>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.
I agree with the nix, not fix, position on both the WTO and the BWI. But I want to make two points: 1) I'm a little uncertain about the process by which a Jubilee South conference can claim to speak on behalf of 4 or 5 billion people, and mandate the "North" to do anything. Oxfam isn't accountable to any popular base, but to whom are "grassroots activists" accountable and by what process? Isn't there a kind of vanguardism there? These are genuine, not rhetorical, questions. 2) Wimpy compromised reformism is worst when it derails a more radical momentum. Right now, having U.S. unions weighing in on the WTO is a net gain; they're not derailing or deluting anything, they're adding to the heat. At this point, I think it's best to welcome them to the process and disagree with them and try to persuade them rather than dismiss them as hellspawn. Maybe a bit down the road they'll deserve that, but not yet.
Nathan, your joy at being on the AC/JSC enemies list looks like a sectarian response to me. Why are people so incapable of sustaining productive disagreements?
Doug