reported that since the last ice age, high-latitude land areas have been a sink for carbon dioxide (CO2). New evidence suggests that the Arctic tundra may now have switched from being a sink to being a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. In 1990, an additional 0.19 gigatonnes of carbon were injected into the atmosphere in this way: 'The observed net production of carbon may be the new status quo for high-latitude ecosystems as they respond to greenhouse warming.' The other main thrust of the Three Wise Monkey brigade of know-nothing doubters -- the last redoubt they have, in the face of overwhelming and compelling evidence -- is to say that natural climate changes, both local and short term, and over longer, geological time-spans, swallow up the allegedely 'marginal' or minor effects of anthropogenic climate forcing. Such changes are said to include cosmological factors, volcanoes, and slow changes in atmospheric composition from a variety of factors. The Brunt of Heartfield's list of questions is to drag debate onto this sterile ground. But his questions have been asked before, and thoroughly answered in ways which give no comfort to the extreme rightwing and corporate ideological interests which Heartfield follows. It is true that the earth is swimming in space, and that cosmological effects resulting from the entire solare system's movement through the galaxy, as well as from changes in the earth's orbit around the sun, produce the well-known Milankovitch cycles (Greenfield's 'questions' concern this). Milankovitch was the Serbian astronomer, unrecognised in his lifetime, who first calculated the relationship between cosmological events and changes in the earth's orbit, and the cycles of ice-ages. The orbital parameter theory as proposed by Milankovitch and others suggests that climate changes on Earth, such as glacial and interglacialperiods, may be the result of a delicate balance in insolation. More specifically, since insolation varies more at high latitudes, the changes experienced are a result of net effects at these latitudes. As the theory goes, glacial periods are the result of cooler than average summers and warmer than average winters at high latitudes. Some areas which previously had melted off completely in the summer months now would remain partially covered with snow and ice. Also, the increased wintertime temperatures would give the air a greater capacity to contain more water vapor. This would result in greater frozen precipitation falling which would enhance the ice/snow coverage area. This combined with an increased ice albedo effect would produce a growth of ice. The argument for interglacial periods is just the opposite. But what is the cause for the change in insolation? It is believed that variations in the Earth's eccentricty, precession, and obliquity through time are the culprits of this climate change. In addition to the 40,000- and 23,000-year Milankovitch cycles, theere are now known to be 11,100- and 6100-year cycles previously reported from marine sediments. Both appear to be higher frequency oscillations somehow induced as the longer Milankovitch cycles reverberate through the climate system. For example, the 23,000-year cycle, driven by the wobbling or precession of Earth's axis, redistributes sunlight so as to alternatively intensify summer heat in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Land masses straddling the equator might then pick up temperature maxima from both hemispheres, producing a maximum in the tropics every 11,000 years or so. Other overtones would appear as diminishing maxima at successively higher frequencies," according to the researchers, but pinning down the actual causes is still a matter of some debate. But the effect of solar changes are actually much less than those of anthopogenic climate-forcing. Nature reported in 1992 that there is ' strong circumstantial evidence that there have been intercycle variations in solar irradiance which have contributed to the observed temperature change since 1856. However, the authors find that since the nineteenth century, greenhouse gases, not solar irradiance variations, have been the dominant contributor to the observed temperature change.' (Aspen abstracts, Reference Number: 161) Also in 1992 Nature reported on computer-modelling the effects of a combination of greenhouse and solar-cycle-length forcing and compared the results with observed temperatures. They found that this forcing combination explains many features of the temperature record, but warn that the results should be interpreted cautiously. Even with optimized solar forcing, 'most of the recent warming trend is explained by greenhouse forcing,' they say. In 1994, Nature (the world's premier science journal) reported a study evaluating: 'the observed warming trend (0.5 degree C this century) using a 1000-year time series of global temperatures obtained from a model of a coupled ocean-atmosphere-land system. The model reproduces the magnitude of the annual and interdecadal variation in global mean surface air temperature. Throughout the simulated time series, no temperature change as large as 0.5 degrees C per century is sustained for more than a few decades. This suggests that the currently observed trend is not a natural feature of the interaction between ocean and atmosphere but rather has been induced by thermal forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosol loading. The research is endless, and the more detailed the results are as time passes, the more frightening they are. Heartfield wants to know what is the relationship between 'natural' temperature change and that induced by CO2 emission (humans have injected 800 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air since 1750, ice-core analyses show). Also in 1994 Nature reported research on oscillation, climate change, greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, and sulphate, cycles. This research, based on temperature records, indicates the presence of a non-random, oscillatory component in the climate system with a time period of 65-70 years. Further, the authors believe that these oscillations have dominated the greenhouse gas-anthropogenic sulfate aerosol-induced greenhouse warming signal in the North Atlantic and North America, obscuring it and confounding its detection. In 1995 Nature again reported research about the effect of sulfate aerosols, as follows: The authors report on the results of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model for simulating past and future climate with the addition of the effects of sulphate aerosols. By including the effects of these aerosols, the model produces a better fit to the observed global temperature record since 1860, particularly in recent decades as sulphate aerosol emissions have become more pronounced on a global scale. For model runs that do not include aerosols, the authors find a future global warming of 0.3 K per decade. When the aerosols are included in the model runs, the future warming is reduced to 0.2 K per decade. Since aerosol emissions are not uniformly distributed, but are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere over North America, Europe and Southern Asia, the effect on temperature for specific areas is varied. The model results show that even though the cooling effect is strong in some areas, by 2050 all land areas have warmed. As greenhouse gases continue to build, their forcing of a warmer climate may dominate more than presently over the cooling effect of the aerosols. Future climate model runs were based on emission estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in scenario IS92a which assumes about a 1% per year increase in atmospheric carbon, reflecting a slowing of economic growth and an incorporation of some conservation measures. As Heartfield rightly says, it's complex, a lot of factors are in play. The main greenhouse gas is actually water vapour, thus one of the self- reinforcing tendencies which can lead to runaway or enhaced warming is precisely the extra evaporation, but it is also true that evaporation produces clouds which reflect heat back into space. Massive reseach is being done on this. NASA do most of the sat-observations.Data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project found that variations in sunlight reflected by low clouds may offset the higher degree of warming which had been predicted to occur at the poles, reducing the variation in warming with latitude. The data indicate that a positive feedback is operating: at warmer temperatures, cloud reflectivity dropped, causing the temperature to rise at most times and in most places. How much it rose depended upon the season, latitude, and whether the clouds were over land or sea. When this information was added to the models, a stronger positive feedback was found at lower latitudes. This would lead to temperature increases near the equator that would offset the higher warming predicted near the poles. There are other factors, including even the shape of the earth. (The weight of ice at the poles compresses them, but there are other things in play). Changes in the shape of the Earth may have affected the length and timing of past ice ages, according to new research by Bruce Bills of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. The research, reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 21, p. 177), incorporated the Earth's changing shape in simulations and found that the axial tilt oscillated by the same amount and with the same cycle of 41,000 years, but over longer periods the tilt slowly increased. There appears to be a feedback mechanism involved; not only does axial tilt affect climate, but climate affects the tilt by changing the Earth's roundness (during an ice age, ice accumulates in the polar regions making the Earth more spherical). Researchers have long known that the oscillation in axial tilt affects climate: the larger the tilt, the stronger the sunlight in summer and the weaker in winter. The new puzzle piece here is that climate can also affect the tilt by altering the planet's shape. This work may explain why, about 700,000 years ago, the climate shifted from a cycle lasting 41,000 years to one lasting 100,000 years. The longer cycle may stem from a periodic change in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, from circular to elliptical and back again. In assessing anthropogenic forcing, obviously, as Greenfield says, all this has to be considered, and is being. But the results do not vary much: anthropogenic forcing now eclipses in intensity of effects on the climate, all other factors. In the same way the intensity of human activity is having a more severe effect on life as it has evolved during four BILLION years than any previous geological events In 'Earth's peeling veneer of life, Douglas W. Morris wrote in Nature in 1995 a long article reporting research into biodiversity, species loss, terrestrial, deforestation, fish, human population, land use, land cover, agriculture, soil, forest, habitat, fragmentation, extinction, biological diversity, and landscape degradation. Douglas Morris presented results of research relevant to large scale loss of biodiversity. He points out that there is a lag time between environmental degradation and species extinctions that result from it, and that this highlights the value of more immediate and more easily estimated indicators of human impact. For example, he says that more than 11% of the world's terrestrial landscape has been converted to cropland. A further 25% has been occupied by pastureland. The proportion of Earth's surface covered by forest and woodland has dropped 9% since 1700, much of what remains is becoming increasingly fragmented, and about 40% of what remains is either plantation or secondary forest. The rate of soil degradation during the last 45 years corresponds to 17% of all vegetated land. Biotic functions have been completely destroyed in 9 million hectares and have been largely destroyed in a further 300 million hectares. World exploitation of marine fishes has increased by 35% since 1979. The exploitation of freshwater fisheries has expanded 85% during the same period. About 60% of the world's main fish stocks may be exploited beyond their ecological or economic optima. Humans use 8% of the world's available fresh water each year. Tropical deforestation continues at a rate of 0.9% per year. Human population size is increasing at the rate of 1.7% per year, with a parallel increase in the number of domestic animals. 'The inescapable conclusion,' the author says, 'is that much of the planet's surface, and its veneer of life, has already been destroyed. ... We have embarked on a trajectory of lost biodiversity whose acceleration and direction can, at most, be controlled but not reversed.' Again on sea-level rise, Nature reported a correspondence between two scientists, one a sceptic, the other convinced about anthopogenic effects: (Nature, 6/23/94, Pages: 615-616, letter by W. Greuell in response to an article by Sahagian et. al. The subject is the quantification of the direct anthropogenic contribution to sea level rise. Sahagian contends that the present rate of rise caused by anthropogenic factors is 30% and that this is the number of significance. Greuell seems to say that the more interesting and important number is the anthropogenic impact on the integrated sea level rise for the period 1900 to 1994, which he says is 7%. Sahagian counters that the current rate provides the basis for extrapolation into the future and also that the rate has increased throughout the century. The pollution that produces global warming aslo results in the eutrophication of rivers and destruction of marine life. Two new studies in the U. S. focus on endangered species. One, carried out by the Nature Conservancy, suggests that as many as a third of the species in the U. S. may be at risk. It found that 1.3% of species known from historical records are now extinct or possibly extinct, another 15.4% are "imperiled" or "critically imperiled" (fewer than 3000 individuals are left or are found at fewer than 20 sites), while another 15% are "vulnerable" (fewer than 10,000 individuals or at 100 sites). "For some groups, particularly freshwater invertebrates, things are even worse. More than 20% of crayfish and 26% of freshwater mussel species are critically imperiled, the report says, and only a third of the species in either group are considered safe." Heartfield says of Proyect and myself: > And what do they > agree? That the industrial development that gave the West domination > over the rest of the world should be halted before anyone else gets > their hands on it; that living standards should be held down; that only > such development as is "appropriate" (ie low-level, labour intensive) > should take place in the third world; that civil liberties should be set > aside for the greater good of 'saving the planet'; that self- > determination for small nations is an outmoded concept. > We do not agree with any of this. But we are waiting for Heartfield to give us a model of industrial development which can permit the third world to live like the first world without also destroying the planet, and moreover, how this is to be accomplished after the next forthcoming and final oil crisis and in the framework of deepening climate catastrophes. If Heartfield has no such model, then his politics is a cruel hoax on the very people he sheds crocodile tears for.. What does he suggest people do in the face of the capitalist rapacity which has ruined their lives and is wrecking the planet? What is needed is not ad hominem attacks and personal abuse but a sustained and serious debate. [ --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---] MARK JONES From Jones_M@netcomuk.co.uk Sat Feb 28 08:02:02 1998 Received: from avalon.netcom.net.uk (avalon.netcom.net.uk [194.42.225.7]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id IAA11450 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:01:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from netcomuk.co.uk (dialup-13-35.netcomuk.co.uk [194.42.231.99]) by avalon.netcom.net.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA03042; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:01:52 GMT Message-ID: <34F8271A.2D3249A4@netcomuk.co.uk> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:02:50 +0000 From: Mark Jones MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK CC: Louis N Proyect , Yoshie Subject: Re: Ecology, Catastrophe, Capitalism References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard, your counter-scenario has its intuitive appeal but I'm not sure how literally one can take the oil patch as a metaphor for world-capitalism. Your version of a steady-state oil industry is not wholly correct and insofar as it is correct, that has to do more with the unique specificities of oil as a strategic commodity unlike any other, and one where as John D Rockefeller was the first to notice, orderly markets and cartelised production and distribution arrangements are indispensable and always have been, for the industry to function at all. To begin with, in the first Pennsylvania oilrush and then again in Texas, this was indeed a perfectly competitive market, with thousands of anonymous individual producers and markets alternately glutted and starved. To impose order on that chaos -- 'the Big Hand of Rockefeller' -- was an absolute necessity. That the first true monopolies emerged out of that initial chaos says something very profound about the true nature of capitalism, as Daniel Yergin, Anthony Sampson and many others have pointed out. It could only be done by the conspiratorial methods for which the industry is a legend. There had to be a stable pricing regime, stable supplies, and long-term plans because the capital investments were huge and the payoffs slow in coming. But, altho oil was a precursor of finance-monopoly capital, it was and remains unique for two reasons. Firstly, if the Industrial Revolution means anything, if Rostowan take-off means anything, it is about labour productivity increasing thru the application of fossil-fuels. Western capitalism was and still is a fossil-fuel based economy. Gunder Frank does not reflect this adequately, in my view. It is at the heart of the true meaning of TRANSIENT eurocentric world capitalism. Vaclav Smil and even David Landes are relevant correctives here. It is not race, eugenics, European brutality or European instrumental rationality, which has made the world eurocentric or which birthed the self-sustaining word of accumulation documented by Marx. It is (a) coal and (b) oil. Oil above all. Oil is now such a strategic matter that US foreign policy is hostage to it. The only parallel for contemporary US governmental and ruling class obsession with this seemingly cheap and humble product, is Hitler Germany, for which oil was also a crucial matter. The parallels are exact, and ominous. And they mean that the cartelisation of oil is not just a matter of a form of contemporary capitalism, a model which might be generalised; it is something which is politically overdetermined. The oil-nexus is at the heart of politics because, appearances to the contrary, oil is, as well as totally indispensable and ireplaceable, also SCARCE. Tat's why there is something heroic about exploration and discovery. If the early days were a Clark Gable/Spencer Tracy movie, today the heroism and wildness of it is undiminished. Drills snake like serpents thousands of feet below the surface, the drillbits rigged up with nuclear magnetic resonance scanners to sniff out the last dregs of oil; and this is not happening in sunny Texas, but in Force 10 gales off the Shetlands, or in the Arctic in conditions which cannot be imagined if you've never been there. That heroism, and that intrinsic scale of risk, is so fundamental to oil that the mysteries of cartelisation are just absolutely necessary antidotes; the framework that is bolted over the chaos of discovery, glut, famine, amid constant fears the stuff is running out (and it is!). This brings me to the second reason why oil is not like anything else. Capitalism obeys Liebig's Law. Justus, Baron von Liebig was the famous German agro-chemist who influenced Marx more than any natural scientist, even Darwin, because it was Liebig who persuaded Marx that capitalism has a long-run natural resource problem, and that capitalist agriculture wrecks soil fertility. Liebig's Law states: whatever necessity is least abundantly available (relative to per capita requirements) sets an environment's carrying capacity, or an economy's growth limit-point. And energy has ALWAYS served that role in capitalism. Oil production is self-limiting. Last year global prduction was around 27bn bbls. Whatever level of potential demand exists, it cannot rise much above that. This is an irony of capitalism, which to survive must grow: yet which depends on a resource of which production is and always will be subject to physical limitations. This is why the 'oil model' cannot be generalised to some future semi-feudal post-capitalism (and I agree that the feudalist insight is particularly fruitful: how else can you explain contemporary Russia, for example, except as a type of neo-feudalism?). The reason is clear: capitalist accumulation is a discontinuous, open-ended historical process which depends upon a secular rise in labour-productivity. OIL IS THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE. 'Replacement-only' equilibrium models are as old as capitalism itself; Hilferding had a good one. But they are always wrong. Capitalism obeys one iron law -- it has to continually revolutionise the means of production. And it cannot 'regress' to feudalism. To do so would be to risk politicising its fate in potentially catastrophic ways (the alternative to autarkic national socialism, is always and can only be a revolutionary demarche). Even if its immanent laws of motion didn't make it like that, history gives world-capitalism no room to manoeuvre: Wallerstein is right, and the system is caught in a three-way scissors, between resource-depletion, environmental degradation, and a burgeoning 'reserve army'. The Final Crisis of Capitalism cannot have the inevitability that the thinkers of the Second International imagined, an effortless growing- over which the masses can calmly observe. Peter is right: we can get catastrophes, we can get barbarism -- this will not be a new world order, because let's face it, even feudalism, perhaps especially feudalism, had its cultural eclat and brilliance, but this won't, this will be a feudalism of gulags and camps, mind-control and cloning. It won't rank as a society, or a mode of production, but as a *system* of production and a *technology* of control. It can only be the antechamber of revolution. Mark Jones Richard K. Moore wrote: > 2/27/98, Peter Grimes wrote: > >1. I agree with both Mark & Carl that capitalism is a > >SOCIAL RELATION of class exploitation, and could well survive a > >major demographic contraction. Nevertheless, such a contraction > >could certainly qualify as a "catastrophe." Hence one can > >believe both in the survival of some form of capitalism AND a > >global collapse of contemporary civilization. > > I'm going to re-post something I posted on this topic on 2 Feb, because it > didn't get much response and the topic has resurfaced. Hope it gets more > notice this time around... > > rkm > > ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ > I challenge this assumption of collapse. There indeed must be a dialectic > transformation in the economic system, for the simple fact that eternal > growth is not possible. But that does not necessarily mean the global > enonomy must collapse in the process of transformation, nor that the > successor economy will be determined by popular will or action. > > My counter-scenario is based, once again, on the petroleum industry > microcosm. Here you have the first fully globalized markets, run by the > first fully globalized corporations, and you can see what the capitalist > endgame has been in this case. > > There is still competition, but it is entirely sisterly - they aren't > trying to drive one another out of business. They collaborate in the > global management of production, distribution, and pricing. After the > first century or so of rapidly growing markets, expanding territories, and > shakeout battles, the industry now operates by a "cash cow" ethos instead > of a "growth" ethos. That is more like feudalism than capitalism. Each > "sister" has its traditional sources and markets, just like lords had their > own estates. > > The adjustment to a limited-growth environment did not involve collapse, > and it has not led to a diminshment of corporate/elite ownership, control, > or power. > > My claim then, is that we must seriously consider the possibility that > coporate neo-feudalism, rather than socialism, may be the dialectic > successor to capitalism, and that the transtion may not involve revolution. > (Other than the revolution of globlization.) I believe, in fact, that > the empirical evidence favors the neo-feudalist outcome. > > I'd be interested in responses to this analysis. > ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ From wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk Sat Feb 28 18:01:39 1998 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with SMTP id SAA28349 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:01:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from (LOCALNAME) [195.92.3.252] by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0y8x8D-0008WA-00; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 01:01:30 +0000 Message-ID: <34F9052D.13CC@wml.prestel.co.uk> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 22:50:21 -0800 From: William Kirk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK Subject: Re: Global Warming #2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maybe I will get somewhere here with the topic being Global Warming. I read in New Scientist in the year 1982 about the Planetary Synod, whereby all the planets gather on a 180 year cycle and the effect is the gravitational displacement of the earth off its elliptic orbit - the resulting ellipse is asymmetric about the sun, it becomes ovoid. Since the velocity of the earth about the sun follows Kepler's Law, and with the synod occurring in the winter, the earth is drawn towards the sun the sun-earth radius decreases, resulting in a slower velocity. What this meant was that the northern hemisphere had four more days winter - if the sun sets due west at the equinox then in 1982 the event would have been two days late at the vernal equinox and two days early at the autumnal equinox. The effect was stated to have built up over a fifteen-year period prior to 82 and would have gone by now. The article gave historical back up to the event, 1802, 1622 and 1442, or near to that seemed convincing. A few years ago I wrote to New Scientist asking for an update. With no response I wrote to the author, John Gribben, and again got no reply. A further letter was ignored. In al I sent four letters, and I telephoned to check to see if the letters had been received. Now it seems as if I was mistaken, having asked New Scientist via their web site it now looks as if I was imagining all of this - there is no such thing as a synod and the article was never published. This is the reply I was given. ============================================================== Subject: Re: Help. I cannot find a back issue. Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:05:32 -0500 From: Celia_Thomas@IPC-KRT-NS.CCMAIL.compuserve.com To: "INTERNET:wkirk@wml.prestel.co.uk" Dear William Kirk, I have been trying to follow up your enquiry re: article in New Scientist on the Planetary Synod, but I can find no record of such an article. The closest that I can come is an article that was published in the magazine on 4th November 1982 entitled "The Great Quasar Odyssey". Sorry that I don't seem able to assist you more than that. If you need more information, then I will be more than happy to help. Unfortunately, when I entered details of the Planetary Synod into the computer, it showed no records. Yours sincerely Celia Thomas ============================================================== I then asked her to look in the previous issue, I am waiting for a reply. Or is this just a case of me making up stories in my head - has my paranoia led to some other strange disease? Such as making all of this up and then believing I read it somewhere? Now, I shall give something that looks very much like the effect. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nature, 390, 18/25 December, 1997, page 676. A resonance in the Earth's obliquity and precession over the past 20 Myr driven by mantle convection. Alessandro M. Forte & Jerry A. Mitrovica. The motion of the solar system is chaotic to the extent that the precise positions of the planets are predictable for a period of only about 20Myr.1 The Earth's precession, obliquity and insolation parameters over this time period 1-6 can be influenced by secular variations in the dynamic ellipticity of the planet which are driven by long-term geophysical processes, such as post-glacial rebound.5,7-10 Here we investigate the influence of mantle convention on these parameters. We use viscous flow theory to compute time series of the Earth's dynamic ellipticity for the past 20Myr and then apply these perturbations to the nominal many-body orbital solution of Laskar et al.5 We find that the convection-induced change in the Earth's flattening perturbs the main frequency of the Earth's precession into the resonance associated with a secular term in the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn 5, and thus significantly influences the Earth's obliquity. We also conclude that updated time series of high-latitude summer solar insolation diverge from the nominal solution for periods greater than the past ~5 Myr. Our results have implications both for obtaining precise solutions for precession and obliquity and for procedures that adopt astronomical calibrations to date sedimentary cycles and climatic proxy records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It isn't possible to get recent or detailed information from this, the graphs are much too small, showing insolation changes over ten thousand year periods. Jupiter and Saturn will have the greatest gravitational effect, the author says this so perhaps there is some sort of synodic effect. Is it possible to get data on the asymmetry of the ellipse? I have looked for this but not being an astronomer it is easy to look in all the wrong places. Aside to that, I am convinced there is some cover up going on with all of this data, for example, if the northern hemisphere had a series of long winters, then the southern will have had longer summers - and perhaps warmed up the southern Pacific Ocean. But then, fifteen years on, it will have cooled down, so back to normal, everything is just fine. Now here comes the kind of stuff I make up myself and you won't see in any journal. If the synod is real, has it, because of global warming, 'kick started' some sort of weather aggravation that we aren't supposed to hear about? I mean, the southern Pacific isn't as cool as it should be, everything is far from being just fine. Like, in the early 1800's the Thames froze over a good number of years, but had not done so in the 1980's. William Kirk.