And now for some good news

from the ONE campaign blog, an example of how activism can make a difference:

2/14/07

The Senate just passed the 2007 continuing resolution - 81 to 15!

The CR not only rescues the $1 billion that ONE members have fought to save over the past two months, but it adds an additional $450 million toward critical AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and refugee programs in the 2007 budget!

As you might recall, if congressional leaders had gone ahead with their plan to pass a straight continuing resolution, federal funding would have remained at 2006 levels for all of fiscal year 2007, and critical poverty programs would have lost an expected $1 billion increase. Hundreds of thousands of people whose lives relied on that funding would have died.

ONE members came together, however, and called, faxed, emailed, wrote letters and even met with their members of Congress, urging them to recover as much of the money as possible. All in all, ONE members sent more than 200,000 letters urging Congress to fully fund the fight against extreme poverty in 2007.

At the same time, Senators Dick Durbin and Sam Brownback and Representatives Christopher Shays and Barbara Lee, persuaded 142 of their colleagues to sign letters asking leaders in Congress to fully fund these critical programs for extreme poverty.

The result is an extraordinary turn of events.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 286 to 140 to pass the funding resolution on January 31 and now, thanks to the Senate's actions today, this critical funding has been recovered.

Many important priorities competed for the same money in this extremely tight budget. This remarkable victory, is not just for the movement, but for the hundreds of thousands of people in the world's poorest countries whose lives will be saved.

Congratulations to everyone.

Warning: subversive thoughts

The other night Gene made a pretty convincing argument (previous post) that cancellation of odious Third World debt is a moral imperative. I think most people would probably agree on that. Oddly, though, my response was anything but enthusiasm.

-----

For one thing, I wish we had talked more about how debt cancellation would be implemented. That it needs to happen is clear, but how is going to take a more nuanced conversation. For instance, does it mean that rich Western countries (funded by taxpayers) are going to pay the debt for the debtors? or that the IMF and World Bank just wipe the slate clean, as in a bankruptcy? What about the credit-worthiness of the debtor nations?

Jeffrey Sachs is a famous economist who has actually instituted debt cancellation in a couple of Eastern European countries. He has a new book out called The End of Poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. I need to read this.

-----

From the film, one would think that multinational banks run the world. And in a sense, he would be right. Like BJ, I was overwhelmed at the sheer scale of the problems perpetuating the debt crisis. I mean, as he said, we're talking about the laws of the market economy by which the bankers operate. They were simply doing their jobs -- which is to crunch numbers and turn a profit, not to answer to their conscience.

But this isn't the way the world is supposed to work. Where are the checks and balances? Where are the governments representing the people's interests??

The cynic in me can't help myself: Well, of course the governments are now run by corporations (at least the western governments are).

I've been reading Understanding Power, a reader by Noam Chomsky, and it depresses me almost to the point where I don't even want to be an activist anymore. He basically says that the government's enemy is the PEOPLE itself, that they need to be repressed and oppressed in order for the folks in power to stay there. (He goes on to show how this happens in subtle ways , not overseas, but HERE.) And the political structures in place are so entrenched and well-protected (take the tremendous power of lobbyists, for example) that incremental change isn't really going to bring about the REAL change that we need to improve the lives of ordinary people in the world.

Take, for instance, the Democrats and Republicans. How different are the parties nowadays? (And we didn't use to have just two parties either.) How different are their stances on nationalized health care? Or Third World debt cancellation?

I'm sorry. I hope that wasn't depressing to you. Activists DO make strides. Chomsky even says that it was only because of them in the sixties that a lot of atrocities carried out by the US government had to go underground (e.g. Iran-Contra). Plus, Ralph Nader even made it onto the national scene in 2000. I guess what I'm realizing is that:

1. Governmental ethics reform is really important. We need to let our representatives know we're watching, and support any initiatives towards this.

2. As activists we have to focus on the process than on the result. We may never see the fruits of our labor in our lifetime. So why keep fighting? Because to me, the alternative is not acceptable.

Amazing Grace

This new film Amazing Grace, about William Wilberforce looks to be a great discussion starter about using our leverage to pursue issues of systemic injustice.

Two hundred years ago, British politician William Wilberforce and his band of loyal friends took on the most powerful forces of their day to end the slave trade. His mentor was John Newton, the slave-trader-turned-songwriter who wrote the world’s most popular hymn, "Amazing Grace."

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade, but the work of justice and mercy continues. Today 27 million men, women, and children are still enslaved around the globe.

Check out the trailer! It opens February 23, 2007

A primer on third world debt

You probably missed the discussion last night at the Union Project on Third World debt. Gene Tibbs from CCO showed a film on it and made a compelling argument which goes as follows:

1. During the 1970s Western banks got flooded with money made from the 1973 oil crisis ("petro-dollars") and to maximize profit on this money, they encouraged -- even pushed -- developing countries to borrow at very low and variable interest rates.

2. Many of these developing countries (e.g. South Africa, Argentina, Philippines) were being ruled by brutal regimes in the 1970s.

3. Especially in these countries, the population suffered without seeing any benefit from the new loans. Often the loans went straight into the bank accounts of the dictators, to build up the military which brutalized its own citizens, or to projects contracted out by Western corporations (um, sounds like Halliburton in Iraq?) which ultimately never got completed.

4. Years later, interest rates on these loans skyrocketed to over 20% (surprise) with new governments of developing countries inheriting the loans. They had to take out more loans just to make the loan payments.

5. In doing so, the governments have spent more on paying down the debt than on social services like health care and education. These countries' citizens are again suffering for something over which they had no responsibility whatsoever.

Based on the above, Jubilee USA and others have called this sort of debt odious, a legal concept which international law has recognized as debt that is immoral and should not be repayed.

Some further reading/resources:
- Wikipedia on third world debt
- a comprehensive article from the National Catholic Reporter about the debt crisis and Jubilee's efforts
- an FAQ on the debt crisis by Jubilee Debt Campaign in the UK.
- Drop the Debt Pittsburgh's blog
- of course, Jubilee USA has a lot of educational materials on the topic.

My thoughts on this to follow...