07/01/2004: "It's all the West's fault...whatever it is"

World Council of Churches General Secretary Samuel Kobia was in Germany this week, railing against...well, the usual stuff:

Calling it "an affront to the ecumenical vision of a united humanity", Kobia stated that "the process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal economic paradigm has created a global inequality and inequity" in which 20% of the world's population owns 83% of the global resources. "Our challenge today is to search for alternatives" to a world "of increasing inequality and violence" and "to nurture an economy that works in the service of life and does not contribute to its destruction," he stressed.

Kobia is an African, and I'm sure he deeply resents the way prosperity has largely passed that troubled continent by. But instead of looking for someone to blame, he ought to look inward, at the corrupt and repressive regimes and crackpot socialist schemes that have kept Africa from exploiting its people's talents and energies and its natural resources. The "process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal economic paradigm" that Kobia scorns is the process that has brought unparalleled prosperity to East Asia, not to mention Western Europe after World War II (a prosperity that is slowly slipping away from Europeans as they reject the one that brung them, as it were). Perhaps if Africans (and Arabs, since oil has been the ticket to paradise for most, but rather a continual source of loot for elites) were to rise up against their own rulers, and demand that they get in on the "process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal economic paradigm," they might find it opening up a better future for them.

The WCC general secretary also highlighted the need for "inter-religious dialogue and co-operation" in the face of "growing xenophobia", including "an evolving enemy-image that makes a caricature of our Muslim friends", and the "blatant misuse of religion in the mobilization of war". It is urgent, he said, "to nurture non-violent action for change and to work for peace and reconciliation" against the backdrop of "justification for war and even brutal torture" that harms the humanness of both the victims and the perpetrators.

Gee, I wonder who he's talking about? "Growing xenophobia": could that refer to the way Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims are vilified in the Muslim press and street demonstrations from Cairo to Jakarta? "Blatant misuse of religion in the mobilization of war": could that refer to the head-choppers of Fallujah, the Islamist rantings of bin Laden, or the racist sermons of the head of Saudi Arabia's most important mosque? "Justification for war and even brutal torture": could that refer to Saddam's wars against Iran or Kuwait, or his slaughter of his own people with chemical weapons, or possibly to Zarqawi's treatment of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.

Probably not.

Replies: 3 Comments

on Thursday, July 1st, Nathan said

While I certainly agree that a good deal of the blame for Africa's poverty belongs squarely on the shoulder of repressive tyrants & despots, I think you miss the fact that if the rest of the world adopted that neo-liberal economic program, we would all quickly run out of natural resources. The level of consumption and pollution of the 1st World economies would be completely unsustainable if it was brought to a global level. I'm no lefty environmentalist, but simply adopting the economic strategy of the US will hurt us all in the end. What would the US do if a rapidly growing African economy threatened its supply of cheap oil? Certainly new & better technologies can help, but its currently an unwarranted pipe-dream to think technology alone will fix these kinds of problems.

on Friday, July 2nd, Greg S said

Assuming I understand your POV, I respecfully disagree.
You actually skirt the point because you use the term economic program and strategy. What "free-marketers" refer to is just that - a free market. This is more of a system than a strategy. It does not in any way mean that developing countries must industrialize in the same way the west has.

Furthermore, a totally free market will factor in natural resourses in the same way it does other resources (eg, capital and labor). Their costs will rise as supply goes down. The reward will be there for the free market inventors and investors who find new ways of doing things.

Major differences exist in the way that newly developed countries such as Malaysia and Singapore when compared to the West. Each country must play on it's strengths, develop it's own model and policy. Some will polute and consume even more the the US (at least per capita), others barely do either.

on Friday, July 2nd, Nathan said

True, developing countries do not have to industrialize in the same way the West has, but the impetus is there. The West has set the standard of modernity & progress and many people & nations will want to follow that example. I agree this is not mandated, but it is reality especially given the emphasis Western corporations are putting on the emerging markets in SE Asia, Latin America and even Africa. These areas have great potential to become consumerist societies.

And while totally free markets may factor in natural resources in an economic sense, as long as those resources are cheaper than a more efficient form of energy they will continue to be used with escalating environmental damage which is very difficult to quantify monetarily. As such, corporations do not necessarily have to shoulder the burdens of clean up, hence the true cost of environmental exploitation is not borne by the largest polluters/consumers. This is even true in America where corporations are able to influence our allegedly transparent government. How much more influence will a multi-national corporation have in an emerging democracy or existing dictatorship in Africa? Also, I'd point out that right now there is no such thing as a totally free market, nor should there be. Regulation and protection in emerging economies is important to allow fledgling industries to establish themselves and to prevent the capital fluctuations that contributed to the SE Asian economic crisis a few years back.