July 2005 Archives

There have once again been several stories about Iran in the press this week. Primarily they're once again focussed on some heinous human rights abuses, though the long running nuclear dispute is once again raising its head.

In the midst of that comes this excellent report in the Guardian. The tag-line sells the piece a little short:

Iran, with its unabashed nuclear ambitions, is top of the US's next-to-invade list. Is the mood in the country fearful or defiant? James Meek sounds out hardline clerics, Tehran liberals, mosque-goers, workers and the near-destitute - and finds surprising resonances with their superpower enemy.

While too brief to do the situation true justice, Meek's piece does a great job of exploring some of the internal tensions, the sharply differing perspectives between rich and poor, and the class divisions that played the pivotal role in the recent presidential elections. It's only a matter of time before the anti-Iran rhetoric ramps up again, and articles such as this that allow us to get a finer-grained understanding of the people in Iran are very welcome.

Also of interest is Juan Cole's The Iraq war is over, and the winner is... Iran published at Salon.

Tags: Iran | Guardian

It was with some despondency that I woke up to the news that CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement) passed the US House of Representatives last night. The extracts of the floor debate that made their way onto Morning Edition did not make pleasant listening, and it was particularly disappointing to hear that our local representative, Vern Ehlers, voted for the bill.

Some of the more encouraging commentary today has focussed on the fact that the Bush administration had almost made this vote a vote of confidence in his presidency, twisting the arms of many Republican members of the house. At some point some politicians need to start standing up to the increasing tendency of embattled leaders to make any vaguely significant vote a "confidence" issue, but it is heartening that a vote cast as being so crucial came so close to going the other way.

More encouraging still is this thought at Trade Observatory that given that CAFTA — which next to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) proposals is relatively innocuous legislation — came so close to failing, this vote may be the death knell for any harder-edged "free trade" legislation that is being considered.

That won't mitigate the environmental damage and community destruction that is likely to follow in CAFTA's wake, but it is hope of a sort.

Tags: CAFTA | FTAA | Vern Ehlers

I've been using Audioscrobbler for about a year now to keep track of my listening, see what others are listening to and pick up recommendations. It's been good to see the service stabilise a little and features evolve -- right now I'm particularly fond of the 'under appreciated artists' recommendations as a reminder of areas of my collection to revisit -- but every now and again there's still the odd glitch.

This one yesterday, for example, indicated that I'd listened to somewhere in the region of 18 billion songs. Some rough calculations suggest that's about 100,000 years of continuous music, or 5.2million computers playing non-stop music for a week. I like these artists, but not that much.

Since the late German was invoked by Steve in the comments on this post, now seemd a fitting time to link to BBC Radio 4's In Our Time and their current featured episode, which is a profile of Karl Marx. I doubt Steve would be interested, but anyone looking to understand the impact Karl Marx and the materialist dialectic have had on subseqent economic and political thought (from both left and right) may well find it fascinating listening.

For the record, I think this blog bears clear testament to the fact that I myself am not an economic determinist, but that economic determinism is certainly alive and well in our post-Reagan/Thatcher world, and all too common in the rhetoric of their disciples.

Discussing Hotel Rwanda with friends and acquaintances earlier this year, I was struck by how much more informed about the Rwandan holocaust it seemed I had been than most of those around me. It seemed that even the UK media's extremely poor coverage of those events entirely dwarfed that provided by US network news.

That conversation popped back into my mind when I read the following in an email forwarded by a friend:

During June 2005, CNN, FOXNews, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS ran 50 times as many stories about Michael Jackson and 12 times as many stories about Tom Cruise as they did about the genocide in Darfur.

The word that keeps springing into my mind is "shocking", but really it's not. It's not a surprise, just a very sad reminder.

In this case the point of the statistics isn't merely to shock and shame; they're part of a campaign to change things. Check out Be A Witness.

Posted as a comment on this entry at Jeffrey Overstreet's blog in response to another commenter. Jeffrey's post was a link to this article by Kate Bowman Johnston.

Gabe - if CCM really did simply exist to perpetuate a sort of music that wouldn't be accepted in the mainstream because of the way it "edifies the body, lifts God up in worship, and presents Bible truth in good lyrics" then I'd say you had a point. But CCM left those boundaries a long time ago. Even if we could put aside the theological triteness of much of its output (which in itself undermines all three criteria), a few minutes at GMA week will show that it has long since moved on to seeking to present an 'alternative' to mainstream culture.

The crossover artists that Kate refers to in her article are helping to muddy boundaries that never should have become so clear, but there remains an attitude within CCM that involvement in that scene is a symbol of the "soundness" of an artist. Lately we are seeing more of a shift, as some of the CCM world tries to push itself into the wake of "coolness" left behind by artists like Switchfoot (not, mind you, Sarah, Bill, or Sufjan whose more independent spirit discounts them) but there is still a very strong in/out attitude forced out very hard through the many organs of CCM.

And it's precisely these boundaries that have undermined any chance CCM may have had of touching many of us with "bible truth." That mindset has reduced much of the output of the CCM machine to artistic disaster, but has also twisted much of the content to a simple "God loves me if I love middle class american suburban life" refrain, which is about as far from edifying as it gets. There are spots of light, but they are usually beaten out or end up leaving the industry. Similarly it is all too easy for many of us to appear artistically elitist when we talk about CCM, when most of its key proponents don't rate artistry as a central part of what they're about.

(we could also talk about how there is no real difference in approach, or indeed ownership, between "CCM" and "secular" labels beyond the demographic they're marketing too. but that's another conversation)

If CCM were to redefine itself to reclaim the mandate you suggest, perhaps more of us who are otherwise "elitist" and "snobs" (because we aren't comfortable with its insularity and the artistic degradation that has been born of that) would have time for what little was left of it. For a long time I hoped that would happen, but time has made me doubtful, and I increasingly suspect that the best hope is to burn it to the ground and see what emerges from the ashes.

If anyone reading this lives in Grand Rapids' 2nd electoral ward and wasn't already planning to vote for Rosalynn Bliss in the upcoming city commission elections, I'd urge you to do so, if for negative reasons (which isn't to say there aren't positive ones, it's just a disclaimer).

This morning we had a phone call from Right To Life West Michigan urging us to vote (I didn't spare the time to explain that I'm taxed without representation in the US) for Shaula Johnston. Delighted at the opportunity to communicate with somebody from any campaign, I decided to quiz them on Johnston's other policies that might affect abortion rates, such as poverty reduction. At the City Commission level there is no chance of having a serious impact on abortion policy, so this would seem a sensible area for an anti-abortion candidate to work on.

So I asked "What are her other policies on issues that might affect or lead to abortions?" and received the response "It's very simple, you can either vote for abortion, or against it." When I replied that it really isn't that simple, and asked again what the candidate's policy views were I was told "I don't have that information, but I can give you a phone number to call...". The caller had no response to my followup question about why she would be calling me in support of a candidate she knew so little about, and instead tried to return to it being a very simple decision.

At that point I asked that we be removed from their calling lists unless they're willing to make more of an effort to learn something about the candidates they're supporting. Apparently they have very little interest in information, as I was told we'd be removed from said lists. If Johnston isn't putting in the effort to keep informed those working for what must be a very small campaign, is she really likely to make a good city commissioner?

(Almost as soon as that call ended the phone rang again, this time with someone looking for a James Stewart who wasn't me. She wasn't allowed to tell me why she was looking for that James Stewart because I wasn't that James Stewart.)

Tags: Grand Rapids | Shaula Johnston | Rosalynn Bliss

I've resisted posting much here about the recent London bombings or their aftermath. There've been plenty of offline conversations, but I've been wanting to let some of the dust settle before writing on the subject. We were glad to hear that none of our friends or family in the city were hurt, and glad of the ease of communication that brought that news.

Unfortunately, Tony Blair's statements, reported in the Observer yesterday, implying that changing British foreign policy is not an appropriate response to the attacks seem remarkably superficial. British foreign policy was changed sharply in the wake of the twin-towers attacks (in that case, towards war with Iraq) and it is entirely right and proper that it should be reassessed.

The many possible counter-arguments to Blair's kneejerk comments (particularly with regards to Palestine, Afghanistan and, of course, Iraq) aside, I wonder if Blair might not be better off for a quick reading of Matt Webb's excellent post to be found here (under the title "one of my mum's dogs"). The past four years of "war on terror" have been disastrous and these attacks need to be the starting point for a radically new approach. This is not a time for defensiveness.

Tags: Tony Blair | Foreign Policy | Incentives

Skimming through my newsreader I've been coming across numerous reports of people mistakenly being sold copies of the latest Harry Potter book. In this story refers to one child returning the copy he was accidentally sold on Monday. Should we feel bad that amazon delivered ours earlier today and that we've already been indulging?

Tags: Harry Potter | Amazon

No sooner is the ink dry on the G8 communiques than leaks begin to appear suggesting that the debt cancellation deal announced by the finance ministers is under threat. The BBC are reporting that a memo has been leaked to the Jubilee Debt Campaign (as yet there is no news on the JDC website) indicating that the Belgian government is likely to try to block the agreement when it comes before the IMF's board.

Belgium, it seems, is reluctant to allow for 100% debt cancellation for any countries as that would reduce the leverage it would have over countries that are currently heavily indebted to it (whether directly or through the IMF). Since the finance ministers of the G8 called for IMF debts to be cancelled using existing IMF funds, cancellation will have to be approved by the whole board. Belgium alone could not block it, but there is speculation that other countries might follow their example. Belgium is proposing that instead of debt cancellation 'grants' be given to countries that would otherwise qualify, thereby relieving their immediate cashflow crises but doing nothing for their long-term stability.

The brazen approach of Belgium is in some ways a little light relief. The key reason more debt has not been cancelled before now is because of the leverage it gives the creditors, leverage to impose the favoured economic policies du jour and a wide variety of other demands. At least Belgium is being a bit more open about it, even if through leaked documents.

But this leak lays many other things bare. It is another indicator that the G8 is the wrong body to make these decisions. It is a club of powerful nations, but not of all powerful nations, and where its pronouncements affect those other nations there is a real danger that they will obstruct them. More significantly, it is yet another reminder that creditors are not the right people to be deciding on debt relief.

Decisions about debt cancellation must be handed off to an agency that has no interest in maintaining existing power relationships, but which can instead make decisions based on the legitimacy of loans, the debtors' ability to pay, and the developmental effects of the cancellation. We might hope that Belgium's reticence will demonstrate this to those national leaders more disposed to debt cancellation.

In all likelihood, however, it will gradually slip out of sight, just like the failure to deliver on previous debt cancellation promises has. Capaigners must work to make sure that does not happen, and remind the public that "great justice" has yet to be done.

Tags: debt cancellation | belgium | g8

Sometimes I can't stop myself from banging my head against brick walls. Today's impact was a response to this piece in the Florida Baptist Witness:

Dear Sir,

My wife passed me a link to the page on your website carrying an article about whether Southern Baptists should support the One campaign. Having read the article, I felt compelled to respond due to a number of inaccuracies it contained, as well as the presentation of a particular brand of economic thought as though it were beyond dispute.

Firstly, the One campaign is not "entertainer Bob Geldof's" but is instead run by a coalition of faith-based groups, charities and other NGOs who have come together to form this campaign. One of those groups is DATA, the group that was founded by Sir Bob Geldof, Bono (of U2) and Bobby Shriver, but DATA is not the sole originator of this campaign. Secondly, Bob Geldof's call for a million people to demonstrate at last week's G8 summit is not the "one" of the campaign's name, nor even a stated goal of the campaign, but is instead a personal plea by Sir Geldof.

The causes for which One is advocating are indeed complicated and warrant serious attention. Deep-seated corruption has indeed been one of the causes which has led to the terrible poverty experienced by many around the world, particularly in Africa. That corruption itself has many sources, including the poorly managed transition from colonial to self-rule, and a lack of democratic accountability.

That corruption has also been fed by western banks and corporations who have been willing to lend to corrupt regimes, and pay the bribes that support them. Particularly well documented is continued lending on the part of numerous organisations to Mobutu's Kenya, even though memos have been published showing that the IMF and other bodies were well aware that Mobutu was placing up to a third of the money borrowed into his own private bank accounts. When the people of these countries have finally risen up and replaced corrupt dictators with democratic rulers, those rulers are handicapped by the legacy of these odious debts.

The campaigners calling for debt cancellation are inspired by the biblical call for Jubilee, the 50th year when debts were to be cancelled and property that had changed hands was to be returned to the families that previously held it. But we are well aware that mechanisms need to be put in place to stamp out corruption on both sides, to ensure that future loans are only given with adequate securities and guarantees that the money will go to the people and projects that most need it, and that any cancellation is carried out through a fair and transparent process which is open to scrutiny. We are also aware that the bible is very clear on the subject of usury, and many countries despite having paid back more than they originally borrowed find themselves still further indebted due to the build up of interest payments.

The responsibility for the debt burden that now hangs heavily on many poor countries is not owned by any one person or body. Insufficient scrutiny before loans are given (those of us who use banks surely hope that our banks check that projects will be successful before lending our money to them?), corrupt officials and corrupt borrowers are all to blame. Those of us who are concerned that justice should be done — who would echo Jesus' call that the hungry be fed and the homeless given shelter — must work through this sorry mess. A robust new method of cancelling internatioanl debts is a vital start.

yours,

James Stewart

As a few entries in the run-up to the G8 summit hinted, I've been spending a lot of time lately considering the place of pragmatism in campaigning. Any campaign that seeks to make a quick impact is almost certain to have to make major compromises in order to get attention and drive action without the time to affect a fundamental change in mindsets.

In the case of the Make Poverty History and One campaigns those compromises have been front-and-center. From the outset Make Poverty History was accused of being too close to Blair's government, a closeness that has allowed them to be deeply involved in the discussions leading up to this year's G8 summit, but which necessitates a muted agenda.

As it was, the G8 summit last week ended with an announcement containing a nice big number, but little substance. On the issue of climate change it's a major achievement to get George W Bush to make the concessions he made. But it was a major failure on the part of the other seven leaders that they didn't show him up for the sluggard he is by leaving the US out and announcing a significant program to combat climate change, the sort of program that even the World Economic Forum is now calling for. On debt, the heads of government lost their thunder to the finance ministers who made a significant—but still far from revolutionary—announcement some weeks ago.

By means of comparison, the Cologne summit in 1999 made announcements involving more money and a revived debt cancellation process. Hardly any of that money ever made its way to those who needed it, as it was quickly caught up in slow processes and complex conditionality. But in purely financial terms that summit surpasses this year's, yet we're hearing campaigners with an unprecedented hold on the public senses praising that failure as a historic success.

And this side of the summit is where the compromises start to really show. While both Make Povery History and the One Campaign have made announcements which note the need for further action, their spokespeople have also been ridiculously complimentary to the eight men who got together on their golf course and agreed to hand out a little more cash to a few favoured client nations. Having renounced anything approaching a radical agenda in the run up to Live8, these campaigners are left without much to fall back on if they're to explain why this summit didn't achieve the radical ends we were told it would.

Beyond that there is the spectacle of Bono spouting nonsense like "We've pulled this off" and Bob Geldof describing this latest debacle as an "act of justice." There is perhaps some compassion present, but justice the G8 summit did not bring.

It's not justice to keep people in poverty, handing them just enough to keep them from dying, in order that they may service your wealth. And that's what the current structure does. That's why structural changes are needed: starting with debt cancellation and trade reform, but moving beyond them to new decision making structures which allow all voices to be made audible.

Tags: live8 | G8 | Make Poverty History | One Campaign | Bono | Bob Geldof | Debt Cancellation

Obviously attention has been elsewhere most of the day, but in between London-related blog postings I've been reading AfricaVox, a group blog bringing together a number of African journalists who are in the UK for the G8 summit. So far it's a little light on analysis, but even the slightly different perspective is useful while trying to work out what to make of the summit's proceedings.

Sufjan Steven's second installment in his 'states' series of albums, Illinoise, was supposed to be released today, but unfortunately due to some legal complications it's been delayed until they can produce new sleeve art.

But never fear!

Independent radio producers Dan Collison and Elizabeth Meister were curious about how Stevens writes his songs, which, much like their own work, are filled with stories of places and people. So, they introduced Stevens to the Arkansas town of Brinkley.

The result was an entertaining piece on this afternoon's "All Things Considered," and an NPR-exclusive MP3 that you can download right here. Hopefully it'll tide over those fans who didn't score an advance copy or (like us) find a kindly shopkeeper who'd put the CDs out early.

UPDATE: It seems Asthmatic Kitty have solved some of the copyright issues. According to Pitchfork the CDs so far shipped can now be put on sale.

Tags: NPR | Sufjan Stevens | Brinkley

A letter sent to Sojourners in response to a piece in their latest Sojomail:

I appreciated Adam Taylor's rallying call ("The G8 and poverty: 'Beyond empty symbolism'") in your last issue, but feel that perhaps he overstates what we are likely to receive as an outcome of the summit. Hopefully we will get more progress on debt cancellation, some trade reform, and maybe there will even be movement on climate change, but we are not going to get "real justice and empowerment for the world's most impoverished people."

The G8, by its very existence, solidifies the disempowerment of the world's poorest people. It is a rich nations' club that holds back the tides of democracy by presuming that historical precedent and control of capital flows is sufficient mandate to set policies that so radically affect the whole world. Those of us who truly want to see the poor empowered must be careful not to lose touch of the need for decisions to be made by truly representative bodies as we seek our more immediate and pragmatic goals.

Surprise, surprise, there have been clashes between riot police and protestors in Edinburgh in advance of the G8 summit. The BBC have pictures, but if viewing them, it's worth also checking out the reports at Indymedia.

A couple of weeks ago, the Guardian published a column by George Monbiot entitled "Bards of the Powerful." He accused Bono and Bob Geldof of legitimising the G8's role in Africa through their cosy relationship with Bush and Blair. His column followed soon in the footsteps of news that criticism of those leaders (it's never been clear whether that is merely over the Iraq war, or more generally) was to be forbidden at today's Live 8 concerns.

Monbiot comments that:

The two musicians are genuinely committed to the cause of poverty reduction. They have helped secure aid and debt relief packages worth billions of dollars. They have helped to keep the issue of global poverty on the political agenda. They have mobilised people all over the world. These are astonishing achievements, and it would be stupid to disregard them.

The problem is that they have assumed the role of arbiters: of determining on our behalf whether the leaders of the G8 nations should be congratulated or condemned for the decisions they make. They are not qualified to do so, and I fear that they will sell us down the river.

While he is likely the highest profile writer to voice these concerns (he was quoted during Bono's Meet The Press appearance last weekend), Monbiot is far from alone in these concerns, both with regards to Bob and Bono, and more generally.

During the IMF and World Bank meetings in Prague in 2000, Vaclav Havel facilitated a meeting between key figures from a number of NGOs and significant leaders from those organisations and the governments they work with. While this was an unprecedented opportunity to open dialogue, the decision of several luminaries from the NGO world to attend the meeting was deeply controversial on the streets.

Many of those protesting raised serious concerns that such a meeting lent legitimacy to the IMF and World Bank while, as Joseph Stiglitz would later detail in his "Globalization and its discontents," they had both taken on themselves a mandate vastly in excess of that agreed at the Breton Woods conference in 1944 at which they were founded.

Being any sort of diplomat is an exercise in trade-offs, and that is where Bono and Bob find themselves. In this interview with Bono, Madeleine Bunting discovered that much of the star's strategy in trying to win the US around to debt relief came from advice from (legendary stock market investor) Warren Buffett:

Earlier this week he told the Guardian in Cologne how advice from Buffett, reportedly the second richest man in America, had shaped his strategy: "Warren Buffett told me, 'Don't appeal to the conscience of America, appeal to its greatness, and I think you'll get the job done'."

It is likely that belief that has led to a reluctance to criticise the administration: an exercise that must take enormous restraint. It is also likely a dangerous strategy if taken alone.

There has been steady progress in attracting broad support for debt cancellation strategies and increases in aid budgets, through the increasingly high-profile, (and very moderate) One campaign. But the US administration has so far given little ground on crucial issues of conditionality (even while the UK government appears willing to reassess current conditionality) and climate change. Report after report demonstrates that the poor are going to be the first, and hardest hit by shifts in the global climate as a result of man-made factors, but the issue remains too controversial to touch in many circles. So too does the issue that a group of nations, one that no longer even represents those with the biggest economies, continues to dictate policy for the world. The G8 has no mandate, but it's hard to know how to address those power politics while still making a difference to the situation of the poor.

For a while, Thom Yorke of Radiohead provided a useful counterpart to Bono on the global campaigning stage. While Bono joked with the powerful, Yorke condemned their self-serving policies and the increasing power of undemocratic bodies like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO. But Yorke eschewed the limelight and doesn't have the global profile of Bono. We need someone with the presence and popularity of Bono who can play bad-cop to his good. Maybe a balance would help us to make more headway on the deeper issues.

Tags: George Monbiot | Bono | Bob Geldoc | Live8 | Legitimacy

Yesterday saw another major debt cancellation announcement. Not from the G8 this time, but from a shadowy cabal of supposedly democratic governments.

One of the many dreadful injustices tied into the current international debt situation is that indebted governments are not allowed to negotiate 'en bloc,' while creditors routinely gather into groupings to negotiate together. One of those groupings is the Paris Club, a group of creditor governments that meet in private to decide on policies towards bilateral debt. It has long been a hard organization for interested parties to penetrate, and is just one of many institutions that desparately needs to be opened up so that voters can scrutinise its proceedings.

On Wednesday, the Paris Club made a very welcome surprise announcement. In a press release they announced an agreement in principle to cancel loans owed by Nigeria, a country that has (for various reasons) until now been excluded from debt deals such as HIPC. The press release states that:

The announcement takes place after Nigeria has recently been declared eligible to IDA-only borrowing status and at a time when Nigeria has decided to renew closer relations with the International Financial Institutions.

("IDA-only borrowing status" means that Nigeria's credit rating is now considered particularly low, so they are only eligible for what "International Development Association" backed loans. I had hoped to link to the World Bank FAQs on IDA, but that page of their site is devoid of content...)

In September 2001, Jubilee Plus published a report by Kwesi Owusu titled "Drops of oil in a sea of poverty: The case for a new debt deal for Nigeria," the forward of which stated that Nigeria owed a total of US$28 billion, around 50% of which was due to "a build up of arrears due to the inability to pay over many years."

Yet despite that inability to pay and continually mounting arrears (the BBC currently estimate Nigeria's external debt at $35bn), it has taken four years for any group of creditors to announce even this level of willingness to negotiate debt cancellation for Nigeria. Nigeria currently pays out six times the amount they receive in aid in debt servicing, but those payments are not making any impact on their total indebtedness.

What this announcement does not mean is that Nigeria will immediately receive debt relief. While the BBC may have decided on a headline of "Nigeria to get $18bn debt relief," the package announced by the Paris Club is contingent upon Nigeria completing certain deals with the IMF (the terms of which are yet to become clear) and may well take some time to come through.

Where this announcement is significant is that it is a signal that creditor countries may be beginning to realise that HIPC is not good enough. There are many countries which do not yet qualify for HIPC, but which, like Nigeria, are in desparate need of debt cancellation if they are ever to start digging themselves out of poverty.

The fact that Nigeria alone owes nearly as much as the amount cancelled under the G8 Finance Ministers' meeting (which is supposed to assist between 18 and 38 countries) will hopefully provide pause for thought about how much further they could have gone, but have yet to.

Tags: Debt Cancellation | Paris Club | Nigeria