US Power and International Finance

I was reading Stephen Walt's Taming American Power (published in 2005) and it spoke of the importance of other states replicating US financial practices in order to stabilise the international financial system and prevent shocks. 

This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. The US and its allies (both states and institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank) have pressed states around the world to adopt economic and financial policies which benefit US capital. 

What did this achieve? A mutually-beneficial financial stability? Far from it, as the 2007-9 'American crisis' (Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin's apt phrase) which resulted in considerable shocks worldwide demonstrates. 

All it has done is entrench structural global inequalities based on institutions and practices which overwhelming benefit the already-dominant United States.

It's time those of us who want a world based on equality of opportunity, human rights and democracy to recognise that Western governments are not the advocates of these principles except in rhetorical terms. That they talk about political freedoms as a means of obscuring us from the area where human rights and democracy are most important: in the socio-economic realm. 

A Salvadorean Summer

It's been almost three months since I've posted anything on this blog but I've had a good excuse. I've been in El Salvador teaching English for social justice through an organisation called the Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS). I've been teaching adults who are involved in the social justice movement in El Salvador, are keen to learn English, but are unable to afford the astronomically high costs of English schools in the country. The experience was eye-opening to say the least and I learned far more from my students about the Salvadorean reality than I could ever teach them about English grammar.

The country is an interesting one: highly linked to the USA, it uses the US dollar as its currency and 20% of its economy is based on remittances from the Salvadorean diaspora - largely in the US. The country is the destination for most migrants - some legal, many illegal - and held up as a dream destination for those struggling to keep up a way of life in a country with a low minimum wage and ongoing political disillusionment.

The two main political parties in El Salvador - the right-wing ARENA and left-wing FMLN - are the same two sides who fought a bloody civil war in the country during the 1980s. Those who committed atrocities have been granted amnesty and no justice has been sought for those innocent people who were slaughtered or 'disappeared' during that time. In order for the country to move on politically these things must be addressed just as they must be in all other countries with recent civil wars.

I learned a lot with this experience: I now speak functional Spanish for one thing. But mostly I learned what a broad range of views and insights there are out there waiting to be heard if only someone would listen.

New leader of the World Bank: the surprising and the unsurprising

It is unsurprising that the new leader of the World Bank is from the USA; its leaders have been from the US since it was created after world war two. I lament the ‘US/European duopoly’ of the World Bank/IMF as much as the next person. These two organisations, as well as most UN institutions, are in vital need of some injection of diversity in perspective from the global south and east. 

What is surprising is that, in the case of Jim Yong Kim vs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala for president of the World Bank, I am delighted that American Kim has won. It was Nigerian Okonjo-Iweala who represented the status quo in this case. Kim's background in global health rather than finance is incredibly refreshing, and I look forward to his input. This is particularly considering the announcement that David Cameron is to chair the UN committee on overseeing development goals (more of which later…)

A step in the right direction

First Burma, now North Korea: are the world's pariah states moving towards greater global cooperation? As Burma loosened its grip on domestic freedoms, last year saw the US Secretary of State visit the nation for the first time in decades signifying a thawing in international relations. In a move that many have seen as an attempt to weaken reliance upon China, Burma seems to be changing for the better. Is North Korea now making the same step (and, perhaps, for the same reason)? Today it was announced that, in exchange for US food supplies, North Korea would suspend its nuclear programme.

We can only hope that all nations will take a leaf out off these countries' books in moving toward cooperation and negotiation for the greater good. For while both the isolationism and the oppression of human rights of North Korea and Burma are on the extreme end of the scale, every country could benefit from some self-reflection, greater co-operation and democratic changes on the path to greater good for all.

Long Walk to Freedom

I was listening to Ladysmith Black Mambazo yesterday and one of their songs affected me in particular. Halala South Africa congratulates the group's home country on its transition to democracy. In amongst the powerful lyrics is a reference to Nelson Mandela's lengthy and moving autobiography: Long Walk to Freedom. It suddenly struck me just how extraordinary an achievement the end of the apartheid regime must have seemed both to those directly involved in the struggle for freedom and worldwide observers. Just a few years previously it must have seemed impossible for the regime which had been propped up by both the British and American governments to have fallen.

So what changed? The answer lies in the worldwide events of the time: the fall of the Soviet Union and, with it, the end of the Cold War meant that support for 'capitalist-friendly' abusive regimes such as that of South Africa was no longer so appealing. Something similar occurred for dictatorial regimes in Argentina, Brazil and Chile which had also been propped up both overtly and covertly by the Western side of the Iron Curtain.

This story should give hope to those today who feel like they are swimming up a waterfall. When I speak to people who have either studied or been directly involved in the Israeli-Palestine conflict there is an overwhelming sense of pessimism about the future. The largest source of this pessimism is American and global economic support for the Israeli government in all actions they wish to undertake. While I would not wish to say the two situations are the same: South Africa was one country with a brutal regime which needed toppling entirely; Israel and Palestine are two separate nations at almost complete loggerheads, with one enacting terror over the other through administrative and economic control. However, should American support for Israel ever falter due to some international event comparable to the end of the Cold War, I have no doubt that the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would change dramatically, with both sides much more willing to co-operate if a resolution seemed more likely.

Nothing will be normal in Syria until Bashar al-Assad steps down

The Syrian authorities are currently trying to distract observers by diverting attention to US involvement, accusing them, almost laughably, of 'seeking to rekindle violence'. The intentions of the US should not be the focus of people's attention at the moment. That should be reserved entirely for the appalling way Syrian authorities have continuously slaughtered their own people, including many children, for the last 9 months.

It is time for Bashar al-Assad to realise that he and his regime have already lost. The violence against his own people has been too extensive, the repression too brutal, and the reaction from opposition too determined for him to ever feel or appear to be the legitimate leader of Syria again.

Attempts to divert attention to the US won't make a jot of difference.

What was the Iraq war really about?

The Iraq war wasn't about the protection of human rights. Neither was it about securing oil. As Middle East specialist Fred Halliday pointed out in his 100 Myths about the Middle East, if the US had wanted to secure oil in Iraq it would have done a deal with Saddam Hussein. The war certainly wasn't about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The war was about something broader: it was about securing US dominance in this particular area of the world. It was about the US fearing its diminishing position on the global stage with the emergence of countries such as China and India.


I wouldn't argue that intervention of any kind was not necessary in Iraq. Clearly the position of the Iraqi people in terms of their treatment by authorities had become untenable. Furthermore, the effect this was having on neighbouring countries and globally was worsening.


What was the alternative to military intervention in Iraq in 2003? The alternative to the killing of countless innocent civilians? The alternative to engendering a situation now where Iraq is experiencing deep political and economic insecurity? The alternative to a situation where I recently listened to an Iraqi asylum seeker explain that the situation for Iraqi people as a whole, and homosexuals in particular has worsened and not improved since the 2003 invastion? I do not have the answer. But leaving Saddam Hussein to exercise terror over the Iraqi population cannot be the best alternative.