Burma (Myanmar) Cyclone and neo-liberal economics - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Pogo · #61 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008

This is what Andrew is talking about and he's right, it stinks. Neo-colonialism at it's worst, or finest if you're a twue bwue patwiot.

Quote:

...Three months after the tsunami hit Aceh, the New York Times ran a distressing story reporting that “almost nothing seems to have been done to begin repairs and rebuilding.” The dispatch could have easily come from Iraq, where, as the Los Angeles Times just reported, all of Bechtel’s allegedly rebuilt water plants have started to break down, one more in an endless litany of reconstruction screw-ups. It could also have come from Afghanistan where President Hamid Karzai recently blasted “corrupt, wasteful and unaccountable” foreign contractors for “squandering the precious resources that Afghanistan received in aid.” Or from Sri Lanka, where 600,000 people who lost their homes in the tsunami are still languishing in temporary camps. One hundred days after the giant waves hit, Herman Kumara, head of the National Fisheries Solidarity Movement in Negombo, Sri Lanka, sent out a desperate e-mail to colleagues around the world. “The funds received for the benefit of the victims are directed to the benefit of the privileged few, not to the real victims,” he wrote. “Our voices are not heard and not allowed to be voiced.”

But if the reconstruction industry is stunningly inept at rebuilding, that may be because rebuilding is not its primary purpose. According to Guttal, “It’s not reconstruction at all—it’s about reshaping everything.” If anything, the stories of corruption and incompetence serve to mask this deeper scandal: the rise of a predatory form of disaster capitalism that uses the desperation and fear created by catastrophe to engage in radical social and economic engineering. And on this front, the reconstruction industry works so quickly and efficiently that the privatizations and land grabs are usually locked in before the local population knows what hit them. Kumara, in another e-mail, warns that Sri Lanka is now facing “a second tsunami of corporate globalization and militarization,” potentially even more devastating than the first. “We see this as a plan of action amidst the tsunami crisis to hand over the sea and the coast to foreign corporations and tourism, with military assistance from the US Marines.”

As Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz designed and oversaw a strikingly similar project in Iraq: The fires were still burning in Baghdad when US occupation officials rewrote the investment laws and announced that the country’s state-owned companies would be privatized. Some have pointed to this track record to argue that Wolfowitz is unfit to lead the World Bank; in fact, nothing could have prepared him better for his new job. In Iraq, Wolfowitz was just doing what the World Bank is already doing in virtually every war-torn and disaster-struck country in the world—albeit with fewer bureaucratic niceties and more ideological bravado.

“Post-conflict” countries now receive 20–25 percent of the World Bank’s total lending, up from 16 percent in 1998—itself an 800 percent increase since 1980, according to a Congressional Research Service study. Rapid response to wars and natural disasters has traditionally been the domain of United Nations agencies, which worked with NGOs to provide emergency aid, build temporary housing and the like. But now reconstruction work has been revealed as a tremendously lucrative industry, too important to be left to the do-gooders at the UN. So today, it is the World Bank, already devoted to the principle of poverty-alleviation through profit-making, that leads the charge.

And there is no doubt that there are profits to be made in the reconstruction business. There are massive engineering and supplies contracts ($10 billion to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan alone); “democracy building” has exploded into a $2 billion industry; and times have never been better for public-sector consultants—the private firms that advise governments on selling off their assets, often running government services themselves as subcontractors. (Bearing Point, the favored of these firms in the United States, reported that the revenues for its “public services” division “had quadrupled in just five years” and the profits are huge: $342 million in 2002—a profit margin of 35 percent.)

But shattered countries are attractive to the World Bank for another reason: They take orders well. After a cataclysmic event, governments will usually do whatever it takes to get aid dollars—even if it means racking up huge debts and agreeing to sweeping policy reforms. And with the local population struggling to find shelter and food, political organizing against privatization can seem like an unimaginable luxury.

Even better from the bank’s perspective, many war-ravaged countries are in states of “limited sovereignty”: They are considered too unstable and unskilled to manage the aid money pouring in, so it is often put in a trust fund, managed by the World Bank. This is the case in East Timor, where the bank doles out money to the government as long as it shows it is spending responsibly. Apparently, this means slashing public-sector jobs (Timor’s government is half the size it was under Indonesian occupation) but lavishing aid money on foreign consultants the bank insists the government hire (researcher Ben Moxham writes, “In one government department, a single international consultant earns in one month the same as his twenty Timorese colleagues earn together in an entire year”).

In Afghanistan, where the World Bank also administers the country’s aid through a trust fund, it has already managed to privatize healthcare by refusing to give funds to the Ministry of Health to build hospitals. Instead it funnels money directly to NGOs, which are running their own private health clinics on three-year contracts. It has also mandated “an increased role for the private sector” in the water system, telecommunications, oil, gas and mining and directed the government to “withdraw” from the electricity sector and leave it to “foreign private investors.” These profound transformations of Afghan society were never debated or reported on because few outside the bank know they took place: The changes were buried deep in a “technical annex” attached to a grant providing “emergency” aid to Afghanistan’s war-torn infrastructure—two years before the country had an elected government.

The Rise of Disaster Capitalism | Naomi Klein

Imperator · #62 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008

and so it goes, apparently they received some type of warning and , well it doesn't appear much was done, looking at the tele, it also appears many rescue orgs are still waiting for visa to move in, start assessing damage and targeting heaviest hit areas for the quickest aid etc.....unreal.

Burma's Unnatural Disaster
May 7, 2008
First it was 351, then 4,000. Yesterday, officials were talking about 10,000 dead – in a single city in Burma. More than 22,000 are reported dead nationwide, and twice as many are reportedly missing. If that's true, the cyclone that tore through the Irrawaddy delta will go down as one of the deadliest natural disasters in memory. Yet there was nothing natural about the destruction in the aftermath of this storm.

Even before Cyclone Nargis hit early Saturday morning, nongovernmental organizations such as World Vision were warning of the impending disaster. Radio Free Asia and Voice of America broadcast news of the storm's approach. Burma's ruling generals, by contrast, did nothing to prepare their people for the cyclone.

Why, exactly, there was little or no warning, we may never know. But the junta that has been in power since 1962 is incompetent at the best of times and indifferent most of the rest. When it took power Burma was one of the richest nations in Southeast Asia. Now, thanks to mismanagement and civil war, it is the region's poorest.

As with the 2004 tsunami that struck Indonesia and Thailand, the immediate outpouring of help – even from nations imposing sanctions against the regime – has been impressive. The European Commission has pledged $3 million; Canada, nearly $2 million; and China, $1 million. Other countries have offered ship transports and helicopters to ferry food and water to the needy.

This aid won't make much difference, however, if it isn't distributed in a timely and targeted manner. Foreign Minister Nyan Win said Monday that Burma would accept foreign assistance, but by Tuesday the United Nations, World Vision and USAID all had staff ready and waiting for visa approval. The World Food Program, which has warehouses in Burma, was able to start distributing food aid only on Tuesday – three days after the storm hit.

These delays could cost thousands of lives. Twenty-five million people – nearly half the country's population – live within the official disaster zone, and back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest at least two million saw their homes destroyed. Electrical lines and water supplies have been cut. In Rangoon, the price of a liter of clean water has risen to $4. Most of those affected live in remote areas that lack telephone access, and boats may be the only way to reach them.

Given this bungling, it's remarkable that the U.S. is the only country speaking out forcefully against the government. First Lady Laura Bush said Monday that "the response to the cyclone is just the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs." Emailing us from Rangoon, U.S. charge d'affairs Shari Villarosa reported that "the only obvious sign [of government aid] in Rangoon are some military troops removing trees from major roads. Most outer neighborhoods tell us they have seen no government response."

Maybe the junta is more concerned with its constitutional referendum, scheduled for Saturday. The document is meant to enshrine the generals in power in perpetuity. What kind of nation they preside over seems to make little difference. The tragedy of Cyclone Nargis is that, had it happened in a free nation, the death toll would not be nearly so high.

Burma's Unnatural Disaster - WSJ.com

Imperator · #63 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

This is what Andrew is talking about and he's right, it stinks. Neo-colonialism at it's worst, or finest if you're a twue bwue patwiot.

this assumes we are going to stay behind and run it and take profits...are there any examples where in disaster aid etc. turned into a colonialist ruling junta?

Pogo · #64 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

this assumes we are going to stay behind and run it and take profits...are there any examples where in disaster aid etc. turned into a colonialist ruling junta?

Once you get the recipient gov't to agree to liberalization of markets and privatization of state industries and resources, it becomes a de facto satellite, so no, there is no implicit assumption that we stay behind, as there is no need for us to.

Imperator · #65 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

and this is a bad thing? I would venture that the afghan infrastructure, well what of if it that was left if there ever was any regards health care treatment facilities etc. after the Taliban , ussr etc. could not even get the pump primed let alone stand on its own....you go to the folks that can get it done and that are the experts.
This isn’t the first time we have done something like this and cannot think of any countries we have "colonized" etc. that don’t have their own indigenously ran infrastructure once we left…

Pogo · #66 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

and this is a bad thing? I would venture that the afghan infrastructure, well what of if it that was left if there ever was any regards health care treatment facilities etc. after the Taliban , ussr etc. could not even get the pump primed let alone stand on its own....you go to the folks that can get it done and that are the experts.
This isn’t the first time we have done something like this and cannot think of any countries we have "colonized" etc. that don’t have their own indigenously ran infrastructure once we left…

IMO, the "experts", first and foremost, are the people in the local communities, as they are the ones who best know the needs of their communities, rather than foreign consultants and contractors who're primarily interested in making a fast buck.

Sure, modernization isn't necessarily bad, the question is on whose terms does it take place. If the terms are rotten, as aptly illustrated in the article Andrew linked to, then it is indeed a very bad thing.

Imperator · #67 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

IMO, the "experts", first and foremost, are the people in the local communities, as they are the ones who best know the needs of their communities, rather than foreign consultants and contractors who're primarily interested in making a fast buck.

Sure, modernization isn't necessarily bad, the question is on whose terms does it take place. If the terms are rotten, as aptly illustrated in the article Andrew linked to, then it is indeed a very bad thing.

you cannot imagine how much I agree with your first response, "white mans burden", is an interesting book that categorizes and catalogues our screw ups and successes in Africa regards aid and help in all its forms etc...the success almost uniformly came as result of higher native influences and involvement in the decision making process….My only defense would be they meant well, and do some good as well, but as usual that doesn’t always translate into success, hopefully they got past this …..and remember as well, ngos etc are not immune, ala the UN etc…we have been at some of this for decades..

I liken it to a virus vaccine, you hope it just inoculates and kills any form of that virus, and you hope is does not make you sick or sicker as well…

tamperpr00f · #68 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

To wacko liberals our convincing nations to be free markets instead of being state controlled is colonialism. To any rational person this just show you how off base some people can be.

Andrewl · #69 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

This is why I often take the "fuck them" point of view.

The Navy was bringing relief supplies, and it's viewed as "undermining" the UN. The fucking nerve of the Navy.

Fuck the UN.

Fuck the UN, and fuck Myanmar...

The reason it was considered undermining is because the UN is/was the best positioned agency to coordinate relief. But the UN has no political goals, while the countries pushing neo-liberal economic policies on developing countries do tie aid to political and economic goals.

Andrew

Andrewl · #70 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Utter bullshit.

The US Navy was delivering aid to people who desperately needed it after the tsunami while the UN was still trying to figure out what they were going to do.

They weren't "undermining" the UN - they were out helping people. They simply bypassed the useless, self-serving UN bureaucracy.

Matt

You have it backwards Matt. The relief consortium organized by the US and others deliberately set out to bypass the UN for precisely self-serving reasons.

Andrew

Imperator · #71 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The reason it was considered undermining is because the UN is/was the best positioned agency to coordinate relief. But the UN has no political goals, while the countries pushing neo-liberal economic policies on developing countries do tie aid to political and economic goals.

Andrew

please dude......

and we see how well thats working...

Imperator · #72 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

You have it backwards Matt. The relief consortium organized by the US and others deliberately set out to bypass the UN for precisely self-serving reasons.

Andrew

could you name those please?

Andrewl · #73 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strider

If you're saying that development can be destructive to traditional social structures, then, sure, I think everyone agrees on that. Whatever pain it causes is massively outweighed by the good its accomplished.

In waht way do you measure that? Sounds like you are saying genocide and constant human rights abuses are justified by something as deceptively innocuous as are ability to surf the net and talk on a cell phone. (do a google search on coltan).

Quote:

It would be wonderful if extremely poor countries could simply reach fully developed status overnight, but that's not reality. Development causes social dislocations, and while governments can help blunt them, they can't fully curtail them. The only way to fully avoid them is to simply not develop and remain extremely poor in perpetuity. Personally, I don't really see that as a viable strategy.

Yes, we would like to see poor peoples suffering alleviated, no doubt. One way to accomplish this is to turn them into consumer clones of ourselves. This is not sustainable as consumerism is fueled exclusively by non renewable resources. Its a non starter.

My main concern is the indigenous "poor" who don't want to be consumer clones and don't want their resources exploited without their express permission and only developed under their terms. They have been trying to resist this sort of development and colonialism for decades in many places around the world. They don't need anything from us except to be left alone. (sure they might desire some of out gadgets, which is fine as long as it is on their terms only).

Quote:

Where on earth do you get that idea from?

Social and economic indicators are objectively observable, and rises or falls in them can be measured and noted. There's nothing to disagree on.

The indicators are chosen by the west and they are mainly subjective. The world bank, IMF, etc dictates that a healthy economy has an increasing GDP and a balanced budget, and that is pretty much where it ends for them. They do not measure the ability of a population to grow its own food, make its own clothes; they do not measure the pollution and destruction caused by resource exploitation, they don't measure the value of parents ability to care for their children, and so on. What typically happens is that huge multinats move in for the resources because we need them, and they offer SAP (structural adjustment program) loans to the ruling government under the condition that the land and resources are opened to foreign investment, the currency is pegged to the dollar, and things like health care and education and other government functions are privatized. This always has the real effect of making the people poorer and and less secure. But yay, the GDP goes up because a handful of billionaires are created, and the budget is balanced because the government has cut all services.

Its a nightmare.

Quote:

Ah yes, it's our old friend the noble savage.

Look man, if you wish to leave modern society and go live in the middle of the woods, there's really nothing stopping you.

This is just a misunderstanding im always accused of. Im not referring to the noble savage. No more so than you are offering us the myth of the noble modernist who is tirelessly helping the poor. Neither is true. The 'savage' is used merely an example to help people understand that our culture is not the only culture worth pursuing. Also, that we have plenty to relearn from them in the near future as we approach the limits of the planet to accommodate our level of waste and consumerism.

I don't want to leave modern society, i want to change modern society. I do not place a high value on its current form. I want to go forward and beyond, not backwards. I only use pre-civ people as an example of cultures that did many things right, that we have totally forgotten about for various reasons.

Quote:

Either way, contentment is a subjective thing and my comments have nothing to do with it. I'm referring to objectively observable improvements in the living standards of the developing world in the past 3 decades or so. If you want to talk about gross national happiness, then go vacation in Bhutan.

Id be happy to review your evidence of how neo-liberal economic policies have improved the living standards of people in the poor world and how you justify the displacement and genocide of indigenous peoples who would rather be left alone to live their traditional cultures and economies and who want to retain control of their land and resources. Above all, they are tired of dealing with us on our terms, they want to deal with us on their terms.

Note: the three recent successful developing countries that people constantly refer to are South Korea, India, and China, and all three rejected neo-liberalism. The poor and indigenous in Africa, Latin america, and other parts of Asia have been made far worse off by their governments acceptance of IMF and World Bank loans tied to SAP policies. There is nothing but failure there, this thread is intended as a discussion on the potential use of these policies in Burma under the current tendency of capitalists to use peoples shock and tragedy to exploit their resources and push forth ulterior political motives.

Andrew

Andrewl · #74 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

could you name those please?

Japan, Canada, some EU nations, Australia, and there are more.

Andrew

Andrewl · #75 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

please dude......

and we see how well thats working...

The current situation is different since the ruling Junta is paranoid of western aid. The UN is poised and ready and have been the first ones on the scene. The slow down is the government of Burma, not the UN.

Andrew