Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Fed Up with the lies, and the disinformation? Support AlterNet and keep it honest.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Measuring Victory

By Rebecca Solnit, Tomdispatch.com. Posted July 26, 2005.


The author of Hope in the Dark explores the misleading 'victory' of debt relief for the poorest countries, as promised at Scotland's G8 summit.
Measuring Victory
Advertisement

While we were looking at humpbacked whales a few months ago, my companion asked me if I ever thought about how Moby Dick's narrator, Ishmael, survived -- by floating away from the destroyed ship Pequod in his friend Queequeg's coffin.

Whales themselves survived into the twenty-first century in part because of petroleum, the black stuff seeping out of the Pennsylvania earth that made the Rockefellers rich and whale oil unnecessary for lighting lamps (and because of the first international whaling treaty in 1949).

Of course, petroleum went on to create the climate change that threatens habitat for whales and trashes their world in other ways. Typically, there isn't an easy moral to this, any more than there is to Ishmael floating away safely because his friend had terrible premonitions of death. And that's part of the richness of Herman Melville's telling.

The world is full of tales in which morals are hard to extract from facts. There is the delightful fact that Viagra has been good for endangered species like elk whose antlers now are less at risk of being ground up for Chinese aphrodisiacs, surely the greatest inadvertent contribution of big pharmaceuticals in our time.

Casinos have provided many Native American tribes with revenue and clout, though gambling is another kind of social problem and outside groups are the principal profiteers from some of the casinos.

McDonald's has (under intense pressure from animal rights activists) led the way in reforming how meat animals are raised and slaughtered.

Many military sites have become de facto wildlife refuges, saving huge swathes of land from civilian development (even if bombing endangered species is part of the drill).

Then there are those interesting moments when otherwise appalling politicians do something decent for whatever reason or when the principled and the sinister are weirdly mixed -- like anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty Arizona Senator John McCain's passion for addressing climate change or the recently deceased Pope John Paul II's condemnation of neoliberalism. To say nothing of our one great environmental president, Richard Nixon (and, yes, it wasn't out of purity of heart that Nixon got us the Environmental Protection Agency, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air and Water Acts, but purity of water and air matter more).

Sometimes, though, I think my compatriots are looking for the real world to provide stories as simple as Sunday school and sports, not as complex as Moby Dick. I would like those victories too. I would have liked it a lot if, after returning from the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, earlier this month, George W. Bush had -- in a live global telecast like the Oscars -- fallen to his knees, apologized profusely to everyone for everything, condemned capitalism, violence and himself, promised to dismantle the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, stop the war in Iraq immediately, and dedicate some of the billions thus saved to African poverty. And that's just for starters. But let's look instead at what we got.

The Baby or the Baby-killer?

Bush, as ever, refused to deal with climate change and was dragged along only grudgingly on aid and debt-relief measures for Africa. Even so, in the lead-up to the summit, 18 of the world's poorest nations, including Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nicaragua, Rwanda, and Uganda, received 100% debt cancellation -- a $40 billion write-off from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank. Nine more countries will receive debt cancellation in the next 18 months. Of course there were strings attached -- preexisting policies obliging those nations to play by some of the rules that made them destitute to begin with. A lot of radicals excoriated the whole business of the G8 taking up debt relief and African poverty. John Pilger wrote in the New Statesman:

It is a fraud -- actually a setback to reducing poverty in Africa. Entirely conditional on vicious, discredited economic programmes imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, the 'package' will ensure that the 'chosen' countries slip deeper into poverty. Is it any surprise that this is backed by Blair and his treasurer, Gordon Brown, and George Bush; even the White House calls it a 'milestone.'

Others disagreed. Foreign Policy in Focus analyst Mark Engler wrote:

Those progressives who have attacked the debt deal emphasize that, even in announcing the cancellation, G8 finance ministers explicitly reaffirm a neoliberal economic paradigm. Under the new G8 agreement, 18 countries do receive full debt cancellation from the IMF and World Bank, and nine other countries may be granted similar relief at a later date.

Digg!

Rebecca Solnit lives in San Francisco. Her latest book is "A Field Guide to Getting Lost."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Things are more complex
Posted by: dearkitty on Jul 26, 2005 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Things are more complex than discussed in this article. There is now, indeed, some debt relief for some countries; but dependent on privatization "reforms" in these African countries, which may very well make the situation even worse.

Latest: US plans to militarize Africa in the name of "anti terrorism".

See here. And here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Signposts along the way
Posted by: knitter on Jul 26, 2005 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A great deal of rhetoric bogs down in ineffective sports metaphors. Red and Blue are cast as opposing team colors with totally opposite goals. Evil and good are cast as mutually exclusive qualities that are the sole property of one group or another.
This article raises good questions about how to gracefully accept a step in the right direction from people or groups who are not fellow travelers. We could make signiicant progress in this direction by leaving the playing field and its score keeping behind. It is time for intrepid explorers to go into uncharted territory seeking universal physical, mental, spiritual (and even economic) well-being. Side by side, people with differences of opinion study the maps, the terrain and weigh the options ahead. When they find a way that holds forth promise of leading toward a goal, together they post a sign for those yet to follow.
This piece mentions the story of the babies coming downstream. My suspicion is that upstream are too many folks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let's learn to live with complexity and not dismiss a step in the right direction because it is taken by someone we don't admire or trust.
Hurrah to the folks who have continued to work for debt cancellation. The journey continues!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Signposts along the way Posted by: magistre
How much progress?
Posted by: bqtrain on Jul 26, 2005 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author fails to answer the question of how much progress will actually be made since further neoliberal economic policies are implemented along with the cancellation of debt. The author makes the assumption that debt relief will reduce poverty more than these policies will create poverty. This point can be argued, but the author needs to provide evidence. Many progressives who don't view this as a victory believe that the impact of further neoliberal policy will outweigh the short-term benefit of cancelling debt payments. The only real evidence she provided was instances where governments claim more people will have short-term access to medicine and water. In many countries around the world, both of these resources have become more difficult to obtain due to neoliberal policies. While I agree that we need to take every victory we can get, taking 1 step forward and 2 steps backward is not a victory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How much progress? Posted by: holojojo
» RE: How much progress? Posted by: holojojo
Good Article
Posted by: nakis on Jul 26, 2005 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that one cannot pass up on the goodness that the debt cancellation means to the masses and poor countries. I have has this discussion many times. I always find myself on the side that expects greater reform. Sure the money will help many people who need it now. But as the article states it makes clear that the economic swords that impale children are still at work. With the help of the subversive policies attached to debt relief those swords are getting more and more use.
And why isn't the supposed liberal press explaining that the benefits in debt relief and reduction directly equates with the economic policies that create the 'swords in children affect'.
The wealthy made a significant gesture to the poor but with a flagrant jester approach.
Once more the people were stabbed with a pretty sword.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"You Trust Politicians?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 26, 2005 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
". . .and limited changes can be how politicians disarm popular outcry rather than truly address what's at stake."

No, limited changes are not "can be"; they are precisely how politicians think they can tell the rest of us to f**k off. Politicians are masters of bromides, pallatives – and bullshit. Don't forget, half of the time (I'm being generous), they have no intention of carrying through with even their half-measures. I agree that it is good to save lives with partial victories – but the tendency is to put a band-aid on an abcess, saying: "See? It's better now." while the infection spreads beneath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism
Posted by: brs04wsc on Jul 26, 2005 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a bit off topic, but I read tings like this and I really am not sure what's meant...

"...would have liked it a lot if, after returning from the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, earlier this month, George W. Bush had -- in a live global telecast like the Oscars -- fallen to his knees, apologized profusely to everyone for everything, violence and himself..."

Condemned capitalism? I read things like this all of the time on lefy sites. Does she mean condemn our particular brand of capitalism? If she means capitalism period, what would replace capitalism? I'm all for looking at the bad things that capitalism brings and trying to find rememdies - but must we ignore the good it's done?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capitalism Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Capitalism Posted by: brs04wsc
» Habermas, etc. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Habermas, etc. Posted by: philame
» RE: Habermas, etc. Posted by: brs04wsc
» RE: Habermas, etc. Posted by: Sojourner
You mean like to good in Hitler?
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jul 26, 2005 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see what you mean...like Hitler had some good points. We must not forget that. He did some good things...brought Germany out of a depression, instilled national pride...was very pro-science....

We need to remember that and quit bashing him just because he didn't do everything WE wanted him to...right? Isn't that your point?

So George W isn't all that bad huh? HA HA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something that clicked for me
Posted by: philame on Jul 26, 2005 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that clicked for me as I read this article was the Bush administration's highly visible embrace of ethnic and gender diversity. Does it mean we're making progress or are the goals being subverted? Probably something else entirely (and hopefully better). Great article and great posts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the G 8
Posted by: Alfredo bremont on Jul 26, 2005 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What could concern us here is the system and how it behaves, that way we can determine how to handle it in order that reacts appropriately. We could say that we are all bound to the system those that are in power now, and the powerless. This in many ways indicates an arrangement it does not determine its circumstances. Therefore can be, modified. Understanding that the system develops via the two opposite ends and joints at some point in time establishing a wheel that moves the lots amongst themselves, those that hold power have a tendency of stopping the wheel and fix it, somewhat they call it security. So being secure is fixation in this context, which means non-movement. Appling this method properly the system will suddenly stop. Leaving those that purposely maintain a domain empty-handed, as we all know nothing really stop it is always moving, them as the wheel continuous his course it becomes the moment to jump on it consequently achieving equilibrium in the system by slowing him down. Once the system has decrease, its speed it collapses, on economical terms we can think of a 1929 depression. Only in this respect it is a controlled event, it is not the system the one that manipulates the wheel but you, and this makes it easier to decrease in one end and increase in another. This must be, achieved by the whole, which is the other end of the leaders of the world the underground G8. As we can perceive now in this respect a minority commands and the whole obeys, which is the opposite of a democracy. To understand the inversion we can determine that a true democracy would be when the whole commands and the minority executes, some democratic voices will conclude minorities as those that the whole must protect, however the whole believes that is independent and those minorities that need protection in this respect become the secretive G8. A mathematical certainty that the system imposes which is an attempt to quantise its nature by posing a problem that must be resolve, consequently allowing consciousness to evolve.
Once that achieve the system will adapt to the whole and regain equilibrium.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More than aq perception problem
Posted by: joncehart on Jul 26, 2005 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rebecca, thank you for addressing this issue so well.

I have one big disagreement. You said: "The real debate is over perception: Radicals fear that the acceptance of limited changes undermines the profound change they seek, and the less radical are indeed often willing to accept palliative measures instead."

In the case of many 'radicals' the problem is one of motivation: they want to avoid the risks involved with enacting solutions to problems. What risks? That your solution will fuck things up more than they already are. That you will find out that what you are certain of--which gives you confidence--is wrong, and --!!!swish!!!--there goes your confidence. A radical has a decision to make: either to accept that their role is a prophetic one and not one from which they can govern, or to feel good and powerful on the cheap by making impossible demands and dismissing all solutions at of hand. The first humble and compassionate; the second, arrogant and aggressive.

joncehart

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compromise makes Strange Bedfellows
Posted by: sourpuss on Jul 26, 2005 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought the article was good, it covered why most activists will still be unhappy, but also news to rejoice about. I just worry that these countries that have been granted debt relief will turn right around and borrow more money that will benefit corrupt governments and foreign corporations, sending them straight back to indebtedness. There must be some form of credit check and no loans (except for the medications and food) for hairbrained IMF, WTO or other international organizations' or corporations' ideas to "promote progress". Micro loans seem the best way to go.

Of course this means more battles to end the imposition of IMF type plans in these countries. Soldier on folks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]