U.S. Boycott of UN Durban Conference on Racism

 

U.S. Boycott of UN Durban Conference on Racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhP_gWP0BMU

The selected link covers the United States’ boycott of the UN Durban Conference Against Racism in 2009 due to predicted criticism toward the nation-state of Israel (a Jewish state: a Jewish person is an ethnicity) for repeated aggressions against the Palestinian people, illegal settlements on confiscated land, and overall human rights violations). Again, we see just how influential the nation-state of Israel is, through their pro-Israeli lobbyist efforts on American representative democracy, by the actions of the United States actions across the international stage.

The public justification for the U.S. boycott was over the use of the word ‘Zionism’ in one of the Durban conference documents. Israel, and therefore the United States, did not want Zionism to be referred to as a racist terminology. Oddly enough, in 1975 the United Nations General Assembly resolution 3379 declared Zionism a form of racism.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/000/92/IMG/NR000092.pdf?OpenElement

Of course, this resolution was revoked in 1991 by resolution 4686.

The issue and point here is that if the permanent members of the UN Security council play favorites, especially the United States, and walk out on every leader or conference that criticizes Israel’s actions, such as they do every year when President Ahmadinejad speaks at the UN General Assembly, what is the point of having any UN programs aimed at human rights? If it is not open dialect and human rights efforts for all, what is the point of having these programs at some and ignored when it concerns others?

Realist Prespective: Post-Cold War, The Collapse of the Soviet Union, Military Hegemony of the U.S. and the era of mass private globalization

Looking at the historical decade between the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the new millennium, the sudden polar shift after the collapse of the Soviet Union created a Tsunami of capitalism that flowed east and southward within the classical realist perspective of nation-state actors seeking to elevate and protect their own interests.  For the United States, the interests were not only national interests; they were the interests of private sector capitalism. 

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international stage was balanced by two world nation-state powers, the Capitalist United States and the Communist Soviet Union.  Once the Soviet Union collapsed leaving the United States as an unchallenged hegemonic power, the United States and her lesser allies instantly began to expand global private sector markets further east and south.  In 1990, after the ‘2+4 Talks’, Germany was reunified after the destruction of the Berlin Wall and, along with Hungary and Poland, was opened for Western capital investment and the Eastern expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  American private capital was already in the oil fields of Kuwait, which had been a British Protectorate prior to 1961, so the U.S. was required to defend Kuwait’s so-called independence from Iraq, which claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq, after a border dispute concerning oil procurement that led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.   In 1994, American capitalist interests expanded south with the invasion of Haiti and the subsequent passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.  As the sole international hegemon during the 1990s, the United States promised to spread freedom and democracy through military operations in several areas such as Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo, but in reality it was the natural resources and the open market that the private sector behind the capitalist superpower desired.  Once the balance of power between the Soviet Union and the United States was gone, the United States was the largest military power on the international stage and private sector capitalism began a ruthless expansion, with no nation-state resistance capable of challenging U.S. military might. 

From a realist perspective, the U.S. acted in its own interest by spreading the private sector and opening global markets through military interventions.  The post-WWII allies of the United States acted in their own interests by supporting the lone major nation-state superpower in expanding the free market while left-over satellite states of the former Soviet Union and the underdeveloped post-colonial nation-state governments in Africa had no choice but to except economic crumbs and allow the free market of capitalism in to exploit their natural resources; or risk being replaced by U.S. military intervention.  The 1990s not only saw a shift from bi-polar to unipolar nation-state power, it saw the beginning of mass capital globalization and a multi-polar private sector balancing of power sweeping across the globe under the protection of one superpower.

Bibliography

BBC News Middle East.  Kuwait Profile.  (Accessed on December 15, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14647211)

Henry Nau. Perspectives on International Relations. 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2012), 261-284.

NATO Review.  Germany’s Accession to NATO: 50 Years On.  2005.  (Accessed on December 15, 2012 from http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2005/germany_eng.pdf)

North American Free Trade Agreement.  January 1, 1994.  (Accessed December 15, 2012 from http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=343).

U.S. Department of State Archives.  1989-200 Post Cold War Era.  (Accessed December 15, 2012 from http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/index.htm)

 

International Polarity, Balance of Power, the Cold War and the War on Terror

Polarity has always been an important element of the international stage. A balance of power is impossible without multi-polar or, at a minimum, bi-polar power structures. During the decades of Cold War, the United States painted the Soviet Union and their nation-state allies as evil communists who were hell bent on taking over the world. We have already studied how the balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union sparked massive arms races, bolstered the space race, and was overall very economically productive for international private sector banking systems, arms manufacturing corporations, military manufacturing corporations, space technology manufacturing, manufacturing of production parts, and many other areas of profitable procurement from capital production. The evil communist empire was an actual nation-state with borders and a government system, which eventually collapsed and ended the bi-polar balance of power (which was so profitable to so many private sectors) which had lasted over three decades.

During the sole polarity era that the U.S. stood as the only world hegemonic superpower, it wasn’t until the attacks of 9-11 an opportunity presented itself to reestablish an international power balance which would increase profitable arms manufacturing and production, military vehicle production, manufacturing parts production, international banking loans, construction, and a score of other private sector areas that profit from a balance of polarity (or the fear of an enemy that creates one). The decade long military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been extremely profitable for the private sector. In the so-called war on terror, the opposing polarity has no physical nation-borders or government expenses (that could collapse like the Soviet Union). It was simply a phantom enemy menace, that could never physically collapse, which required extensive military preparation, intervention and occupation in multiple nation-states as well as domestically The profits off manufacturing, construction and arms (and multiple other areas) achievable by the private sector in such a balance of polar powers are potentially limitless.

Even though the historical period was pre-industrialization and capitalism, the same bi-polar political-religious balancing can be seen during the Crusades led by the Holy Roman Empire.

Farrell, Paul B. War, Terror, Catastrophe: Profiting From ‘Disaster Capital’. Dow Jones Business News, October 16, 2007. (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/profiting-disaster-capitalism)

Kidwell, Doborah C. Public War, Private Fight? The United States and Private Military Companies. Combat Studies Institute Press, Leavenworth, Kansas (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/kidwell.pdf)

Dowdy & Erdmann. Private Sector Development in Afghanistan: The Doubly Missing Middle. (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/aerospace_and_defense/people/~/media/8BA7705D2083435BAB3654EA60CAF320.ashx) Investing in Afghanistan.

The Embassy of Afghanistan, Washington, D.C. (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.embassyofafghanistan.org/page/investing-in-afghanistan)

If you were an international organization with 50 billion dollars over 4 years, which human problems would you address?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

I watched the speech by Bjorn Lomborg and took interest in how the largest world problems were ranked by the Copenhagen Consensus according to the cost efficiency of addressing those problems, and the fact that climate change was ranked near the bottom of the list. As Bjorn instructs his audience, I followed instructions and choose my areas to invest the hypothetical 50 billion dollars. As an IO, the three areas I selected to address were: the 800 million people starving, the 2 billion people lacking sanitation, and the 140 million illiterate adults. Why did I select these areas over the other problem areas? I felt as with the hypothetically provided economic assistance in these areas that the nation-state governments being assisted could possibly regulate the humanitarian efforts on prevention and treatment, instead of allowing foreign capital investment to infringe into the equation offering short-term solutions that would create more debt, strip natural resources and cause even worse levels of the existing problems in the long term.

I agreed with Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus that prevention is more cost efficient and advantageous for the future in these problem areas than treatment, but looking at the top 4 ‘best problems’ that the panel of economists found to address (HIV/AIDS, Malnutrition, Free Trade and poverty, and Malaria), I could not help but struggle to think of ways to keep the private sector out:

HIV/AIDs: Perhaps prevention techniques may help somewhat, but the private sector owns the medical equipment and technologies, the production and capital to mass produce required medicines, and contraceptive technologies.

Malnutrition and Poverty (free trade): we have already studied how the IMF, World Bank and WTO have the capitalist global system on lock down. These international partners will not help a nation-state unless loan conditions clear a path for private sector investment profits and the stripping of natural resources are part of the deal. If you are not a member of these hegemonic IOs and IGOs, you are left isolated in the global cold.

Malaria: Again the private sector has a monopoly on most medical technologies and poverty stricken nation-states do not have the capital to build hospitals or obtain technology (unless they receive international loans with conditions).

The realistic truth is that 50 billion dollars over a four year period is not going to make much positive change as long as the United States is issuing out between 52 to 60 billion dollars in “so-called” aid across the globe to achieve and protect political and economic interests. Foreign aid is not only conducted in this manner by the U.S., it is also conducted by members of the European Union and the members of the UN Security Council to protect their nation-state interests. As an IO, you could do your best to invest the 50 billion dollars in humanitarian causes for the future of the planet, but with the global, political and economic hegemon of the United Nations security council member states unchallengeable, as soon as those humanitarian efforts began to conflict with privatized international capital interests or political government alliances (which could come in many forms: protection of GDP and domestic exports, influence on member states from domestic or international corporations or organizations, protection of regional military hegemonies, or endless other political/economic possibilities), your efforts will more than likely be blocked from success, economically strangled or out-funded, slandered within the international public perspective, condemned, or outlawed internationally by a UN resolution). To do the most humanitarian good for the most inexpensive cost within the international global system, it would be most productive to spend the 50 billion dollars in an area where there are no capital interests involved at all (if that is even possible).

Copenhagen Consensus Project Website. (Accessed on December 12, 2012 from http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1623)

Lomborg, Bjorn. Global Priorities Bigger Than Climate Change. (Accessed on December 12, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs)

The Left and Right Hands - IMF and World Bank

            The International Monetary Fund’s main purpose is to set international currency rates which allow the movement of capital across nation-state government borders.  The International Monetary Fund also establishes loans, payable with the strongest world currencies and repaid with the lower valued national currencies of the borrowing nation-state, issued to economically overextended nation-states usually struggling from the ills of post-colonialism.  The World Bank’s main mission is to reconstruct post-colonial and war ravaged nation-state economies while claiming that these efforts are humanitarian in nature.  The World Bank Group opens up recipient nation-states to foreign capital and international capital investment (along with the exploitation of natural resources) into these technologically under-developed and poverty stricken nation-states.  The institutions of the IMF and the World Bank are like right and left hands when it comes to international capitalism and private sector investments and exploitation of lesser developed nation-state natural resources.

            Using the IMF’s Poverty Reduction Strategy in Bangladesh as an example of that organization’s true capitalistic private sector motives, it is important to note that Bangladesh is rich in crude oil, natural gas, minerals, fertile soils and abundant water supplies for agriculture.  Loans from the IMF, and the World Bank, granted to poverty stricken, technologically under-developed nation-states also come with strict conditions and those conditions open the infrastructure of the nation-state to foreign private sector exploitation on domestic natural resources, and Bangladesh is a perfect example because “just under one third of all of Bangladesh’s conditions within its second Development Support Credit granted for 2005 were privatization-related (18 out of 53)”.  This was the case in 2005 and nothing has changed in 2012 as the IMF’s joint staff has reported “that private enterprise should form the basis for sustainable growth and employment in Bangladesh.”

            The World Bank’s private capitalist exploitative goals are no different than the IMF, only more guised in humanitarian claims.  World Bank efforts at developing the Marsh Lands in Rwanda open up private investment and privatized industrial capitalist exploitation of Rwanda’s natural resources in agriculture, such as sugar cane, and is evident by the increase in Sugar cane production and exports since World Bank assistance flooded that nation-state with loan conditions and private investment capital.  The World Bank’s Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy in Rwanda, launched in 2002, continues to operate in a manner of capitalist infiltration that “particularly supports the development of policies that facilitate increased private sector investment and involvement” and can be seen in the following strategy goals: “During the PRSF8-10 priority areas of support will be policy measures aimed at: (i) supporting the facilitation of trade and investments; (ii) increasing access to electricity and improved infrastructure services; (iii) raising private sector participation in the agricultural sector”

            The shrinking of the international economic system through globalization, led by the IMF and World Bank, is not a new stage of capitalist evolution, but a new phase of evolution in colonial exploitation as private international entities now conduct the capitalist exploitation of lesser developed nation-states behind the bright humanitarian flags waved by economic IGOs, instead of foreign nation-state governments as was the case during colonialism.  The old burdening expenses and political responsibilities of colonialism on nation-state governments have been brilliantly replaced by international private sector investments in order to exploit and rape natural resources in technologically under-developed nation-states in the name of capitalism and globalization. 

 

Bibliography

All Africa.  Press Release.  Rwanda: World Bank to Finance Private Sector Growth Policies in Country.  November 29, 2012.  (Accessed on December 9, 2012 from http://allafrica.com/stories/201112020627.html)

Index Mundi.  Bangladesh Crude Oil Production and Consumption by Year.  Accessed on December 9, 2012 from  http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=bd)

Index Mundi.  Rwanda Centrifugal Sugar Can Sugar Production by Year.  (Accessed on December 9, 2012 from http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=rw&commodity=centrifugal-sugar&graph=cane-sugar-production)

World Bank and IMF Conditionality: A Development Injustice.  European Network on Debt and Development, June 2006.  (Accessed on December 9, 2012 from http://www.eurodad.org/uploadedfiles/whats_new/reports/eurodad_world_bank_and_imf_conditionality_report.pdf)

International Monetary Fund.  IMF Country Report No. 12.294.  Bangladesh: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper––Joint Staff Advisory Note, October 2012.  (Accessed on December 9, 2012 from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12294.pdf)

 

World Bank and Rwanda

The World Bank Group consists of the International Development Agency, the International Finance Corporation, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Association. The originals goal of the World Bank was to rebuild, with interest, European nation-states after the destruction caused by World War II, but “this changed after the following the decolonization of countries formerly controlled by European states” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 211). The main emphasis of the World Bank today is to provide loans to natural resource laden, technologically undeveloped nation-states.

The World Bank’s Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy in Rwanda over the past five years, since the bloody civil war there ended in 1994, boasts of many accomplishments through a three phase adaptable loan: 1) Rural Sector Support project to increase production in the marshlands, 2) Land Husbandry, Water harvesting and Hillside Harvesting Project, 3) Annual Development Policy Operation. The positive results boasted by the World Bank range from the claim that the Rwanda poverty rate has dropped from 77.8% to 44.9% since 1995 and a growing Gross Domestic Product.

I understand that nothing is free in this world, especially when dealing with capitalism and the global private sector, so my first question was what natural resources were being exploited and profited from while the World Bank Group was improving the economy and working opportunities of the people of Rwanda. The first clue that I found was contained in a letter from Jessica Evans of the non-profit organization called Human Rights Watch addressed to Makhtar Diop, the World Bank Vice President for Africa.

“The World Bank is one of the most significant donors in Rwanda, with a lending portfolio of almost US$300 million in active projects as of March 2012, more than US$ 100 million of which is provided as general budget support annually. In addition, the World Bank is providing approximately US$ 88 million in Trust Funds to Rwanda. The World Bank is focusing on the key sectors of agriculture, energy, transport, skills development, demobilization and reintegration and private sector development.”

The next excerpt is from a report by the International Land Coalition entitled the Socio-economic impact of commercial exploitation of Rwandan marshes: A case study of sugar cane production in rural Kigali.

“Rwandan law provides strong incentives for investors to engage in commercial agriculture in the country’s marshlands. This should be seen in the context of a wider policy intended to transform and invigorate the agro-economy. By leasing these lands out to commercial enterprises, the Government wants to stimulate the use of more intensive forms of agriculture that can supply national or international markets.”

One of the answers concerning natural resources that I sought was Sugar Cane, but I assume there are also other areas.  The most economically powerful private sector investors will seek to exploit and profit from land and natural resources at every opportunity available. It has been that way for centuries. On the other side of the spectrum, Rwanda is one of the most densely populated nations in the world and was virtually destroyed after colonialism and the bloody civil war. It is a nation that truly needed reconstruction, and still needs reconstruction, if there was ever a case. In the case of Rwanda, the World Bank achieves its mission statement of improving poverty rates, enhancing economic and commercial investments (creating jobs), and assistance in strengthening a weak national economy while opening extremely profitable capitalistic markets for exploitation (through the import of technology for exploitation).

Human Rights Watch. Evans, Jessica. Letter for World Bank Vice President for Africa on Rwanda. September 5, 2012, (Accessed on December 6, 2012 from http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/05/letter-world-bank-vice-president-africa-rwanda)

Kruck, Rittberger, & Zangl, International Organization, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)

Lankhorst, M. &Veldman, M., Socio-economic impact of commercial exploitation of Rwandan marshes: A case study of sugar cane production in rural Kigali, International Land Coalition, 2011 (Accessed on December 6, 2012 from http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/publication/908/RCN_Rwanda_web_11.03.11.pdf)

World Bank. Rwanda. 2012. (Accessed December 6, 2012 from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23276917~menuPK:64256345~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html)

(RESPONSE)

I am shocked you chose not to cover the plight of the Gazan people at the hands of Israel (sarcasm).  Has the World Banks influx of money to Rwanda proved effective?  I did find it interesting that the Rwandan government was so open to outside international investors operating in Rwanda, colonial governments do not have the best track record acting in Africa, especially in Rwanda.  I had no idea that Rwanda was such a player in the sugar case industry, is the sustainability of that crop, what makes it such a positive investment for outside companies?

(REBUTTAL)

When I started looking into Rwanda, which I knew was a nation-state economy that was being rebuilt from the ground up after years of colonial exploitation and the bloody civil war there, I decided to research there instead.  I think capitalist economic exploitation can be found in almost all World Bank missions, but even holding that view, I must admit that in some cases it is a two-way street, especially in densely populated, poverty-stricken places like Rwanda.  While international corporations profit of the exploitation of lesser technological nation-states and their rich natural resources, that exploitation does build a fragile economy and creates jobs in economically devastated states.  In the case of Rwanda, the World Bank talks of technologically modernizing irrigation of the marshlands through private investment (which has elevated cane production for international private profits), as the marshlands are rich for sugar cane production.  I was researching on the largest sugar producing company, Madhvani, in Rwanda since 1995 and how the government has conducted land reforms (which has opened the land for international private investments). 

This link shows the increase of sugar cane production since 1995.  It is obvious in the growth that private investment has had a large impact.

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=rw&commodity=centrifugal-sugar&graph=cane-sugar-production

World Bank, Gaza and Israeli Occupation

Gaza has been occupied by Israeli military forces and blockaded, under an economic stranglehold, from the rest of the world for decades.  The coast to the Mediterranean is blockaded by Israeli Naval forces to the point where humanitarian assistance from other nation-states can not even come through without Israeli interference.  The illegal Israeli apartheid wall and numerous Israeli military checkpoints have blocked Gaza off from all trade routes and Israel has continued to confiscate land and erect illegal settlements, despite international condemnation.  How can an economy exist if it can not freely export or import?  It is almost like colonialism, only more barbaric. 

There is heavy capitalist exploitation, guised in humanitarian efforts, at work in this area.  How much does it help the Palestinian people though?  Lets look at how the World Bank and private investments play into this situation.  Here is an excerpt from an 2005 article written by the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign entitled "'Developing' Israeli Apartheid: The World Bank, International Aid and The Ghettoization of Palestine"

"While Palestinians are imprisoned, facing continued denial of their rights and aspirations, the Bank portrays a golden economic opportunity of a cheap, controlled labour force. The Bank’s blueprint for a new export-based economy, subservient to the strategic needs of Israel and global capital - with Israeli/foreign investment creaming off the profits - merges with the Occupation’s destruction of Palestinian farmland and local markets. Indeed, the Bank's reports hardly refer to agriculture at all, traditionally the core sector of the Palestinian economy. Instead, imposing Israeli-run industrial zones, military checkpoints and Jewish-only road systems onto the West Bank are policies that reflect the Bank’s overall strategy for a Do-It-Yourself Apartheid Guide for the 21st century.

As with any other “Third World” population that the World Bank subjugates into the global economy, the role assigned to the Palestinian people is simple: to cheaply produce goods for export to wealthier countries, strengthening economic dependency on global capitalist systems. The Bank insists that Palestinians must not only be willing to accept brutal military occupation, dispossession and expulsion, but must also sustain their oppressor's economy through primary goods and industrial output. Furthermore, walled-in Palestinians are marked as a captive audience, forced into a system of dependency upon the Occupation for even the most basic needs. Israel has drained Palestine of her natural resources, stealing around 80% of Palestinian natural water outputs on an annual basis. Now, in Gaza, the Bank states Palestinians who have been robbed of their water for decades should enter into trade agreements with Israel whereby they can buy back – “at Israeli commercial rates” – the same water stolen by the Occupation.

The convergence between Zionist actions and World Bank economics is clear, with international investment transforming the destruction and dispossession caused by the Israeli colonization policies into the Bank’s new showcase project: a series of massive Israeli industrial estates built on annexed Palestinian land. The so-called Tulkarem Peace Park, for example, is to be built on farmland stolen from the village of Irtah; land that sustained 50 families for generations and formed an integral part of community and family life. Now their only source of employment will be as an exploited worker on an Israeli industrial estate surrounded by walls, checkpoints and prison gates.

The World Bank ignores the inherent illegality of such estates and instead celebrates that they will employ cheap labour "with a minimum of red tape," i.e. the absence of trade unions, health regulations and other worker's rights. Israel’s most toxic and environmentally destructive forms of industry will be transferred to the West Bank, where Palestinians work for around a quarter of the wages in Israel (though even this is still too high in the opinion of the Bank's reports). They may try and dress these sweatshops up as liberation and independence, but they represent nothing more than a devastating system of racial capital not seen since the days of Apartheid South Africa."

The World Bank transferred 14.3 million to the Palestinian Authority in September 2012 with much of that financing coming from Britain and Australia.  The following link is a list of World Bank operations in Gaza and the West Bank.  When looking at the areas of operation, I attempt to identify job creation, possible importing and exporting (through Israeli occupation), and motives for foreign capitalist investment and profiteering.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/WestBankandGazasnapshotBetaJuly3-2012.pdf


Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign, 'Developing' Israeli Apartheid: The World Bank, International Aid and The Ghettoization of Palestine, May 18, 2005, (Accessed on December 8, 2012 from
http://www.stopthewall.org/developing-israeli-apartheid-world-bank-international-aid-and-ghettoization-palestine)