Fall/Winter 2005-06
.
Letter from the ED
Dear IRC Supporters, We are not going to change our name again. But I have often thought, as I write these notes, that the IRC Insider should really be called the IRC Outsider, since what we attempt to do is to get information and alternative policy approaches out to the broader U.S. public and to the world. In the past couple of months, IRC staff members have spoken at forums about trade, security, and UN issues in such places as Kuala Lumpur, London, and Panama City. Closer to home, Tom Barry spoke at the national conference of the Citizens for Global Solutions in Santa Fe, while John Gershman gave the keynote address at a conference on the United Nations in North Carolina. Talli Nauman moderated a panel titled “Freedom of Information Issues” in Mexico at the annual convention of the Society of Environmental Journalists hosted by The University of Texas at Austin in late September. In late November Laura Carlsen appeared on the Miami-based television show, “Andres Oppenheimer Presents,” which broadcasts throughout Latin America and the United States on Spanish-language television stations. If you saw it, you were treated to an hour-long exposition of how common sense, thoughtful analysis, and bottom-up politics—as exhibited by Laura—easily cut through the conventional, “insider” wisdom about Latin American political economy. “Talking Points,” a new IRC product, are getting plenty of outsider attention—resulting in media interviews from national and international outlets for Carlsen, Barry, and Gershman. As President Bush embarked on his Asia trip, we released a “Talking Points” on U.S.-Asia policy that immediately gained international media attention through a series of broadcast and print media interviews with John. As you know, the IRC launched its Global Good Neighbor initiative (GGN) last May at events in New York City and in Washington, DC. During the lead speech on U.S. foreign policy at the Take Back America conference last summer, Katrina Van den Heuvel, editor of The Nation, said: “A released report by the International Relations Center and Foreign Policy In Focus called a Global Good Neighbor Ethic for International Relations reminds us that America had another global tradition and one that can serve as a model and inspiration for ourselves and others. GGN is a model for a dramatic shift away from militarism and unilateralism toward international cooperation and peace.” As part of that initiative, we have started issuing Global Good Neighbor commendations as well as citations for bad neighbor policies. The first two recipients of the GGN commendations went to former diplomat and antiwar activist Ann Wright and to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for its new anti-sweatshop policy. In the past couple of months, we have found encouragement in seeing that finally the “emperor” is quickly losing his clothes in front of an increasingly critical U.S. public. But what comes next? Clearly, the exposure of U.S. arrogance is long overdue. However, we are concerned that a new surge of isolationism might supplant a foreign policy based on mutual respect, interdependence, and the responsibilities of great power that the United States has as the biggest house in our global neighborhood. Please join with us in promoting the principles and practices of a Global Good Neighbor Ethic by being a good neighbor yourself, and by supporting the hard work of the IRC. Sincerely, Debra Preusch
IRC Good Neighbors
U.S. Free Trade Agreements Leave Developing Countries Where They Started, or Worse Americas Program director Laura Carlsen was invited to present on NAFTA’s impact in Mexico at the Asian Regional Workshop on Bilateral Free Trade Agreements in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia at the end of August. Not only has NAFTA not lifted its southern partner out of developing nation status, it has exacerbated the country’s unemployment and has increased the poverty rate. In an Americas Policy Report, Laura offers a few reasons why this happened: First, NAFTA did not adequately take into account the asymmetries existing between the three countries. Therefore Mexico entered the competition with serious disadvantages that it was not able to overcome and that in many cases were exacerbated. Unlike the European Union, NAFTA did not offer compensation or adjustment funds, or major infrastructure projects. Investment financing in Mexico was, and continues to be, nonexistent or extremely expensive, making conversion or expansion difficult for companies not already linked to international sources of capital. Second, NAFTA opened the economy to investment and trade liberalization to benefit sectors of interest to the global economy. The historically impoverished southern part of the country, where subsistence farming dominates, was effectively excluded from any benefits. At the same time, Mexico’s southern region was exposed to the massive influx of imports that competed with its traditional production, especially of corn. Thus NAFTA not only did not work to alleviate poverty where it was the worst but actively deepened it. NAFTA also stripped the government of many tools for promoting a more even integration of varying regions under a coherent national development plan. This led to more profound regional divisions in the country and heavy out-migration from the southern states to other parts of Mexico and to the United States. Another factor was the low linkage of NAFTA investment to the national economy. Almost 40 years since its inception, and 12 years after NAFTA, the offshore assembly sector still uses an average of only 3-4% national inputs. At the same time, NAFTA broke down some already established regional productive chains, such as the barley-beer chain in northern Mexico, when beer makers began to import grain from the United States. What would the global good neighbor do? » Incorporate the silent voices in the negotiations process and debate. » Keep unquantifiable values such as livelihood generation, cultural diversity, food sovereignty, protection of ecosystems, and biodiversity on the table. » Not allow trade policy to drive national development policy. Former Army Officer and Diplomat is Model Global Good Neighbor By her actions and statements against the Iraq War, Ann Wright embodies the Global Good Neighbor Ethic for International Relations. Knowing that the war would increase anti-Americanism and undermine constructive international relations, Wright chose to leave a bad neighbor government practicing bad neighbor policies. She is a global good neighbor because she followed the first global good neighbor principle: “The first step toward being a good neighbor is to stop being a bad neighbor.” Since leaving government, Wright has joined a global good neighbor campaign to stop the war and to set U.S. foreign policy on a more cooperative footing. City & County of San Francisco are Good Global Neighbors The International Relations Center presented the City and County of San Francisco with a Global Good Neighbor Commendation Award for its innovative measures to ensure that the city doesn’t purchase products manufactured in sweatshops. According to the IRC, “These resolutions, the products of extended campaigns by coalitions of citizens, labor and environmental groups, and private firms, clearly demonstrate that we have moved beyond the age when international relations were the exclusive domain of national governments. The global neighborhood we live in is shaped by flows of people, ideas, germs, trade, and investment. Although critical aspects of foreign policy are still the primary purview of national states, we are all active stakeholders. In this increasingly interconnected world, individuals, local governments, communities, churches, organizations, and corporations have a role to play in forging equitable and sustainable relationships among and between people. Good neighbor practices apply whether we operate a business, purchase goods, travel, or share the planet’s resources.” Global Good Neighbor Principles The globalized conditions of the 21st century require a Global Good Neighbor ethic that addresses the primary areas of international relations: military affairs, sustainable development, and governance. Principle One: The first step toward being a good neighbor is to stop being a bad neighbor. Principle Two: Our nation’s foreign policy agenda must be tied to broad U.S. interests. To be effective and win public support, a new foreign policy agenda must work in tandem with new domestic policies to improve security, quality of life, and basic rights in our own country. Principle Three: Given that our national interests, security, and social well-being are interconnected with those of other peoples, U.S. foreign policy must be based on reciprocity rather than domination, mutual well-being rather than cutthroat competition, and cooperation rather than confrontation. Principle Four: As the world’s foremost power, the United States will be best served by exercising responsible global leadership and partnership rather than seeking global dominance. Principle Five: An effective security policy must be two-pronged. Genuine national safety requires both a well-prepared military capable of repelling attacks on our country and a proactive commitment to improving national and personal security through nonmilitary measures and international cooperation. Principle Six: The U.S. government should support sustainable development, first at home and then abroad, through its macroeconomic trade, investment, and aid policies. Principle Seven: A peaceful and prosperous global neighborhood depends on effective governance at national, regional, and international levels. Effective governance is accountable, transparent, and representative. Like FDR’s international relations initiatives, these principles break with the traditions of the foreign policy elites and emulate the practices of towns, communities, and neighborhoods across our land. They are easily understood, because they are not drawn from foreign policy journals or ideological tracts. Global Good Neighbor principles reflect our basic values, our golden rules, our personal responsibility, our common sense, and our human decency. They are principles based on the everyday practices of good neighbors.
IRC VIP
Bruce Nissen has supported the work of the IRC for quite a while, “It’s been so long ago, that I can’t really remember how I discovered IRC. I just remember that when I saw materials from IRC, they were always solidly fact-based, not just based on polemics. I get tired of polemics, even those that support a perspective I hold.” Bruce considers himself an activist—primarily on labor rights, worker’s rights, and human rights. “I work a lot with the local chapter of Jobs with Justice.” The catalyst for his shift from bystander to participant? “It was definitely the war in Vietnam,” he says. “I had planned to be a rich doctor until the Vietnam War intruded on my college life, and turned me into an activist.” Like so many of us these days, Bruce feeds his activist habit both on the job and off. He uses IRC materials “mostly for self-education. I’m a college teacher, so I need to keep current all the time. Occasionally, I’ll use materials directly in a class … I like the fact-based nature of the materials and the arguments. I also really like the fact that IRC doesn’t pull its punches to cover for some favored politician or individual. This is solid, reliable evidence and argumentation that I can rely upon.” Aside from conducting non-credit classes for unions, teaching in a small university credit program, and doing a lot of researching, Bruce produces a lot of research reports for “social justice” organizations like unions, labor-community coalitions, working class community organizing groups, faith-based working class community organizing groups, immigrant rights groups, etc. He says, “I’m always interested in the fairness and inequality issues, as well as looking under the surface on what’s behind U.S. foreign policy.” For IRC’s near future, Bruce advises us to “carry on as before; maybe more emphasis on labor issues and immigration issues—I think these will be key in the coming period in the United States.” Bruce is a family man, “happily married, with two sons in their 20s who are doing great and who make me so proud of them.” Leisure activities consist of “Jazz (“classic—not ‘light’—which is not really jazz”); good books, including fiction when I can find the time to read it; growing an ‘exotic fruit orchard’ in my Florida backyard; art films and good foreign films.” His world travels include “Europe, to accompany my wife in her college teaching job for a year there; Mexico for cross-border labor events; and Central America and Argentina for recreation and travel.” All in all, Bruce says he’s “pretty average in a lot of ways … I’m just another foot-soldier in the cause of justice—and that’s the role that makes my life so happy.” We at the IRC hope to recruit more “average” people to become foot-soldiers for a cause, helping to make the United States a more responsible global leader. Our thanks to Bruce and the rest of our loyal supporters for always remembering that we’re all in this together.
Office Contact Information
Albuquerque Box 4506 Albuquerque, NM 87196-4506 Voice: (505) 842-8288 Fax: (505) 842-8288	Silver City Box 2178 Silver City, NM 88062-2178 Voice: (505) 388-0208 Fax: (505) 388-0619 Email: irc@irc-online.org