I wasn't in Seattle, but I -- and a great many South African leftists (quite a few of whom did go) -- have now moved quite decidely towards the nix-it position. This particularly relates to campaigning for defunding the IMF and World Bank.Your job will be to persuade us that fix-it has integrity, and that the kinds of BWI reforms (gender, environment, transparency and participation) won over the past 15 years or so have made the world a better place.
We know -- not just from that Economist article but from real life -- that the reforms have co-opted NGOs. Insider strategists have had a nice time. But on the ground, BWI conditionalities associated with stingy debt relief packages actually make matters far worse (I'll be happy to document this in great detail if you like, using their "best case," Mozambique).
So now the battle lines are indeed clearly drawn. The more that Oxfam USA and their ilk endorse the IMF's discursive strategies, the harder it is for grassroots activists to say "WB/IMF out of Pretoria" or New Delhi or Brasilia or wherever. The Jubilee South conference in Johannesburg three weeks ago, for instance, mandated Northern solidarity activists to support a "shut-down" (not reform) position.
You're talented, and we need you on the radical side of the WB/IMF/WTO's "enemies list," comrade. Join us!
Patrick
On 15 Dec 99, at 18:30, Nathan Newman wrote:
> >Jeff St. Clair writes:
> >That said, the point is really to resist and, in fact, rend asunder,
> >the very type of coalition that John Nichols, the EPI folks, Mark Ritchie,
> the AFL
> >apologists and some of the Naderites want to force upon us. Namely, to
> merge the
> >"fix it" and "nix it" factions.
>
> Well, this is nice clear declaration of war, at least. This is the classic
> sectarian mode- destroy coalitions rather than fight democratically for a
> point of view within the movement.
>
> Well, if the battle lines are drawn, I'm happy to be on the side of
your
> enemies list.