|
GLOBALIZATION
"Bush Urges Shift to Direct Grants for Poor Nations," by David E.
Sanger in the New York Times, July 18, 2001, page A1.
"Protestors at Bay, Rich Nations' Chiefs to Meet in Genoa," by
Alessandra Stanley and Warren Hoge in the New York Times,
July 18, 2001, page A10.
"Fortress Genoa Awaits G-8 Leaders and Foes," by Alessandra Stanley
in the New York Times, July 19, 2001, page A12.
"Bush Scolds Protesters at Genoa Talks," no byline, New York Times,
July 19, 2001, page A12.
|
|
All of these articles include criticisms
directed against those who have protested the recent course of
globalization... but [none]... present the protesters' views.
It is worth noting
that a large share of export
earnings, especially for the poorest
nations, are used to service past
debt. If this debt were cancelled,
poor nations... would be better able
to develop their domestic
economies.
Industrialized nations are seeking to
impose a situation in which
developing nations must increase
their exports. This need is not a
natural development, as implied by
the protesters' critics.
It is
also possible that the World Bank's
programs go awry because they are
poorly designed or driven by
ideological motives -- such as the
promotion of privatization -- rather
than a serious examination of
conditions.
This was an argument
made by Joseph Stiglitz, the former
chief economist at the World Bank.
|
|
The Times article by Sanger discusses a speech in which President
Bush advocated that the World Bank convert many of its loans to
grants. The other Times articles report on preparations for the G-8
summit in Genoa, Italy. All of these articles include criticisms
directed against those who have protested the recent course of
globalization, including comments from President Bush and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair. For example, the Stanley and Hoge article
quotes Blair saying, "If the public knew [the protesters'] views,
they'd disagree with them," but neither this article nor any of the
others cited above present the protesters' views.
The theme repeated by the protesters' critics is that developing
nations must export to the industrialized nations in order to escape
poverty. It is worth noting that a large share of export earnings,
especially for the poorest nations, are used to service past debt. If
this debt were cancelled, poor nations would have to divert far fewer
resources to producing goods for export and would be better able to
develop their domestic economies. The TRIPS agreement, which extends
U.S.-type patent and copyright protection to developing nations, will
increase the flow of royalty payments and licensing fees from
developing nations, further increasing the need for developing
nations to export. In short, the industrialized nations are seeking
to impose a situation in which developing nations must increase their
exports. This need is not a natural development, as implied by the
protesters' critics.
The article by Sanger notes that the World Bank's programs "often go
awry," but attributes this fact to "local corruption or the conflict
between the bank's plans and
those of local and national leaders." It is also possible that the
World Bank's programs go awry because they are poorly designed or
driven by ideological motives -- such as the promotion of
privatization -- rather than a serious examination of conditions.
This was an argument made by Joseph Stiglitz, the former chief
economist at the World Bank.
|
|
WTO TALKS
"U.S., E.U. Near Accord on Trade Talks," by Paul Blustein in the
Washington Post, July 18, 2001, page E1.
|
|
Much of the article is ostensibly
devoted to the concerns of
developing nations.
In spite of this focus, the article
never mentions the reconsideration
of the TRIPS agreement, the one
item that developing nations insisted
be on the agenda.
By imposing U.S.- type copyright and
patent protection on developing
nations, TRIPS could drain hundreds
of billions of dollars in royalty
payments and licensing fees from
developing nations over the coming
decades.
Most people who claim to support
"free trade" also support
protectionist measures like
copyrights and patents,
|
|
This article reports on negotiations between the European Union and
the United States over the agenda for the WTO summit in November.
Much of the article is ostensibly devoted to the concerns of
developing nations, discussing efforts to increase their access to
markets in the industrialized nations.
In spite of this focus, the article never mentions the
reconsideration of the TRIPS agreement, the one item that developing
nations insisted be on the agenda at the WTO talks. By imposing U.S.-
type copyright and patent protection on developing nations, TRIPS
could drain hundreds of billions of dollars in royalty payments and
licensing fees from developing nations over the coming decades.
It is also worth noting that at one point the article refers to the
views of "free-trade advocates," without identifying any groups or
individuals. Most people who claim to support "free trade" also
support protectionist measures like copyrights and patents, and do
not object to professional restrictions that maintain high salaries
for doctors, lawyers and other professionals. It is unlikely that the
people referred to in this quote can accurately be described as "free
trade advocates."
|
|
GLOBAL WARMING
"U.S., Japan Are Pressed on Kyoto," by William Drozdiak in the
Washington Post, July 17, 2001, page A11.
|
|
The last conference in the Hague
broke down primarily over a
demand by the United States that it
be allowed to emit at levels above
those agreed to in the Kyoto
conference in 1997, based on the
fact that it has large amounts of
forests and farmlands.
Since everyone at the Kyoto
conference knew that the United
States, like other nations, has forests
and farmlands, and set the ceilings
with this in mind, the U.S. was
effectively demanding that it be
granted a higher ceiling than the
one that it had originally accepted.
There would be little dispute among
the nations that increasing their
forests, farmlands, or other sinks for
carbon dioxide, should be counted
against the limits.
The issue that
created controversy was the U.S.
effort to raise the limits based on
existing carbon sinks. This would
seriously reduce the effectiveness of
the treaty in curbing global
warming.
|
|
This article reports on an international conference designed to reach
an agreement to curb global warming, which is taking place in
Germany. At one point the article reports that the previous
conference in the fall of last year broke down over a dispute over
trading pollution credits between countries. The article also reports
that the delegates will attempt to determine the extent to which
forests and farmlands -- which pull greenhouse gases out of the
atmosphere -- "should be factored into the equation."
According to reporting at the time, the last conference in the Hague
broke down primarily over a demand by the United States that it be
allowed to emit at levels above those agreed to in the Kyoto
conference in 1997, based on the fact that it has large amounts of
forests and farmlands (see "Global Warming Talks Collapse," by
William Drozdiak, Washington Post, November 26, 2000, page
A1; "Treaty Talks Fail to Find Consensus In Global Warming," by
Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times, November 26, 2000, Section 1, page
1; "Envoys Could Not Agree on Value of Forests to World Environment,"
by Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times, November 26, 2000, Section 1,
page 16; and ERR 12-1-00). The Clinton administration took the
position at the Hague conference that it should be able to count the
carbon dioxide pulled out of the atmosphere by its forests and
farmland against the ceiling it had agreed to three years earlier.
Since everyone at the Kyoto conference knew that the United States,
like other nations, has forests and farmlands, and set the ceilings
with this in mind, the U.S. was effectively demanding that it be
granted a higher ceiling than the one that it had originally
accepted.
There would be little dispute among the nations that increasing their
forests, farmlands, or other sinks for carbon dioxide, should be
counted against the limits. The issue that created controversy was
the U.S. effort to raise the limits based on existing carbon sinks.
This would seriously reduce the effectiveness of the treaty in
curbing global warming.
|
|
ARGENTINA
"Argentine with a Headache: The Economy," by Clifford Krauss in the
New York Times, July 18, 2001, page A12.
|
|
The article begins by asserting
that Mr. Cavallo was viewed as "the
knight in shining armor who would
lift Argentina out of its three-year
long recession," when he took over
the position four months ago.
Many of
Argentina's current problems
actually are the result of Mr.
Cavallo's policies in a previous
government.
Mr. Cavallo made the decision in the
early 1990s to tie Argentina's
currency to the dollar as a way to
curb hyper-inflation. While the policy
was successful in taming inflation, it
had predictable consequences,
which Argentina is now
experiencing.
Current efforts to
maintain the peg with the peso
significantly overvalued have led to
even higher interest rates, enormous
foreign borrowing, and other
measures that are hurting the
economy.
If Mr. Cavallo was
unaware of the extent of the nation's
credit problems it would suggest that
he was an extraordinarily
ill-informed person to become the
government's top economic official.
|
|
This article examines the situation of Domingo Cavallo, Argentina's
economy minister, as he tries to get Argentina out of its current
economic crisis. The article begins by asserting that Mr. Cavallo was
viewed as "the knight in shining armor who would lift Argentina out
of its three-year long recession," when he took over the position
four months ago. It is worth noting that many of Argentina's current
problems actually are the result of Mr. Cavallo's policies in a
previous government.
Mr. Cavallo made the decision in the early 1990s to tie Argentina's
currency to the dollar as a way to curb hyper-inflation. While the
policy was successful in taming inflation, it had predictable
consequences, which Argentina is now experiencing. When the U.S.
dollar rose against other major currencies, the Argentine currency
rose with it, making its goods uncompetitive in world markets. The
problem was exacerbated in 1999, when Brazil, Argentina's major
trading partner, devalued its currency.
Argentina's situation became even worse when Alan Greenspan began
raising interest rates in 1999 in order to slow the U.S. economy. In
order to maintain the link to the dollar, Argentina had to raise its
interest rates, even though it was already in a recession. Current
efforts to maintain the peg with the peso significantly overvalued
have led to even higher interest rates, enormous foreign borrowing,
and other measures that are hurting the economy.
At one point the article quotes Mr. Cavallo as saying that when he
became economics minister four months ago, he "didn't realize our
credit had totally evaporated." Argentina's financial difficulties
had been widely reported in the international business press at the
time (see "Speedy Start on Emergency Economic Plan in Argentina," by
Clifford Krauss, New York Times, March 24, 2001, page B1;
and "Argentina Presses for Ways to Jolt Its Economy Out of
Recession," by Clifford Kraus, New York Times, March 25, 2001,
section 1, page 11). If Mr. Cavallo was unaware of the extent of the
nation's credit problems it would suggest that he was an
extraordinarily ill-informed person to become the government's top
economic official.
|
|
|