FW: n30/a16 - G77 ALLIANCE ?!

As even the most optimistic, if not naive, global activists argues, some of
the G-77 leaders are corrupt and using the so-called North-South gap (as
opposed to the core, semi-periphery, periphery gaps) to further their own
local ends.   The possibility of an alliance among the G-77, yet alone an
alliance *with* the G-77, could be expected to be as successful as any
regional attempt, such as the Organization for African Unity or Pan-African
Unity during this century.

In this current wave of IMF/World Bank criticism, is the G-77 going to heed
the advice of activists and do what they should, or take advantage of the
situation to demand reduced restrictions on how they use loans, which will
enable them to line their pockets even more than they have (needless to say
at the expense of the people of their countries)?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu]On
Behalf Of peoples@post4.tele.dk
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 6:12 PM
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
Subject: n30/a16 - G77 ALLIANCE ?!

At the same time as the many thousands of wonderful
dedicated young people in Washington so powerfully
convinced the IMF/WB and the world that Seattle had
only been the BEGINNING, the G77 comprising 133
poor countries "coincidentally" held a historic summit in
Havanna.

Its prominent leaders voiced full support of the protests
in Washington and its major concrete demands, debt
cancellation and fair trade, are identical with those of the
Mobilization for Global Justice.

Except for individual progressive leaders, the notion of the
summit naturally could not include the basic root of all
of the misery, the corporate rule, because many of the
133 governments are corrupt.

But with regard to the actual concrete policies there should
be all reason to seek a historic formal alliance with G77.

For instance, after an analysis of the money involved,
we could urge them all to collectively stop paying their
"debts" to the bloodsuckers.

Of course the analysis beforehand must confirm that the
consequent stop of annual aid from the rich countries
amounts to less than the total annual debt payments.

As the balance may be negative for some of the poor
countries, all of the 133 countries in solidarity should
set up a fund comprising all of the saved "debt" payments
and redistribute them so as to keep everybody indemnified.

Such fund has the additional merit of benefitting most the
countries that have bowed less to the imperialist "debt"
payment demands.

Another concrete issue for a formal alliance with G77
could be financial support from the G77 countries to
their citizens to participate in our actions.

No G77 country now can doubt that such comparatively
small money will pay a million times.

Ole Fjord Larsen,
member of United Peoples, http://www.unitedpeoples.net