Because I didn't raise my hand high enough...

... and because my bike ride home wasn't long enough, get ready for some angry ranting on free trade. I just attended a showing of the film Maquilapolis. One I highly recommend seeing if you get a chance. The film itself was great. It was produced by a group of women in Tijuana Mexico and a few directors from the United States. In beautiful (and disturbing) images and strong narrative it tells the experience of women working in factories on the US/Mexico Border. The film does a great job of showing the agency that the women use to fight corporate and government giants without romanticizing the story, or the poverty. What so enraged me was the discussion afterwards. It is all mezclado en mi cabeza (mixed up in my head) so let me lay out a few points.

FREE Trade is only free for the corporations. the movie did a great job of showing how the North American Free Trade Agreement put companies above both human beings and governments. In the discussion a few clauses were brought up to illustrate this. One is that the companies that bring factories in cannot be held accountable for the development or protection of the surrounding communities. Meaning, there is no responsibility for creating healthy or safe housing/infrastructure/communities for maquiladora workers. Also there is no way to hold the companies accountable for pollution that affects surrounding communities. (Yes there are environmental and labor side accords, but both have proven to be utterly useless) The women in the movie were bound to their $10 a day labor by the need for basic necessities that they still could not afford. NAFTA includes no protection for workers rights or for immigration rights. NAFTA also inhibits government from creating and enforcing certain environmental and labor laws.

So on person made the point that i have so often heard..."Isn't it better that these people at least have job even if they are bad? If the industries weren't there, they would have no jobs at all?" this level of thinking always infuriates me. Lets take the question one step further. Why would the people of Mexico, or China, or Indonesia not have jobs to begin with? Why must they have jobs. We could go back ten years, or thousands of years on this one. The ten year answer for Mexico at least would have to include how NAFTA forced Mexico to open its market to corn grown in the United States. While the US government could afford to subsidize corn production, thus driving down prices, the Mexican government was trying to pay off debt to the IMF. Though the NAFTA agreement had been for a slow introduction of US corn that piece was ignored and soon Mexican markets were flooded with cheap subsidized corn from the United States. This put millions of Mexican farmers out of business, forcing them to leave the country side and flood the urban areas. This created an influx of workers that exceeded demand, thus creating the perfect scene for multinationals to come in and exploit the situation and get cheap labor out of the deal.

Disposability - the above described scenario made workers disposable. I once read a chilling article about maquiladora workers that described how they were comodified and objectified. Women have always been preferred in these factories for their small hands, patience, and passiveness. Younger women are even preferred for their good eyesight. Once these qualities of eyesight, energy and dexterity wear out the women are discarded. Like a machine that no longer functions they are simply thrown out. this was made sadly and poignantly made clear by a series of murders in the late 90s of maquiladora workers.

The other thing that was made clear in the film that only one person was willing to bring up in the discussion was the differing standards we set for US Americans (frequently limited to white, middle class) and people from other countries. It is ok for them to have lower environmental standards, in fact we are going to hold them accountable for it although it helps keep the prices of the things we buy down. And really they should be grateful for those jobs where they are exposed to chemicals, not allowed to drink water or use the restroom and are paid almost nothing. Inherent is the idea that this is all good enough for "them." An idea riddled with racism.

Most frustrating was watching people grapple with how to make this better within the free trade and capitalist framework. One person suggested offering voluntary measures that companies could take to make things better - nice idea except that such a small percentage of companies would volunteer for such a thing. Someone else suggested laws forcing companies to invest more in communities. That might make the system kinder, but it will not change the fact that labor (meaning human beings) and the environment (also affecting human beings and many other things) are considered exploitable and disposable in a world where profit reigns as king. People really sat there scratching their heads trying to figure out how to maintain fair competition for companies while making life a little better for humans. Never mind any equity or fairness for people. I don't claim to have any perfect answers for all of this, but i am convinced that they won't be found in the sacred hallows of free trade.

Do something that doesn't work....

I was having a conversation with my mother the other night. My mom is great. She has this amazing ability to draw wisdom out of others. It is really quite magical. Anyway, we were having the often had conversation about how social change really happens, and how, as an individual, we can contribute towards social change. She asked me what she should do. First I told her to join a community or organization that is doing something she believes in. Then I told her to do something that doesn't work. Which isn't really what I meant. I should have said, you have to be willing to do something that doesn't work, or doesn't work at first.

I think when we look back at history we only hear the stories about the parts of things that were successful. When learning about the Civil Rights Movement the success stories get all the air time, the thousands of attempted projects are never spoken of. It creates a false consciousness about social change. It makes it sound like it was clear and easy, that the battles were well planned and executed perfectly.

The reality is that social change is messy and hard. there are never enough people, never enough money, never enough hours in the day, and almost never a clear plan or idea. Nothing comes with guaranteed success.

Sometimes I think we are waiting for some magic plan, some perfect organization, or just the right moment to step in and do our part. We excuse our inaction by saying that action is pointless, that it does not work, that we are up against too much. We don't want to choose a team til we know which one is winning.

Instead, we need to be willing to be a part of something that doesn't work. We can send letters to representatives even if we are convinced it won't change their mind. We can go to the protest even if we think that one more body won't make that much difference. We can ask someone not to make a racist joke even if we think they will just do it in our absence anyway.

For me, there are at least three reasons to be a part of something that might not be working right now. One, it might work. You never know if you will be the person that turns a group into a critical mass. Also, something that is not working now might change into something that does work. Second, you have to include the impact your efforts have beyond just the stated goal. Maybe others who see you trying will be inspired to try as well, maybe you will learn something new in the process, or meet a wonderful person. There are lots of benefits that happen along the way.

Finally, for me at least, to not try is not an option. As long as I know what I know about the world, I have to be trying to change it in some way whether i am "successful" or not. It is the only way i can get out of bed in the morning.

The Hidden Face of Foreign Aid Work

There are so many things that could be said about this article. But I will focus on the main points. That of the non-profit world existing as a profit making industry. And yes, some will argue in countries that are void of sustainable economies, any industry is good. But we must ask who this industry really benefits and who it does not. If our foreign aid dollars are going into sushi and SUVs instead of material aid for those in need - what good is that doing. How much do those in the non-profit, international sector depend on poverty and crisis for their own livelihood? Thinking of some of the recent posts on Haiti, what policies are the World Bank, IMF and United States enforcing that create the poverty expats get paid to try to alleviate. On the Haiti note, my friend who recently returned from 6 months there noticed a stark contrast in the living situation of herself and the World Bank folks who worked there that would be reflective of what this article is about. Sorry, this isn't clear. Read the article, ask yourself some questions, see where it gets you.

In Postwar Liberia, Paradise Amid the Poverty
Feelings Mixed as Aid Workers Live Well

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 30, 2008; A01

MONROVIA, Liberia -- The second sushi bar to open in ragged postwar Liberia did not settle for having its chefs wear simple T-shirts, or for serving $25 worth of sliced fish on plain white plates.

Instead, the Barracuda Bar -- the new favorite hangout of ambassadors, U.N. officials and legions of aid workers whose shiny white SUVs jam the parking lot most nights -- opted to dress its staff in Japanese-style robes and red bandannas. Bigger orders of salmon and yellowtail arrived not on flatware but on little wooden sushi boats. Lobsters languished sullenly in a tank near the door, waving their antennae as customers walked by.

As this impoverished country climbs its way back from 13 years of civil war with the tiniest of steps, a boom is underway in the industries that cater to the rarified tastes of thousands of mostly European and U.S. expatriates who have come to help since peace arrived in 2003. The increasingly visible splendors available to this relatively wealthy group have left some Liberians wondering whether the foreigners are here to serve the nation or themselves.

"They drive the best of car, go to the best of entertainment center," said Allen Weedor, 42, the Liberian manager of a modest bar in a poor neighborhood on the outskirts of town. "You can't really see what they've done." Full Story

In Response...

So shortly after reading and posting that last article, I came across a recent interview on Democracy Now! with Paul Farmer, founder of Partners in Health and the author of several books addressing social justice and health care. I found the discussion pertinent to the other article and wanted to share. In this particular section he talks about the system they developed in Haiti and how it in many ways provides better care than what is offered in the United States...

And the system that we built up in the ’80s, really confronting another disease, tuberculosis, relied very heavily on community health workers, who we trained and, more to the point, we paid. You know, we thought, you know, do we expropriate the labor of the poor, or do we actually pay them, like someone like I would get paid a fortune to do consulting work like this. And we said no, no, no, it’s clear they have to be our employees and coworkers. So it worked great. And it worked great for tuberculosis. It worked great for other chronic diseases. And when AIDS came along, what we did was to say, well, clearly, we need to take the same system, which is free diagnosis and free care to the patient, because this is a public health problem, and they have a community health worker, you know, visiting them.
Entire Interview

The Wealthiest Country in the World?

On my daily rounds of BBC news, this item caught my eye. I wish that I was surprised, but I am not.

Medical charity helping US poor

By Jonathan Beale BBC News, Tennessee

Stan Brock is like a 21st-Century Florence Nightingale.

RAM's vintage plane was used to drop troops on D-Day

He started a charity - Remote Area Medical (RAM) - more than 20 years ago to bring relief to those cut off from healthcare.

Originally it was to help poor tribes in the former British colony of Guyana, South America.

That is where he lived after leaving Preston, Lancashire, more than half a century ago - he still is a British citizen.

But now Stan spends most of his time bringing relief to the richest country in the world. Full article