The Washington Concensus!

[Joanne98]

The Economics of Empire

Notes on the Washington Consensus

WILLIAM FINNEGAN / Harper's Magazine May03

William Finnegan is the author of Cold New World. This article elaborates on ideas in an essay that will appear in The Fight Is for Democracy, a collection of original essays by nine writers to be published by HarperCollins in September.

In early March, President Bush, on the verge of declaring war on Iraq, was asked at a press conference why he thought "so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies." Mr. Bush replied, "I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been the president. I remember the protests against trade. There was a lot of people who didn't feel like free trade was good for the world. I completely disagree. I think free trade is good for both wealthy and impoverished nations. That didn't change my opinion about trade."


Mr. Bush's "opinion about trade" tends to pop up in unlikely places. Shortly after September 11, 2001, he declared, "The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and we will defeat them by expanding and encouraging world trade." This was an odd conflation, and the New York Times, reporting his words, felt obliged to flag the president's confusion with a delicate addendum "seeming to imply that trade was among the concerns of terrorists who brought down the towers." The United States trade representative, Robert B. Zoellick, was less delicate when he suggested in a speech around the same time that opponents of corporate-led globalization might have "intellectual connections with" the terrorists. The September 11 attacks were perpetrated, of course, by a genocidal death cult, not by unusually determined proponents of economic democracy.

But what the Bush Administration is signaling in these muddled formulations (and in many less muddled statements-and, for that matter, in many major policy initiatives) is its transcendent commitment to a set of fixed ideas about international trade, finance, politics, and economic development. These ideas form a dogma—George Soros calls it "market fundamentalism"-that, as dogmas do, purports to explain everything, to fold every event into itself.

Sometimes known as the Washington Consensus,* other times simply as "free trade," this gospel has been the main American ideological export since anti-Communism (to which it is related) lost strategic relevance. It is promulgated directly through U.S. foreign policy and indirectly through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. Its core tenets are deregulation, privatization, "openness" (to foreign investment, to imports), unrestricted movement of capital, and lower taxes. Presented with special force to developing countries as a formula for economic management, it is also, in its fullness, a theory of how the world should be run, under American supervision. Attacking America is, therefore, attacking the theory, and attacking the theory is attacking America.

* The term was coined in 1989 by John Williamson, of the Institute for International Economics, to describe the conventional wisdom at the U.S. Treasury Department, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund on policy reforms that would aid development in Latin America. Williamson later expressed dismay at the "populist definition, "as he called it, of the term that had taken hold in public debate, where the Washington Consensus became synonymous with market fundamentalism, globally applied.

The possibility that the Marines and high-altitude bombers might need to be involved in spreading the good news about free trade does not, in context, seem far-fetched. Consider "The National Security Strategy of the United States," issued by the White House in September 2002. Presidents are required to submit a security strategy periodically to Congress, but the Bush edition received an unusual amount of attention because of its unprecedented assertion of an American right to strike U.S. enemies preemptively, as well as its vow to maintain American military supremacy over all rivals indefinitely. Just as notable, however, in another way, was the repeated, incongruous insertion of fundamentalist freetrade precepts. The Strategy claims to have discovered "a single sustainable model for national success"-the Washington Consensus.
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/Economics-Of-EmpireMay03.htm

Previous thread...The Clintons and the Cheneys
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2533968

[malaise]

1. As a victim of the fugged up Washington Consensus

I can tell you it destroys all local industries, makes currencies worthless and annihilates the social safety net for citizens. It is imperialistic corporatism on steroids.

[SpiralHawk]

2. The Shock Doctrine - Extreme Capitalism

"All you noisy proles can just shut up and sit down while we 'elite' cronies run the show. Smirk."

- Commander "Silver Spoon" AWOL,
Official Puppet, Skull & Boner Occult Brigade of Republicon Chickenhawks

[Peace Patriot]

3. See Donald Rumfeld's 12/1 WaPo op-ed, declaring economic & military war on

Venezuela.

Let there be no mistake. The two kinds of warfare go hand in hand. And when a third world country rejects the "Washington Consensus" and fights back, and especially if they have lots of oil, then Rumsfeld wants the U.S. to act "swiftly" in support of "friends and allies" to defeat them.

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Definitions:

"Tyrant": Democratically elected, and hugely popular, leader, who doesn't agree with the "Washington Consensus" and is providing inspiration and practical strategies to his country's neighbors aimed at Latin American independence and self-determination, as well as strong leadership toward the use of local resources (oil, gas, etc.) to help the poor--the vast numbers of people impoverished by the "Washington Consensus."

"Friends and allies": Fascist thugs and their rightwing political and paramilitary groups, funded and armed by the Bush Junta (with our tax dollars) who organize fascist coups, on behalf of Exxon Mobile et al, so they can regain wrongful control of the Andes oil fields.

The U.S. acting "swiftly": U.S. military intervention in support of fascist coups in South America, after the few remaining "checks and balances" in OUR government system are finally destroyed (for instance, that fusty old Congress, some members of which oppose "free trade" with Colombia, cuz, in Colombia, they chainsaw union leaders and throw their body parts into mass graves--the kind of government that Rumsfeld adores, and upon which the Bush Junta has larded billions of our tax dollars in military aid). Acting "swiftly" means no debate, no rule of law, the emperor acting by fiat to acquire territories and resources that don't belong to him or his super-rich buds.

-----

South America is Theater II of the Corporate Resource War. You wondered what Donald Rumsfeld might be doing in his "retirement"? He's planning a war to impose global corporate predation ("free trade") on resisting countries, and is no doubt using billions of our tax dollars 'disappeared' in Iraq for this purpose. The Bushites are paying rightwing political groups in South America directly through USAID/NED budgets (our tax dollars) and are funding paramilitaries, and engaging in weapons/drugs trafficking and other destabilization projects, with covert budgets. The billions stolen in Iraq are EXTRA booty for whatever solely private measures they deem necessary to destroy democracy in South America and topple or kill its elected leaders. Example: The recent covert op of $800,000 in cash in a suitcase whose carrier was caught at the Argentine border, and whatever it took to buy the U.S. Attorney in Miami who is claiming that the money was from the Chavez government to the political campaign of Cristina Fernandez Kirchner (a Chavez ally) for president of Argentina. (She won, by the way--and didn't need this cash to do so.) (You wonder what business the U.S. Attorney in Miami has being involved in this situation? Answer: none.)

Another likely example: Mysterious, unidentified shooters stalked a FARC (armed leftist guerrilla) camp, in Colombia, a few months ago, and killed the hostages that FARC was holding--possible rehearsal for killing hostages, FARC members and even hostage negotiator Hugo Chavez--creating chaos, a crossfire situation, a debacle--in the more recent hostage negotiations. Rumsfeld mentions the recent Chavez hostage negotiation in his op-ed, which leads me to suspect that a covert op was planned and foiled. He tries to make Chavez out as the bad guy, but nobody else in the world agrees, including the hostages' families, who credit Chavez with getting "proof of life" and ALMOST getting the hostages released, until Bush tool Alvaro Uribe (prez of Colombia) stopped the negotiation, using a lame excuse (no doubt at the direction of the Bush Junta). There is still hope that some of the hostages will be released, in the next few days, but Chavez and the Venezuelan government are being (and have to be) extremely careful about security, with Rumsfeld (with all that stolen U.S. cash) and the Bushites (with all their black budgets), and their local fascist thug allies (fat with Bush--U.S. taxpayer--largess), determined to sabotage any such diplomatic triumph for Chavez.

There are many other examples I could cite, but these two seem particularly Rumsfeldian. They are aimed at smearing, discrediting and toppling the Chavez government, and any of its allies (such as Argentina), and also (the second one) at creating opportunities to kill Chavez (such as the FARC negotiation). In Bolivia, U.S. black budget operatives are aiming to create a civil war between the rich rural landowners (where the oil and gas are), and the central government (now headed by 100% indigenous indian Evo Morales, another Chavez ally). The U.S. (Bush Junta) also actively supported the violent rightwing military coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, the crippling oil professionals' strike, the 2004 recall election against Chavez, and the recent rightwing campaign against a constitutional referendum (vote of the people) proposed by the Chavez government. Chavez has won re-election as president--and a defeated the recall--by large margins, lost the recent constitutional referendum by a hair (less than one percent), but remains very popular, with a 70% approval rating. And this, of course, is why they have to use dirty tricks and black ops to try to remove this very popular and visionary leader from power, who opposes "free trade" and supports FAIR trade.

FAIR trade? What's that? Well, it's what our revolutionary founders were asserting against the British East India Company--the global corporate predator of its day. No monopolies. No price-fixing. An even playing field for smaller businesses. Close-to-home creation of trade policy, where social responsibility is enforced. And--relevant to the Bushite-corporate controlled "TRADE SECRET" voting machines installed all over the U.S. during the 2002 to 2004 period--no taxation without representation. Fair trade = democracy. "Free trade' = piracy, looting, predatory capitalism on a massive scale, and corporate/fascist control of governments.

The "Washington Consensus" is fundamentally, profoundly un-democratic. That's why they hate Chavez and want to disenfranchise his supporters, as they have disenfranchised us here in the north.

---------------------------------------

THROW DIEBOLD/ES&S AND ALL THESE ELECTION THEFT MACHINES INTO 'BOSTON HARBOR' NOW--if you want democracy in the U.S. of A.