At 07:28 24/10/99 +0200, you wrote: >On 23 Oct 99, at 23:59, Chris Burford wrote: >> ... there are various politicised charities in the UK >> who want a bigger type of reform than just annulment of the debt. Nor are >> they any longer restricting themselves to calling for advantageous trade >> deals. > >Oxfam Int'l's people endorsed the IMF's turn to poverty reduction >last month. The progressive South groups rejected it >wholeheartedly (see below). Who are you going to support, Chris? > >> I am not trying to persuade you not to campaign as effectively as you can, >> but I cannot see that third world countries have much leverage. What do you >> think progressives in first world countries should do? > >Get with the programme? > >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date sent: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 22:02:32 -0200 >From: "wb50years" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (by way of >Marcos Arruda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >Subject: Opposed to IMF Sign-on Letter > >----------------------------- >Dear Activists/Friends, > >We are sending this letter out to gather more sign-ons! >Please circulate this to all networks you have access to! > >Please send your sign-on to my email address. This letter is to be >the cornerstone of a major IMF campaign internationally. Focus on >the Global South (Thailand) and Freedom From Debt Coalition >(Philippines) are spearheading a major effort on this campaign > >Thank you for your support and for circulating it far and wide! > >In Solidarity, > >Njoki Njoroge Njehû >50 Years Is Enough Network > > >================================================= >=================== > >8 October 1999 > >TO: Leaders of the G-7 Countries > International Monetary Fund Executive Directors > International Monetary Fund Management > >We, representatives of civil society organizations gathered in >Taegu, South Korea to consider strategies to counter the damage >done by unregulated capital flows and the programs of the Before commenting on the document I want to comment on the approach. As a matter of principle, living in London, I would start out with an assumption that I should support Oxfam or a similar organisation like World Development Movement which is London based. (I am a fee-paying member of WDM.) That principle is the principle of the primacy of practice over theory. What can be done is related to where you are. Things can be done in Bangkok which cannot be done in London. Things can be done in London which cannot be done in Bangkok. It is not possible to distinguish between reformatory initiatives and reformist ones unless they are judged in relation to the political possibilities and the balance of forces. In the British context WDM is pretty shrewd at that, and beat the Government over the Pergau Dam. In a spirit of internationalism we must recognise that progresssive people are in different places and have to come to things from different angles. If this forms a sort of international united front in which people like those from Thailand are advanced elements and people from countries like Britain and the USA are only middling elements, then so be it. This is ultimately about changing things, not about a morality contest. We have a problem about how we use the internet for international solidarity because it can create the illusion that we are all in one club. That is an idealist illusion and we need to relate our contributions to where we come from. Many mailing software programmes do not identify the country in the address name. This is why I sign my posts as coming from London. So my starting point would be to read the assessment of the WDM, but I welcome the opportunity for international exchange like this and would want to draw to its attention the viewpoints of the more radical Southern campaigners. Chris Burford London
