DEC/JAN 2002
Thoughts
in the Presence of Fear
Wendell Berry
The
Prospect of Peace
Daisaku Ikeda
Reducing
Dependence On Oil Will Ensure America's National Security
US
Civil Rights in Serious Jeopardy
Michael Ratner
Engineering
Consent on the Domestic Front
Danny Schecter
The
Emperor is Naked
Don Kyhote
Green
View of Fundamentalism vs. Modernism
Kelpie Wilson
The
One Eternal Truth
John Darling
World
Trade Organization Continues to Fail
Danila Oder
McKenzie
River Gathering: Funding Change for 25 Years
Richard Seidman
Dreams
and Visions: The Fountain of Wisdom
Royal D. Alsup, Ph.D.
From
Survival to Serenity
Ianna Bredal, MBA
Environmental
Film Festival Coming to Ashland
Barry Snitkin
Herbal
Help for Winter Weather
Chanchal Cabrera, MNIMH, AHG
How
to Make the Most Out of Your Therapy
Julie Weber, MSW
Taking
Aim at Blame
Peter Moore, MFCC, CGP
Understanding
Problem Behaviors of Animals
Jocelyn Y. Whidden
The
Christmas Presence
Peter Melton
Cosmic
Calendar
Salina Rain
Deborah
Mokma, Editor
0f the many barriers to peace, greed may be one of the most important to address. Daisaku Ikeda, in the first chapter of The Prospect of Peace says, “The twentieth century began in midst of vicious power clashes for domination and colonial expansion among the great powers … these competing powers unashamedly and cruelly snatch up other people’s land at the slightest opportunity. Their struggle for dominance spawned not only two world wars but also the Cold War.” I believe we Americans share some of this responsibility as well. In our desire for ever more material possessions—which waste precious natural resources, utilize overseas sweatshops, and cause inequitable distribution of wealth—we ignore the repercussions which reverberate throughout the rest of world.
One of the greatest tragedies of modern times is that so much violence, hatred and war is actually preventable. The commercial vision of globalization, propelled by US foreign policy, seeks a homogenized world of newly created consumers, ignoring the destruction of cultures and environmental damage which inevitably result.
Until our priorities change not only will we not be safe from terrorists, we also will not be safe from the environmental crises, including global warming, which we have created in our need/greed for more. The destruction of the Taliban won’t solve this problem, removing civil rights won’t either. The reasons for this mess are clearly of our own making, and we’ve got to “unmake” them in ways that go deeply to the roots of the problem.
Rather than protecting us, our leaders are making the world more unsafe. And it really could be so very simple to change the equation. Rather than providing unbalanced assistance to developing nations through organizations like the World Bank which demand that they follow a “one size fits all approach”—which ultimately destroys cultures, moves people off the land and into cities, while creating a wealthier elite and poorer poor—real assistance with public health, local economies, education and inspiration could be offered.
It is untrue that this goal is too costly. The cost of our initial military response in Afghanistan will easily be $100 billion (this in addition to our annual defense budget of $342 billion). In 1998, the United Nations Development Program estimated that it would cost $9 billion above current expenditures to provide clean water and sanitation for everyone on Earth. It would cost an additional $12 billion, they said, to cover reproductive health services for all women worldwide. Another $13 billion would be enough not only to give every person on the planet enough food to eat, but also basic health care. An additional $6 billion could provide basic education for all. Combined, this adds up to $40 billion—only one fifth as much as the $200 billion the US government agreed in October 2001 to pay Lockheed to build new fighter jets.
Jeff Gates, a former official in the US Congress, in his recent report “21 Ways that Neoliberalism is Radically Redistributing Worldwide” points out that the US, as the leading advocate for the neoliberal/WTO model of globalization, has emerging trends that provide insight into the future of the world if this model is followed: “The wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans grew an average $1.44 billion each from 1997-2000, for an average daily increase in wealth of $1,920,000 per person ($240,000 per hour or 46,602 times the minimum wage). The financial wealth of the top 1% of US households now exceeds the combined household financial wealth of the bottom 95%. The share of the nation’s after-tax income received by the top 1% nearly doubled from 1979-1997. By 1998, the top-earning 1% had as much combined income as the 100 million Americans with the lowest earnings. The top fifth of US households now claim 49.2% of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6%.”
Gates goes on to say, “Today’s version of globalization assumes that unrestricted economic flows will benefit the 80% of humanity living in developing countries as well as those 20% living in developed countries. Yet the UN Development Program reports that 80 countries have per capita incomes lower than a decade ago. Sixty countries have grown steadily poorer since 1980. In 1960, the income gap between the fifth of the world’s people living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest countries was 30 to 1. By 1990, the gap had widened to 60 to 1. By 1998, it had grown to 74 to 1.
Meanwhile, the world’s 200 wealthiest people doubled their net worth in the four years to 1999, to $1,000 billion. Their combined wealth equals the combined annual income of the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people. Three billion people presently live on $2 or less per day while 1.3 billion of those get by on $1 or less per day. UNDP reports that two billion people suffer from malnutrition, including 55 million in industrial countries. Current trends suggest that in three decades, today’s version of globalization could create a world where 3.7 billion people suffer from malnutrition.”
What will happen when the Arab states, who are surviving on oil wealth, run out of this resource, which is literally being drained by the West. If the situation in the Gulf doesn’t change, the future of their next generations will also be at risk. To what degree are we all dependent on oil? Increasing our supply, rather than becoming more efficient, takes us in the wrong direction. The Bush energy plan calls for greater oil dependence, with plans to drill in some of our most precious protected areas, while providing huge subsidies for the nuclear and coal industries. We must not allow this time of international conflict to provide a smoke screen for a plan which supports corporate interests at the expense of the public. The Bush energy policy, which also does not address the global warming crisis, calls for increasing US reliance on coal, which will only add to the problem. Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, must become the focus of new power generation in the US. Renewables will protect our health, our security, and the environment. Government subsidies must be shifted away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy, increased efficiency standards must be required, and we must implement a comprehensive plan to lower our contribution to global warming. This is where real security originates.
The Bush Administration, which canceled the 2004 deadline for automakers to develop high mileage cars, apparently is living in a different reality. How many of us would willingly send young people to war if we realized it was, in the end, all about defending our right to continue using more of world’s resources than any other country? Is the “freedom to consume” one of the American freedoms we must defend? SUVs presently use over 6 miles per gallon more than an average family station wagon. An improvement of a mere 3 mpg in autos nationwide would save 1 million barrels of oil per day. In a recent column, Arianna Huffington’s statement “Saying hasta la vista to my 13 mpg Navigator and hello to a 23 mpg Volvo V70 station wagon is hardly a sacrifice,” rings true for many of us. We can all do better. And we should.
Citizen calls to representatives can also help—keep your elected officials up to date about how you feel about these important issues. Use the AFLCIO hotline, 1-800-393-1082, which can connect you to your representatives free of charge; or visit the League of Women Voters website www.lwv.org to join their grassroots network. Speak up, speak out, let your voice be heard. Write letters to the editor, share your thoughts with friends, family and others in your community. It is up to all of us to make the difference. Together, we can.
