"NAFTA for Africa"

Chris Burford cburford at gn.apc.org
Thu Nov 18 23:20:47 PST 1999


recipients of list STOP-IMF <stop-imf at essential.org>

received a post from the 50 Years is Enough campaign


>ACTION ALERT: OPPOSE CBI AND NAFTA FOR AFRICA
>
>As many of you are aware, both the House and the Senate have passed
>versions of H.R. 434, the "African Growth and Opportunity Act," dubbed
>"NAFTA for Africa" by its critics. The Senate version has attached NAFTA
>expansion to Central America and the Caribbean, otherwise known as "CBI -
>NAFTA parity." The combined package is currently before a House-Senate
>conference.
>
>Neither bill meets the demands of progressive critics of U.S. trade and
>investment policy, or the concerns of economic justice movements in the
>countries affected. Three basic elements of sustainable economic
>development policy are missing from this corporate-led bill:
>
>-Debt cancellation delinked from compliance with IMF-World Bank structural
>adjustment policies;
>-Enforceable labor rights standards; and
>-Real protection for the environment.

It goes on to detail actions that US citizens can take, but I wanted to comment on this useful list of 3 basic elements for sustainable economic development policy.

In campaigning terms this sounds concise and helpful. My reservation is that points two and three impose extra restrictions on the ability of third world peoples to compete in the global capitalist market - they restrict the intensity of exploitation of the labour force and of the environment.

So the only one that addresses the process of uneven accumulation of capital on a world scale is point one, debt cancellation. (Good that it must be delinked from structural adjustment policies though to some extent these are also ways of intensifying the exploitation of labour power in the unfortunate country)

The problem is, as many supporters of the campaign I am sure would agree readily, that one-off cancellations of debt will do nothing about the process whereby the debt will repeatedly recur.

Is this implicitly or explicitly acknowledged? Presumably somewhere it is. Is it thought that in campaigning terms it is better to keep it simple because sustained campaigns on this basis will unite the largest coalition of progressive forces in the world, and will then inevitably raise the question of how frequently debt needs to be cancelled? In due course we will then address the need then to cancel debt yearly, and if fact reform the global financial system to introduce systematic centrifugal processes of capital movement to counterbalance the strong centripetal effect of the laws of capitalist accumulation? That is one way to approach the strategic goal.

I would prefer that some forces pose the demand for reform at the level of reforming the global financial system now, essentially abolishing finance capital.

Presumably somewhere on the web, someone is posing it that way?

Chris Burford

London.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list