Saturday, September 13, 2003
Brazilian president Lula said that he will follow the Argentinean steps with the IMF: dignity; first Brazil, then the rest of the world. Meanwhile today the IMF came back to put pressure on the public services lobby. My God...
Friday, September 12, 2003
The Argentine economy minister said today:
If there's people who think Argentina is able to pay without growing, they're wrong.
and also
They understood the agreements from the nineties somehow didn't respect or didn't understand what was happening in the developing economies.
This is because Argentina got its agreement with the IMF without submitting to their lobbies. Horst Köhler (Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund) said that he signed the agreement under pressure, presumably by the United States. Bush, in turn, gave some support to the Argentine president, saying that leadership is all that matters, and that he has to bargain every cent to the IMF.
I still don't get the big picture. Is this some kind of new lobby from the United States for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)? Or as Bush knows that the lobbies of the IMF were mostly due to European companies he just wanted to strike in that direction? What should we expect? On the other hand, a second default for Argentina, when Argentina is doing all right would leave the IMF in a ridiculous position. The fact is that an agreement was reached, but the president is not very proud. He said "there's nothing to celebrate here".
If there's people who think Argentina is able to pay without growing, they're wrong.
and also
They understood the agreements from the nineties somehow didn't respect or didn't understand what was happening in the developing economies.
This is because Argentina got its agreement with the IMF without submitting to their lobbies. Horst Köhler (Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund) said that he signed the agreement under pressure, presumably by the United States. Bush, in turn, gave some support to the Argentine president, saying that leadership is all that matters, and that he has to bargain every cent to the IMF.
I still don't get the big picture. Is this some kind of new lobby from the United States for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)? Or as Bush knows that the lobbies of the IMF were mostly due to European companies he just wanted to strike in that direction? What should we expect? On the other hand, a second default for Argentina, when Argentina is doing all right would leave the IMF in a ridiculous position. The fact is that an agreement was reached, but the president is not very proud. He said "there's nothing to celebrate here".
Again in the Guardian, there's an article by Joseph Stiglitz (2001 Nobel prize in economic science, ex-vice president of the World Bank, etc). There's a lot of factual information there that may be very useful for those who have no idea of what this mess of the WTO is all about. While Naomi Klein thinks that if the poor make their point here, it can be a problem for Bush, Stiglitz projects a more global (and naïve, somehow) view:
A failure at Cancun will not only be a setback for those wanting to see a fairer, more inclusive global trade regime, with the benefits accruing not only to multinationals in the north but to the poor in the south. It will represent another manifestation of the failures of global democracy so evident this year: the system of global decision-making does not reflect the interests and concerns of the majority of the world's population. It is not one person one vote, not even one dollar one vote. But it will also represent another manifestation of the failure of democracy within our societies.
I mean, this has been happening all the time! It will be really unlikely for the capitalists to show some reasonable approach to the inequality in the world. One thing is changing though: "the system of global decision-making does not reflect the interests and concerns of the majority of the world's population", I think that was a reference to the unpopular Iraq war; for the first time the world showed a disagreement with its main leaders. But that was because people had the proper information (except the citizens of the United States, who believed all the lies Bush told them, with the help of the American press); in the case of the WTO, the third world has no global voice, as the first world people in general terms ignore what's happening in Cancún these days.
A failure at Cancun will not only be a setback for those wanting to see a fairer, more inclusive global trade regime, with the benefits accruing not only to multinationals in the north but to the poor in the south. It will represent another manifestation of the failures of global democracy so evident this year: the system of global decision-making does not reflect the interests and concerns of the majority of the world's population. It is not one person one vote, not even one dollar one vote. But it will also represent another manifestation of the failure of democracy within our societies.
I mean, this has been happening all the time! It will be really unlikely for the capitalists to show some reasonable approach to the inequality in the world. One thing is changing though: "the system of global decision-making does not reflect the interests and concerns of the majority of the world's population", I think that was a reference to the unpopular Iraq war; for the first time the world showed a disagreement with its main leaders. But that was because people had the proper information (except the citizens of the United States, who believed all the lies Bush told them, with the help of the American press); in the case of the WTO, the third world has no global voice, as the first world people in general terms ignore what's happening in Cancún these days.
Still about WTO Cancún meeting, today a new article by Naomi Klein appeared in the Guardian. She says neoliberalism is a form of war:
(...) in Cancun (...) thousands of activists converged to declare that the brutal economic model advanced by the WTO is itself a form of war. War because privatisation and deregulation kill - by pushing up prices on necessities like water and medicines, and pushing down prices on raw commodities like coffee, making small farms unsustainable. War because those who resist are routinely arrested, beaten and even killed. War because when this low-intensity repression fails to clear the path to corporate liberation, the real wars begin.
And this is how we, third world citizen, always saw it. Nobody payed attention when it was said that three thousand people died on 9/11 in New York, but millions die starving by first world indiference in Africa. But the "everyone's American today" erased it all, and it was taboo to feel no pity about their dead. There was no means to critics, and furthermore, it was an excuse for the most impopular war in years, that of Iraq. We should not forget, again, about 9/11 in Chile, thirty years before. Back to Klein's article,
The Bush administration has let it be known that if the Cancun meetings fail, it will simply barrel ahead with more bilateral free trade deals, like the one just signed with Chile. Insignificant in economic terms, the deal's real power is as a wedge: already, Washington is using it to bully Brazil and Argentina into supporting the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It is 30 years since Pinochet, with the help of the CIA, brought the free market to Chile "with blood and fire". But that terror is paying dividends to this day: the left never recovered, and Chile remains the most pliant country in the region.
Needless to say, Chile is the only country in Latin America to have a trade deal with the United States. They still prefer to ignore the fact that their democratic president Allende was killed (or forced to kill himself) by the CIA, to install a dictatorship, Pinochet, just as a means to bring the free market Klein mentions. Naturally, newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post choose to ignore the WTO meeting; it's not important at all for the first world, it shouldn't be, it mustn't be.
(...) in Cancun (...) thousands of activists converged to declare that the brutal economic model advanced by the WTO is itself a form of war. War because privatisation and deregulation kill - by pushing up prices on necessities like water and medicines, and pushing down prices on raw commodities like coffee, making small farms unsustainable. War because those who resist are routinely arrested, beaten and even killed. War because when this low-intensity repression fails to clear the path to corporate liberation, the real wars begin.
And this is how we, third world citizen, always saw it. Nobody payed attention when it was said that three thousand people died on 9/11 in New York, but millions die starving by first world indiference in Africa. But the "everyone's American today" erased it all, and it was taboo to feel no pity about their dead. There was no means to critics, and furthermore, it was an excuse for the most impopular war in years, that of Iraq. We should not forget, again, about 9/11 in Chile, thirty years before. Back to Klein's article,
The Bush administration has let it be known that if the Cancun meetings fail, it will simply barrel ahead with more bilateral free trade deals, like the one just signed with Chile. Insignificant in economic terms, the deal's real power is as a wedge: already, Washington is using it to bully Brazil and Argentina into supporting the Free Trade Area of the Americas. It is 30 years since Pinochet, with the help of the CIA, brought the free market to Chile "with blood and fire". But that terror is paying dividends to this day: the left never recovered, and Chile remains the most pliant country in the region.
Needless to say, Chile is the only country in Latin America to have a trade deal with the United States. They still prefer to ignore the fact that their democratic president Allende was killed (or forced to kill himself) by the CIA, to install a dictatorship, Pinochet, just as a means to bring the free market Klein mentions. Naturally, newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post choose to ignore the WTO meeting; it's not important at all for the first world, it shouldn't be, it mustn't be.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
I suppose I should write a couple of words about 9/11, be it the Chilean one, thirty years ago, one of the many blows to democracy by the United States, or the American one, that some see as the reverse of that of Chile. I feel I have nothing new to say, though.
"American music industry officials have agreed to settle a copyright infringement lawsuit against a 12-year-old New York girl for $2,000". She could have faced fines of up to $150,000 for each copyright infringement, the Guardian notes. The girl was forced to say that "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love".
The RIAA, meanwhile, states that "as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers". Very interesting...
The RIAA, meanwhile, states that "as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers". Very interesting...
Back to the WTO meeting. A couple of days ago, Radiohead's singer Thom Yorke wrote in The Guardian a compelling article. It begins like this:
The west is creating an extremely dangerous economic, environmental and humanitarian timebomb. We are living beyond our means. The poorest countries need to trade on fair terms with us if they are ever to get off their knees. Handouts are no longer the answer.
"Handouts are no longer the answer". Handouts, in fact, like the Argentine case against the IMF showed, are often a weapon to pressure.
This sort of free trade capitalism is a faith. A faith against all the odds. Nowadays it seems to have taken on the authority of the word of God, as if it has always been thus. But all it is really is a set of trade rules that should and could benefit all, and could be changed. Why should it be a corrupt protection racket?
In the Guardian today: "Africa calls for end to cotton subsidies", and at the same time "EU reneges on pledge to third world". "Poor farmers' mass show of strength"; we're talking about 10000 of the poorest people of Mexico, against the Mexican government and its six million dollars in security. I find it a bit ironic, to put it mildly.
The west is creating an extremely dangerous economic, environmental and humanitarian timebomb. We are living beyond our means. The poorest countries need to trade on fair terms with us if they are ever to get off their knees. Handouts are no longer the answer.
"Handouts are no longer the answer". Handouts, in fact, like the Argentine case against the IMF showed, are often a weapon to pressure.
This sort of free trade capitalism is a faith. A faith against all the odds. Nowadays it seems to have taken on the authority of the word of God, as if it has always been thus. But all it is really is a set of trade rules that should and could benefit all, and could be changed. Why should it be a corrupt protection racket?
In the Guardian today: "Africa calls for end to cotton subsidies", and at the same time "EU reneges on pledge to third world". "Poor farmers' mass show of strength"; we're talking about 10000 of the poorest people of Mexico, against the Mexican government and its six million dollars in security. I find it a bit ironic, to put it mildly.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
I don't know what's happening with the IMF. At first, Argentina refused to pay, and the financial world cried out loud that such thing was historical. A couple of minutes ago, the president announced that a new agreement is closer.
Meanwhile I'm kind of obsessed with a new chord sequence (F, Bb maj7, A maj7, F9), so I'm trying to work on that to convert it in a listenable whole song :)
Meanwhile I'm kind of obsessed with a new chord sequence (F, Bb maj7, A maj7, F9), so I'm trying to work on that to convert it in a listenable whole song :)
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Short: I just discovered how to use Spanish accents here... and I'm working on having comments on the blogger. Tough task.
The president will not give money to the IMF until they reach an agreement. That's historical: always our presidents knelt down when it came to the IMF. Now he's confronting them. Capitalists are nervous.
About the WTO (World Trade Organization) meeting I spoke of yesterday, Noam Chomsky said to the Mexican newspaper "La Jornada" that
"The WTO system is designed to impose policies that force most of the countries to accept rules about intellectual property and protection of the foreign investments, and to guarantee the free flow of trade, while the rich countries and the transnational companies exclude themselves from those same rules and do whaever they think it's most convenient for them"
So there.
About the WTO (World Trade Organization) meeting I spoke of yesterday, Noam Chomsky said to the Mexican newspaper "La Jornada" that
"The WTO system is designed to impose policies that force most of the countries to accept rules about intellectual property and protection of the foreign investments, and to guarantee the free flow of trade, while the rich countries and the transnational companies exclude themselves from those same rules and do whaever they think it's most convenient for them"
So there.
Mercedes Sosa is a folklore icon in Argentina. Her voice is powerful and beloved. Nobody resists her charm, like a spell.
Martha Argerich is problably the best Argentine instrumentist worldwide. She's a classical piano player; she never played Argentinean folklore or played for a singer.
Ariel Ramírez is a piano folklore player. His compositions are unique, and fundamental for our folklore history; yet he's just a folklore player, not to be compared with the size of Martha Argerich, skillwise.
The two women played yesterday in the most respected classical temple of Latin America for the first time. For the first time folklore songs were played by such hands; for the first time the voice of Mercedes Sosa was heard in the heart of the cultivated music. It was a success. The peak came when they played an Ariel Ramirez' composition, "Alfonsina y el Mar". Endless applauses; Ariel Ramírez was present among the public and the two women pointed in his direction, like saying "it's not us, it's him!". Ariel Ramirez received the ovation sitting in his chair. The crowd of people around him, standing, applauding. He refused to stand up and face the public. He, that is somehow less than those two columns, he, that would have received a proper recognition of what he has done during his long career from the hands of his success personified in the purest form of those women, he, who is so old that probably won't be showing his face again in an event like this, he refused to shine for a couple of minutes. It was a candle lit by a crowd, that could have been a fire by will, and instead died silently in order not to dim the light of the two torches in the stage.
Martha Argerich is problably the best Argentine instrumentist worldwide. She's a classical piano player; she never played Argentinean folklore or played for a singer.
Ariel Ramírez is a piano folklore player. His compositions are unique, and fundamental for our folklore history; yet he's just a folklore player, not to be compared with the size of Martha Argerich, skillwise.
The two women played yesterday in the most respected classical temple of Latin America for the first time. For the first time folklore songs were played by such hands; for the first time the voice of Mercedes Sosa was heard in the heart of the cultivated music. It was a success. The peak came when they played an Ariel Ramirez' composition, "Alfonsina y el Mar". Endless applauses; Ariel Ramírez was present among the public and the two women pointed in his direction, like saying "it's not us, it's him!". Ariel Ramirez received the ovation sitting in his chair. The crowd of people around him, standing, applauding. He refused to stand up and face the public. He, that is somehow less than those two columns, he, that would have received a proper recognition of what he has done during his long career from the hands of his success personified in the purest form of those women, he, who is so old that probably won't be showing his face again in an event like this, he refused to shine for a couple of minutes. It was a candle lit by a crowd, that could have been a fire by will, and instead died silently in order not to dim the light of the two torches in the stage.
Monday, September 08, 2003
Japan, China and South Korea plan to develop an alternative operating system based on Linux, and Microsoft is concerned about fair competition. The best joke I heard in months...
The World Trade Organization will go to Cancun, and massive antiglobalization activism is expected. "Tourists are not authorized to take part in the demonstrations and could be deported" says the article; 50000 people will protest against 20000 police and military troops. Is this getting a tradition? The world leaders (to use a nice expression) have to hide each time they gather; each time the IMF, or the WTO, or the World Bank go somewhere, the usual parade of little soldiers and people with banners became something common and predictable. Probably the foreign people vacationing at Mexico will go to see it as yet another touristic attraction. It's useless to say that the WTO will not uphold Mexico in this meeting (or any other meeting, for the case), but Mexico is ready to protect the security of the event, "to defend it if necessary".
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Again regarding the IMF and Argentina, today in the newspaper:
Two odd facts put a mark in this winding negociation. One: the International Monetary Fund does not promise a single fresh dollar. Even they resist to refinance all the debt deadlines. This, obviously, should decrease the arguments to present this unfair amount of demands. Two: Argentina is doing its homework and demonstrates success: it's growing, there's no inflation and keeps under control the monetary, exchange and fiscal variables. How could they deny an agreement?
"This unfair amount of demands" is the lobby I mentioned yesterday. The IMF, that should be only dealing with the external debt of the country, wants also to dictate what Argentina should do with the public services: how much should the taxes for such services grow, how much money should the State give to the banks. The public services, denationalized during the nineties through another lobby of the IMF (suspected of bribery), are in the hands of European companies. The banks are mostly foreign as well. The people, poorer than ever, are paying really high prices for those basic services: gas, electricity, telephone, water. But those companies, that formerly had huge revenues because of the exchange rate before the crash, don't resign to earn less. Argentina needs to to get into the international financial system again, hence this struggle for an agreement with the IMF. In the IMF, in turn, they know Argentina will do probably more if they squeeze the fruit. A handful of companies decides if a country will give money for the children to be educated, they will decide whether our hospitals will have proper conditions, they will decide if the huge amount of unemployed people will have a job this year, finally. Naturally, for the international media, Argentina is a Latin American country with such amount of corruption that we can't possibly recover. I repeat, in case it's not clear: we are the corrupts.
Two odd facts put a mark in this winding negociation. One: the International Monetary Fund does not promise a single fresh dollar. Even they resist to refinance all the debt deadlines. This, obviously, should decrease the arguments to present this unfair amount of demands. Two: Argentina is doing its homework and demonstrates success: it's growing, there's no inflation and keeps under control the monetary, exchange and fiscal variables. How could they deny an agreement?
"This unfair amount of demands" is the lobby I mentioned yesterday. The IMF, that should be only dealing with the external debt of the country, wants also to dictate what Argentina should do with the public services: how much should the taxes for such services grow, how much money should the State give to the banks. The public services, denationalized during the nineties through another lobby of the IMF (suspected of bribery), are in the hands of European companies. The banks are mostly foreign as well. The people, poorer than ever, are paying really high prices for those basic services: gas, electricity, telephone, water. But those companies, that formerly had huge revenues because of the exchange rate before the crash, don't resign to earn less. Argentina needs to to get into the international financial system again, hence this struggle for an agreement with the IMF. In the IMF, in turn, they know Argentina will do probably more if they squeeze the fruit. A handful of companies decides if a country will give money for the children to be educated, they will decide whether our hospitals will have proper conditions, they will decide if the huge amount of unemployed people will have a job this year, finally. Naturally, for the international media, Argentina is a Latin American country with such amount of corruption that we can't possibly recover. I repeat, in case it's not clear: we are the corrupts.
Seikilos Home...