What Charles and Evan Did for Spring Break

News article

By: MacNeil-Lehrer Productions/PBS

Date: April 19, 2000

Source: MacNeil/Lehrer Productions/PBS

About the Author: MacNeil/Lehrer Productions—founded by Jim Lehrer and Robert MacNeil, along with Liberty Media—was the organization behind the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Initially, Lehrer and MacNeil teamed up to co-anchor the 1975 Senate Watergate hearings for PBS (Public Broadcasting Service). Eventually, the partnership turned into The MacNeil/Lehrer Report beginning in October 1975, and The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, starting in 1983. The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour was hosted by Jim Lehrer, who was also its executive editor and co-producer, and Robert MacNeil, who was also its reporter and writer. The show won two Emmy Awards, along with numerous other awards, during its thirty years of news reporting for PBS. When MacNeil retired in 1995, the program was renamed The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is a network of U.S. public television stations that is owned and directed by about 350-member public television stations across the country, which themselves are operated by such groups as community organizations, local and state agencies, and educational facilities.

INTRODUCTION

On April 16, 2000, Charles Olbert and Evan Scott, who were members of the group SURGE (Students United for a Responsible Global Environment), joined other activists to protest at the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank (WB). SURGE is an activist organization dedicated to promoting economic, environmental, political, and social justice throughout the world through action and education.

Established by the United Nations (UN), the IMF is an international economic organization that examines the world's economy, promotes international monetary cooperation, and provides short-term economic aid (often times, emergency loans) to developing countries (usually in exchange for free-market reforms) to expedite the growth of international trade. Also established by the UN, the World Bank (formally called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) is an international economic organization that provides long-term loans and grants, along with developmental and technical assistance, to help developing countries around the world implement social programs. World Bank financing is often used for social projects such as modernizing educational and health systems, and for environmental and infrastructure projects such as improving or creating roads and highways, national parks, and dams.

Olbert and Scott, as participants of the SURGE protest against the IMF/WB, were protesting the two organizations' actions with respect to globalization. The concept of globalization is generally defined as activities that promote countries to trade goods and services with other countries around the world. Recent trends seen as a direct result of globalization include an increased movement/expansion of commodities, information, infrastructures (such as communications), legal systems, money, organizations (such as multinational companies), people, and technologies around the world.

Proponents of globalization, such as the IMF, define globalization as "the process through which an increasingly free flow of ideas, people, goods, services, and capital leads to the integration of economies and societies." Critics of globalization, such as the International Forum on Globalization, define globalization as "the present worldwide drive toward a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments."

PRIMARY SOURCE

Charles Olbert and Evan Scott ran an unusual errand in early April: the two high school juniors made a special trip to the Army Navy Surplus store in their home town of Durham, North Carolina to buy gas masks.

The masks, along with other basic supplies, were part of their preparations for a trip to Washington D.C. This was not a typical school field trip.

Charles and Evan are part of a North Carolina student group called SURGE (Students United for a Responsible Global Environment).

SURGE joined other activists who plan peaceful protests coinciding with the April 16 spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank.

COPS SHOP

The Washington DC Police Department also did a little shopping.

They bought a million dollars worth of extra supplies, including tear gas, riot gear, plastic bullets and gas masks.

Police officials say the supplies are just a precaution, in case the protests get too chaotic.

When a similar protest took place in Seattle last December, violence erupted. Downtown store windows were smashed and several hundred protesters were arrested, hundreds of others were sprayed with tear gas.

A BANK WITH NO TELLERS

So what exactly is everyone getting so excited about?

The IMF and The World Bank are international organizations that lend huge chunks of money (billions) to poor countries.

Both rich and poor countries are members of both organizations.

The IMF generally lends money to countries going through an economic crisis. Each of its 182 member countries contributes to the pool of funds. For example, when the Brazilian economy crashed in 1998, the IMF organized a "bail out" to help stabilize Brazil's currency.

When the World Bank was started in 1946 it collected contributions from its wealthier member countries. It rein-vested a portion of this money in the world's capital markets to grow the fund from which loans are made. The World Bank, which has 181 members, loans close to $30 billion annually to many of its poorer member countries.

The World Bank invests in countries to help them modernize. In general, loans are given to build roads, develop industry and start education programs.

The World Bank's slogan is "Our Dream is A World Free of Poverty."

THEY DON'T BUY IT

But Charles doesn't buy the slogan and he's heading to Washington DC to make it known.

"On the surface, the IMF and World Bank seem good," he says. "They appear like they're helping the economy of poor nations get going. But if you dig deeper, you realize all they do is hurt working people, damage the environment and help big corporations get richer."

Charles has spent a lot of time reading about the IMF and The World Bank on the net. He hangs out everywhere from new sites like CNN.com to radical anarchy sites.

Specifically, Charles objects to the terms of the IMF's economic recovery loans.

When the IMF lends money to a struggling country, they also specify what the country must do to shore up their economy and pay back the loan. These are called Structural Adjustment Programs or Economic Stabilization Programs.

Charles believes countries end up having to cut spending on things like education, health care and environmental protection and he feels the programs give rich nations too much control over the economies of poorer nations.

"These institutions just want their money paid pack," says Charles, referring to the IMF and World Bank. "For example, the IMF might pressure a nation to start producing cotton because it's a cash crop and it brings a high price when you export it. But if you use land for cotton in a country where people are starving, it just means you're producing less food locally and then you have to import food for even higher prices."

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE

The IMF says its programs are aimed at getting countries to adopt strategies that will help them succeed in a new global market place and build long term economic stability.

According to the IMF, there is no question of forcing a member to adopt any policy. The IMF says that what authority they do have is to require member countries to disclose information on certain economic policies and to avoid, as far as possible, putting restrictions on the flow of money in and out of their country.

The World Bank counters that it's a development institution whose goal is to reduce poverty by promoting sustainable economic growth in its client countries.

Development is about putting all the component parts in place—balanced economic and social programs, according to the World Bank.

"I think that people are worried about the future. I think they don't understand a lot of the big international institutions. We are ready to talk, and we have been ready to talk, we're very anxious to do it, and some of the mystery will go. But we are entering a new age of globalization, and I think there's a lot of fear," says James Wolfensohn, the president of World Bank.

IS FREE TRADE FREE?

The IMF believes that, in general, taxes and regulations on trade between all countries should be kept to a minimum or eliminated. This is referred to as "free trade."

Evan's concerns about the IMF center around free trade.

"There's an underlying conflict between free trade and the preservation of the environment, protection of the human rights and other social issues," says Evan. "Free trade means that countries that produce goods for the least amount of money succeed."

The cost of things like minimum wage laws and environmental regulations have to be met by governments and businesses. Evan says the free trade system will reward countries where factory workers earn very little money or governments fail to enforce environmental protections.

Those who favor free trade say it is the best basis for an international market economy. They say it's the most efficient way to bring together buyers and sellers.

BATTLE OF SEATTLE

None of these issues are simple—that's why they've spurred protests.

Late last year, activists protested in Seattle against the policies of the World Trade Organization, another international group which supports free trade. The protests became a battle between police and demonstrators.

Charles and Evan say watching news footage of the "Battle of Seattle" piqued their interest in these global economic issues.

"It was a real turning point for me," says Evan. "Kids were getting gassed, the cops were in riot gear. Very few people here at school knew what it was about it."

The protesters in Seattle included activists from many backgrounds, including environmentalists, worker's rights groups and human rights advocates.

The media coverage of the chaos made people pay more attention to these global economic issues—including Evan and Scott, who got together and started trying to educate other students.

UNITED WE STAND

Charles and Evan are part of a growing wave of student organizing.

Activism has gathered strength on college campuses over the past few years as groups have pressured school administrations and companies to boycott clothes produced in oppressive factories, sometimes called sweat-shops, where workers are not paid a decent hourly wage or are forced to work in unsafe conditions.

Now, the activist spirit is being felt in high schools.

The International Student Activism Alliance, a new high school group which promotes peaceful protest, already has 160 chapters and thousands of members.

STARC (the Student Alliance to Reform Corporations) launched just five months ago already has 2,000 members from both high schools and colleges. They also advocate peaceful means of getting one's point across.

Groups like these have organized at lightning speed with the help of the Internet. Their causes differ—ranging from anti-sweat shop campaigns, to gay rights to environmental concerns—but they're linked by a desire to be a force for positive social change.

STAND AND BE COUNTED

SURGE, the student group Charles and Evan are part of, has chartered three buses to join the East Coast caravan to Washington D.C.

Charles says he's excited about being part of the action—but he's not planning to be in the front lines.

"This is a magnet school so if you get in any trouble at all, they can kick you out," he says.

And Evan says even if he doesn't wind up in a cloud of tear gas this weekend, he's already found a use for his gas mask.

"I used it in a photo project about environmental pollution … and the mask is also just pretty entertaining."

SIGNIFICANCE

The proponents of globalization and critics of globalization (anti-globalists) have been in conflict for years over the ways that globalization has developed. The effects of globalization on the poorest people and countries are at the heart of the dispute. The conflict centers around the role that governments, corporations, and individuals play in globalization and free trade while, at the same time, dealing with the social and environmental problems.

On one side are the anti-globalists, including activist groups as SURGE, that demonstrate against globalization, equity differences between rich and poor, and the methods by which the IMF/WB conduct business. Activist groups contend that the IMF/WB, which are termed "global loan sharks" by anti-globalists, often attract desperate countries for low-interest loans and then demand economic policies that actually worsen their countries. They criticize the IMF/WB for pushing globalization onto countries through methods that are imperialistic, unaccountable, and corporate-focused. Within these groups, globalization is seen as another term for Americanization because the United States is viewed as one of only a few countries that will profit from globalization. Rather than calling it free trade, anti-globalists talk of corporate-managed trade because poor countries are strictly managed concerning their trading practices. They contend that more people become poor because their native industries and natural resources, such as coasts, fisheries, forests, lands, and rivers, are degraded or destroyed so loans will not default.

The anti-globalists maintain that these poor countries spend so much money on interest payments that they are unable, or limited in their ability, to continue with social and human rights issues. They also declare that when countries deal with IMF/WB policies, the quality of the environment is often sacrificed. Responsibility to corporations, what is call corporate globalism, is seen as the primary force behind the IMF/WB rather than to the peoples of the debtor nations. Activists say that such policies make the division between the rich and the poor even wider.

On the other side of the debate are the pro-global-ists, including organizations such as the IMF and the WB. IMF/WB leaders state that they are making consistent and long-term progress in helping low-income countries become more prepared to live in the global economic market by increasing their financial growth and decreasing poverty levels. Such leaders contend that when loans are made with poor countries, the contract helps to deal with social issues. In the case of worker displacement, for instance, training programs are setup to re-train workers. Generally, pro-globalists declare that globalization efforts are helping advance poor countries that did not participate in the technological revolution of the twentieth century. As part of this practice, private companies are brought in to introduce new technologies, educational opportunities, and financial incentives to help countries become competitive.

In some cases, IMF/WB leaders state that countries have borrowed so much money that it is unlikely they will meet their obligations to repay the debt. In such cases, a certain amount of debt is removed so the country can return to investing in social and economic programs. In addition, pro-globalists contend that it is necessary to use readily available natural resources. In cases where non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels are used to create economic opportunity, environmental protection programs are also initiated.

In summary, pro-globalists contend that some problems, such as workers losing their jobs, inevitably occur in short term globalization, but that they can be solved over time, and healthy economic incentives will eventually bring more jobs and goods to a global market. Anti-globalists, on the other hand, contend that the progress of globalization is being strictly directed by large industry, and if left to develop on its own accord or by institutions with social consciences, different policies would be created that more equitably would address social, human rights, and environmental concerns.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books

Frieden, Jeffry A. Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.

Gerdes, Louise I., ed. Globalization. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2006.

Kadragic, Alma. Globalization and Human Rights. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea House, 2006.

Lemert, Charles C. Deadly Worlds: The Emotional Costs of Globalization. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006.

McDonald, Kevin. Global Movements: Action and Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Web sites

International Forum on Globalization (IFG). "Globalization." <http://www.ifg.org/analysis.htm> (accessed June 1, 2006).

International Monetary Fund (IMF). "Globalization: A Framework for IMF Involvement." March 2002 <http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2002/031502.htm> (accessed June 1, 2006).

Students United for a Responsible Global Environment (SURGE) <http://surgenetwork.org/> (accessed June 1, 2006).

The World Bank (WB). <http://www.worldbank.org/> (accessed June 1, 2006).