I never challenged that Kevin Watkins is a well-informed researcher. Clearly he is. But analysis is one thing, and advocacy another. And one should distinguish between two types of advocacy: rhetorical, and specific policy. I agree that Oxfam is fine at the level of general rhetoric. So is Clinton and so, now, the IMF, which has now renamed the "Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility" to the "Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility." But as Uncle Whiskers said, "Every shopkeeper knows the difference between what men are, and what they say they are. But our bourgeois historians have not yet won even this most trivial insight." The claim that the new ESAF will be different from the old has three legs. 1. The name has changed. I regard this argument as beneath discussion. 2. There is a new "policy framework paper." This argument really should be beneath discussion. Suffice it to say that 1) NGO analysis -- even by the weak NGOs -- shows that this document does not clarify what change, if any, can be expected in the existing IMF conditionality, only that there will be additional "poverty" conditionality; and 2) (more importantly) documents can be ignored, and they are, if no-one has the ability and willingness to force them to be honored. 3. Now ESAF will be jointly managed by the Fund and the Bank, and agreements will be subject to Bank approval. This is all there is in terms of real change. So whether you think there is a change depends on whether you trust the Bank to be able/willing to force change. Not something one should be sanguine about, when you consider the Bank's record. Skeptical? The only leverage that has made any difference is unwillingness to fund ESAF. A skeptical approach would be: the change in rhetoric is welcome, let's see the practical result, and then we'll give you more money. The Oxfam approach is to support the money now in exchange for rhetoric. The history of exchanging money for IFI rhetoric is: no real change. Why should it be any different now? If Oxfam has its way, the IFIs will get the money now, and a few years from now everyone will be complaining that the IMF didn't follow through, when the Jubilee 2000 North groups may have left the scene. Why give away the only real leverage that people have outside the institutions, precisely when they are most vulnerable? Why undercut everyone who has been campaigning against ESAF? And the foregoing discussion completely ignores the most fundamental question. Do people in the South really want increased IMF conditionality, to ratify the expansion of the IMF into managing "development"? If Kevin Watkins is so great, let him agree to a public debate with someone chosen by Jubilee 2000 South, on whether the IMF should get out. For that matter, let him agree to a public debate with Jeff Sachs, who is more progressive on these issues. But perhaps he is too shrewd for that. As for >I am sure in moral principle many of the more radical criticisms in the >South are correct. It would be idealist to think that the massive economic >privileges of the populations of the north are not a drag anchor on the >ability of northern campaigners to promote more radical solutions. With a >thirty fold gradient in wage rates across the world a world economic >development programme promoting average remuneration would involve a >cataclysmic reduction in the living standards of the population of the >advanced countries. When for example would our dear pets ever be able to >eat tinned meat again? I can't speak for the UK, but I hardly think this is the problem in the US. If there were a popular referendum in the U.S. on whether the IMF should continue to receive US funding, we would win handily. If the vote were held among Oxfam type NGOs the vote would go the other way. I rather think the problem is that many of the debt campaigners in the north have class origins and class positions which dispose them to be less radical than the general population on economic issues, particularly when it comes to Western economic imperialism. At 10:39 PM 9/28/99 +0100, you wrote: >At 13:28 28/09/99 -0400, Robert Naiman wrote: > >>One element I would add to the J2000 critique, which folks in the South >are only starting to get an inkling of. And that's how totally co-opted, >unaccountable, and deceitful some of the Northern NGOs are. >> >>One can say that the call of debt cancellation for the 52 poorest >countries does not go far enough. But I think that it is a bigger scandal >that some of the most influential groups in the Northern campaigns, >especially Oxfam UK, Oxfam International, Oxfam US, Catholic Relief >Services, Bread [Crumbs] for the World, Presbyterian Church USA, etc. don't >actually support what they claim to support. In other words, if these >groups acted as if they really supported debt cancellation for the poorest >countries, it would be a huge step forward. >> >>But they don't. They support structural adjustment, and keeping structural >adjustment conditionality on debt relief, which means not cancelling it but >preserving the existing IMF/WB/HIPC system of drawing it out to keep these >nations in chains. It seems to me that if this is practically one's >position, then whether one supports debt "relief" for 52 countries or 100 >is an academic point by comparison. >> >>I was at a public meeting in the last few days where Kevin Watkins of >Oxfam UK was going on and on about how great the IMF's new commitment to >poverty reduction is and we all need to support this. At least he's >somewhat honest about what he believes. Many of the others are totally >dishonest, pretending they are totally against the IMF when Southerners are >around when in fact these groups vigorously support conditionality, even if >the IMF is in charge. Oxfam goes so far as to buy up NGOs in the South and >then claim to represent the South based on statements from NGOs that get >money from Oxfam. >< > > > >Kevin Watkins is a well-informed researcher and a shrewd campaigner. Robert >Naiman should produce a fuller presentation of Kevin Watkins's views to >support his claim. > >Kevin Watkins may see some tactical openings in recent IMF presentations >but it would be surprising if he did not urge scepticism and demand proof >of the protested good intentions which even a body like the IMF must clothe >itself in. > >While I could not access certain key articles on the Oxfam Web site this >evening, this blurb about a book in which Oxfam specifically condemns >Structural Adjustment Programmes, despite Robert Naiman's claim of >organisations like Oxfam that "They support structural adjustment" > > > > "If the International Monetary Fund were a > drug, it would have been banned long ago." > The fact is, says Oxfam, that with its > Structural Adjustment Programmes the > Fund stops children going to school. > Image: The IMF's bitter medicine ©Oxfam > International. > Published by Oxfam Great Britain > > >One fact that US subscribers may not know is that the previous Conservative >governments required the UK Charity Commissioners to come down heavily on >anything that might be interpreted as political campaigning. This was >particularly so during the mass campaigning against apartheid. This may >still inhibit some of the ways they present the material. > >Over 10 years ago Oxfam spawned a non-charitable campaigning group, the >World Development Movement. > >Here is a piece from the WDM website linking agitational material about the >AIDS epidemic with political campaigning specifically against Structural >Adjustment Programmes. > > >>Debt relief policies could be fuelling African >> AIDS epidemic, warns new report >> >> As the 11th International Conference on AIDS in Africa opens in Zambia >today >> (Monday), campaign groups warn that the conditions attached to debt >relief >> may be fanning the flames of the Third World AIDS pandemic. >> >> The economic reform policies which poor countries must complete as a >> condition of debt relief (Structural Adjustment Programmes or SAPs) - are >> hurting, not working, according to a report published today by the World >> Development Movement and Medact. Deadly Conditions? examines the >> relationship between debt relief policies and HIV/AIDS. >> >> By pushing people even deeper into poverty, SAPs are helping to create >> conditions where the scourge of HIV/AIDS can flourish, says the report. >> >> Knock-on effects of SAPs can include cuts to health budgets and hospital >> staffing levels, increased unemployment leading to higher levels of urban >> migration and prostitution and the introduction of user fees for >health care - all >> of which could be contributing to the spread of HIV and AIDS. >> >> An estimated 34 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have been >infected with >> HIV since the start of the epidemic. A devastating seventy per cent of >the >> world's newly infected sufferers live in Africa. This has severe >implications for >> Africa's development. Rising life expectancy has nose-dived: in some >> countries HIV/AIDS is expected to lower life expectancy by 25 years. >> >> 'Debt relief is intended to reduce poverty. It is a tragic irony that >it comes >> attached to economic conditions that could be fuelling the AIDS >pandemic - >> one of the biggest threats to development the Third World has ever >seen,' says >> Bethan Brookes, WDM Campaigns Officer. >> >> 'It is time for a long, hard look at SAPs,' said Mike Rowson of >Medact. 'They >> should be judged on their impact on health and poverty. By these >criteria, they >> appear to be failing the Third World.' >> >> SAPs are imposed on poor countries by the International Monetary Fund >(IMF) >> in advance of debt relief. The IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings take >place >> in Washington between 26 and 29 September, and the two campaign groups >> will be pressing Gordon Brown to put SAPs reform on the agenda. > > > >The fact that there is an argument going on within the global movement >against neo-liberalism is a good thing. What is important is that people >are committed and argue about the best way forward. They do not have to be >unanimous. > >I am sure in moral principle many of the more radical criticisms in the >South are correct. It would be idealist to think that the massive economic >privileges of the populations of the north are not a drag anchor on the >ability of northern campaigners to promote more radical solutions. With a >thirty fold gradient in wage rates across the world a world economic >development programme promoting average remuneration would involve a >cataclysmic reduction in the living standards of the population of the >advanced countries. When for example would our dear pets ever be able to >eat tinned meat again? > >Here is a passage from an article in Monday's Guardian about signs that the >IMF is wobbling in its neo-liberal orthodoxy. The passage puts the stance >of Oxfam into context which makes it quite clear it is against structual >adjustment programmes. > > >>In a study of the Asian crisis, Jeffrey Henderson of the Manchester >>Business School found that there were distinct differences between those >>nations which felt the full heat of the meltdown and those - like Taiwan >>and Singapore - which emerged relatively unscathed. >> >>"Taiwan and Singapore have so far remained largely outside the web of the >>crisis because they continue to have effective (though very different) >>developmental states. >> >>"As a consequence they have been able to construct more robust economies >>than the others, partly by withdrawing property and stock markets as foci >>for speculative investment, partly by maintaining the institutional >>capacity and bureaucratic skill to - in the Singaporean phrase - 'cane the >>speculators', and partly by continuing to practise strategic economic >>planning." >> >>Henderson's point is that there is something inimical between the >>long-term capital commitments and the patience needed for "late >>industrialisation", and the speculative and short-term portfolio flows >>induced by the sort of capital-market liberalisation traditionally urged >>on developing nations by bodies such as the IMF. >> >>This is what bodies such as Oxfam have been saying for some time. Debt >>relief, they say, is not an end in itself, but should be channelled into >>laying the foundations for development through investment in the basic >>social infrastructure. >> >>What this means is a more restricted role for the IMF, which should advise >>on the right conditions for macro-economic stability, but should do so >>within a framework that makes poverty reduction a priority. >> >>What it does not mean is countries being force-fed structural adjustment >>programmes and being bullied into ill-timed and self-defeating capital >>liberalisation. >> >>The Fund says that structural adjustment programmes are to be given an >>anti-poverty focus, with even the name being changed from Esaf (enhanced >>structural adjustment facility) to the "poverty reduction and growth >>facility". >> >>But, as we found with Sellafield, changing the name is one thing, changing >>the way things are done is quite another. >> >>Gordon Brown and Clare Short believe that the IMF can be changed, that it >>can be weaned off neo-liberalism. >> >>It is encouraging that, inside the IMF, people are having second thoughts >>about the wisdom of the prevailing orthodoxy. If that means the Fund >>returns to doing what it was set up to do - creating the macroeconomic >>conditions for growth and the advancement of human welfare - it will be >>good news for all of us, even if long overdue. > > > >Chris Burford > >London > ------------------------------- Robert Naiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Preamble Center 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202-265-3263 x277 fax: 202-265-3647 http://www.preamble.org/ -------------------------------
