Miriam Morris Boadu
An Indonesian Story: The Scandal
of Hunger and Poverty -
And What Is Being Done About It
- "Half of the world's inhabitants live in poverty."
- "[A]t the Millennium Summit [in 2000], governments committed
themselves to reduce by half, by 2015, the proportion of people living
in extreme poverty.”
- "[W]e must work together to eradicate hunger and work towards improving
social conditions in rural areas. Only then can we achieve long lasting
peace and [...] the establishment of a more just and tolerant
society.” (1) |
This year, a renowned British Institute specializing in
poverty research
and concerned about the effects of world poverty on the
poor
themselves, their 'Third World' rulers and the security
and business
interests of the so-called 'First World', made accessible
what amounts to
a summary of a report on Indonesia.(2) It flashes
a red light, warning
that there are still "some 40 million people" who are
struggling to survive
conditions of poverty in Indonesia, that is to say, in
one of the few countries
'successfully' integrated (they claim) into the 'global
factory' of
internationalized capital during the last two or three
decades.
The fact highlighted here – that millions of poor people
are forced to live
below the official poverty line invented by experts and
based on their
(questionable) statistics – is of apparent concern to
the pundits of poverty
research. After all, many if not most Western experts
(people who are by
and large immersed in mainstream thought, and whom we
may take perhaps
as willing or unwilling accomplices of Western political
and economic
interests), have long been holdling on to the fashionable
tenet that
'globalization', naïve and enthusiastic trust in
market forces freed of all
regulations, in combination with increased foreign investment
and a
development strategy based on an export-oriented economy
will sooner
or later wipe out poverty. As commercial ties get stronger
and more
important, as more profits (and thus wealth) accrue to
transnational
corporations engaged in mining, the oil industry, agribusiness,
trade,
banking, while there is a ‘take-off’ of industrial
production as well,
a larger share will apparently go to local 'Third World'
elites, to
people in top government positions, in the military,
to local
subcontractors, local ventures operating all kinds of
businesses (including
plantations), etc. And the 'trickle down effect' will
see to it that the
middle classes will get their modest share of the pie,
making them more
able to buy stuff from street vendors, visit prostitutes,
give alms to
charitable organizations. In other words, the crumbs
from the table will
finally reach the poor, alleviating their poverty to
a level that would
make it more bearable for the rich. Less disgusting,
even more easy to
overlook, less hygienically problematic and socially
(or should one say,
politically) less 'dangerous.'
The experts from the renowned British institute specializing
'in poverty'
(for 'specialization' in a society where everybody with
a scientific bend is
supposed to be myopic, to have a narrow but highly focused
and
concentrated, that is 'deep' view of his field, his tiny
segment of 'reality';
indeed such short-sightedness and blindness to the overall
reality is
deemed essential) have not failed to denounce the important
Fuehrer, Mr. S,
whom they credit with the astounding economic successes
of Indonesia
which they want to rub under our nose. Good to know that
everything
depends on 'one leader' in world history, as well as
in regional (or should
one say, 'national'?) history.
While slyly criticizing the late Indonesian dictator as
"venal and vicious,"
Now that he is out of power and no longer their dearly
trusted “man in
Jakarta,” the picture of Indonesian economic development
during the
'New Order' era which they choose to paint is very positive,
indeed.
" For Suharto achieved
some 30 years of growth and poverty reduction.
[...] Poverty
and hunger fell steadily. From 1967 to 1996 per capita
income rose
by 5 per cent a year, with those below the poverty line
seeing their
income rise at the same rate (or more). From the mid 1970s
to the mid-1990s,
poverty fell from 40% to 11% — one of the most
successful
episodes of pro-poor growth in history (see World Bank)."(3)
While these Western experts highlighting the 'economic
success' of the
New Order regime were obviously closing their eyes to
the fact that the
benefits of growth were distributed in the most inequitable
fashion in
Indonesia no less than elsewhere (it is simply not true
that income rise of
the poor was faster than that of the business community,
or even the
national average), no one in his right mind can overlook
the fact that the
boom period that brought an upswing in some 'newly emerging
markets'
was followed by a sharp crisis.
Apparently, the front side (or glossy side) of the model
of development
chosen by the American government, their Indonesian general,
and the
World Bank for Indonesia could not be had without the
back side.(4)
Looking back to the years of doom that followed the 'fat'
years when the
business and bureaucratic 'elite' had been pampered,
the head of the
Indonesian delegation, recently [i.e., in 2002] speaking
at the 25th Session
of the Governing Council of IFAD, described the impact
of the crisis that
had struck the country five years earlier in the bleakest
terms. "[T]he
[...] economic crisis that engulfed the country since
1997 has been worse
than anyone had previously envisaged" (5) , he
said, noting that
"[t]he banking sector [had]
virtually collapsed forcing the Government
to recapitalise
it at a cost that has already exceeded approximately
USD 67 billion [
by 2002]. The corporate sector came to a virtual halt
due to the restructuring
of large amounts of foreign currency debt that
was accumulated
during the boom years of the early 1990s. [In other
words, the speculative
boom was financed by expensive credits.] [...]
Socially, the impact
of the financial crisis has been painfully felt with
GDP per capital
falling to less than USD 700 in 2001 from USD 1.100
in 1997." (6)
In other words, as a result of the crisis, the average
Gross Domestic Product
(per capita) had falled by more than 36 %. How
much of the gain previously
achieved, how many years of celebrated progress had been
wiped out? A
progress who had benefitted above all the ‘happy’ few,
both in Indonesia and
(even more so) abroad – while the cost of it, the loss,
was to become, above all,
a burden for the poor majority, in good times and even
more so, in bad ones.
If you should be tempted to think that the bad times that
overwhelmed Indonesia
with the onslaught of the crisis of 1997 were over by
2002, you are mistaken. By
2002, the hard times were not at all over. The
opposite was true.
"Many believe that the full impact
is yet to be fully seen,"
the head of Indonesia's delegation told the Governing
Council of IFAD.(7)
And he became even more specific, pointing out that
"[a]mong the biggest consequences of the
economic crisis has been the
deterioration of the Government's
budget. At a time when more Government
spending was needed to help lessen
the economic hardships brought about by
the crisis on the poor, social expenditures
were reduced. [Sic!] Even today,
due to the heavy debt burden that
the Government must now service, few
resources are left to help finance
development and poverty reduction
programmes."(8)
In other words, in a situation that was still painfully
difficult both for the
poor and for those in government who perhaps wanted to
alleviate their
plight, the entire effort, in the aftermath of the crisis,
was obviously
targeted at (1.) helping the business community, (2.)
servicing the
external debt of the government, and (3.) restructuring
the banking sector
(at the cost of US $ 67 billion up to the year 2002,
with further
unforeseeable expenditures lying still ahead). The consequence
was that
practically no help is available for the many millions
of needy people in
Indonesia, apart from ‘charitable’ help from foreign
donors and promised
emergence programs from international organizations.
Among these,
we must especially mention the assistence of IFAD whose
current
development portfolio at the time was close to
US $ 60 million or
not even 10 % of the cost of restructuring the banking
sector (let alone
ervicing the foreign debt). (9) And then, of course,
Kinder
Mission Werk is also giving 18,000 Euros in support of
the hungry and in
addition to this, Frauen Mission Werk is helping out
with about 3000
Euros (in payment for Indonesian hand-made clothes sold
in Germany):
A wonderful sign of largesse from one of the riches countries
of the world,
and beautiful aid to the poor in East Nusa Tenggara whom
the government
cannot afford to feed any longer or support with the
smallest sums, in view
of the billions of dollars they have to pay, largely
to benevolent “lenders” in
the West.(10)
In view of this, we would like to know how much foreign
speculators
made when they let down East and South East Asia, triggering
the crisis.
* * *
So, unsurprisingly, it was the poor which were hardest
hit by the crisis
which in 1997 had braked speculative growth in the briefly
'promising'
areas of East and South East Asia all of a sudden.(11)
As always, the wealthy and powerful knew how to shift
some of the
losses incurred onto the weakest shoulders, and those
of the lower middle
class. Subsidies in Indonesia (for instance those ominous
subsidies
criticized by the World Bank at the time that put cooking
oil a
little bit less out of reach of the poor) were
cut at the behest of
international lenders. The number of those officially
admitted to be
below the poverty line, quickly doubled, according
to the Brooks World
Poverty Institute.(12) This was not astonishing, as unemployment
soared
and disposable income fell drastically. While the rupiah
was devalued
under pressure from the World Bank (a strategy rejected
for good reason
by Malaysia) and revenue from imports fell, the prices
of imported
commodities rose. Price inflation affecting basic needs
of the population
worsened this picture.
This is not the time and the place to explore this aspect
of the matter in
greater depth. So much is clear: The shift of production
relying on cheap
(and cheapest) labor, from locations that were becoming
"too expensive"
for internationalized capital in the 1980s and early
to mid 1990s, had come
to an (at least temporary) halt. Many ladies garments
workers, in Jakarta,
for instance, were sacked; a situation that meant
they were faced with
immediate need and possibly hunger, as low wages paid
in a capital where
even the poor face comparatively high costs of
living hadn't enabled them
to 'save'.
There are no unemployment benefits for those made
redundant which
means that such people are immediately forced to find
strategies of survival
for themselves – from becoming street vendors to becoming
prostitutes, or
returnees to their native villages.(13)
But here, in the countryside, the crisis also had a crushing
impact: Earnings
For cash crop farmers were going down at the time, no
matter whether they
produced for foreign markets or the home market; the
former being affected
by the rate of exchange of the rupiah, the second by
falling incomes and
therefore, falling demand.
* * *
We all know that the 'successful' economic development
of the 1980s
and early '90s that is celebrated in the media and by
Western experts and
that ended into a painful crisis was not of the making
of a single leader,
least of all a greedy general like Soeharto. Western
investors were
frantically looking for investment opportunities. They
had come to discover,
one by one, such bonanzas (dubbed by them, and the media
‘emerging’
markets’) as Taiwan (a part of China, then under K.M.T.
authority),
South Korea, Hong Kong, and from these springboards investment
spread
to other, neighboring areas promising what they were,
at the time, looking for.
The ‘safety’ and ‘stability’ and ‘security for their
investment’ of dictatorships
or, putting it more mildly, authoritarian governments,
proscription of trade
unions, persecution of labor activists and ‘troublemakers’,
cheapest wagers
combined with strong curbs making next to impossible
each and every social
protest, low or zero import duties for parts and components
imported into
“export processing zones”, low or zero taxes, no barriers
against the repatriation
of profits, and so on and so forth.
The awakened interest in Indonesia as a possible target
for investments came
step by step, or in phases. The first significant investment,
after the renewed
influence of international capital (and especially U.S.
as well as Japanese
capital) in Indonesia was allowed to make itself felt
as a consequence of the
1965 coup d'état engineered by the Johnson administration,
occurred in the oil
sector, the mining sector, the plantation sector since
the late 1960s. The coup
had in fact turned the former Dutch colony from a non-aligned
republic where
foreign firms had been nationalized into a country wide
open to neo-colonialist
influence, and foreign capital continued in those fields
that had already been of
interest to them in colonial times, and the early phase
of independence. The
astonishing fact, to some theorists of dependency, was
perhaps that investment
strategists did not perpetuate their old games. With
abundant capital at hand
in the West in the 1990s that was eagerly ‘searching’
for lucrative opportunities
even if they involved high risks, ‘new markets’ had to
be found. There was
probably only a trickle of ‘productive’ capital from
the West, flowing to
Indonesia. But with transnationally operating corporations
embracing, more and
more, the concept of the ‘global factory,’ it was clear
that local subcontractors
who would set up factories and produce cheap goods for
export markets, relying
on cheap labor, were an answer to their needs that had
been tested already in
places like Taiwan. And the model could be transferred
to Indonesia.
Indonesians would need a lot of capital to set up shop
as subcontractors.(14)
It was a real opportunity for Western (and Japanese)
private financial lenders:
Lucrative, high-interest loans, a boom, a chance to participate
in the regional
stock markets (Singapore, Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur…)
– all of this
was driving up profits for private internationally operating
banking corporations,
as well as the investment funds(15) and the
new hedge funds. What evolved,
in this way, was an economy not less but more dependent
on international
capital, a dependent economy.
* *
*
So did this really mean a sudden and vast influx of foreign
capital which would
bring about belated, sustained industrialization, an
industrialization which the
Dutch obviously had failed to produce (if not ‘obstructed’)?
The answer to this important question is that at first,
in the immediate aftermath
of the coup, the industrial sector apparently got very
little encouragement. As
was typical at the time and still is typical in the case
of many so-called Third
World countries, extractive industries (mining, oil exploration)
ranged on top of
the list of foreign investors. In addition, the plantation
economy was revitalized.
Timber harvesting and timber exports gained a renewed
importance. A recent
report typically notes the damage brought by the significant
upturn of the
export-oriented timber industry – a fatal occurrence
that is all but a thing of the
past in Indonesia. Indeed,
"timber and the massive
environmental damage of unsustainable logging —
which still goes
on — [are still] making Indonesia the third largest emitter
of greenhouse gases
after the United States and China".(16)
Apparently, there weren't (and still aren’t) many jobs
that would result as a
spin-off of such investment in logging, in mining, in
refining, and similar
sectors. And, as is equally obvious, investment
in textile industry, in
plastics industry, and so on took some time to arrive;
the number of jobs
created in such sectors never sufficed to significantly
lower the unemployment
rate. In spite of the ‘new’ (and in part, now defunct)
industries brought by the
boom periods of the 1980s and early to mid 1990s, the
percentage of the
population living in the countryside is still high, and
this despite a strong
influx of the rural poor into the cities. As elsewhere
in the so-called ‘Third
World’, the informal sector in the large Indonesian cities
is probably a
'bigger employer' (or a more important pathway to minimal
incomes) for
poor urban dwellers than is the industrial sector.
What great success, then, has the Soeharto regime achieved?
What effects? –
other than those profiting foreign capital which for
the first time since
Independence found the door wide open in Indonesia, enabling
these firms
to acquire (in fact, 'steal') precious trees and various
minerals, including gold,
for next to nothing. And run or more likely, control
indirectly, in the last phase
of the New Order, a certain number of “cheap-labor-driven”
factories?
Yes, this last fact would cause envy in those ‘Third World’
countries still
almost entirely ignored by international capital, apart
from their mineral
resources, the plantation economy, and the genetic wealth
of their fauna.
We must underline that this effect (the establishment
of factories relying on
cheap labor) was ambiguous:
- It cyclically increased employment ‘opportunities’
for the poor, but it also
increased dependency on (a) exports of factory-produced
goods and (b) foreign
loans that propelled the relatively fast expansion of
the industrial sector.
- It supplied poor people with tiny but still marginally
improved incomes and
thus a slightly larger degree of security or stability
in their lives (until the crash
came). But it also tended to cause health hazards both
on the job and in the
living quarters of the poor, because of lack of safety
regulations and good
work standards, long overtime, exposure to hazardous
substances in the factory,
and environmental pollution often affecting the kampongs
adjacent to “industrial
zones.” This goes for the shoe industry, the textile
industry, the plastics industry
(with P.E.sickness as a well-known work-related ailment
among workers), and
other branches of industry.
- Apart from providing profits (and implying certain
risks) for foreign
investors, the development of the industrial sector benefitted
above all some
ethnic-Chinese capitalists who branched out from trade
and banking into
export-oriented industry. But their prominent role
as industrialists (no big shots,
necessarily, for apart from the biggest, they usually
were merely small or
mid-sized subcontractors producing for large Western
corporations, turning out
shoes or shirts for Nike, Adidas, etc.), and the way
most of them appeared to
‘wax richer’ in the boom period, created adverse
feelings among the poor
indigenous population. From this anger, it was not so
much the tiny stratum
of rich Chinese capitalists in their well-garded
compounds which would
suffer, but the middle-class and the poorer members of
the ethnic-Chinese
community in Indonesia.(17)
Western experts see another ‘great success’ of the Soeharto
regime,
apart from killing between half a million and a million
‘Third Worldists,’
Soekarno-style nationalist, 'Communists' or other
left-wingers, their
family members and people who had nothing to do with
politics. And
apart from opening the 'door' to foreign capital. The
Soeharto regime, they
claim, eradicated or at least drastically reduced the
scourge of hunger.
According to a Western report, "Hunger stalked the land
in the mid-60s".
Of course this is not surprsing. It was typical of all
so-called Third World
countries at the time, including India and China. It
was part of a heritage
left by the West and Japan. The war and, before it,
the period of colonial (or
semi-colonial) exploitation had their own long-lasting
after-effects. So had,
ever since independence, Western policies of strangulating
the economies
of adversaries. And the non-aligned countries embracing
a particular kind of
"socialism" (though not the same as that of Russia
or "Red" China) certainly
were regarded as "unfriendly" non-partners.(18)
So now, after blaming the Soekarno government for a still-existing
heritage
of conditions causing, again and again, widespread hunger
(in Taiwan, at the
time, the Americans produced "butter Christians," handing
U.S. butter and
other foodstuff to those who converted to Christianity;
a nice example of the
link between food aid, hunger, and subservience), Western
exports are fond of
crediting the Soeharto regime with getting "the rice
economy back to work
[...]"(19) This is certainly a claim that deserves closer
scrutiny.
Apart from the implied ‘stability’ of the New Order regime
(a stability based
on a bloodbath of genocidal proportions that re-established
the ‘confidence of
investors’ in Indonesia and its now pro-U.S. government),
an explanatory factor
of the improvement regarding the necessary eradication
of hunger is attributed
to Indonesian oil exports that began to play a bigger
role after 1965, given the
interest of American oil corporations in this commodity.
These exports are said
to have benefitted, above all, the Indonesian countryside:
"Once the economy stabilized
in the late 1960s, it grew strongly, with the
oil revenues being
reinvested into rural villages through infrastructure and
services."(20)
As a consequence, in view of hopefully fair and considerable
oil revenues,
received over a period of early 43 years, Indonesia
should today have a fantastic
health and sanitary, educational, and traffic infrastructure,
down to the village
level, a fact that would lower the pressure of the rural
population to seek an
escape from backwardness and misery in the cities. The
opposite is obviously
the case. Infrastructure in the poor kampongs of the
big cities is utterly deficient,
and in the countryside the situation is bad, as well,
though in different ways.
The inadequate quality of the health, sanitary and education
infrastructure
obviously affects the health of the population, and here
especially that of the
poor, while the health question is in turn interrelated
with the hunger question.
Healthy people tend to cope better in periods of starvation,
but people suffering
from extended periods of malnutrition or starvation also
tend to see their health
deteriorate.
As for the eradication of hunger (an issue in Indonesia
as well as elsewhere in
the so-called ‘Third World’), the claim that the New
Order regime brought about
some significant progress warrants, as we said, close
attention and exacting
scrutiny.
Hunger no longer stalked the land, the experts in the
West say. But what is
really claimed to have brought progress to Indonesia
(and the same might be
claimed in the case of the poverty-stricken Philippines),
is that wonderful
American invention, the "Green Revolution." "Green Revolution
technologies"
are supposed to have accelerated rural development. It
is a story often told but
to repeat it does not add to its credibility. Both alternative
experts in the West
and in Asia and a considerable number of peasants and
farm workers have
questioned the assertion that there are no native, traditional
plant varieties that
equal or even surpass “Green revolution technology” related
seeds. Those who
questioned and continue to question the engineered)
plant varieties point to
the lop-sided effects of the “revolutionary seeds” that
are usually marketed by
big Western corporations like Monsanto. They criticize
the fact that economically
weak peasants become more dependent, and in fact intolerably
dependent on
economically powerful suppliers (who usually profit from
the political and legal
backing of governments and international organizations).
They criticize the
curious relationship between use of the new “revolutionary
seeds” and increased
dependency on (both expensive and poisonous) chemical
‘pest controlling’
substances. They point to poisoned soils, poisoned dwellings
on the farms,
poisoined bodies of the farm-workers or peasants.
The point out that the initially
high yields per acre (or hectare) tend to fall over time,
as the fertility of soils is
impaired by extremely irrational, exploitative strategies
of agricultural use,
which in term requires bigger and still bigger input
of expensive seeds and
expensive chemical fertilizers and expensive herbicides
and/or insecticides.
The opponents have often demonstrated that without the
“technological
revolution” championed by Western agribusiness for its
own good, good yields
can be obtained, the fertility of the soil can be maintained
and even increased,
and a sustainable agriculture is possible. And yet, the
myth subsists. The Brook
World Poverty Institute experts in Manchester repeat
that in Indonesia, thanks
to the New Order regime’s willingness to adopt “Green
revolution” answers to
the problem of endemic hunger in this populous country,
"[f]arm GDP increased by
nearly half from the 1960s to mid-1990s (see
Peter Timmer’s paper).
And rural inequality fell. Agricultural policy
received high marks from
the development economists of the 1980s.
Villagers mattered politically
to the [corrupt Indonesian military leadership
and the Sino-Indonesian
business] elite [...]"(21), ,
they want to make us believe. And why did they care? Because
this
Indonesian military, bureaucratic and comprador "elite
made lots of
money through BULOG, the food distribution agency.” (22)
If the "green revolution", rather than land reform (as
pushed for by left
activists and then undertaken by the Soekarno government,
only to be put in
question by Soeharto) was the answer to rural poverty
and hunger, why then
did the rural poor continue to flock to the cities?
If the "green revolution" produced indeed a certain (and
perhaps even
relatively big) surplus, can it be that rice was exported?
That food in the
countryside and the poor people's quarters of the cities
remained scarce?
If everything was just fine, as the "elite" went on to
make "lots of money
through [...] the food distribution agency," why
did hunger persist? Were
films like "Kembang-Kembang Plastik," by Wim Umboh (a
film done in
1978 that dwells on the fact of hunger as a constant
reality of Indonesia's
poor people, and this at great risk because of censorship
and the danger
of being branded subversive), merely inventing a fantastic,
unrealistic
picture?(23)
Perhaps, the increased rice yields (and we have no first-hands
report by poor
farmers on the average increase of the yield per hectare
they observed on
their plots) were profiting, above all, the big landowners
who were in a position
to buy not only the new seeds offered by "Green revolution"
experts but the
necessary quantities of chemical fertilizer and chemical
pest-controls as well.
In all likelihood, rice remained scarce, for the poor,
those without plots, those
paid meagre wages, as it did for the unemployed and underemployed
(and this
in the cities and in the countryside).
Presumbably, with added production costs for “new” seeds,
fertilizer, pesticides,
the prize of rice went up.
Presumbably big landowners selling rice at a high price
to BULOG were jubilant.
Perhaps bureaucrats asking for kickbacks when deciding
whom to buy rice from
(for distribution by BULOG) were happy, too.
Perhaps, with demand from the poor being stifled by a
high market price and
rations distributed by BULOG being too small, there was
a lot of rice available
for export now.
Perhaps, despite oil revenues and a food distribution
agency set up by the
Soeharto regime (24), too much oil money ended up in
the pockets of the
generals and their cronies, and too little in the coffers
of BULOG.
In fact accounts from the late 1970s / early 1980s (and
thus a decade and a
half after the fall of Soekarno and the end that was
put to land reform),
show that hunger persisted in Indonesia. Revenues
or no revenues from oil
pumped and exported by American corporations –
BULOG at least was never
buying up sufficient quantities of rice for distribution
and therefore could not
put an end to hunger in Indonesia. The rations
handed out to each person or
family officially deemed in need of them were too small.
Not every one in
need of food assistence may have received it. It is not
clear whether the
hand-outs were free of charge, or merely given away at
a reduced, subsidized
price. The latter is very likely. With somewhat increased
rice yields and food
being distributed by BULOG, the situation, on the average,
may have
improved – but not nearly enough. Hunger still
was a fact, for poor families
and individuals; it hit, periodically or continually,
both city dwellers and
villagers. In addition, both the BULOG food distribution
system and the new
use of expensive seeds, fertilizers and pesticides had
many adverse effects,
from corruption to providing a tool for maintaining a
system of clientelism
in the countryside, from increasing inequality in the
villages (as owners of big
farms with adequate capital at hand, for agriculural
investments) profited more
from the “Green revolution” and small farmers profiting
much less or not at all;
landless farm laborers were left out in the rain, but
they were the ones who
suffered most from the downside (poisoining by pesticides
and so on.)
American and generally speaking, Western and Japanese
agribusiness, of
course had opened up a new and significant ‘Third World’
market
for their products, something that would not have occurred
if Indonesia had
chosen to rely on independent research regarding traditional,
sturdy and
high-yield seed varieties.
* *
*
Stories about hunger certainly were more frequent a few
decades ago.
It seems that the media that produce 'world opinion'
got used to the scandal
of hunger. It simply is not ‘brandnew news’ anymore.
The fact that one
“half of the world’s inhabitants live in poverty”(25)
– and that many
millions of them are starving and millions are dying
of starvation while the
“global campaign to eliminate hunger” remains largely
a farce in view of
inadequate funding – isn’t even at the back of
the minds of most people in
the West.
And yet, somehow most people are vaguely aware of the
scandalous level
of poverty and hunger that persists in the world.
It's at the back of the mind
that millions of starving people exist, some of them
in the ‘rich world,’ some
in parts of the world often haughtily described as ‘underdeveloped.’
Those
who care to get some amount of information about this
know that many
millions die each year of malnutrition and its 'side'
effects.
But the new, or renewed concern that brings hunger onto
the front page of
newspapers recently, or into the evening news on tv,
isn't a result of the
'mere' fact that people starve, that people die of starvation.
It is a concern not
of you and me, the common citizens who are revolted by
the fact that
inequality persists and people die because of it. It’s
an abstract concern, of
tycoons and politicians and experts and journalists.
And it’s linked to food
prices. The market consciousness is in the forefront.
At the same time, the
political concern among the 'elites' that rising food
prices may rock the boat.
Because nowadays it's not the stationary fact that people
go hungry. It's the
dynamic fact that food is rapidly being priced out of
reach, for a quickly
increasing number of people, in an increasing number
of countries, including
Indonesia. This ‘food price explosion’ may produce a
reaction, the experts
and politicians and business ‘elites’ fear. People hungy
for year after year
tend to get apathetic. They tend to accept it as fate,
a god-sent ill-fortune,
a curse of the devil, a punishment, a retribution meted
out for bad deeds
committed in another life. You can easily ignore and
forget such apathetic
people. You can ignore and forget about the skinny dead
bodies. You don’t
have to look. Better turn the camera off.
But people who had simple but sufficient food for year
after year can get
very angry when that is taken away, suddenly, drastically,
pushing them
over the brink and into the ranks of the starving. Hefty
price increases have
lead to 'bread revolts' before. They can also lead to
'rice revolts' or 'corn'
revolts, as rice or corn (in Britain: maize) prices explode.
The ‘elites’
know that. It makes them talk of the need for action.
The need for short term
‘solutions’ that never are real solutions, no matter
how much they temporarily
alleviate a scandalous situation – for some.
The price of oats, according to reports in the media,
has doubled within a year
in Europe. What's more, "[i]n less than a year,
the price of wheat has risen
by 130 %" on the world market.(26)
Corn – used increasingly for the production of bio-fuel
– went up
by 150 %.
The palm oil price also went up sharply, having an immediate
effect on the
price of vegetable oil (27), as had the price hike in
the case of soy beans which,
according to the quoted source, amounted to 87 %.
The rice price increased by 74%.
The effects of this, although leading to complaints about
food prize
inflation from such diverse countries as the U.S.A.,
Italy, Bahrain, etc.,
has already had the strongest of effects in so-called
'Third World'
countries in Asia, Africa, and 'Latin' America.
Take India.
.
The following story told about the food price increase
in India could also
have been told in Indonesia. You just have to replace
the name of the Indian
woman who is quoted by that of an Indonesian girl, and
the location,
Delhi, by Jakarta or Semarang:
"It is the constant sensation of hunger
that makes Kamla Devi so angry.
She argues with shopkeepers in New
Delhi over prices and quarrels with
her husband, a casual labourer, over
his wages – about 50 rupees a day.
‘When I go to the market and see how
little I can get for my money, it
makes me want to hit the shopkeepers
and thrash the government,’ she
says.
A few months ago, Kamla (42) decided
she and her husband could no
longer afford to eat twice a day.
The couple, who have already sent their
two teenage sons to live with more
prosperous relatives, now exist on only
one daily meal. At midday Kamla cooks
a dozen roti (a round, flat Indian
bread) with some vegetables fried
with onions and spices. If there are some
left, they will eat them at night.
The only other sustenance that the couple
have are occasional cups of sugared
tea.
‘My husband and I would argue every
night. In the end he told me it
wouldn't make his wages grow
larger. Instead we went down to one meal
a day to cut costs.’”(28)
For anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear, it is a
story that she (or he)
knows can be told not a million times, but many million
times, in more or less
the same way. P.B.S., the internet, the better ones among
newspapers – they all
inform us more or less pointedly that
"[a]cross the world, a food crisis
is now unfolding with frightening speed.
Hundreds of millions of men
and women who, only a few months ago, were
able to provide food for their
families have found rocketing prices of wheat,
rice and cooking oil have left
them facing the imminent prospect of starvation.
The spectre of catastrophe now
looms over much of the planet."(29)
Why are prices exploding? Is it 'climate change,' as some
maintain? The
draught in Australia that impairs Australian wheat production?
The
increased demand of the new 'middle classes' in China?
Real food scarcity,
that is to say, too little food to feed everybody?
No, it's the market. To be exact, speculation. It is,
to a large degree, responsible
For the present irrational and unnecessary tragedy. Recently,
global players
engaged in large-scale speculation have not only engaged
in currency
speculation, property speculation, speculation
in raw material markets and
so on. But they have discovered another field of potentially
very profitable
speculation: the segment of the commodity market
that is focused on grain, on
rice, on soy beans, palm oil, etc.
The buyers and sellers of futures and options betting
on the future price of
cereals must have been very pleased to learn that European
storage houses for
wheat are nearly empty, as a result of the European Union's
farm policy. The
EU has on reduced its strategic wheat reserves to an
all-time low; to a level of
reserves so low that the store houses are practically
empty.(30)
.
The announcement, by the FAO, that currently
"there are only eight to 12 weeks of
cereal stocks in the world, while
grain supplies are at their lowest
since the 1980s"(31)
reflects both EU policies and the fact that speculators
are purposefully
holding back supplies. It is very obvious that the announcement,
in the
press, that EU reserves are at an all-time low must have
made the
‘traders’ happy. Such statements cannot but drive
up market prices of
cereals. Of course, small farmers are the least likely
to profit from this.
Those who profit most are exactly those entrepreneurs
who bought wheat
or rice options at a lower price yesterday than they
will ask for it tomorrow.
Or six months later while they are holding it back.
As for genetically modified soy beans, planted for ethanol
production,
people like George Soros have a big stake in this kind
of business, especially
with regard to ethanol from Brazil, produced for the
North American and
West European markets. Speculative betting on ethanol,
underpinned by
‘ecological’ pro-ethanol policies of such anti-ecology
governments as the
present Bush administration, has driven up the
price of soy beans but also
palm oil. It has outpriced soy bean oil out of reach
for the poorest of the poor
and the same goes for palm-oil based vegetable oil. In
other words, it has
turned cooking oil into a luxury accessible only with
difficulties (and in
sharply reduced quantity!) for the poor. Poor people
who spend large
shares of their daily income, sometimes up to 90 per
cent, on food, can no
longer maintain their previous level of nourishment.
The poorest go to bed
even more hungry than before. Even the middle classes
feel the pinch of
food price inflation.
It is clear that a situation that hurts lower middle class
people and the
poor all over the world, has the most infuriating effect
on those who see
less than good but better than really bad standards decline
sharply. But
is has the most bitter effect on those who even before,
in supposedly better
times (for there are no good times for them, ever),
failed to make ends meet.
The poorest of the poor, time and again, go to bed hungry.
Undernourished,
badly nourished, inadequately nourished, they fight doggedly
for survival.
Many barely manage to lead lives at a level close to
starvation.(32) Others
don’t manage, and die too soon.
With steeply rising food prices, sufficient food is even
farther out of
reach for these people; the bare minimum necessary for
survival becomes
unattainabe or an almost unattainable luxury. The catastrophe
is near at
hand for them. It is already there for tens of thousands,
hundreds of
thousands, no, millions pushed over the brink.
But is the market issue which is at the core of the present
food prices frankly
addressed? Is it even identified as such?
Widely respected Western institutes that do research on
poverty have
failed to do so. Politicians and experts that get together
in high places
have failed to do so. At a recent meeting, a 'world leader'
and 'expert'
working with one of the big international financial organizations
shed
crocodile's tears, stating that this, this scandalous
crisis that multiplies
hunger in the world,
"[…] is not just about meals
forgone today, or about increasing social
unrest; it is about lost
learning potential for children and adults in the
future, stunted
intellectual and physical growth [...]"(33)
and so on, and so forth. They know it for decades already.
They have done
almost nothing about it. They continue to preach the
catechism of neo-liberal
deregulation. Of privatization. Of unfettered ‘free-market’
economics. Asked to
choose between a free people (which must also, finally,
be free of hunger) and
the freedom of the market, they will always choose the
latter. Meanwhile, like a
prayer, they repeat the old knowledge that starving,
undernourished children
risk being impaired not only physically but mentally
as well. Yes, we all know
this. Or should know it. "[S]tunted intellectual and
physical growth" is a likely
consequence when children are forced to starve. Not for
a day. Not for a week.
But for years. An entire childhood bearing the stamp
of starvation.. These people,
people in top positions, know what it entails.
And what do they do about it?
They are praising the market. Telling us to rely on market
forces.
If something has these world leaders and their clerks
working in the renowned
‘think tanks’ seriously worried, it is not the fact that
adults and children go
hungry; this has happened all along and they know it.
It is that
"swiftly rising prices have unleashed
serious political unrest in many places."(34)
As a matter of fact, Indonesia is among those countries
that have seen
demonstrations triggered by the shock of hefty food price
increases.(35)
For Western "[e]conomists and financiers" this is indeed
a cause for concern.
If people take to the street, if this is perceived, by
investors, as creating what is
typically called a climate of instability, then a coveted
field of secure investment
may be lost – perhaps for months, perhaps for a
year, perhaps for several years.
To be blunt, once more, it's not so much the starving
(whose faces we hardly
see in the press or on television, and whose words are
seldom recorded and
even more seldom translated for those abroad) who worry
the experts and the
'financiers.' If they speak of "diastrous effects"
what they have in mind is
above all 'ruined investment opportunities.'
But, to come back to it again, wasn't it investment, investment
in speculation
with such commodities as bio fuels, soy beans, palm oil,
rice, wheat and so on,
which drove up food prices more than anything else?
Weren't the cereal shortages that are (largely) not actual
but projected (a result
of reserves purposefully reduced) brought about by top-level
decisions that in
turn were market-conscious and market-oriented?
And yet, the press, television, politicians, the experts,
they all are happy to
enumerate 'non-embarrassing' causes of the ‘food crisis’,
such as:
- the world climate (seen by some
as a natural rather than man-made
occurrence), (36)
- increased demand for bio-fuels and
- the competition between bio-fuel
production and food production,(37)
- increased "Chinese" demand for foodstuffs.(38)
The market doesn’t figure here as a cause. None of them
likes to mention
let alone single out speculation
Let's review the list of suggested causes, testing their
plausibiliy. Perhaps
it's best to begin with the last one of the four main
'causes' given. We
immediately note how most of the experts and journalists
treat ‘greatly
increased’ Chinese demand for foodstuffs on the world
market as a fait
accompli. In other words, they obscure the fact that
the argument of
(‘suddenly’ !) much more vast Chinese demand is a fairy
tale dear to
commodity speculators. They are silent about the fact
that anticipated
future demand from "China" was a bigger factor than real
Chinese
demand.(39)
As for the world climate, it is indeed bound to have negative
effects on food
production in many regions of the world, especially in
the long run. At
present, it is true that the farm sector in Australia
has been suffering from a
series of abnormally hot and dry summers. And yet, despite
years of draught
in Australian grain-growing regions and impaired grain
harvests in Australia.,
there is still ample grain and other food around, at
least at the moment.(40)
Ethanol production is a serious issue. Much more than
Chinese ‘added
demand’, it has already created real food shortages in
some regions.
The prognostic effects and thus the symbolic significance,
just as in the case
of Chinese demand, affect food price development even
more.(41)
The powers that be like us to bury our good capacity to
analyze developments.
And they like to rely on mass psychology to fiddle around
with our spontaneous
‘common sense.’ And yet, the tricks of tricky Dick that
are so important in
speculative business (and all business is speculative,
to a greater or lesser
extent – there are no ‘good, productive’ ventures we
can oppose to ‘bad,
merely speculative ones’) are known already to kids.
You exaggerate the value
of what you give in exchange, and you talk down what
you want to have,
minimizing its value and the importance it has for you.
If, in naïve versions of economic theory, the interplay
of ‘supply’ and ‘demand,’
in beautiful mathematical fashion determines the price
curve, market practice is
indeed different. It is irrational and characterized
by scheming, tricks, cunning,
make-belief. It is a game where the large players are
almost always in the better
position. Where, symbolically speaking, a poker face
helps to obscure the ‘facts’
of the market so that market-related decisions by other
‘players’ will be based on
false assumptions. Wishful thinking, deception, false
assumptions, figure way up
on the scale of what works inside the psychological setup
of market participants.
Decisions are based on partly or entirely unfounded assmptions,
mistaken analysis
comes in, but also willful and socially speaking, irrational
and harmful actions.
Actions like that of withholding food from the market,
stealing it, practically, out
of the mouth of the poor. Yes, there can be no doubt
about it: neither the changing
world climate (as apparent in the draught in Australia
and elsewhere) nor real
added demand from China have had more than a minimal
and largely symbolic
effect on the real world food supply. The real effect
of ethanol production, though
regionally felt to some extent, is also greatly surpassed
by predictions and their
effects. But symbolic factors figure largely in a market
that is fundamentally
‘psycholological,’ that is to say, irrational.
Scarcity, as so often, is a matter of allocation. The
question is: Do we
throw grain to the pigs, and soy beans to the cattle,
or do we feed the
hungry mouths of hundreds of millions of starving people
in the world? Do
we want palm-oil and oil made from soy beans burned in
the cars of the
rich, or do we want it to bolster the diet of the world's
poor? Do we want
foodstuffs to be exported when local populations starve
– because
producers fetch better prices in certain export markets
than they would at
home? These are the essentials questions we must answer,
in all honesty
to ourselves and to those in dire need. We can't leave
the answer to 'the
markets,' and still preserve a good conscience.
The market doesn't
exonerate us. The question is an ethical, human question,
and thus our
humanity is at stake. Either we choose to be inhuman,
leaving everything
to the whims and accidents of market forces, or we decide
otherwise. If
we do, it is a moral, a political decision – and it may
well go against the
market. But instead, present-day world leaders pretend
to be powerless when
‘faced with market-forces’; they accept speculation,
and when forced to
face the fact of million-fold starvation increased by
‘free-market’ forces,
they treat it as god-sent, as something no one can do
anything about, apart
from giving a little bit of verbal consolation and a
little bit of 'emergency aid'
to the luckier one among the starving masses.(42)
To repeat it once more: What is behind the price hike
for food was the result
of speculative moves by large investors. The very
fact that the European
Union had dramatically reduced its strategic grain reserves
in an effort to
cut costs and 'deregulate' the market for agricultural
products, had certainly
encouraged investors to bet on increasing future scarcity
and a price curve
going up. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If there is one point where some of our so-called world
leaders are waking up
a little, it is regarding ethanol policy. The more intelligent
among them are
on the verge of abandoning it. At least, they are having
second thoughts. Thus,
shortly before an ‘important’ meeting in Accra, focusing
"on the pressing issue
of food"(43) and attended by Third World leaders as well
as the chief of staff
in the UN trade and development division, a certain Mr.
Tesfachew, said Mr.
Tesfachew was briefly in London where he "said that decades
of aid have been
skewed to ambitious industrialisation programmes and
that the World Bank and
others have failed to invest in the agricultural sector",
adding,
"We believe these high food prices
won't disappear in the next two years,
so now is the time to
redress imbalances in terms of ethanol subsidies[...]"(44)
The recently trumpeted position of the present director
of the World Bank ,
Mr. Zoellick, regarding ethanol is similar. He has made
clear that quick action is
Necessary in this regard.
"In the US and Europe over the last
year we have been focusing on the prices
of gasoline at the pumps. While many
worry about filling their tanks, many
others around the world are struggling
to fill their stomachs",
Zoellick said, adding,
" And it's getting more
and more difficult every day[...]"(45)
But the significance of a revision of ethanol policies
(if they will be revised at all,
in the U.S. and in Europe) is limited. As a tool of combating
the food price
explosion in world markets, it is clearly not sufficient
if it is not coupled with
measures that at least reign in market forces, making
clear that the fulfillment of
such human needs as the need to obtain food required
for survival, and above and
beyond this, for healthy and dignified lives, cannot
be left to the whims of the
market.
If, in view of the urgency of the situation, Zoellick
pleaded for "emergency
help" from the 'rich' countries, "including $500-million
in extra funding
to the UN World Food Programme"(46), he was again betting
on short term
solutions that don’t solve the question of hunger as
a long-term and recurrent
question.
But it was a demand that was reportedly
"backed by finance ministers
from the G24, who represent the leading
developing countries, who also
demanded extra cash to help cushion the
poor against the shock
of rising food prices. As well as causing hunger
and malnutrition, the
rising cost of basic foodstuffs risks blowing a hole
in the budgets of food-importing
countries, [...] they argued."(47)
There is something very typical about most of these declarations.
- They are made by leaders of countries
which for decades have failed
to honor the pledges made with regard
to the level of development aid,
as expressed in relation to the GDP
of the donor country.
- The measures envisioned are emergency
measures. This is significant
in so far as these leaders shy away
from long-term commitments.
- The sums of emergency aid promised
and trumpeted in the media are
almost never given. In the case of
the aid that was promised to South
East Asian and South Asian tsunami
victims, for instance, only a small
faction of the help announced was
given. Advertisements of 'help' in the
media count more than real help. On
the other hand, it may be true this
time that Western leaders are seriously
concerned about the potentially
'politically unsettling' and 'destabilizing'
effect of a hunger crisis in
countries the world over, and particularly
in populous countries like
Indonesia. The lesson learned already
that the last time when shortages
were very painfully experienced by
the poor (and the lower middle classes)
in Indonesia, Soeharto was toppled,
has stuck, or so it seems. Equally
important, certain Western leaders
realize how the widening gap between
the rich and the poor as well as the
continued existence of hunger
and malnutrition in South and Central
America have played a certain
role in the rise of popular governments
leaning towards the left, in
Argentine, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador,
Nicaragua, and (less
pointedly) in Chile and Brazil. These
developments were not eagerly
welcomed by the Washington power elite,
nor did it please leading
figures of the World Bank, the IMF,
or the European Union.
* *
*
Sustained, long-term measures to combat hunger and poverty,
in Indonesia as
elsewhere, are needed. Today, the most ‘progressive’
among the advocates
of such sustained measures appear to concentrate on ecological
measures.
The strange thing about this is that ‘ecological devastation’
and ‘ecological risks’ –
in the context of poverty and food crises – are usually
seen as a problem of the
so-called ‘Third World.’ However, Justus Liebig,
the renowned chemicist,
remarked in the 19th century that modern capitalist intensive
farming threatened
to exhaust soils in the long run, despite the recently
introduced use of chemical
fertilizer. This was then mainly a problem in ‘developed’
countries, and it
continues to be a problem of so-called ‘developed’ countries.
On the other hand,
unequal distribution of land, in other words, class relations
in the countryside,
are an important factor in many if not most so-called
‘Third World’ countries
which, in conjunction with population pressure, may force
small peasants or
their adult offspring to engage in internal migration,
in search of new, ‘virgin’
lands. In other words, they are compelled by poverty
and lack of land to clear
small parts of the (rain) forest, then planting
rice, corn, soy beans or other
crops on thin layers of humus. As the fertility of these
soils quickly decreases,
the process will begin again: new trees have to
be felled; but the fields cleared
will be abandoned in a few years; and as the process
will go on, the forest will
decrease while soils are exposed to erosion, washed away
by heavy rains.
The link between the poverty of landless peasants
and ecological devastation is
very obvious; the ecological damage brought about
in turn increases poverty
again. Some Western ecologists, concerned about the rain
forests, the ‘green
lungs’ of the earth, tend to lose sight of the underlying
social questions that
remain unsolved. In other words, they appear to loose
sight of the social
dynamics of extremely unequal societies, in the so-called
‘Third World’.(48)
And no one in a top position, politically (or among the
thinkers dearly accepted
as ‘advisers’ by the ‘classe politique’) dares to address
the market issue, the
failure of the market to (adequately) feed the poor,
address their unsolved
housing question, their health question, etc. Not even
their ‘education’ question,
or the questions of political exclusion and economic
disempowerment are
addressed. It is clear that the market has not been solving
any of these questions;
on the contrary, the problems in question have been produced
or at least
exacerbated by the market.
Present 'development' in 'emergent markets' repeats many
mistakes once made
(and even now perpetuated) in rich Western countries.
Investment opportunities
matter. Property speculation matters. The profits reaped
by producing
commodities for the market matter. With the present food-crisis
assuming
critical proportions, certain experts from big international
organizations
dominated by the West begin to admit that so-called development
strategies
(which are in fact strategies to (1.) open the markets
of ‘Third World’ countries
for Western goods, (2.) create investment opportunities
for internationalized
capital, and (3.) secure a flow of raw materials,
and certain other, usually
dirt-cheap agricultural or industrially produced goods
from these countries)
have failed to give enough ‘attention’ or ‘encouragement’
to the agricultural
sector.
But of course they imply a ‘modernization’ of the sector
that will subsume it
to the whims and constraints of the world market. What
these experts usually
have in mind is an expansion and tendentially, a clear
dominance of the
‘modern’ export-oriented sector that will generate foreign
currency earnings
needed to service the debt. But of course this strategy
will lead to price increases
of foodstuffs on local markets as more agricultural products
will be exported,
as added emphasis on cash crops (destined for export)
leads to a more thorough
replacement of traditional crops usually meant
for consumption ‘at home’,
and this will in turn increase malnutrition and hunger.
At the same time, the
modernization of the agricultural sector, as envisaged
by most foreign experts,
will increase dependency on foreign and native-owned
trading companies.
It will increase dependency on (locally produced
or, more likely, foreign-made)
pesticides, fertilizer, seeds etc., and the added
cost will lead to price increases
of the products grown. As yield per hectar, on modernized
farms with considerable
lay-outs for seeds, fertilizer, pesticides increases
while yield on plots farmed by
poor farmers who can’t afford this ‘modern’ strategy
of farming remains low,
this will increase the gap between businesses or families
running plantations and
big farms, on the one hand, and small-holders as well
as landless laborers, on
the other.
Of course, high yields on ‘modernized’ farms seem to speak
in favor of this
strategy, and the strategy seems to promise an end to
endemic hunger in the
countrysíde and the poor quarters of the cities.
But this is an illusionary
expectation. The increased harvest goes to the highest
bidders. The poor
stay hungry not because there isn’t enough food but because
they cannot afford
to pay for sufficient food. As costs of production and
food prices soar, the poor
are left behind. Despite bigger crops, their situation
may worsen. The food
situation of the rich and of sections of the middle
classes (usually those who
still, or again, profit from insertion of the country
into the increasingly ‘real,’
factually ‘globalized’ world economy) will improve; surpluses
will leave the
country; but the food available for each hungry mouth
may well be diminished,
in view of higher prices. This is exactly what we see
now. After modest rises
in the price of rice, wheat etc. in the last few years,
during the last 6 or 12 month,
these prices have virtually exploded. This is not because
supply during this brief
period has been shrinking correspondingly, or because
demand has increased
correspondingly, or because the difference between supply
and demand, the
proclaimed ‘shortage’ the media talk about, has
suddenly taken on vast
proportions. It is because the market, every market,
is at bottom a ‘speculative’
market, operating on assumptions of future demand,
on fears of coming shortages,
on hopes of sudden chances to make extra-profits, in
fact, abnormal profits.
No trader in his right (that is, ‘normal’) mind will
let such chances to make an
extra-profit go.
The strategy of modern advocates of a ‘new green revolution,’
on gen-tech food,
of genetically engineered corn for instance, are taken
in by the apparent successes
of biotechnologies, of ‘modern science.’ They proclaim
that their science is the
answer to the food crisis and aiding ‘development’ strategies
that, for years
already, are credited with reducing an soon wiping our
hunger. But in all
likelihood that is not what they will achieve. In all
likelihood, the strategies
recommended by such Western experts and some ‘Third World’
colleagues are
part of the problem. What these Western advocatesof ever
new ‘green revolution’
and of increasing dependence on Monsanto and other corporations
involved in
the agribusiness sector overlook is that
- the profits go to big (usually: foreign) agribusiness
firms;
- the added cost is eating up a large part of the increased
financial benefit of
higher yields even in good years, and may make
agriculture a loss-making
business if weather and other factors lead to
bad harvests;
- the hidden costs of this modernization strategy are
not immediately apparent;
they include poisoning of farmers and farm
workers bringing out the increased
amounts of pesticides usually required in
the modernized farm sector; the
poisoning of the soil, of sub-soil water resources,
of plants harvested, and
so on;
- the necessity, over time, as pests turn resistent,
to bring out ever greater
amounts of pesticides, at considerable cost; the
likelihood that in the long run
the soils farmed by the new, rather than more
traditional methods, will become
barren.
But short-term results count most and long term perspectives
are lacking. The
wonders and riches of this planet, water, soils, air,
count very little; they are
almost taken to be worth nothing when 'untreated' and
when they are not yet
individually possessed. Look at Brazil, how little its
‘classe politique’ and
certain MNCs as well as farmers in the ethanol business
or ranchers in the cattle
export business values its rain forests, despite
all official proclamations to the
contrary. Look at Borneo where, for the sake of extending
palm oil plantations,
the same process of deforestation as in Brazil is under
way.(49)
What is little understood is that our critique of World
Bank-style market-oriented
modernization that relies on the ‘help’ and ‘support’
of Western agribusiness is
not a plea for a simple continuation in yesterday’s backward
ways of farming,
with its supposedly low yields per hectare. If we put
in doubt the ‘green revolution’
for ecological reasons and see the market-oriented, export-focused
development
strategy for the agricultural sector as an added cause
for hunger and a factor that
is throwing the poor even deeper into poverty (while
temporarily and/or cyclically
benefitting the plantation sector and big, wealthy farmer),
this does not mean that we
embrace a romantic view of ‘traditions’ and say no to
‘science.’ Science and the
empirical knowledge base gained in centuries and passed
on from generation to
generation, must go hand in hand. There are traditional
types of food plants that
are better, sometime much better than other. While defending
the richness of
biodiversity and the large variety of rice seeds, corn
seeds, weed seeds, tomato
seeds, and so on, we need empirical observation coupled
with the theoretical
understanding and analysis of science, in order to have
the right seeds used that
are suitable to certain, very specific soils and micro-climates.
We need traditional
knowledge orally passed on from one generation to the
next, regarding effective
biological pest controls that are not poisoning soils
and ground water and animals
and people. We need, above all, to understand that
there are better ways than
monocultures, than planting cash-crops that grow quickly
and are in demand
abroad. What is necessary is an understanding that at
their core, there is
something very rational and not at all backward to some
types of agriculture often
derided as remnants of a no longer up-to-date ‘subsistence
economy.’ What is
rational about it is that it takes care of very real,
very immediate and very present
needs at hand; that it is frequently characterized
by ties of mutual responsibility
and mutual help; that it helps to preserve a social
context in which valuable
empirical knowledge is passed on, from one generation
to the next. If we learn
to combine local respectively regional empirical knowledge
or ‘experience’ of
farmers with a type of science not oriented towards abstract
goals (of adding
so much yield per hectar) but oriented towards the locally
and regionally specific
plant varieties, soils, climatic conditions, we
should be ready to find solutions
that may bring about optimal improvements which
are just right for the given
natural and social context and which avoid the kind of
brutal, in fact ruthless,
appropriation of nature that is only concerned with short-time
monetary gain.
Today, among all modernizing ‘Third World’ countries,
China stands out as
‘by far’ the most successful country among
those targeted by international
investment. Therefore, it is noteworthy to see
how China’s “arable land [...] is
shrinking as farmland has been ravaged by pollution
and water shortages."(50)
But in fact, the same rapacious use of the soil occurs
today not only in China
and other ‘modernizing’ countries of the so-called ‘Third
World’; it also is
current practice in the United States, in Canada, in
Australia, in practically
every country where farmers and specialists have fallen
for the myth that
everything is possible if we use more heavy and expensive
tractors that by
their sheer weight damage or very nearly wipe out the
vital but vulnerable
micro-organisms in the top layers of the soil; if we
plough deeper; if we
use more fertilizer, more insecticides and herbicides;
if we rely more
systematically on genetically engineered seeds, and so
on. - If food shortages
that are real and not concocted, like those ‘staged’
by large-scale speculation,
are threatening us in the future, it will be very largely
due to short-termist,
rapacious, overly exploitative use of the land in those
countries that today
are considered the big wheat and corn (and to some extent,
rice) producers
of the world.
By the way, do we still remember that in pre-modern East
Asia, for instance
in Korea, it was forbidden to build a house on 'rice
land' because there was
a spontaneous awareness of subsistence needs and ecological
requirements?
This lesson has been forgotten, too, as metropolitan
sprawl eats up farmland.
As Mrs. Georgieva of the World Bank recently stated, "environmental
improvement" is essential if the populations in so-called
developing countries
are to attain their right to decently paid "productive
work and a good quality
of life" (which would imply a life free of hunger and
malnutrition).(51) This
statement is in itself so abstract and general that it
can hardly be contradicted.
What Mrs. Georgieva (and thus, the World Bank! ) intends,
becomes clear
however if we listen to the rest of her message. Presenting
this official
World Bank position, Mrs. Georgieva claimed that the
factors which could
bring about a reduction of poverty, an end to hunger,
and thus a “good quality
of life,” are, above all,
- (1.) "scientific and technological innovation”,
- (2.) “income growth”,
- (3.) “expanded markets”,
- (4.) “increased mobility of people and ideas”,
and
- (5.) “demographic and urban transitions."(52)
Now, to begin with demographic and urban transitions,
it is clear to any
impartial observer familar with the problems of the so-called
Third World's poor
that internal migrations in these countries have multiplied
human misery and
ecological devastation: they have lead to the emergence
of vast areas of
metropolitan if not megalopolitan sprawl, especially
in the last three or so
decades, to the emergence of fragmented urban areas composed
of 'First World
isles' formed by walled-in, gated compounds for the rich,
of various middle class
areas, of C.B.D. districts, malls, etc., and all of this
is usually girded by a belt
of slums studded with pockets of smaller or larger, often
environmentally
disastrous, industrial zones. The latter are usually
blooming and expanding
during the upward phase of the business cycle, and they
are stagnant or shrinking
during so-called processes of 'restructuring,'
that is to say, in the course of the
graver Capitalist (financial and other) crises, when
companies lay off
tens-of-thousands of workers, shoving them back into
a state of worse misery
then before. We cannot really see that demographic
and urban transitions bring
a significantly better life to migrants although many
if not most leave what must
seem to them hopeless situations of abysmsal rural poverty
and dependence;
on the other hand, being uprooted and cut loose from
extended family and
village ties, many slip into situations that may be in
some respects worse
than before.
As for increased internal as well as international mobility
of people and ideas,
it is always considered to be a good thing nowadays.
And in some ways, quite
concretely (and, abstractly speaking, in others),
it is. But the truth is also that not
every one is a highly qualified engineer or scientist
lured away from his native
‘Third World’ country as a result of the enticing ‘rewards’
accompanying the
‘brain drain.’ The situation of African ‘sans papiers’
in Paris, of illegal
immigrants from Central America picking fruit in the
Central Valley of
California, of Indonesian household helps and construction
workers in Kuala
Lumpur usually is not very enviable. Despite the remittances
they sent home,
it remains a fact that in most cases external migrations
have brought along
with them the deprived and miserable lives of migrant
laborers robbed of
many human and workers’ rights.(53)
For ideological reasons, the plight of migrants workers
leaving rural Chinese
communities to toil in the coastal centers of Capitalist
growth like Guangzhou,
Shanghai, or Tianjin has received more attention
in the Western press than
the misery of most migrant workers toiling in the so-called
‘Free World.’ But
this ‘Free World’ is placing also many obstacles and
barriers in the way of the
lesser-educated citizens from so-called ‘developing’
countries who are willing
to work abroad. External migration from the poor
countries of the world may
obviously provide a way of (slightly) alleviating poverty
at home and is
therefore favored verbally by the World Bank representative
quoted. But it is
in fact seen as undesirable by most Western governments.
For instance,
emigration in order to work and earn a wage abroad is
out of the question
for most Indonesians when their favorite destination
would be the United States
or the European Union. The 'rich' countries practically
try to close their doors to
poor migrants from the South who would want to work there
in order to better
their lives and send money home to their loved ones;
it is a well-known fact that
the United States and the member states of the European
Union make it
impossible (for all but those who fulfill their thirst
for the best and the brightest)
to enter the country legally. Illegal immigrants are
humiliated, mistreated,
deported, sometimes killed ‘accidentally’ while being
put on a plane for the
purpose of deportation. In view of this, the World Bank
recommendation that
countries like Indonesia should have recourse to the
external migration of poor
working people is unrealistic if not cynical, unless
the intention is: Go and work,
under miserable conditions, in next-door Malaysia or
Singapore where you will
hardly earn enough to justify going abroad.
Another World Bank recommendation is increased reliance
on market forces.
But isn’t it cynical if they recommend “expanded markets”
in order to mellow
the effects of the “vicious economic cycles” (54) that
hit Indonesia and other
countries repeatedly, and which had the gravest effects
when in 1997 the
straw-fire of the speculative ‘90s boom was rudely put
out by international
currency speculation? In view of the havoc wrought
by market forces, any
strategy that would rely on “expanded markets”
is not really acceptable.
It amounts to giving the patient more of the medicine
that made him sick.
The next recommendation by the World Bank specialist quoted
is quite
astonishing. She recommends to combat poverty (and hunger)
by “income
growth”. That’s a nice one! We would have been
laughing heartily if the
situation of the poor wasn’t tragic, and the wisdom of
these World Bank
experts wasn’t that bizarre. But of course, there is
a grain of ‘theory’
underlying this naïve suggestion that the best recipe
to combat widespread
poverty is to see to it that people have higher incomes,
more money in their
pocket which in market economies they need to buy food,
pay rents, clothes,
and so on. The underlying ‘theory’ is that ‘market activities’
will help some
people (‘blessed’ with an ‘entrepreneurial spirit’) to
rise above the rest of the
poor, and thus out of poverty. And this in turn, it is
believed by the adherents
of liberal market ideologies, will have a snowball effect
or ‘trickle down effect.’
We have yet to see this wisdom proved by realistic experience.
All we see is
that with some micro-loans (the new ‘miracle effecting
tool’ of experts at the
service of international organizations), some may manage
to start businesses
on the village level, or in their kampong. In cities
like Jakarta, however, there
are so many street vendors trying hard to make a living
in the informal sector
that, as Indonesian social activists and progressive
urbanists have shown, the
City Government (and perhaps the national government,
as well) is doing
everything to curb their activities and drive them out
of the city. This is not
exactly a policy to encourage ‘small business.’ On the
other hand, on the
village level, a few selected poor families obtain micro-loans,
for instance
from religious or secular NGOs or other donors. If a
family is lifted out of
village poverty, operating a food-stall, a shop, or whatever,
they basically
attain a (slightly) better living standard because they
make a profit, a profit
paid for by the other (poor) villagers. It increases
inequality. It benefits the
few. As long as such help doesn’t go to the village,
as a cooperative, it leads
to increased inequality in the village. If one village
obtains help while the
next village remains without it, it is likely in many
cases to increase inequality
between villages. Of course, such help can also be an
act of compensatory
justice if a particularly poor village receives help
in order to catch up with other
villages in the area. By and large, giving and receiving
help provokes the
question: Will this help make dependent? Or will it decrease
dependence, and
increase independence? Will it strengthen the collective
capability to produce
what is needed by the villagers, and by people in the
area or the wider region?
Or will it set individuals against each other, turning
them into ‘players’ in the
market, forgetful of concrete needs, betting on chances
to realize a profit if
abstract marketing chances of certain goods are fairly
correctly predicted?
The last of the five suggested elements of a World Bank
strategy to combat
poverty and hunger in times of crisis and achieve a “good
quality of life” is
that we should rely much more thoroughly on “scientific
and technological
innovation.”(55) It sounds good, it sounds reasonable.
But isn’t there a
drawback, a hidden trap we should notice and beware of?
(56)
It is clear that those of us who plead for an alternative
path of agricultural
improvements which rejects the recipes of the “Green
Revolution” and
which says ‘No’ to genetically manipulated crops do not
choose to close
their eyes to science. They merely criticize certain
scientists and certain
‘scientific strategies’ that have above all the well-being
and profits of big
agribusiness firms in mind. As is the case with some
progressive agricultural
scientists, especially in India, who are dedicated to
biodiversity, to the
preservation and selective, case-specific use of indigenous
pest-resistant
or high yield plant varieties, or to varieties which
require comparatively
less moisture than most (a positive factor in arid
zones) , those who embrace
science do not need to uncritically support another “green
revolution.” They
link new methods of experimentation and analysis
with the empirical knowledge
of the peasants they try to support. They do not attempt
to find general, abstract
answers valid everywhere. They focus on concrete situations,
concrete places
used to grow plants like rice, wheat, corn, and so on.
And they turn back to
concrete, and specific sorts, some of them almost forgotten,
which may form
the basis of the evolution of added strains or varieties
(but not genetically
engineered ones) especially suitable to concrete soils
and climates. This is
science, a sober scientific job, but is has nothing to
do with the kind of
playfully reckless experiments that add strawberry genes
to tomatoes.
This abstract fiddling around with nature may be part
of the post-modern
“anything goes, why not try it?” mentality of many young
and not so young
contemporary Western scientists. But it shows little
respect for the concrete
and specific needs of agriculture in a given area. Instead,
such ‘fiddling around’
is focused too much on universally marketable seeds.
This is why market-
oriented scientists tend to ignore the fact that many
indigenous sorts are
well-adapted to a given climate and have been improved
with a view to given
soil conditions while other sorts are typically found
to have played a positive role
under other, more or less different natural conditions.
Responsible agricultural
science should be a science working hand in hand with
the peasants, respectful
of empirical knowledge, sensitive with respect to the
great storage house of
nature which is so much richer than the bureaucrats and
businessmen (who want
a few, univerally marketable, streamlined sorts)
or the ‘post-modern’ scientists
at their service have an inkling of.
If, today, we hear the term ‘innovation,’ we cannot help
fearing the worst.
Fearing that what is at stake is yet another gratuitous
invention, or appropriation.
Innovation has brought us questionable genetically engineered
bt-corn by
Monsanto; it has been behind the pesticide-intensive
‘green revolution’ that was
set, from the beginning, to consume massive quantities
of chemical fertiler while
ignoring natural, more traditional methods of fertilizing
the soil that scientists
could have built on, to improve effects.
Today, in Indonesia, international organizations again
support a “new green
revolution”; they support “rice fortification” and similar
projects, and foreign
agri-business and gen-tech firms link hands with Indonesian
partners in order
to have a level playing field and reap a profit. All
of this, in the name of
combating poverty and reducing hunger, by seeing to it
that those (usually
wealthy) farmers who go along using the new agri-technologies,
will buy the
new sorts recommended, and will otherwise increase their
dependence on
foreign agri-business.
Is it helping to stabilize the situation and cope with
the food prize ecplosion,
the so-called foot crisis? We don’t think so.
The government of Indonesia certainly can be observed
to vacillate when the
question how to improve agriculture while protecting
the environment is put
squarely on the table.
Mr. Nabiel Makarim, Indonesian State Minister for Environment,
during a
recent conference, told the participants in the meeting
apologetically
"that in Indonesia, the concept of
sustainable development was initially
introduced by the government,
but public demand for sustainable
development is lacking.”(57)
While underlining “the need for government efforts to
disseminate the concept”
of sustainable devekopment, Mr. Makarim emphasized in
this context the
concomitant “ need for good governance, public participation
and poverty
eradication."(58)
His pronouncement in favor of public empowerment and participation
would be
laudible if it had any basis in actual government practice.
For it is to be observed
that the poor and hungry have indeed a desire and a need
to make themselves
heard, not only in private and in the street, but even
more so on kampong
committees, city committees and in urban or rural
forums were decisions are
reached.
Mr. Makarim’s statement is of course far too general
(if it does not amount
to a few empty phrases). And in all likelihood, it is
also false and misleading.
For this much we should know when we hear Mr. Makarim
advocate the
empowerment of the poor: Grass-roots organizations in
Indonesia have
all along demanded political rights, the right of the
rank-and-file to truly
participate in decision making processes, real and effective
participatory
rights that is. From all we can tell by following the
political debates and
analyzing the reactions of the bureaucracy and of those
in office, such
demands are far from being fulfilled. What is more, they
are ignored if not
actively rejected and contradicted. People active at
the grass roots level know
full-well that it is they who suffer in their kampongs
from floods, from
deforestation, from development projects that benefit
the rich as new streets
and mansions on the hills overlooking their poor people's
quarters replace
vegetation and increase the speed and force of the run-off.(59)
Those in the
poor quarters who are demanding participatory rights
are aware that they pollute
involuntarily, for lack of sanitary infrastructure while
the big companies pollute
voluntarily, out of greed, taking Indonesian locations
of production as 'cheap'
alternatives to sites in other countries. Countries which
today enforce, more or
less effectively, higher environmental standards written
in the law books.
The quest for greater participation in (their own) urban
affairs is therefore fully
justified. But it is rejected, often out of a fear (held
by the bureaucrats) that to
empower the populace would make foreign investors avoid
the country.(60)
Actually, not only sanitation and environmental standards
matter to the poor.
In the city, the policies of obstructing work chances
in the informal sector, or the
tendency to wreck ‘illegally constructed’ dwellings of
the poor are also of
concern to the populace; this is behind their wish to
be heard and to have an
acknowledged right to defend their interests in participatory
bodies and
institutions. Obviously, inadequate sanitation and environmental
pollution pose
health hazards which are especially risky for ill-fed
people. On the other hand,
denied work opportunities in the informal sector immediately
wipe out incomes,
occasioning hunger. The urban poor, in fighting for their
right to work in the
informal sector, for their right to the houses they built
on unused or underused
lands which they managed to occupy, and for their right
to have better sanitation
and less pollution, are also fighting for a chance to
survive hunger and poverty.
This is a real effort of immediate concern to them and
to anyone who supports
increased democracy and more social justice. Especially
in view of the present
food price crisis, these people are in a very difficult
situation, and they remain
without very little real and substantial help. The fact
that they fight for their
own interests, fully aware of their civil, participatory
rights, is a beacon of
hope today.
----
NOTES
(1) “General Statement of the Head of Indonesian Delegation at the Twenty-Fifth
Session
of the Governing Council [of IFAD]”, in: http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/25/speech/indonesia.htm
(2) The University of Manchester, Brooks World Poverty
Institute: " Suharto — A Bandit No More " ( 1 February, 2008) , in:
http://povertyblog.wordpress.com/category/indonesia/
(3) Ibid.
(4) Despite the problematic consequences of the strategies recommended
by the World Bank and the bad advice which the World Bank chose to give
during the East Asian Financial Crisis, the Head of the Indonesian Delegation
speaking at the 25th session of the Governing Council of IFAD declared
in 2002 that "Indonesia [...] has worked together with the World
Bank in several development efforts and poverty eradication
programmes. It is encouraging to note that the World Bank, FAO and IFAD
are all committed to support agricultural development, especially rural
development and poverty alleviation [...]" (“General Statement of the Head
of Indonesian Delegation at the Twenty-Fifth Session of the Governing Council
[of IFAD]”, in: http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/25/speech/indonesia.htm )
- Is this evidence of an entirely uncritical attitude, or does it merely
reflect the fact that the Indonesian government sees itself as immensely
dependent on the World Bank, the IMF, the W.T.O., and the U.S. government
which is so overwhelmingly influential in all of these “international”
bodies?
(5) [The Head of the Indonesian Delegation], "General Statement of the
Head of Indonesian Delegation at the Twenty-Fifth Session of the
Governing Council", in: http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/25/speech/indonesia.htm
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid.
(9) With regard to IFAD, the head of the Indonesian delegation present
at the the 25th Session of the Governing Council of IFAD regretted that
“[t]he lack of adequate funding will certainly affect the ability of the
Fund [i.e.of IFAD] to carry out its mandate satisfactorily." (Ibid.)
He pointed out that Indonesia was fulfilling its obligations with regard
to IFAD: "In accordance with the financial commitments pledged to
IFAD, the Government of Indonesia has made its first payment of USD
3.5 million. [...] “(Ibd.) Such payments must be subtracted from
the US $ 59.6 million in assistance that Indonesia was getting at the time
from IFAD.
However, what counts even more than the fact that only minor
sums are made available ( - to build a single bridge, crossing a river,
in the first world may well cost between US $ 150 and 400 million
! -) is the fact that help to the poor and help to combat poverty was totally
‘redesigned.’
This is what the head of the Indonesian delegation indicated
at the IFAD Meeting: "After the economic crisis, the Government of Indonesia
changed the focus of its development programmes from government driven
to private sector driven."(Ibid.) State-run programs to alleviate
hunger and poverty were cut or suspended. Under pressure from the World
Bank, the government was cutting back on food subsidies etc.
IFAD redesigned its strategy as well: “The Fund moved from traditional
agricultural development projects, based on the delivery of goods and services,
towards more sustainable community development projects, based on
the establishment and strengthening of the institutions for the poor that
have become the subject of the development process. The last IFAD-funded
project -- the Post Crisis Program for Participatory Integrated Development
in Rainfed Areas (PIDRA) -- is based on a very innovative partnership
between the Government and NGOs. PIDRA has so far been implemented
with promising results in terms of increased cost-effectiveness and impact
on poverty."(Ibid.) This sounds very good, close to the grass-roots.
But is it?
In fact, IFAD’s development strategy is highly market.-oriented. Their
dollars are mainly spent with the intention of propping up the export-oriented
“agribusiness sector” in Indonesia: “The organization's current
portfolio of development efforts in the country consist of four on-going
projects that have been funded with SDR 66.2 million (equivalent
to about USD 59.6 million). One of these projects, already considered a
huge success, is the Rural Income Generation Project (RIGP) (Proyek Peningkatan
Pendapatan Petani/Nelayan Kecil (P4K). The RIGP is working to alleviate
poverty in rural areas by focusing on the development of the agribusiness
sector. This particular project aims at strengthening household finances
and increasing purchasing power by providing assistance in agribusiness
activities."(Ibid.)
(10) “We have also aid funds but the sum is not that
big, such as from Kinder Mission Werk that grants 18,000 euro
(±US$24,171)for tackling malnutrition for over 1,000 children beneficiaries.
From Frauen Mission Werk we only gets 3,000 euro for the business of ikat
clothes that were sent and sold in Germany.” Maria Mediatrix Mali
(interview), “Lesson Learned from Hunger Fighter in East Nusa Tenggara
of Indonesia”, posted March 12, 2007, in the blog run by the The Institute
for Ecosoc Rights. Source : http://ecosocrights.blogspot.com/search/label/busung%20lapar
(11) This was true in 1997 and it is true again during the present worldwide
food price explosion. As the interviewed woman from India said when asked
about the effects of the so-called food shortage, in fact a speculative
price explosion, on her and her family: "The rich are becoming richer.
They go to shopping malls and they don't need to worry. The problem
with prices only matters for the poor people like me." (Kamla DEVI, quoted
in:
Robin McKie and Heather Stewart, "Hunger. Strikes. Riots. The
food crisis bites", in: MAIL&GUARDIAN ONLINE, 13 April
2008 09:33 http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336878&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news)
The same could be said by every poor person in Indonesia today. If a crisis
hits hard and the population at large sees their incomes shrinking, it
is almost always the poor who suffer more than anybody else.
(12) "Poverty ... jumped to 22%" (The University of
Manchester, Brooks World Poverty Institute: " Suharto
— A Bandit No More " ( 1 February, 2008) , in: http://povertyblog.wordpress.com/category/indonesia/
)
(13) Such experiences as leaving the cities in order to return to the
countryside have long been a common feature in modern ‘market economies.’
In early 19th Europe, the workers of Elberfeld left the city during the
crisis of 1828 to avoid the high cost of living in the city and seek assistence
from relatives in the countryside, and the workers of Verviers also returned
to the surrounding villages they hailed from when the factory owners made
them redundant during various crises that struck the textile industry of
that city. Those who remain in town while shed by regular employers or
having lost temporary jobs in the factories of necessity rely on the informal
sector. In his article on the city development of Semarang, Dr. Pratiwo
notes the plight of street vendors harassed by the city bureaucracy;
similar observations, especially with reference to Jakarta, can be found
on the pages of a blog run by The Institute for Ecosoc [=Economic and Social]
Rights (http://ecosocrights.blogspot.com/).
Prostitution must be counted as one kind of (self- ?)employment in the
informal sector. Andreas Weiland, a film critic, poet, and town planning
historian from Germany, has mentioned recently that in an interview he
had with the Indonesian film-maker Wim Umboh in 1978, the latter noted
how badly paid government officials would pretend not to know that their
wife engaged in prostitution when she turned to this way of supplementing
an inadequate family income. It was simpy too embarrassing to face the
truth openly, but it was equally impossible to ask her to stop prostituting
herself when the additional income was badly needed. This underlines,
in the late 1970s, after more than a dozen years of ‘successful’ market-oriented
New Order economic policies, the horrendous impact of the prevalent
market conditions that were imposing themselves. For the poor, prostitution
apparently is a market-driven way of increasing inadequate incomes. And
this is true in very poor countries even more than in the so-called ‘First’
or ‘developed’ world.
(14) It was clear that Chinese-Indonesian ‘comprador’ capital, although
significant by Indonesian standards, was not in a position to shoulder
the task of building and expanding an export-oriented, subcontractor-based
‘industrial base’ single-handedly. They needed foreign partners. The new
stock companies formed and the expanding family-controlled ventures all
depended on foreign loans. Loan-financed expansion was a safe bet as long
as the economy kept growing; it turned into a fiasco when the crisis triggered
by investors who became jittery had struck the country, as the profits
that helped service the (by and large) external debt evaporated while interest
rates went up. (In some cases, loans were also cancelled or no longer renewed.)
(15) We still remembered the internationally operating funds that flourished
at the time before they were hit by the crisis. (Fidelity International,
Pioneer, Robeco, Warburg Invest, …) The funds controlled by
George Soros must not be forgotten here. Among the private banks that played
a role we may mention Amro, Bank of America, Chase Manhattan, Credit
Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, J.P. Morgan, ParisBas, Société
Generale, USB, etc. – It is to the specialists with a narrow view
of the crisis but ‘detailed’ information on the Indonesian segment of the
East and South East Asian field of Western and Japanese speculative investment
prior to 1997 that we must look for more precise information as to who
were the ‘big players’ in the Indonesian market and how big a stake (or
how large a risk exposure) they chose to have in that country. Accompanied
by such information, we would like to have detailed information as to which
payments were made to them ever since. That is to say, since the Indonesian
government and private Indonesian lenders began to regularly service the
debt incurred in the boom years. Which they did almost immediately, rather
than.imposing a debt moratorium as Malaysia had wisely done, and much later,
Argentine.
(16) The University of Manchester, Brooks World Poverty
Institute: " Suharto — A Bandit No More " ( 1 February, 2008) , in:
http://povertyblog.wordpress.com/category/indonesia/
(17) No one in Indonesia will easily forget the renewed progroms against
ethnic-Chinese Indonesians that occurred in the aftermath of the 1997 crisis
and the fall of Suharto. A few right-wingers, with ties to an extremely
conservative minority among the Muslim community, as well as agents provocateurs
with ties to the military leaders attached to Suharto or implicated in
his crimes, seem to have provoked the gullible, naïve, and highly
frustrated of the populace.
(18) We probably can understand the adverse effect of Western strategies
that amount to an informal quasi-boycott when we look at what the blockade
has done to Cuba, or more recently, to Zimbabwe.
(19) The University of Manchester, Brooks World Poverty
Institute: " Suharto — A Bandit No More " ( 1 February, 2008) , in:
http://povertyblog.wordpress.com/category/indonesia/
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.
(22) Ibid.
(23) See the review, by Andreas Weiland, in this issue of ‘Art in Society.’
(24) It is necessary to ask at this point whether the regime was
in fact creating the agency at the behest of the Americans? - who
had previously forced the K.M.T. in Taiwan to carry out a 'tame' land reform,
in order to defuse a situation potentially rather explosive.
(25) “General Statement of the Head of Indonesian Delegation at the
Twenty-Fifth Session of the Governing Council [of IFAD]”, in: http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/25/speech/indonesia.htm
(26) "In less than a year, the price of wheat has risen by 130%,
soya by 87% and rice by 74%."(The source for this is: Robin McKie and Heather
Stewart, "Hunger. Strikes. Riots. The food crisis bites", in:
MAIL&GUARDIAN ONLINE, 13 April 2008 09:33 ( (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336878&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
) - The other figures were reported in the radio news recently.
(27) Indeed, very recently, "biofuel demand" has fanned the food price
explosion occasioned largely by a certain commodity speculation focused
on such commodities as wheat, rice, corn [or maize], palm oil and soy beans.
According to a recent source, the effects of "demand for ethanol" can already
be seen in "America's corn belt [...]”(Robert McKie and Heather Stewart,
Ibid.)
In Indonesia, palm oil producers have discovered the bio-fuel
market. Thus, the market, more so than draught, has been primarily
responsible for the palm oil price hike that hit Indonesian consumers.
As added demand for palm oil, used as an ethanol base, began to be felt,
supply could not keep up. Though “farmers and plantation companies hurriedly
clear[ed] land to replant”, everybody knew that “it will take time
before their efforts bear fruit.”(Ibid) As a consequence, “[p]alm-oil
prices jumped by nearly 70% last year, hitting the poorest families"
most.(Ibid)
The effect on the poor who now can afford less palm oil than before,
is obvious. Palm oil, as other vegetable oils, “[…] provide[s] an
important source of calories in the developing world, and their [unaffordability
produced by the market which apologists of market dynamics described as
a] shortage has contributed to the food crisis “, to malnutrition
and starvation.(Ibid.)
(28) Ibid.
(29) Ibid.
(30) The net result has been to decrease domestic supplies of
grain just as demand for it has started to boom. The impact of the decision
has struck the developing world most clearly, with wheat and other grain
prices soaring.
(31)Robin McKie and Heather Stewart, "Hunger. Strikes. Riots.
The food crisis bites", in: MAIL&GUARDIAN ONLINE, 13 April
2008 09:33 (URL:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336878&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
)
(32) Some of them don't, they succumb to the effects of malnutrition;
their bodies, weakened for years, have no strength to resist the onslaught
of bacteria, viruses, damp heat, unexpected cold. Their housing conditions,
never ever the way they should be, that is, decent, contribute their share
to such fates of untimely death.
(33)Robin McKie and Heather Stewart, "Hunger. Strikes. Riots.
The food crisis bites", in: MAIL&GUARDIAN ONLINE, 13 April
2008 09:33 (URL:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336878&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
)
(34) Ibid.
(35) "In Egypt, Indonesia, Côte d'Ivoire, Mauritania, Mozambique,
Senegal and Cameroon there have been demonstrations, sometimes involving
fatalities, as starving, desperate people have taken to the streets." (Ibid.)
(36) These four are most prominent among a "number of factors
that have combined to create the current crisis, a perfect storm
in which several apparently unconnected events come together with disastrous
effects", they want to make us believe. It's very complicated, they suggest,
and there is very little one can do about it - except alleviate the plight
of the poor a little bit, by rapidly designed, short-term 'emergency
aid' programs. - If dependence on market forces, and as a plausible outgrowth,
a surge of commodity speculation was the single most important factor,
there was indeed something that could be done: Institute a counter-acting
policy that would at least severely curtail the weight and impact of the
markets. The authors of the report quoted also note that among the
" factors that have combined to trigger the current food crisis, experts
[...] point to the [...] issue of climate change.” In other
words, a single cause is finally singled out as especially important.
They ‘explain’ and illustrate this briefly: “As the levels of carbon dioxide
rise in the atmosphere, meteorologists have warned that weather patterns
are becoming increasingly disturbed, causing devastation in many
areas. For several consecutive years, Australia – once a prime grower
of wheat – has found its production ruined by drought, for example.”
Their explanation of steeply rising food prices in Asia therefore is that
[drought-related] [s]carcity, particularly on Asia's grain markets,
has then driven up prices even further." Speculators thus are exonerated,
more or less. Everything has above all a ‘natural’, very nearly inevitable
cause. The ‘complex’ mix of factors originally mentioned is pushed
into the background. (Robin McKie and Heather Stewart, "Hunger. Strikes.
Riots. The food crisis bites", in: MAIL&GUARDIAN ONLINE,
13 April 2008 09:33 (URL: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336878&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
)
(37) "Some [...] see climate change as the most pressing challenge facing
the world, while others now say that biofuels – grown to offset fossil-fuel
use – is taking food out of the mouths of some of the world's poorest
people." (Ibid.)
(38) To some of the journalists who try to find a scape-goat for the
present world food crisis, the culprit is easily perceivable. It's largely
China, with its "emerging middle classes" because "their consumption of
meat has increased by more than 150% per head since 1980. In those days,
meat was scarce, rationed at about 1kg per person per month and used sparingly
in rice and noodle dishes, stir fried to preserve cooking oil.
Today, the average Chinese consumer eats more than 50kg of meat a year.
To feed the millions of pigs on its farms, China is now importing
grain on a huge scale, pushing up its prices worldwide." (Robin McKie and
Heather Stewart, Ibid.) – This statement is clearly misleading. Chinese
demand for food on the world market has not notably increased during or
shortly before the present food price explosion but has been a fairly constant
factor for several years (which proves the absurdity of the linkage between
‘added Chinese demand’ and the present food price explosion). We must admit
of course that feeding grain to cattle and pigs raised for the purpose
of meat production affects the grain market and the price of grain, and
is detrimental to the world’s poor as well as ecologically problematic.
But what is said here (in the quote) about the connection between grain
exports to China and pigs raised in China, can be said with as much justification
about the cattle and pig farms of the European Union, about the ranches
of the U.S. , and about cattle raised in Brazil’s Amazon forest (their
meat largely destined for the U.S. market).
Blaming the Chinese has a significant but only obliquely expressed
meaning: ‘You are taking our grain.’ ‘We may feed relatively scarce grain
to the pigs, but not you.’ Under extreme circumstances, and with projected
scarcities in mind, the answer could be a Hitlerian one.
Indeed, the answer for any social darwinist or follower of Hitler's
tenets would be clear: We're in for a fight, for ever scarcer resources.
The strongest will survive. The weak will go down. But in fact, even without
policies that bet on or threaten with war, 'peaceful' market economies
are anyway about exactly this. The financially strongest, those who can
pay the most, take the best and the most; the crumbs (if any remain)
are left to the weak, the poor, the excluded. It’s a kind of war,
too, with deadly effects. As the Chinese writer, Lu Xun, once said: It’s
a man-eating society. A society where man eats man. This is what every
market-driven society was and is and is going to be.
Unless we opt for a turn-around and make it more humane. Changing our
societies for the better would imply that we respect and take serious one
another’s essential needs. Not letting anybody go hungry while we have
ample food.
(39) In Germany (and large parts of the European Union,
generally), for instance, a hefty increase in the prize of milk and butter
was justified by the new Chinese middle class 'thirst for milk.' But exports
of such products to China were ridiculously low, and so this price increase
was taken back when local consumers bought much less than before, a fact
that quickly resulted in a glut and annoucements like that of an Irish
producers that the price of 'Kerry Gold butter' hasn't gone up. (It had
gone up considerably, but this increase was revoked.)
(40) This is not to deny that regionally, considerable negative
effects of draught on the harvest can be observed. For instances,
“[s]oya and palm oils are a major source of calories in Asia, but flooding
in Malaysia and a drought in Indonesia have limited supplies." (Robin McKie
and Heather Stewart, "Hunger. Strikes. Riots. The food crisis bites",
in: MAIL&GUARDIAN ONLINE, 13 April 2008 09:33 (URL: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336878&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
)
(41) It was the same with another type of commodity speculation,
that which was and is focused on oil. Every announced hurricane that could
impair oil production along the
Texas coast, every new twist and turn in the Middle East, every televised
video on CNN
that contained real or fake anti-Western threats by some offspring
of former business partners
of the Bush family sent the oil price up. Big players in the business,
above all oil corporations,
future and options traders, and heaven knows who else, seize the chance
to push the prize up and up.
(42) Food distributed to the poor as 'emergency aid' is typically bought
by governments or food aid agencies on the market, thereby further driving
up food prices that haven risen in anticipation of future shortages
and future added demand from, amongst other countries, China.
(43) Robin McKie and Heather Stewart, "Hunger. Strikes. Riots.
The food crisis bites", in: MAIL&GUARDIAN ONLINE, 13 April
2008 09:33 (URL:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336878&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
(44) Ibid.
(45) Ibid.
(46) Ibid.
(47) Ibid.
(48) When pointing out the negative effects of inequality in ‘Third
World’ countries, we must not lose sight of (once again) increasing inequality
in the United States and Europe where a tendency that appeared to redress
the most extreme and outrageous grievances seems to have been reigned in
and turned around, and this apparently since the mid-1970s (a period
characterized by a so-called profit squeeze and a time when mass
unemployment began to grow significantly), but even more sharply since
the early 1990s (when the ‘competition’ between the ‘East Bloc’ and the
‘Western’ social system came to a halt, a fact that heralded the end of
the ‘social democratic era’ in Western Europe and immediately lead to welfare
cuts and a revocation of social rights in the ‘West).
(49) Mrs. Georgieva, a World Bank expert, recently was reported
to have stated that “better valuation of the environment” was desirable.(See:
“Meeting the Millennium Development Goals: Can the environment wait? -
Presented by the World Bank” in: http://www.iisd.ca/2002/pc4/enbots/may31.html
)
However, according to the market logic of the World Bank it was deemed
necessary to find ways of “[…]integrating the environmental costs
and benefits of action and inaction into decision making.”(Ibid.)
In other words, if the cost-benefit analysis showed that inaction in the
face of environmental degradation was resulting in a tangible cost
[actually showing in the balance sheets of the ‘players’ involved] that
was outweighed by far by the profit made, then degradation was the best
answer or at least it was not to be corrected.
Mrs. Georgieva suggested that in all or most cases of ecological degradation
which have come up for closer cost-benefit scrutiny, there have always
existed “[…] difficulties that
arose in estimating the benefits of environmental improvements [which
could have been undertaken, and this mainly] due to the lack of long-term
thinking and consideration of the needs of future generations."(Ibid.)
–
In other words, as long as short-term business perspectives and calculations
matter, it is hard to see why the actors involved in certain ‘business
activities’ detrimental to the environment should assume that protecting
the environment pays. It’s simply not logical for them, or for World Bank
calculators, Mrs. Georgieva admits. And this, she implies,
will not change as long as it is very rare to take a long-term view of
the matter.
(50) The claim that China’s “arable land [...] is shrinking as
farmland has been ravaged by pollution and water shortages"
(Robin McKie and Heather Stewart, ibid.) is of course correct. But
South Korea’s arable land is shrinking, too. And the same could be said
about Japan, about Holland, Germany, or the United States. The reasons
for this steady reduction of arable land are diverse.
(51) [WORLD BANK STATEMENT] “Meeting the Millennium Development Goals:
Can the environment wait? - Presented by the World Bank” in: http://www.iisd.ca/2002/pc4/enbots/may31.html
(52) Ibid.
(53) The plight of Indonesian migrant laborers, in Singapore, Malaysia,
South Korea, the Arab peninsula (etc.) has been highlighted for some time
by grass-roots organizations in their home country while the Western press
has been silent about it, more or less. They are robbed of their rights,
treated like dirt, subjected to cruel punishment, thrown out of the host
country when complaining, faced with extortion and harrassment by
some officials at home when leaving the country or upon their return. See
also: http://ecosocrights.blogspot.com published by
The Institute for EcoSoc Rights. In their blog [updated February 2008],
they identify the problems of migrant workers as a major issue they tackle:
“CURRENTLY we focus on, first, helping resolve the problems of the migrant
workers from Indonesia who are mostly working in Asia Pacific and
Middle Eastern countries […]”
(54) [WORLD BANK STATEMENT] “Meeting the Millennium Development Goals:
Can the environment wait? - Presented by the World Bank” in: http://www.iisd.ca/2002/pc4/enbots/may31.html
(55) The World Bank’s recipes, as presented by Mrs. Georgieva, were
fully embraced by
the Head of the Indonesian Delegation speaking at the 25th Session
of the Governing Council of IFAD [in 2002] when he proclaimed that
in order to “alleviate poverty and hunger in our country […] [w]e need
assistance in the area of technology transfer, opening market
access to our products and exports, micro-finance, infrastructure
development and rehabilitation of our forestry industry among many
others."( General Statement of the Head of Indonesian Delegation at the
Twenty-Fifth Session of the Governing Council [of IFAD]”, in: http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/25/speech/indonesia.htm)
In other words, the main emphasis is on furthering exports. The agricultural
sector and the logging industry are targeted with exactly this in mind.
In the Democratic Republic Congo, World Bank recipes for the rain-forest
foresee “sustainable” logging by (mostly) foreign lumber companies that
has been shown to destroy the ecological balance while generating an inflow
of foreign currency. In Brazil and probably, Indonesia, a similar
approach is to be expected. As for micro-finance (a strategy first proposed
by de Soto in Peru) and certain income-generating strategies suggested
by IFAD etc., they are embraced in order to achieve a so-called ‘modernization’
of agriculture. The foreign and local ‘players’ involved in this
game bet on ‘rice fortification’ and similar schemes, which is clearly
in the interest of Western agribusiness corporations.
(56) [WORLD BANK STATEMENT] “Meeting the Millennium Development Goals:
Can the environment wait? - Presented by the World Bank” in: http://www.iisd.ca/2002/pc4/enbots/may31.html
(57) Ibid.
(58) Ibid.
(59) See also: Pratiwo, “The City Planning of Semarang, 1900-1970”,
in this issue of ‘Art in Society’
(60)
In Asia, Japanese corporations, for one, have been known to relocate
environmentally hazardous segments of the production process from Japan
to places like Taiwan in the 1960s and '70s, and they have moved on to
other places in S.E. Asia, among them Indonesia, once environmental legislation
in Taiwan (legally, a part of China) became stricter due to prolonged
and effective grass-roots protests. The fact that activists speaking for
the social and economic rights of the poor in Indonesia demand participatory
rights for the poor, for instance the right to have a say with regard to
environment standards and safety regulations valid in industrial zones
adjacent to their quarters, shows that lessons have been learned from the
fight of other environmental groups in other Asian countries. The
populace in Jakarta and elsewhere is learning from resistance in
countries previously targeted by transnationally operating polluters, especially
the plastics industry. Barring increased political repression against
them in the name of 'progress' and 'development,' there is some hope that
the situation in Indonesia will improve.
|
-
http://www.art-in-society.de/AS6/ASissue6/the-scandal-of-hunger-in-indonesia_a-brief-analysis-of-the-causes.html
m |
The Institute of EcoSoc Rights
Jakarta, Indonesia
http://ecosocrights.blogspot.com/
According to a report published
in 2008 by the Brooks World Poverty Institute, based at the
University of Manchester (Britain), "some 40 million people still
[live] in [dire] poverty", in post-Suharto Indonesia.(*)
(*) This may be a very optimistic assumption, underestimating the real
extent of extreme poverty and of malnutrition. Indonesia is not a paradise
in a world where one half of mankind is affected by poverty.
Links:
Historical Profile of Poverty Alleviation in Indonesia
http://www.uncapsa.org/Flash/flash0605.pdf
back-up copy: click
here
About IFAD
http://www.ifad.org/governance/index.htm
back-up copy: click
here
IFAD and trade liberalization
http://www.ifad.org/english/trade/index.htm
back-up copy: click
here
General Statement of the Head of Indonesian Delegation
at the
Twenty-Fifth Session of the Governing Council
[of IFAD]
http://www.ifad.org/events/gc/25/speech/indonesia.htm
back-up copy: click
here
La crise alimentaire risque d'affecter la sécurité,
selon l'Onu
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080420/twl-alimentation-
onu-bd5ae06.html
back-up copy: click
here
The UN Millenium Project
http://www.uncapsa.org/Flash/flash0605.pdf.
back-up copy: click
here
See also: www.globalpolicy.org
and www.uncapsa.org
800 Million Hungry in World as 21st Century Begins
www.bread.org/learn/hunger-reports/hunger-
report-2000-executive-summary.html
back-up copy: click
here
1.7 Million [People] Face
Hunger in Indonesia
http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=2703
back-up copy: click
here
See also: www.wfp.org
Meeting the Millennium Development Goals: Can the
environment wait?
Presented by the World Bank
www.iisd.ca/2002/pc4/enbots/may31.html
back-up copy: click
here
Protests in the Wake of the East Asian Financial
Crisis
& Household Food Insecurity
http://www.oregonlive.com
back-up copy: click
here
Food Riots, Hunger Riots
& Hunger Hypocrites
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041808G.shtm
back-up copy: click
here
Historical Profile of
Poverty Alleviation in Indonesia
http://www.uncapsa.org/Flash/
flash0605.pdf
back-up copy: click
here
Self-Empowerment Brings Success in Indonesia
Shttp://www.churchworldservices.org/
Development/project_description/
descriptions/198.html
back-up copy: click
here
Suharto — A Bandit No More
How the Brooks World Poverty Institute interprets late 20th Century
Indonesian economic history (from 1965 to the East Asian Financial Crisis)
http://povertyblog.wordpress.com/
category/indonesia/
back-up copy: click
here
Robert A. Zoellick (World Bank): A Challenge of
Economic Statecraft
http://go.worldbank.org/KWCNWJUEO1
back-up copy: click
here
Models of ending hunger in Indonesia
http://ecosocrights.blogspot.com/search/
label/busung%20lapar
back-up copy: click
here
The Institute for EcoSoc Rights -
helping to resolve the problems of the migrant
workers from Indonesia
http://ecosocrights.blogspot.com/search/
label/pemerintah
back-up copy: click
here
Questioning the concept of family doctors in Indonesia
Source: http://ecosocrights.blogspot.com/
search/label/pemerintah
back-up copy: click
here
Freedom from hunger
is a human right,
a civil right!
Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission: A Step
in the Right Direction?
www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/
v4i2/indo42.htm
back-up copy: click
here
2001: President Wahid resigns because of the
BULOG fund scandal
www.worldinstituteforasianstudies.org/
indonese.html
back-up copy:
click here
"Kristalina Georgieva, World Bank, states that the
vicious economic cycles that exacerbate environmental degradation are not
deterministic [...] Kristalina Georgieva, World Bank, emphasized the
crucial role of environmental improvement in achieving the Millennium Development
Goals. She stressed that the goals of productive work and a good quality
of life cannot be achieved without a shift toward sustainable production
and consumption and better valuation of the environment. She
said key drivers of such a shift include [1.]scientific and technological
innovation, [2.] income growth, [3.]expanded markets, [4.]increased
mobility of people and ideas, and [5.]
demographic and urban transitions.[...]
Georgieva
recommended: focusing environmental efforts on areas crucial for sustainable
growth and poverty reduction; establishing indicators to measure progress;
and integrating the environmental costs and benefits
of action and inaction into decision making. She introduced the
World Bank’s estimation of costs to reach the Millennium Development Goals,
and discussed difficulties that arose in
estimating the benefits of environmental improvements due to the
lack of long-term thinking
and consideration of the needs of future generations."
- |
mmm |