First, let me begin with an introduction: my name is Ethan Frey. I’m a senior International Politics major (+ a few minors) at Westminster College in New Wilmington, PA.  I am serving as one of Americans for Informed Democracy’s Northeast Regional Coordinators this year, with a focus on  Global Environment. There’ll be some great, exciting and substantively significant events happening through the Fall (Power Shift Pennsylvania and Copenhagen, most namely) and I’m excited to organize around them – for and against them – with you all. Thanks for the opportunity!

Now on to the G20…

Unfortunately, I was only able to roam the streets of Pittsburgh Thursday, and not Friday. I’ll set the scene: driving south into Pittsburgh signs read “road closings for G20″, “Pittsburgh welcomes world leaders”, “Use caution: police forces on high alert”, so once we get into the  city, we realize that, in reality, the streets are bare aside from what seems to be a government crackdown in a policed state.

Our first stop: the press tent to assist with an Avaaz photo-op at the Media Check-In outside Mellon Arena.  They were marketing “SurvivaBall” – the newest chic invention by the zillionaires that (attempt to) run the world.

“SurvivaBall” is the G20’s answer to the climate crisis: corporate accountability; save our CEOs.

It’s oozes satire, as the Avaaz folks attempt to display how spending 1 billion to insure the CEOs and executive directors that run the largest corporations and countries is not going to be enough.

Their message: we need to spend the money now to ensure the safety, and provide the ability for developing countries to adapt to a changing climate. International Adaptation Aid is an issue that must emerge on the political scene once the U.S. Senate returns to negotiations around a Climate bill.

After the action, I left to meet up with Sarah, AIDemocracy’s Global Development Campaigns Coordinator, Kristen Moe, of the Sierra Student Coalition, and my new friend Anais spending a semester in the States, to attend a great conference: People’s Voices: A Global/Local Exchange. The discussion I chose to participate in focused on redefining the way we look at Climate and Environmental Justice issues, relative to the discussions happening at the G20 a few blocks away.

Jihan Gearon from the Global Justice Ecology Project and Indigenous Environmental Network was most eloquent, speaking of her refusal to simply accept an inadequate climate bill from the House in the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), passed this summer, and her commitment to continue inserting the voice of the people and the planet in conversations increasingly dominated by fossil fuel lobbyists and right-wing talk show hosts.

True, the leaders of the 20 most industrialized nations agreed, in principle, to phasing out all fossil fuel subsidies in the medium term.  President Obama even reportedly stated that he would phase out all subsides to the dirty fuels by next year (!).  But, this exclusive summit left many of these major decisions on the table, unanswered, unfinished, unresolved.  They met two months before Copenhagen, where the next global framework on Climate Change will be made (or unmade) and they discussed WHAT!?

What the G20 ought to do is explain to people that wehave plenty to gain by scaling down.  Using less, being more efficient and deliberate in our daily routines would, save large amounts of energy and secure more sustainable futures for our populations and planet.

Our Climate and Environmental Justice discussion–the voices and perspectives of 8 rag tag activists meeting in a church on the North Side of Pittsburgh discussing the most aggressive path to affecting change on the local, national and international levels–taught me to go back to my community and continue fighting.  To prepare and organize for the next two months of back-and-forth between India, China and the U.S. before all the heads of state sit down in Denmark.

We have until December 7th to let President Obama and all of the international community know that we are sick of neglecting the needs of our planet and the people most affected by our changing climate. Not only is taking bold action the right thing to do, it’s fiscally responsible and economically viable.

Honestly, if we’re going to debate about taxing something these days, let’s talk about taxing the harm that’s inflicted every day to our planet; the pain that people from pacific island nations feel when they must leave their land – this is what we should tax.

Over the last eight months, many scholars have questioned whether Africa might escape the worst effects of the economic crisis. Some have hypothesized that the continent’s limited involvement in the world economy and international financial system might insulate it from a crisis stemming from credit systems and lending markets. In March, AIDemocracy blogged about surprising economic growth in Africa thanks to heavy Chinese investment and trade (African Trade Booms as World Economy Collapses). New economic reports, however, suggest that the situation is a little more complicated than it seems.

On June 18th, the TransAfrica Forum held a roundtable discussion on the impact of the economic crisis on Africa. Panelists discussed the causes and consequences of the crisis on Africa and argued over some of its potential benefits. The speakers could whole-heartedly agree on two points: first, that the crisis has and continues to affect Africans dramatically, and second, that it provides an opportunity to achieve structural change through investment in women, workers, and other marginalized groups.

After nearly a decade of steady growth rates of 5-7%, the crisis is expected to make African nations’ growth negative. More developed countries like South Africa have seen stock market crashes and jumps in unemployment, as in the US and Western Europe. Developing economies, which had previously escaped the worst effects of the crisis, are now suffering as primary export prices fall. The crisis has reached these countries not through the stock market, but through the commodities trade in raw materials on which they depend. The implications of this crisis for an underdeveloped and impoverished continent are thus quite serious.

Economic troubles are only now beginning to descend on Africa. Social services in many countries are absent or underdeveloped and will only prove harder to find as the situation worsens and money becomes more scarce. Breadwinners are facing job losses that could endanger the economic security and survival of themselves and their dependents. This puts increased pressure on women and children, who must often sacrifice their education in times to crisis to make the families’ ends meet. Additionally, immigrant workers in Europe and the West are dealing with job loss themselves; remittances to Africa have already fallen dramatically, removing a financial support that previously exceeded international aid and investment figures in many countries.

As foreign aid promises go unfulfilled and capital flight accelerates, stimulus packages and government involvement in the economy have sought to lessen the crisis’ impact. Conditions in Africa are likely to get worse before they get better, however. Existing problems have only been exacerbated by the crisis; Africa still struggles to achieve sustainable growth and equitable wealth distribution, now also under the burden of a global economic crisis. Meanwhile, ethnic tensions related to resource distribution are feared to renew political instability in regions that had found peace in times of growth.

So where are these potential benefits? The economic crisis may force Africa to finally break its reliance on the international community for support – increased regional integration and the strengthening of the African Union may prove the continent’s best route to recovery. The crisis may also force nations to undertake much-needed structural reforms. Economic diversification, the development of higher value-added exports, the creation of social services, and the instigation of taxation to distribute resources could benefit African nations greatly in the long term. The crisis also offers an opportunity for countries to develop policies and strategies to link foreign direct investment to employment (so that Chinese investment is benefiting African workers first and foremost) and encourage entrepreneurship among women. Structural reforms necessitated by the crisis could finally raise African women and workers to the positions of power they have historically lacked.

Each of the panelists’ organizations provides statistics and resources that can help you get involved in sustainable recovery efforts. Learn more about the impact of the economic crisis on Africa and discover ways to push for workers’ and women’s rights through structural reform.

Jose Gijon, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Regina Amadi, International Labor Organization

Tony Avignan, Economic Policy Institute

Briggs Bomba, Africa Action

Leonce Ndkumana, African Development Bank

Hello Everyone!  It’s good to be back in the game.  I have been largely severed from the internet world from several weeks as I traveled across Europe and Northern Africa.  I have returned to London, but am still in limbo as I prepare to return to the states.  Still, I wanted to make sure this week’s edition of the BRIC Roundup got to press! Of course, much has occurred in the past weeks in these nations.

The overarching story of the BRIC nations in the past weeks has been one of steadily increasing importance in international affairs as the economic crisis is re-leveling to some degree the playing field.  The G20 conference here in London a few weeks ago emphasized this point as it agreed to flood money into the IMF and reorient policy around the World Bank.

These organs are set up with the express aim of preventing crises throughout the world by monitoring dangerous economic policies in all countries; and these aims will be furthered by Brazil’s suggestion that developing countries gain more control over the fund.  It is a measure of the growing influence of Brazil in particular that it is paying into the fund to help other countries and able to take a larger role in demanding policy innovation.

Meanwhile China is making the first moves to bring its strategic asset fund, derived from its foreign reserves, out of its short hibernation.  China is hoping, of course, that the financial crisis is bottoming out, and its returns will therefore be great at current investment prices.  While this strategy is risky, it underscores the country’s relative economic power to be able to spend at all, and reinforces the international clout that China holds that such expenditures have a significant worrying effect on some Western policymakers.

Of course, the BRIC Roundup is not the only one to notice the emerging importance of countries such as Brazil.  For example, Israel’s El Al Airlines has begun direct flights this week to Brazil, strengthening Brazil’s international cache, at the same time that the International Olympic Committee has sent positive messages considering Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Olympic Games.

In a more foreboding sense, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted this week that Iran and China have made "quite disturbing" gains in Latin America, and President Ahmadinejad is planning ot visit Brazil just this week.  The U.S. might do well to encourage these emerging countries to become stronger allies.

Thus, the overarching story of the BRIC countries in the past week weeks has indeed been such a resurgence of growth–in stature, importance, and influence—despite the tough economic times.  Do you have any thoughts concerning how the U.S. should respond to the changing international scene?  Besides involvement with the G20 summit in London, the U.S. has seemed relatively muted in the past few weeks regarding international affairs, as the emphasis has been placed squarely on domestic matters.  Should more be done, or is the current focus on domestic affairs correct?  Sound off in the comments!

Guest post from Tim Newman, Campaigns Assistant at International Labor Rights Forum:

As finance ministers from the G-20 nations prepare to meet in London, reports are emerging that Western nations are ready to accept some proposals for an increase in power for developing countries in the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The Washington Post stated this morning that “the big winner will be the developing world, with the United States, Europe and Japan offering China, India, Brazil and other emerging nations unprecedented new influence in global financial decisions.”  The notion that industrialized nations currently holding sway in the IMF have to ability to “offer” developing countries a voice in the lending policies that deeply affect their economies highlights some of the power imbalances within international financial institutions — it also brings to mind Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s controversial comments last week about the global economic crisis.

The issue of representation in the decision-making bodies at the IMF is a real concern.  Currently, Europe holds a third of the chairs in the executive board and continues to follow the “tradition” of filling the managing director position with a European while the US has veto power at the IMF due to its large voting share.  The power structure at the IMF, and other international institutions, needs to be changed, but the bigger question is how will these changes can result in a qualitative shift that promotes policies that support poor and working people globally?

I’m sure you did a double-take when you read the title of this post. Africa? Trade? Thriving Economies?  Yes, in fact, 21st century Africa has quickly become home to some of the most bold foreign investments from rising world superpower China.

Paolo Woods, Time

Removed from much of the toxic lending and faulty mortgages, African markets have been largely shielded from the momentous economic downturn now engulfing the rest of the world’s economies. A new report released by Time Magazine reveals foreign investment in Africa has reached a whopping 48 million dollars in 2006, topping the amount received in foreign aid for the first time.

Furthermore, China will become Africa’s primary trading partner this year, speeding ahead of the United States. In Kenya, for instance, Chinese investors have begun to build infrastructure, roads, and selling Chinese goods in Chinese stores. Some have even set up schools to teach Kenyans Chinese.

Some academics claim that the Chinese are undercutting African producers and embarking on a new form of colonialism in the process. Chinese good are sold at strikingly lower prices than those of African goods, diverting business from many African merchants and traders.  Others worry about over-investment in extractive industries, which filter little benefit to African communities or workers.

Yet, there is a counter argument.  Some journalists assert  that the Chinese have undertaken infrastructure projects, school-building, and development work in tandem with their business ventures.

Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi recently articulated the advantages of new China-Africa partnerships.

“We will continue to have a vigorous aid program here, and Chinese companies will continue to invest as much as possible. It is a win-win solution.”

The full impact will remain to be seen. For now, however, it appears as if Chinese foreign direct investment may have jumpstarted a process of growth in Africa which inefficiently implemented American aid dollars have failed to catalyse for decades.

President Obama isn’t letting go of the Bush administration’s obsession with defense spending.

Over the past month and a half, we’ve seen our new President alternate between faltering new kid on the block to strong, progressive policy maverick. His foreign policy agenda, especially with respect to foreign aid, fall somewhere in between his dual personalities of tired novice and bold social entrepreneur.

One recent development that has many international aid and foreign policy experts alarmed is Obama’s apparent continuation of sky-high defense spending. A recent article from Foreign Policy magazine reveals the economic downturn has not precluded a quickening arms race, and neither has Obama’s election into office. The magazine claims Obama has released budget figures that allocate a whopping 534 billion for the Department of Defense; Obama’s pentagon budget reportedly falls 1.9 percent above last year’s figures, adjusting for inflation. The United State’s defense expenditures still violently exceed those of China, India, Russia, and Iran, and greatly exceed funding allocation for development agencies such as USAID.

So how does this relate to foreign aid?

In the past decade, the Bush administration utilized the military to conduct many foreign assistance missions, a dangerously inadequate model for aid distribution. For instance, the Bush Administration’s Commander Emergency Response Program authorized the military to provide humanitarian relief to citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq, blurring the distinction between aid workers and army officers. The 2006 National Defense Authorization act contained provisions spearheading joint Pentagon-State Department development missions. Similar military/aid ventures have been conducted in Africa as well.

It is up to Obama to dismantle this misguided, militaristic approach to foreign aid that alienates, incenses, and demoralizes civilians, not to mention fails to establish strong civil societies and solid infrastructure. According to Emira Woods, of Foreign Policy In Focus, allowing for such a fine line between humanitarian assistance and military meddling can create serious complications. While some argue that military presence ensures a peaceful and secure environment in which other goals of economic development, health, education and democracy can be met, Woods warns that “making military force a higher priority than development and diplomacy creates an imbalance that can encourage irresponsible regimes to use U.S. source military might to oppress their own people.”  For further articulation of this debate with regards to AFRICOM, or U.S. Africa Command, check out this transcript from a January episode of “Straight Talk Africa.”

President Obama ran on a platform which championed diplomacy and development as stronger, smarter tools than defense.  But if the numbers don’t match the rhetoric, where’s the change?

Much has been made in recent weeks about what I like to call MAD 2.0–this time between the U.S. and China.

Of course, the new MAD is not nearly as vindictive as the previous phase of international relations between the U.S. and the S.U.  It involves no bombs, posturing, or division of the world into spheres of influence (yet).  No, the new MAD is predicated on a simple fact: each country controls the other country’s financial system.

The Financial Times synthesized the situation rather succinctly.  China has made a policy of holding substantial currency reserves while keeping its currency artificially low.  This will, in theory, allow it to weather economic downturns while promoting its exports, because if the currency remains low it is easier for other countries to buy Chinese products.

These substantial currency reserves have to sit somewhere, and must be of a different currency (since to hold a potential flood of yuan would pose a potential problem to the currency’s value should it have to be spent).  Up to this point and continuing at least until the near future, the reserves have been held primarily in United States’ assets.

In the process, China has become the largest creditor to the United States, with this debt growing by 25% per year.

If the U.S. were to falter, China would lose its currency reserves, revaluing the yuan and cutting its growth massively.  If China were to draw down its reserves, the U.S. would have to call in mountains of debt to begin to pay it back and would lose the status of reserve currency that has allowed outrageous deficit spending for many years.

From the U.S. perspective, this is quite a precarious situation at first glance: to depend solely on a country that is not exactly the friendliest of allies on many issues for economic security does not top the list of desirable positions to be in.  Yet there are several factors that make this relationship much more complicated and not so evidently negative.

Primarily, the U.S. has the advantageous position at the moment of being the world’s reserve currency, which means for this application that it is still one of the safest investments in terms of long-term stability that exists.  If the Chinese choose to continue their policy of holding huge currency reserves, then their best investment option is still the dollar.

For China, to even begin to move away from its stake in the dollar would collapse all of the value that that remains in their reserves.  This is why they are so cautious to assure the world’s investors that this is precisely what they are not going to do.  Furthermore, to liquidate its reserves would lead to a valuation of the yuan.

Clearly, neither country can afford to have the other make any drastic moves.  A very precarious balance pervades the system, and any sway in either direction could bring both economies to a grinding halt.

Still, China realizes that it has the relative upper hand in the sitaution, and, as the Financial Times report, are beginning to move the issue of debt obligation into the realm of foreign policy.  The U.S. is going to have to tread very lightly into the future–especially because, in this case, it cannot deficit spend the enemy into oblivion.

—

For further information, here is an interesting podcast published by the Economist on China’s downturn and how it plays into this financial crisis:

Stream it

Download it

When the world’s economy is in decline and your nation, run by a network of cartoonish oligarchs, is flexing its muscles more than Arnold Schwarzenegger–and you are Russian–there is always a solid response available: more vodka please!

What better way to pacify your people than to keep them drunk?  Apparently the Russian government is fully aware of the benefits of alcohol as a substitute for actual social and political progress, and as a result has prescribed a dramatic reduction in the tax on vodka in these troubled times.

Part of this tax is aimed at curbing the growing trend for Russians to circumvent the tax altogether by making their own alcohols and buying contraband alcohol, a game of (dare I say?) Russian roulette with each bottle that has resulted in “dozens” of deaths across the state.

Now I will not delve deep into psycho-analysis on this point, but I think that there are a few obvious polite “suggestions” that might be made to a government that needs to keep its people drunk to be happy.

Edit (1/27/09): Maybe getting them drunk will also help them to not notice you are killing off your political enemies too.  This is getting ridiculous.

——

Another story out of Russia of particular interest to me (because of my current residence in London) is the purchase of the Evening Standard by russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev.  Anyone else have £1 lying around to buy a major newspaper?

Though I bring it up mainly to draw your attention to it, I think it is an interesting occurrence when major media outlets became controlled by foreign actors.  People talk about the “fourth branch of government” in the United States (particularly the press), and how exactly would this branch stand up if its editorial policy were to become influenced by another state?

Of course, though the principle still stands, this probably wouldn’t be such a big deal if the purchaser were not from the Russian oligarchical class of former KGB agents.  Those of us inclined to see a pattern in Russia’s recent behavior might hop on the conspiracy theory bandwagon and view the cynical motives for such a move.

In my experience here in London, it seems that such editorial controls would be useful–and not frowned upon.  There are several major papers competing for circulation in the UK and particularly in London, and everyone will be able to tell you which one leans which direction.  In perusing their papers, it seems that the idea of “objectivity” is not so heavily valued here as it is in the states; papers have an ideological perspective, and they don’t care if their slang terms for the opposing party and relative placement of opponents’ arguments at the end of each article expose this.

In addition, Londoners are big on public transportation: I met a woman from the states who has lived here for three years and–because its more convenient–does not own a car.  This leads to a large opportunity for newspapers, as everyone on the way to work seems to be perusing the day’s news in one form or another.  Evening Standard booths stand guard outside of every tube station, offering free umbrellas with purchase when it is raining or free coffee mugs or something of that sort–the exact thing to be sure that thousands of Londoners every day will read each paper in circulation.

The purchase of the Evening Standard could just be a business decision–but it makes for a better blog to think about the alternatives!

—–

The final piece of news that I want to highlight this week is the introduction of national healthcare in China.  Interestingly, China has gone for the Massachusetts approach (home state of my college, Boston College), providing basic insurance coverage (rather than a state-administered health program as in western Europe) to all Chinese people.  The administration they plan to set up sounds a lot more like the Commonwealth Connector than the UK’s National Health Service.

This turn of events will prove an interesting experiment for those wishing that the same be done for the U.S.  One of Mitt Romney’s killer flops was his disavowal of the system he put in place in MA; and while it is true that Massachusetts has seen rising enrollment that has exceeded the prescribed budget (and put the state in a squeeze in these tough times), people seem to the happy with the idea.  It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Nearly eighty years ago the United States experienced a decade long drought that altered the course of American history. Now we live in a time with a drought severe enough to alter the history of the world. According to a Vanguard interview on Current TV, with the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, “there are fifty countries with nearly 2.7 billion people, who do not have access to water.”   In a world where our differences are shrinking, so is the most valuable resource for our survival, our fresh water supply.

According to the United States drought monitor, the state of California reported a record to near record dry spring in hundreds of locations throughout the state. The drought was so severe it prompted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to declare a statewide drought. In a recent report from the US government Accountability Office, “At least 36 states will experience water shortages within the next five years.” The main areas to be effected will be the Southeast, Southwest, and the Pacific west. How bad is the drought at this moment? The Colorado River no longer ruins into the Gulf of Mexico. Lake Mead has experienced a 60 feet drop in the level of water within the past three years. The Everglades in South Florida is experiencing a shift in its ecosystem as the once freshwater swamp slowly evolves into a saltwater pit. Yet, the United States is not alone.

According to the same Vanguard interview, the northern Chinese province of Hebei, (pronounced Hébĕi)  is home to more than two million people and half of the country’s production of wheat. However, the river that feeds life into the area and eventually Beijing has fallen 97% from its original capacity. The country itself is under a desertification. Nearly 2,000 sq/km of arable land turns into desert each year. Today, nearly 25% of China is a desert and one that is continuously growing everyday.

So what brought us to the breaking point? Although some climatologist lean toward global warming, other scientist and those who survived the Dust Bowl of the thirties blame ourselves. With the rapid rise in human population, the demands on necessary resources also drastically increased. Our excessive consumption of water has dried-up rivers and lakes, and has drained our reservoirs, and aqueducts. We, as a specie can not survive without water. Even the plants in which we consume need this resource. In fact the cultivation of the land is also blamed on the current global drought.

Whether is it the over-farming in the plains of China or the man-made canals that redirect runoff water in the United States, humans have altered the natural flow of water.  Our methods in farming are far out dated in which they reflect a time when water was in abundance.  However, now that we are experiencing a servere drought, our methods must adapt for the sake of our survival.  Understanding the causation of a problem and the impact it has will lead to the development of a solution.

Areas that are overwhelming effected by the shortage of water have already begun to take action.  Suburban cities in the US  have implemented restricitions on the useage of water for lawns.  Permitting alternating days dependant upon the numerical address.  In Spain where the lack of water has set region against region, water is imported from France, city fountantins have been turned off, and a desalination plant near Barcelona is being constructed to extract water from the sea.  Younger cities in the United States such as Irvine, California and Cape Coral, Florida, have constructed a reusable water system.  The recycled water is comprised of a collection of used water from homes, businesses, as well as storm runoffs.  Once it has been filtered, the water is then redistributed to be used for irrigation purposes  for crops, golf courses, wetlands enhancement, and serves as a cooling system for industries. A recycled water system is a component of the citywide water system.  Therefore dual distribution provides fresh and recycled water.  In Saint Petersburg, Florida this system has reduced portable water usage by 50%.  Imagine a similar system in operation throughout every state in the Union and the millions of fresh water that would be saved each year.

We have all witness the value of commodities such as food and energy soar within the year causing civil unrest in developing countries from the islands of Latin America to the plains of Africa.  We have been fortunate to find alternatives for these commodities.  However, for water there is no subsitute.  Each of us has a responsibility, not to consume, but to conserve.   Turn off the water when you brush your teeth, fix leaking faucets, do not water turfs.  If we do not, water will be a commodity of the wealthy as the rest of humanity slowly dies of thirst.