english.pravda.ru 10:00 2003-02-03

The leader of the pacifist movements in sixties and one of the most relevant figures of the anti-globalization groups in an exclusive interview for PRAVDA.Ru

"You know, I've met Noam Chomsky in Porto Alegre. He was giving a conference there and I came across with him. I haven?t seen him for 35 year. Even when he's got an excellent photographic memory, he did not recognize me. Maybe for the goatee." Tom Hayden is now 63 and has been a social rights activist since he was at the University, forty years ago. He became worldwide famous as the leader of the Chicago Seven, a group of students that broke into the Democrat National Convention in 1968 to protest against the war in Vietnam. Since then, his name is linked with the activism for labor and social rights.

Times are different now, but not at all. There's still something to fight for, maybe the world is now more unjust than in the sixties. The mankind is again in the eve of a war, maybe more cruel and destructive than the one that took Hayden to the streets in the 1960's. Iraq proves that the USA has not learned too much from Vietnam and its will to control world's natural resources remains the same. So there is Tom Hayden. He, as hundred of thousands of anti-globalization activist, keep on fighting for a better world.

Q. How did you become an active militant of the anti-globalization movement?

I was very involved in the demonstrations in Seattle in 1999, at the time I was member of the California State legislature. I believed then and I still believe that the World Trade Organization is a menace to Democracy. Specifically, it has the power to subvert or override laws concerning labor standards, environmental standards, water quality and so on. So I joined the pro-Democracy and Anti-globalization movement.

Q. What does the Anti-Globalization movement mean?

A. Globalization is an arrangement for a new international set of laws and they favor investor rights and property rights for purposes of world trade. The anti-globalization movement is for a global justice. It's not just protectionism or nationalism. We believe that international order should include protections for labor, Human Rights and environment. To be more specific, under globalization by the WTO, high tech companies, computer companies, CD manufacturers, all have written themselves very strong enforceable laws concerning their property rights. But there are no enforceable rights for the teenage workers that make those videocassettes. So, globalization is uncompleted, unjust and unbalanced until you have protections for workers.

Q. Why a person from the USA should join the Anti-Globalization movement?

A. They say that the young people is very upset about the world they are inheriting from the older generation and they feel that it is completely unjust. They don't want to be part of it. It is a simply moral issue for them. They also know that our Government is trying to create an empire: militarizing and globalizing at the same time. This means wars that the young Americans will have to serve in and perhaps die in for purposes that are questionable and dubious. It means a military budget that is the biggest in the History of the world. It means that the money from the military budget is subtracted on what can be spend in education, in the environment or in the health care. There are a lot of unfinished businesses in the United States. They know that the expending in the military budget means there'll be less money for programs like Lula's proposal for making sure that everybody in the world has three meals a day. So they know that. They know that the clothes they wear are made by teenagers. It is not unusual for people in the US to have idealistic expectations and to think beyond narrow national and personal interests. But it is also a practical matter. You can think it on this way: all the generations in the US is borrowing all from its children, borrowing from the future.

Q. Do you think Bush is going to attack Iraq? And if so, what should the anti-globalization movement do?

A. Well, the question is hard to answer as every day brings us fresh news. I agree with those who say that Bush wants war and that is prepared to do everything to have his way. On the other hand, anti-war movement in the USA is bigger this time than it was at the beginning of the Vietnam War. The support for the war comes from the hard line republican pro-Bush partisans. They want to create a protectorate in the Middle East, in Baghdad, from which they would control oil supplies and they will be entitled to overthrow Iran and Syria and destroy Hezbollah and impose a settlement on the Palestinians. Now we've sent 250.000 troops there. If Bush calls the war off, it is like surrender for his point of view.

Q.Is the Free Trade Zone of the Americas part of this building up of an Empire?

A.Yes. NAFTA was Canada, the USA and Mexico, has been a disaster. The unemployment in Mexico is much higher than at the beginning of NAFTA. The middle class has collapsed in Mexico. Millions of farmers have been ruined because of the flood of imports from the USA. The immigration crisis is getting worse because the US imports cause more immigrants to leave places like Chiapas. Probably 3.000 people have died in the border since NAFTA and they do not count same numbers at the World Trade Center. They also do not count the bodies on the Mexican side of the border, so it is probably worse. ALCA is a NAFTA expanded is like NAFTA and asteroids growing in all Latin America. In Cancun, they will try to consolidate the Agricultural Agreement, which allows the USA to subsidize agriculture by many millions of Dollars. It is direct threat to agriculture in Southern Latin America: Brazil, Argentina. But in addition, they want to privatize electricity rates, services, and even education. It means that Government's subsidies to essential services in the public interest will be considered discrimination in ALCA, because they will discriminate against the property right.

Q.With the above in mind, is there something that Russia could obtain from globalization?

A. For the Russians the term globalization may have another meaning. The Russians are not anti-globalization; they want to be part of it and not to be isolated. I understand and agree with that. But without going back to the policies of the former Soviet Union I hope that the Russian government and policies will push forward an independent, sovereign, Russian rule in this international order. I would hope that the Russian do not have their natural resources rapped by multinationals and their very rich national heritage replaced by McDonald's. I am sure that the Russians will feel on the same way. So in absence the anti-globalization, unless globalization includes respect for the dignity of Russian national culture, Russian sovereignty over their own natural resources. The purpose of Russia is not to become a colony of the United States but this is what US led globalization will intend.

As he says, he is not a globetrotter. Tom Hayden is a fighter trying to learn from the new movements. Such spirit led him to South America: to Porto Alegre first and to Argentina then, to see the new forms of social fight. He will come back to Los Angeles to keep on learning from the struggle of the poor. As in Chicago in 1968, he will stand for people rights in the FTAA meeting in Miami and in the WTO summit in Cancun in November. As time goes by the fight remains the same.

Tom Hayden was interviewed by Hernan Etchaleco PRAVDA.Ru Argentina

abcnews.go.com Feb. 7 — By Pablo Bachelet

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As it prepares for possible war on Iraq, the White House has only won tepid support from its allies in Latin America.

Rather than embrace the Bush administration's call for action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Chile and Mexico, both members of the Security Council, want to give United Nations arms inspectors more time.

"We are in favor of intensifying and strengthening those inspections," said Luis Ernest Derbez, Mexico's foreign minister, after Secretary of State Colin Powell presented intelligence in a speech to the United Nations that he said showed Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Brazil and Argentina have issued public statements calling for multilateral action on Iraq.

While Latin American reluctance to back a tough U.S. stance on Iraq partly reflects historical reservations about U.S. unilateralism, many analysts point to a feeling that the United States has failed to live up to its promises to the region.

Latin America's Iraq posture "was predictable because of the baggage of U.S. military intervention in Latin America," said Michael Shifter, of the Interamerican Dialogue, a Washington think-tank. "And another part of it is that Latin America feels the United States hasn't followed through on its commitments."

The United States has a history of intervention in countries such as Cuba and Chile, but this was set to change as President Bush ushered in what he called the century of the Americas. Washington was to lead the way with initiatives such as a free trade area and an immigration pact with Mexico.

Then, after Sept. 11, Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism, North Korea and Iraq.

Day-to-day handling of Latin American affairs devolved to mid-level officials at a time when the region was struggling with economic stagnation and a string of crises.

Mexico was irked when U.S. officials went cool on the migration deal. The Venezuelan economy is in shambles following a long strike against President Hugo Chavez and Argentina is slowly emerging from its worst recession its history.

Brazil came close to a default on its foreign debt and voters in Ecuador and Brazil showed their unhappiness by turning to leaders with populist credentials.

"It's easy to see when Bush is saying so much about the Middle East and North Korea and very little about Mexico or Argentina or Venezuela or Colombia, that perhaps there's something wrong," said Stephen Johnson, of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.

SOME POSITIVE ASPECTS

But Johnson said there had been some positive aspects to U.S.-Latin American relations. Bush has met with many Latin American leaders, including Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a socialist.

Bush managed to pass a trade bill that paved the way for a free trade pact with Chile and set the scene for a pact with the rest of Latin America. The administration also won bipartisan support for increased aid to Colombia.

But Arturo Valenzuela, director of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University, said these gains were attributable to a "sophisticated bureaucracy" implementing policies already in place rather than breaking new ground.

"The boxes are still being checked, the memos are still being sent out," he said.

What's lacking, he said, is a strong U.S. response to Latin America's ills. "You have to be proactive in a crisis."

"If you have a senior person that wants to work on these issues and shows interest, then things can be done," said the Interamerican Dialogue's Shifter.

In the end, Latin Americans may want an old fashioned diplomatic quid pro quo before endorsing Bush's stance on Iraq. "If the United States has not shown sensitivity to Latin America's problems, then its hard for Latin Americans to fully support where the U.S. is going," Shifter said.

abcnews.go.com Feb. 7 — By Pablo Bachelet

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As it prepares for possible war on Iraq, the White House has only won tepid support from its allies in Latin America.

Rather than embrace the Bush administration's call for action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Chile and Mexico, both members of the Security Council, want to give United Nations arms inspectors more time.

"We are in favor of intensifying and strengthening those inspections," said Luis Ernest Derbez, Mexico's foreign minister, after Secretary of State Colin Powell presented intelligence in a speech to the United Nations that he said showed Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Brazil and Argentina have issued public statements calling for multilateral action on Iraq.

While Latin American reluctance to back a tough U.S. stance on Iraq partly reflects historical reservations about U.S. unilateralism, many analysts point to a feeling that the United States has failed to live up to its promises to the region.

Latin America's Iraq posture "was predictable because of the baggage of U.S. military intervention in Latin America," said Michael Shifter, of the Interamerican Dialogue, a Washington think-tank. "And another part of it is that Latin America feels the United States hasn't followed through on its commitments."

The United States has a history of intervention in countries such as Cuba and Chile, but this was set to change as President Bush ushered in what he called the century of the Americas. Washington was to lead the way with initiatives such as a free trade area and an immigration pact with Mexico.

Then, after Sept. 11, Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism, North Korea and Iraq.

Day-to-day handling of Latin American affairs devolved to mid-level officials at a time when the region was struggling with economic stagnation and a string of crises.

Mexico was irked when U.S. officials went cool on the migration deal. The Venezuelan economy is in shambles following a long strike against President Hugo Chavez and Argentina is slowly emerging from its worst recession its history.

Brazil came close to a default on its foreign debt and voters in Ecuador and Brazil showed their unhappiness by turning to leaders with populist credentials.

"It's easy to see when Bush is saying so much about the Middle East and North Korea and very little about Mexico or Argentina or Venezuela or Colombia, that perhaps there's something wrong," said Stephen Johnson, of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.

SOME POSITIVE ASPECTS

But Johnson said there had been some positive aspects to U.S.-Latin American relations. Bush has met with many Latin American leaders, including Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a socialist.

Bush managed to pass a trade bill that paved the way for a free trade pact with Chile and set the scene for a pact with the rest of Latin America. The administration also won bipartisan support for increased aid to Colombia.

But Arturo Valenzuela, director of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University, said these gains were attributable to a "sophisticated bureaucracy" implementing policies already in place rather than breaking new ground.

"The boxes are still being checked, the memos are still being sent out," he said.

What's lacking, he said, is a strong U.S. response to Latin America's ills. "You have to be proactive in a crisis."

"If you have a senior person that wants to work on these issues and shows interest, then things can be done," said the Interamerican Dialogue's Shifter.

In the end, Latin Americans may want an old fashioned diplomatic quid pro quo before endorsing Bush's stance on Iraq. "If the United States has not shown sensitivity to Latin America's problems, then its hard for Latin Americans to fully support where the U.S. is going," Shifter said.

www.alertnet.org NEWSDESK   07 Feb 2003 16:08

By Amy Taxin

QUITO, Ecuador, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Ecuador's new President Lucio Gutierrez heads to Washington on Sunday seeking aid to keep his poor nation away from the brink of economic crisis and develop and patrol its porous border with war-torn Colombia.

Gutierrez, who has adopted tight fiscal measures since he took office on Jan. 15, will meet U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday requesting help to ease the Andean nation's budget crunch and debt burden, but security issues are expected to be the main focus for the United States.

To boost state coffers, left-leaning Gutierrez has adopted market-oriented but unpopular moves such as price hikes that have stirred dissent in his coalition of poor Indians and unions. Gutierrez -- a retired army colonel who led a coup three years ago -- has cut his own salary by 20 percent and jogged to work to save on gasoline costs.

Less than a month in the presidency, Gutierrez he has scored a preliminary agreement with the International Monetary Fund for a $500 million multilateral aid package that investors say will steer Ecuador away from a possible debt default.

Government officials hope the Bush meeting -- a sign of improving bilateral ties -- will keep doors open for credits and private sector investments to help reduce poverty that affects 60 percent of the population.

Our goal is to "ratify that with our government, Ecuador is a trustworthy country, with legal securities for investment," Patricio Acosta, general secretary of the administration and regarded as Gutierrez's right-hand man, told Reuters.

The trip also seeks funds to develop and patrol the border area with Colombia -- where drug smugglers and guerrillas operate -- Acosta said. Ecuador, which has one of South America's smallest economies, received about $25 million in border development funds from the United States last year, according to a U.S. embassy spokesman.

Gutierrez, who faces protests at home over his economic policies, has played up the visit after his predecessor Gustavo Noboa could not get face time with the leader of the world's No. 1 economy. He is also planning to meet several top U.S. officials despite the Bush administration's focus with plans fro a possible war to disarm Iraq of allegedly illegal arms.

The visit comes as leftists have gained momentum in Latin America, with Gutierrez and Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a former metalworker, coming to power in January to form an informal front alongside Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez.

Gutierrez will also meet with IMF Managing Director Horst Koehler and other multilateral lender officials before traveling to New York to meet with private investors.

AMERICAN AGENDA

Political analysts say Washington will likely seek to discuss the drug-fueled war in Colombia with Gutierrez. The U.S. currently runs anti-narcotics surveillance operations for the Andean region out of a coastal air force base in Ecuador.

Ecuador is not a drug-producing country, unlike nearby Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, but is a site of drug transit.

Ecuador is one of Latin America's most unstable nations and has toppled two of its elected presidents amid popular uprisings in the last few years.

"The U.S. agenda prioritizes security issues, then issues of democracy and in third place, commercial matters," political analyst at FLACSO university Adrian Bonilla told Reuters.

A U.S. embassy spokesman in Quito said Gutierrez had made strides to show his interest in speaking with the Bush administration and improving ties with the United States. His predecessor was a vocal critic of several U.S. policies.

"Gutierrez has said he's ready to talk to the IMF, he's ready to talk to the U.S. He wants to improve the relationship. Why would you not want to do whatever you could to take him up on his offer?" he told Reuters.

www.alertnet.org NEWSDESK   07 Feb 2003 16:08

By Amy Taxin

QUITO, Ecuador, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Ecuador's new President Lucio Gutierrez heads to Washington on Sunday seeking aid to keep his poor nation away from the brink of economic crisis and develop and patrol its porous border with war-torn Colombia.

Gutierrez, who has adopted tight fiscal measures since he took office on Jan. 15, will meet U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday requesting help to ease the Andean nation's budget crunch and debt burden, but security issues are expected to be the main focus for the United States.

To boost state coffers, left-leaning Gutierrez has adopted market-oriented but unpopular moves such as price hikes that have stirred dissent in his coalition of poor Indians and unions. Gutierrez -- a retired army colonel who led a coup three years ago -- has cut his own salary by 20 percent and jogged to work to save on gasoline costs.

Less than a month in the presidency, Gutierrez he has scored a preliminary agreement with the International Monetary Fund for a $500 million multilateral aid package that investors say will steer Ecuador away from a possible debt default.

Government officials hope the Bush meeting -- a sign of improving bilateral ties -- will keep doors open for credits and private sector investments to help reduce poverty that affects 60 percent of the population.

Our goal is to "ratify that with our government, Ecuador is a trustworthy country, with legal securities for investment," Patricio Acosta, general secretary of the administration and regarded as Gutierrez's right-hand man, told Reuters.

The trip also seeks funds to develop and patrol the border area with Colombia -- where drug smugglers and guerrillas operate -- Acosta said. Ecuador, which has one of South America's smallest economies, received about $25 million in border development funds from the United States last year, according to a U.S. embassy spokesman.

Gutierrez, who faces protests at home over his economic policies, has played up the visit after his predecessor Gustavo Noboa could not get face time with the leader of the world's No. 1 economy. He is also planning to meet several top U.S. officials despite the Bush administration's focus with plans fro a possible war to disarm Iraq of allegedly illegal arms.

The visit comes as leftists have gained momentum in Latin America, with Gutierrez and Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a former metalworker, coming to power in January to form an informal front alongside Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez.

Gutierrez will also meet with IMF Managing Director Horst Koehler and other multilateral lender officials before traveling to New York to meet with private investors.

AMERICAN AGENDA

Political analysts say Washington will likely seek to discuss the drug-fueled war in Colombia with Gutierrez. The U.S. currently runs anti-narcotics surveillance operations for the Andean region out of a coastal air force base in Ecuador.

Ecuador is not a drug-producing country, unlike nearby Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, but is a site of drug transit.

Ecuador is one of Latin America's most unstable nations and has toppled two of its elected presidents amid popular uprisings in the last few years.

"The U.S. agenda prioritizes security issues, then issues of democracy and in third place, commercial matters," political analyst at FLACSO university Adrian Bonilla told Reuters.

A U.S. embassy spokesman in Quito said Gutierrez had made strides to show his interest in speaking with the Bush administration and improving ties with the United States. His predecessor was a vocal critic of several U.S. policies.

"Gutierrez has said he's ready to talk to the IMF, he's ready to talk to the U.S. He wants to improve the relationship. Why would you not want to do whatever you could to take him up on his offer?" he told Reuters.