Past events

Beyond Twinning: Building Links that Endure
Francisco G. Pascual, Jr.
Beyond Twinning Conference, 17 November 2001

I am honored by this opportunity to speak at this conference specifically devoted to building linkages between social movements in Scotland and those in the poor countries.
On behalf of Jubilee Movement International, I wish to thank the organizers - Jubilee Scotland, Big Issue and Volunteer Scotland and Civic Forum for choosing to look into the specific experience of Jubilee 2000 and now JMI for lessons in pursuit of this links. JMI is the international movement against the external debt of the countries of the South that emerged after and is a product of the very successful campaign known internationally as Jubilee 2000.
Of course, I am aware that your concern goes beyond links specifically built on the common struggle against the debt but rather on a broader range of issues and concerns. Nevertheless, I think that the experience of the international campaign against the external debt of the poor countries provides a wealth of lessons and insights that can be useful in this endeavor. JMI and its precursor Jubilee 2000 are excellent examples of practical cooperation among various social movements in confronting a common problem while starting from their diverse national circumstances.
I have been asked to deal specifically with several broad themes and draw the essential lessons that could be of use to building links in general. These are:
1. How Jubilee 2000 worked an international movement that connected campaigners in rich and poor countries;

2. How links between groups in Scotland and groups in poor countries can help move the debt campaign forward;

3. What the challenges will be in building these links, and how best to face them?

Allow me to deal first with the broad basis for building these linkages among various organizations and movements involved in various issues in different countries of the world before I go to the specific experience of the Jubilee 2000 and Jubilee Movement International (JMI).

The Basis for Building the Links between Social Movements
Building links between social movements in rich and poor countries and between countries, for that matter, has become almost axiomatic. There is a common perception that it is necessary and desirable especially in the present era of "globalization." We note for example the growing number of networks and other forms of linkages. There are those that are built on specific issues like - debt, human rights, women, food security etc. There are others that are built on broader concerns encompassing various issues like those that are concerned with "globalization" as an international phenomenon. There are those that are limited to a few participants and/or on very focused common agenda. Still we have links between social movements in rich and poor, in the East and West, and in the North and South.
Networks and alliances, coalitions, partnerships come and go. Whether they endure, die or fade away depends on a number of factors. But one of the most important if not most fundamental of these is the relevance of these links to changing reality. Necessity and even desirability of these links are founded on the social context, both international and domestic, the participating movements find themselves in.
Solidarity is a term associated with links between various movement, groups and organizations. But there is as much interpretation or meanings attributed to the concept, as there are proponents. But if we exclude the vulgar narrow meaning of simply sympathizing with the victims of the present world order there are common attributes that we find very important because they put these links on a solid foundation and give it a fuller and deeper meaning.
Solidarity is based on the recognition that the various problems affecting various social sectors be they in the rich or poor countries are linked and are rooted in the same systemic causes. Its practical expression is in the concrete cooperation between various social movements, organizations, and groups. If this links have to make a difference, they must be based on recognition of the fundamental character of the world order: in the reality that the people in both rich countries and poor countries confront the same root causes of their problems. This is true in spite of the fact that the poor on the one hand and the rich countries on the other hand maybe situated in the global economy in qualitatively different ways.

The Debt of the Poor Countries as the Focal Point of an International Campaign

The international campaign to cancel the debt of the poor countries called Jubilee 2000 is regarded as one of the most successful international campaigns in recent years. This success though, I submit, is not measured in the narrow terms of the "too-little-too-late" debt relief extended to a few countries. It is more significantly defined by the popular support, the political vote of approval of millions who participated and continue to participate in the movement, the enduring links it has created among the various national coalitions and movements. This has created enormous pressure that has contributed significantly to the effort to expose the deceptive "debt-relief" schemes, and de-legitimize the iniquitous system of debt including its main instruments - the IMF/WB.
On an international scale there were 57 national coalitions, which were in one way, or another linked to each other or through the largely informal structures in high points of the campaign - Rome, Birmingham, Cologne, Geneva and lately Genoa. Twenty-seven national coalitions latter in April this year formed JMI - a formal but nonetheless loose network that is dedicated not only to the debt campaign but, more significantly, to the struggle for global economic justice.
I think that the success of the Jubilee 2000 campaign against the debt can be attributed to two major factors namely: first, there was a correct reading of the politico-economic context that was favorable for the development of the movement. Second forces/coalitions involved had a high degree of appreciation of the basic principles that make for effective links. Let me deal with the politico-economic context first.

The debt as a focal point for developing links on an international level proves to be a very potent. It generated widespread international support. This is due to the fact that the debt is one of the most widely visible expressions of the North/South divide. It is clearly linked to massive poverty in the underdeveloped economies, and to structural adjustment programs that wreak havoc on whole economies. In many countries debt service deprives societies of basic necessities and social services including education and health care.

The total external debt of developing countries as of 1980 was US$ 610 billion. By the end of 1997 it was already US$ 2.137 trillion despite their having paid US$1.2 trillion the since the 1980s. (The HIPC countries had an aggregate total of over US$ 200 billion.) The figures show an exponential growth of the debt since the end of the Second World War but more rapidly since the 80s. Take the case of the Phil as a specific example. In 1965 the external debt was US$ 600 million. By 1986 at the end of the Marcos martial law regime it was US$ 26 billion. Today it is US$ 52 billion and the Phil government is still begging for more loans.

The countries of the South are caught in a debt trap and the only way for them to pay maturing loans is to incur new ones. They will never be able to earn enough foreign exchange from their raw material and semi-processed exports to pay for their imports from industrial countries.

And this includes not only the Least Developed Countries. It is even more so for the so-called middle income or newly industrializing countries (NICs) as they were referred to until the Asian crisis swept away all their illusions of passing from the level of underdeveloped to develop economies simply by riding on the "globalization" scheme. As their export earnings dwindle and their capacity to service their debts weaken foreign direct investments including speculative investments flee the country further aggravating the balance of payment crisis. Devaluation of the local currency follows cheapening their export products in foreign currency terms. The IMF/WB formula of ever increasing exports for a "sustainable debt" is simply absurd. It is in the so-called NICs where the debt crisis is more likely to break out.

The debt crisis that has become chronic and increasingly more devastating to the underdeveloped countries. It is likely to be confronted by every indebted underdeveloped country. When the debt crisis breaks out whatever gains these economies have made are reversed throwing them farther back into underdevelopment. The debt deepens underdevelopment and impoverishment.

But the external debt today is more than an instrument of extraction of wealth from the South. It is a weapon for subjugation. Every lending is an occasion for the IMF/WB to impose stiffer "conditionalities" - more of the same policies that have produced and reproduced the debt problem in the first place. In many countries especially where the debt crisis is acute the conditions for debt relief amounts to a micro-management or take over of the national economy.

For as long as the countries of the South remain bound to the dictates of the transnational capital the debt will not only remain. It is bound to grow and every eruption of the debt crisis as the most recent one in Argentina is bound to be more devastating than preceding ones.

Capital-Led Globalization Aggravates the Debt Problem

It is not only the fact that the debt affects a large number of underdeveloped countries that makes it a very potent issue for mobilizing people from all countries. The debt issue also provides an excellent window into the workings of the international economy, its irresolvable contradictions, the so-called "globalization" of the world economy and the futility of the present development model.

In the Jubilee movement the term North and South are commonly used as are the terms rich and poor. North and South are geo-political concepts that are based on historically observable unequal relations between the advanced/developed countries and the underdeveloped countries most of which happen to be in the South. This divide is one that is historically rooted in hundreds of years of conquest and domination of the weak by the strong and the mighty - in colonialism, neocolonialism and imperialism.
Today we no longer talk about colonialism or of neo-colonialism as the fundamental processes underlying the inequities in the world economy. We now refer to "globalization" - the allegedly inevitable process of integration of the world economy.

"Globalization" implies the "homogenization" of the international economy one that would erase the distinction between rich and poor countries erase the North and the South divide, and eliminate the gap between the developed and underdeveloped. National boundaries are brought down in the process, which allows for the free movement of goods and more important, capital between countries presumably to generate development in the underdeveloped economies. But globalization has not erased the divide. In fact it had only accentuated it - widened the gap between the poor and the rich between the underdeveloped and developed countries. Such is the reality we have to recognize

Social activists are familiar with the widening gap between the rich and poor countries under "globalization". Consider for instance the following:

· The richest 1-% of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57%. No less than the UNCTAD Report concedes the fact that the poor countries continue to lose $1.9 billion everyday because of unjust trade rules - some 14 times the amount they receive in aid.

· The past 10 years witnessed a staggering concentration of corporate power across virtually all sectors of the global economy. The worldwide value of corporate mergers and acquisitions increased from
$462 billion in 1990 to over $3.5 trillion in 2000. Last year, cross border deals accounted for 35% of all mergers and acquisitions. The value of worldwide mergers and acquisitions in 2000 ($3.5
trillion) was roughly equivalent to 12% of total world economic output.

· Combined sales of the world's 200 largest corporations accounted for 28% of the world economic activity last year, but the top 200 corporations provide only a tiny fraction of the world's jobs. Combined sales of the world's top 500 corporations in 2000 were equivalent to 47% of the world's gross national income.

· The top 10 pharmaceutical companies control an estimated 48% of the $317 billion world market. The top 10 veterinary pharmaceutical companies control 60% of the $13.6 billion world market. The top 10 seed firms control 30% of the $24.4 billion commercial seed market. One company's genetically modified (GM) seed technology (Monsanto - now owned by Pharmacia) accounted for 94% of the total area sown to GM crops in 2000. The top10 agrochemical corporations control 84% of the US$30 billion agrochemical market. The 32 leading grocery retailers account for 34% of the total global food retail market, estimated at $2.8 trillion. The top 10 grocery retailers' account for $513.7 billion - or 54% of total sales for the top 32 retailers.

· And so on so forth

Globalization contrary to the claims of its ideologues is not a step forward - it is a throw back into colonization. As a result of globalization the economies of many if not most of the independent sovereign countries of the South are more foreign owned today than in the period after independence.

At present the world economy is in crisis and the crisis is deepening the debt crisis. Even before September 11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, the US and the world economy were already reeling in a deep crisis. Japan's economy has been stagnating for the last decade. Now the US economy is constricting and the most optimistic forecast is that recovery will only come by the end of next year. Europe, indicators show, is definitely headed for a recession.

The productive capacity of the economy is wasted and left to idle on a large scale as corporations cut down production to reduce inventories that have piled up. Today only 70 percent of the productive capacity of the international economy is being utilized. This massive destruction of the means of production is ironically being done in the context of increasing unemployment in the first world countries, the widespread poverty and deepening underdevelopment in the poor and including the former socialist countries.

The crisis directly impacts and is immediately brought into the underdeveloped economies and spreads worldwide. The inherent disadvantage of these economies is their being assigned the specific role of producers of a few agricultural products, production base for labor intensive and low technology processes, and as markets for the surpluses of the industrial economies. Hence, the economies are vulnerable to the vagaries of the international economy. Their economies take a plunge as demand for their few exports fall, as the transnational corporations cut production due to the crisis in their home markets, and as the latter dump their surpluses in the underdeveloped countries.

Many third world economies are in danger of defaulting on their massive debts - Argentina, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Philippines because of falling demand for their exports as well as deteriorating terms of trade. Argentina, now in its third year of a deep recession, is most likely to default. The Philippines, Pakistan and Indonesia are at the brink of a debt crisis. The multilateral as well as commercial banks are worried that this could lead to unilateral declaration of non-payment because of the deteriorating economic condition and thus, undermine the "legitimacy" of the third world debt and the conditions under which they were contracted.

Globalization is clearly aggravating the debt crisis.

The "war against terrorism"

Let me take a detour in this discussion to briefly comment on the Sept 11 incidents in New York and Washington because the event is so important to the international and to us social activists. Taken together the atrocity is of a far bigger scale than any other single terrorist act committed in recent years, including those that were perpetrated by right wing forces. It has generated anger on an international scale as well as created political divisions and open political conflicts in many countries.

Taking advantage of the widespread anger and outrage against the terrorist attacks the US and Britain are on the offensive - militarily and politically. This politico-military offensive whips up a false sense of patriotism of the American people to support the hyperbolic declaration that America is in a "state of war." Hence there is the need for a coalition against terrorism. Every head of state of the G8 countries pledge political support if not military participation. Others followed including China and Russia and provided the US and British governments war on Afghanistan a semblance of "legitimacy."

The specific geo-political objective of the war on Afghanistan is the defeat of the Taliban and the installation of a pro-US regime, the projection of US military might and the possible deployment of military forces in the region where American influence is traditionally weak or absent.

But this offensive is not only about terrorism it is a façade for forcing the whole neo-liberal agenda on the people's of the world including the American people. It includes justifying and putting into place the worst schemes and policies - from a massive build up of the US war machine to the curtailment of civil liberties of ordinary citizens including the legalization of assassinations by the CIA under the pretext of combating terrorism.

Now even with the end of the cold war and the obvious absence of any external threat to the US, Bush wants more military spending. This includes the controversial star wars program originally proposed by Reagan and directed against the then Soviet Union. The biggest defense contract ever (USD 200 billion) has been signed by the US government to build a new generation of warplanes. The imperatives of the massive spending has more to do with reviving the US economy and developing more sophisticated military hardware for US wars of interventions than defense of the US homeland.

New security measures have been put into place supposedly as a reaction to the Sept 11 attacks and to combat terrorism. But they threaten the civil liberties of American citizens more than it curbs terrorism. This assault on civil liberties and the attendant witch-hunt is directed on a wide range of individuals, groups and organizations that oppose US policies. The US congress has approved the setting up of a new Department of Home Defense with an appropriation of USD 20 billion. A new law allows for the wire-tapping of the telephones of suspected "terrorists." The CIA is pushing that it be explicitly allowed to use some of the most atrocious tricks it has used or is using, like assassinations and torture. It is also pushing for a policy that would allow it to employ criminals in the name of the anti-terrorist campaign.

Even the free trade agenda is taken on board the anti-terrorism bandwagon. The US secretary of trade calls on the international community to use "free trade" to combat terrorism! The new round of WTO negotiations are being justified in the same vein. More of free trade is allegedly needed to eradicate terrorism! There is also the sinister attempt to put the movement against the IMF/WB and neo-liberalism in the same basket together with the terrorists; that the terrorist were allegedly successful in canceling the meeting of the IMF/WB which the movement wants to do!

It is obvious that the Sept 11 incidents are being used in every conceivable agenda of the US - from the wars of aggression to the curtailment of civil liberties to the expansion of the markets for US corporations.

The important thing for civil society organizations and social movements is to be aware of the conservative agenda to marginalise all opposition to neo-liberal globalization. We must assert our relevance and legitimacy. We must be vigilant against the curtailment of civil liberties allegedly to combat terrorism but in reality may be used against the citizenry in general. We must oppose war as an instrument of policy and political and economic domination.

We must guard against deceptive efforts that tend to undermine us. For example the IMF/WB upon the instructions of the US and British governments has extended some measures of debt relief to Pakistan (one of 5 countries that are more likely to encounter a debt crisis) for its cooperation in the war against the Taliban.

JMI and the International Movement against the Debt.

The formation of Jubilee Movement International is a logical step forward in the international campaign against the debt. JMI builds on the victories won by Jubilee 2000 which earned the support of millions of peoples all over the world for its demand to cancel the debt, and find alternative solutions to the debt crisis. Because of this, the national campaigns whether in the North or South are almost unanimous that the anti-debt campaign must continue and move on. This is based on the recognition that beyond the demand for immediate debt relief, is the recognition of the systemic causes of the debt, the fatal flaws of the present lending system, and the shared vision of debt free world. There is also the imperative to build on rather than dismantle the gains of Jubilee 2000.

The national coalitions forming JMI have agreed not only to cooperate in the conduct of the campaigns but also to build an international movement, which, while focused on the debt issue, moreover links these to the systemic processes that produce, and reproduce the debt. JMI is above all a movement for Global Economic Justice. It tackles other issues and moreover is a part of the international movement against "globalization."

As such, JMI is a consolidation of the links between the various national anti-debt movements and coalitions in both political and organizational terms. Politically JMI explicitly links the debt to global economic justice and moreover while focused on the debt takes on the whole agenda of economic justice.

Organizationally, a formal structure is set up to "coordinate" the various activities on the international level and brings these to specific focus.

The movement against the debt is a South-focused movement. Its bias is for the South. It draws its perspectives from the people who bear the burden of the debt. It is also from the South that it draws the greater part of its popular support and, where it is possible to build the political muscle that is absolutely necessary if we have to achieve reforms in the present system of debts much more if we have to move forward to our vision of a debt free world.

Yet while it is South focused, it also draws into its fold all the positive forces from the rich countries thus forming an integral international movement. It is not sectarian. It rejects the mechanical notion that a bias towards the South means the actual exclusion of anti-debt movements from the industrial countries except as spectators or confined to the periphery. It recognizes the fact that their participation is essential. They build the effective opposition to the policies of their own governments that created and continue to aggravate the debt crisis.

At present, JMI is about to launch a campaign on an audit of the debt to get an overall picture of the debt problem within each country and internationally. The ultimate objective is to expose the systemic flaws of the system of debt to support the demand for a cancellation of the debt and alternative approaches to the debt crisis.

The campaign is based upon the fact that loans under the present system are contracted in many cases not for the benefit of the people and contrary to the national interest. Loans tainted with corruption even at the highest level of the
bureaucracy and attached to onerous conditionalities. The private loans of corporations are routinely nationalized under the guise of national interest.

With this campaign we hope to reinvigorate the international campaign against the debt and provide avenues for the practical cooperation among the various national coalitions to effect reforms in the present system of debt and move towards our vision of a debt free world.

In the Philippines for example, the People's Forum (for social and economic justice) organized by the Resource Center for People's Development is now looking into the evolution of the Philippine debt. We are looking into the driving forces behind its exponential growth of the debt, as well as the specific circumstances and conditionalities under which this loans were incurred.

Summary and Conclusions

In conclusion let me just go over some of the fundamental principles that are the necessary foundation of affective links between the rich and poor countries.

It is based on a genuine concern for those who are most affected by globalization. It is not only about mitigating the most glaring impact of globalization or immediate short-term relief. Certainly there are a lot of situations in the world where these are necessary and call for these. But we must also strive to build these links on firmer foundations - on a common analysis of the problems and practical steps towards our objectives and above all on a shared vision of the future.

Effective and enduring links are based on the recognition of the inherent right of the national movements to set their own agenda, deal with their own problems and account with their own governments. It is the duty of every national movement to address the specific problems of its people and mobilize them in the struggle for reforms and the radical transformation of society. In the ultimate analysis it is only the people who can effectively change the situation for themselves.

Links must be based on mutual respect, on an objective recognition of the strength and weaknesses of those who are linked. In this way we build on our strengths overcome our weaknesses and complement each other effectively,

We must guard against the pitfalls of dependency on the one hand and the arrogance of imposing ones views on others. Otherwise we subvert the very basis upon which links can be effective and moreover the objectives of our cooperative efforts.

Links must serve the mutual strengthening of the partners or participants. In the final analysis, the links that we build between organizations and movements among countries, between the poor and rich are only as effective as are the organizations and movement that comprise the links.