John Perkins: Izpoved ekonomskega morilca

Moja žena se ukvarja s preganjanjem korupcije. Pred leti je začela brati in hotela tudi mene navdušiti nad knjigo Johna Perkinsa Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Knjiga je izpoved ekonomskega svetovalca, ki je v službi ameriške korporacije “svetoval” vladam nerazvitih držav pri načrtovanju velikih infrastukturnih projektov in pri pridobivanju mednarodnih kreditov za njihovo financiranje. Namen naj bi bil pridobiti posle za ameriške korporacije ter posledično nerazvite države čim bolj zadolžiti. Nakar bi vstopile mednarodne finančne institucije, ki bi zadolženim državam predpisale strukturne reforme in varčevalne ukrepe v zameno za refinanciranje dolgov. S tem naj bi nerazvite države naredili gospodarsko in politično odvisne od ZDA.

Priznam, da mi je Perkinsova knjiga tako takrat kot danes zvenela kot teorija zarote. Tukaj je izpoved “skesanega insiderja”, moža, ki je bil glavni ekonomski svetovalec v dubioznih poslih, se skesal in o tem napisal knjigo. Zveni dokaj konspirativno in hollywoodsko hkrati. Preveč obojega, da bi mu lahko kot akademski ekonomist kar tako verjel. Prej ne kot ja.

Kdo je John Perkins?

Skeptik kot sem, sem šel najprej preverjat Perkinsa. Kolikor se je pač dalo. Wikipedija navaja osnovne biografske podatke o Perkinsu:

Perkins graduated from the Tilton School in 1963. He subsequently attended Middlebury College for two years before dropping out due to lackluster grades. He later earned a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration from Boston University in 1968. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Ecuador from 1968–1970. He spent the 1970s working for the Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, where he was employed, according to his own account, after first being screened by the National Security Agency (NSA) and subsequently hired by Einar Greve,[1] a member of the firm (alleged by Perkins to have been acting as an NSA liaison, a claim which Greve has denied).

Perkins’s time at Chas T. Main, an engineering consultancy, provides the basis for his subsequent published claims that, as an “economic hit man”, he was charged with inducing developing countries to borrow large amounts of money, designated to pay for questionable infrastructure investments, but ultimately with a view to making the debt-laden countries more dependent, economically and politically, upon the West.

In the 1980s Perkins left Main and founded and directed a successful independent energy company. In the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Perkins states that he suspects the success of his company was due to ‘coincidences’ orchestrated by those appreciative of his silence about the work he says he did as an economic hit man.

Perkinsa in njegove izpovedi je pred objavo knjige podrobneje preverila tudi založba Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. in o tem objavila tudi poročilo ter dokumente, ki potrjujejo navedbe Perkinsa. Izsek poročila pravi:

Contrary to what some people have assumed, there is a great deal of evidence to support the veracity of John’s accounts in Confessions. This evidence includes numerous historical documents (see the attached copies of some of these documents) that confirm many aspects of John’s work; extensive research that many other people have done that support most of John’s principal allegations; confirmation from one of the persons who is in the best position to validate the veracity of John’s story; confirmations from others who knew and worked with John at Chas. T. Main; and the assessments of a number of people who have had long acquaintance with John and/or who have had in-depth discussions with him about the specifics of his accounts.

Perkinsove izpovedi potrjujejo tudi tisti, ki so bili na nasprotni strani, ko je bil še “ekonomski morilec”. Denimo Greg Palast:

I remember John Perkins. He was a real jerk. A gold-plated, super-slick lying little butthole shill for corporate gangsters; a snake-oil salesman with a movie-star grin, shiny loafers, a crooked calculator and a tooled leather briefcase full of high-blown bullshit.

This was two decades ago. The early 1980s. I wore sandals, uncombed hair down to my cheap collar and carried a busted ring-binder filled with honest calculations and sincere analysis. It was Economic Hit Man Perkins vs. Economic Long-Hair Palast. I didn’t stand a chance. The EHM was about to put a political bullet hole through me wider than a silver dollar.

Hit Men have “clients.” Perkins’ was a giant power company, Public Service of New Hampshire. PSNH was trying to sell New England lobstermen and potato farmers on the idea that they desperately needed a multi-billion dollar nuclear plant. The fact that this bloated atomic water kettle, called “Seabrook,” would produce enough electricity for everyone in the Granite State to smelt iron didn’t matter. That the beast could add a surcharge to electric bills equal to home mortgages was simply smiled over by Perkins and his team of economic con artists.

To steal millions, you need a top team of armed robbers. But to steal billions, you need PhD’s with color charts and economic projections made of fairy dust and eye of newt. Perkins had it all – including a magical thing called a computer-generated spreadsheet (this was well before Excel).

I was an expert witness for some consumer groups, trying to explain to state officials that Perkins’ numbers were bogus as a bubble-gum bagel and his financial projections were from some New Hampshire on another planet.

But this was the key point: Perkins slept in a suite at the Omni. I had truck-rumble insomnia at the motel off exit 68. He glared and grinned and glad-handed. I tried to keep my eyes open.

Here’s how it ended. The local Joe’s jumped head-first into the Perkins fantasy and bought his client’s power plant boondoggle. Within a couple years, the local electric companies had all gone bankrupt, the state treasury was drained, electric bills went from lowest to highest in the nation causing factories to close and dump, I figure, about 11,000 jobs.

Perkins’ clients walked away with barrelfuls of billions.

And Dr. Perkins pocketed plenty for his mortal soul.

But, as in every moral tale, Perkins, the modern Dr. Faust, found redemption in confession.

Držijo tudi navedbe o objavljenih znanstvenih člankih, ki jih je objavil v tistem času.

Velika razvojna prevara

Osnovna zgodba, ki jo v knjigi podaja Perkins o sodobnem zasužnjevanju revnih držav, je najbolj preprosto zajeta v drugem dokumentarcu Zeitgeist (Addendum), daljše verzije pa lahko najdete denimo tukaj:

.

Zgodba gre nekako tako. V prvem koraku velike ameriške korporacije zavohajo priložnosti za velike infrastrukturne projekte ali nahajališča naravnih virov v posameznih nerazvitih državah. Te korporacije najamejo konzultatntsko hišo s področja inženiringa, ta pa pošlje svoje “economic hit men” oziroma “ekonomske morilce”, ekonomske eksperte v dotično državo, kjer vladi predstavijo ekonomiko izbranega projekta (elektrarna, jez, avtocesta, železnica itd.) z vsemi izračuni. Ti izračuni seveda pokažejo neto pozitivne učinke projekta za državo. Zraven pa ekonomski morilci prikažejo še zasebne pozitivne koristi za vladajoče in njihove družine z nakazili na nerezidenčne račune v tujini. Konzultatnti pomagajo tudi pri ureditvi ugodnih razvojnih kreditov denimo Svetovne banke, US Aid itd. ter pri izbiri izvajalcev. Ti so običajno preizkušena gradbena in inženirska podjetja iz ZDA (Bechtel, Halliburton itd.). Več kot polovica najetih razvojnih kreditov tako nikoli ne pride v državo, pač pa se neposredno steče na račune tujih korporacij. Pri drugi različici pa gre za tuja vlaganja v naravane vire države, kjer razdelitev zasebnih koristi poteka na podoben način. V končni instanci se država zadolži za projekte, ki jih večinoma niti ne potrebuje ali prebivalstvo od njih nima neposredne koristi.

Če prvi korak spodleti in ekonomski morilci niso uspešni, nastopi drugi korak. Na obisk pridejo “šakali”, agenti ameriških tajnih služb, ki poskrbijo za atentat neposlušnih voditeljev, ki ne pristanejo na korupcijski posel, ali za državni udar. Na oblast pridejo bolj poslušni voditelji, ki pristanejo na predlagan “model razvoja”. Če tudi ta poskus spodleti, pa zahodne sile pod vodstvom ZDA poskrbijo za vojaško posredovanje, ki ga upravičijo s preprečevanjem genocida oblasti nad civilnim prebivalstvom ali z zaščito pred terorizmom (Irak, Afganistan, Libija…).

Nekje vmes nastopi še tretji korak.  Ko namreč nerazvite države, ki so se preveč zadolžile, postanejo nesposobne odplačevati dolgove, nastopi MDS, ki državam s stand-by aranžmajem pomaga pri reprogramiranju dolgov. V zameno pa mora država pristati na radikalne strukturne reforme, varčevanje na račun javnih storitev (šolstvo, zdravstvo), na privatizacijo državnih podjetij in infrastrukture, na dolgoročne koncesije za izkoriščanje naravnih virov in infrastrukture, kjer pa seveda vskočijo znane mednarodne korporacije. Države tako postanejo dolgoročno zasužnjene – odvisne od pomoči in refinanciranja kreditov zahodnih držav. Ni več domačega potenciala za razvoj.

John Perkins to v svoji naslednji knjigi The Secret History of the American Empire to imenuje sodobni ameriški imperializem. Zasužnjevanje držav z namenom, da bi ameriške korporacije služile z z izčrpavanjem dobičkov iz nerazvitih držav. Ameriške tajne službe in vlade so zgolj v službi velikih ameriških korporacij ali pa so njuni interesi popolnoma usklajeni. Z gospodarskim zasužnjenjem pride tudi politično, in obratno.

Koliko iz te Perkinsove zgodbe je res in v kolikšni meri gre zgolj za fantazije?

Okrog Perkinsove knjige je seveda nastalo precej kontroverznosti. Jasno je, seveda, da se je na njegovo knjigo takoj odzval State department in Perkinsove navedbe, da je delal v sozvočju ali celo po naročilu NSA, označil kot fantazije:

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, which Perkins says has been translated into some 20 languages, is popular because it is an exciting, first-person, cloak-and-dagger tale that plays to popular images about alleged U.S. economic exploitation of Third World countries.  Perkins raises legitimate questions about the impacts of economic growth and modernization on developing countries and indigenous peoples.  But his claim that he was acting as an “economic hit man” at the behest of the NSA appears to be a total fantasy.

State department je seveda zanikal tudi samo vlogo NSA pri tovrstnih operacijah:

Perkins is apparently not aware that the National Security Agency is a cryptological (codemaking and codebreaking) organization, not an economic organization.  It has two missions:

  • Designing cipher systems that protect the integrity of U.S. information systems; and
  • Searching for weaknesses in adversaries’ systems and codes.

Neither of these missions involves anything remotely resembling placing economists at private companies in order to increase the debt of foreign countries.

In seveda je State department poudaril pozitivno vlogo ZDA pri zmanjševanju dolga revnih držav:

Perkins claims that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) recruited him to be an “economic hit man,” who deliberately entrapped foreign countries in unmanageable amounts of debt so they would be beholden to the United States.  This appears to be a total fabrication.  To the contrary, the U.S. government has led a recent initiative to cancel the debt of many heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC).

(Zgolj v vednost: iniciativo za zmanjševanje dolgov 39 visoko zadolženih držav sta MDS in Svetovna banka zagnali šele leta 1996 po močnem lobiranju nevladnih organizacij; med njimi je zelo pomembna tudi vloga Bona, pevca skupine U2). Perkins pa na to pravi:

the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to privatise their health, education, electric, water and other public services. Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.

Perkinsovo knjigo je nenavadno ostro napadel tudi kolumnist Sebastian Mallaby v Washington Postu (Mallaby je bil pred tem denimo 13 let dopisnik Economista, napisal je biografijo nekdanjega predsednika Svetovne banke Jamesa Wolfensohna). Začne zelo ostro:

Last week I appeared on a radio show with an author named John Perkins. This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” is a runaway bestseller.
In nadaljuje:
The world, says Perkins, is governed by a shadowy “corporatocracy,” an invisible empire of wealth and greed that deploys a combination of bribes, assassins and seductive women to enslave the poorest countries. Perkins served this empire as an “economic hit man,” a consultant who bamboozled unsuspecting Asians and Latin Americans into borrowing too much, so puncturing their sovereignty. The loans financed lucrative contracts for American construction firms. Needless to say, Perkins is certain that they did not help poor people.

Mallaby oporeka temu, da bi “korporatokracija” lahko vplivala na povečanje revščine ali na ohranjanje nerazvitih držav v revščini in to navaja kot glavni argument proti Perkinsonovim izpovedim:

Perkins likes to invoke Indonesia, the scene of his first hit-man assignment. The way he tells it, the development economists who persuaded Indonesia to borrow money around 1970 were peddling a ludicrous idea — that Indonesia’s economy could spring from the dark age to the modern age in a mere generation. Well, Indonesia’s infant mortality and adult illiteracy rates each fell by two-thirds over the next three decades, and life expectancy shot up by 19 years. If the corporatocracy was trying to lay Indonesia low, this was a funny way of doing it.

The same point holds for the developing world generally. The adult illiteracy rate in the poor world was halved between 1970 and 2000, and since 1980 the number of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen by about 200 million, even as the world’s population has expanded rapidly. That is a stunning achievement given that the ranks of the poor had previously been swelling steadily, at least since 1820.

Seveda obema, tako Perkinsu kot Mallabyu, pri tem manjka nekaj, kar v statistiki imenujemo counterfactual: nihče od njiju ne naredi testa, kaj bi bilo brez tuje pomoči ali brez zadolževanja v tujini oziroma ali so države, ki niso najemale kreditov v tujini za dubiozne razvojne projekte, rasle kaj hitreje in hitreje zmanjševale revščino itd. Dober primer tega bi bila denimo Kitajska, ki je po letu 1978 šla v hitre strukturne spremembe in do sedaj še nevideno dinamiko razvoja brez tuje finančne pomoči in brez najemanja kreditov v tujini. Podobno velja za Indijo.

No, ne glede na to, Mallaby konča s tem:

Perkins has tapped into a widespread fear. Thanks to the Bush administration, the mere mention of Halliburton is enough to prove the anti-corporate case to many bookshop audiences. But the truth is that corporations do not rule the world, and intensifying global competition has rendered them more vulnerable. Since the mid-1970s, when Perkins was touring the world as a hit man, fully half of the top 100 American industrial corporations have disappeared from that list. So what is this corporatocracy that Perkins fears? Is it the failing General Motors? Or vanished international banks such as S.G. Warburg? Or is it perhaps Chas. T. Main, Perkins’s own employer in his hit-man days, which was swallowed up by a rival years ago?

Pri tem pa seveda precej manipulira. Propad nekaterih podjetij ničesar ne dokazuje. Ekonomija ni statična stvar, pač pa v njenem ozadju ves čas poteka ostra Schumpeterijanska kreativna destrukcija. Stara podjetja tonejo, nastajajo nova, hitro rastejo, nekatera močno zrastejo … in spet propadejo. Kar pa seveda ne pomeni, da v določenem svojem najboljšem obdobju ne bi mogla sodelovati v tovrstnih korpokratskih poslih. Primer podjetja Halliburton (glej spodaj) to dinamiko in menjavo igralcev lepo dokazuje, medtem ko igra ostaja enaka.

Perkinsove izpovedi potrjujejo na las podobna dogajanja v bolj bližjih časih. Denimo vloga podjetja Halliburton v vseh ameriških vojaških operacijah in po njih v zadnjih dveh desetletjih. Tako vlogo Halliburtona v 1990-ih opisuje wikipedija:

Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones.[20] Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.[21]

In 1995, Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank, as chairman and CEO. Cruikshank had served since 1989.[22]

In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.[23]

During the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation, and other life-cycle management services.[24]

Zapis aktivnosti Halliburtona, v povezavi z ameriško vlado, v prejšnjem desetletju pa je preveč obširen, da bi ga tukaj navajal. Tukaj je zgolj majhen izsek:

From 1995 to 2002, Halliburton Brown & Root Services Corp was awarded at least $2.5 billion but has spent considerably less to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program. This contract was a cost plus 13% contract and BRS employees were trained on how to pass GAO audits to ensure maximum profits were attained. It was also grounds for termination in the Balkans if any BRS employee spoke of Dick Cheney‘s being CEO. BRS was awarded and re-awarded contracts termed “noncompetitive” because BRS was the only company capable of pulling off the missions. DynCorp actually won the competitively let second contract, but never received any work orders in the Balkans.[20]

In November 2002, KBR was tasked to plan oil well firefighting in Iraq, and in February 2003 was issued a contract to conduct the work. Critics contend that it was a no-bid contract, awarded due to Dick Cheney’s position as vice president. Concern was also expressed that the contract could allow KBR to pump and distribute Iraqi oil.[28] Others contend, however, that this was not strictly a no-bid contract, and was invoked under a contract that KBR won “in a competitive bid process.”[29] The contract, referred to as LOGCAP, is a contingency-based contract that is invoked at the convenience of the Army. Because the contract is essentially a retainer, specific orders are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was).

It was anticipated that Halliburton’s $2.5 billion “Restore Iraqi Oil” (RIO) contract[37] would pay for itself as well as for reconstruction of the entire country. Plans called for more oil to be exported from Iraq‘s northern oil fields than actually occurred. Halliburton’s work on the pipeline crossing the Tigris river at Al Fatah has been called a failure. Critics claim that the oil fields are barely usable and access to international markets is severely limited. As an example, against the advice of its own experts, Halliburton attempted to dig a tunnel through a geological fault zone. The underground terrain was a jumble of boulders, voids, cobblestones, and gravel and not appropriate for the kind of drilling Halliburton planned. “No driller in his right mind would have gone ahead,” said Army geologist Robert Sanders when the military finally sent people to inspect the work.[38]

Halliburton se je v zadnjih letih zapletel v številne škandale, denimo v krajo dokumentacije:

In February 2008, a hard disk and two computers containing classified information were stolen from Petrobras while in Halliburton’s custody. Allegedly, the content inside the stolen material was data on the recently discovered Tupi oil field. Initial police inquiries suggest that it could be a common container theft operation. The container was a ramshackle in complete disorder indicating that thieves were after “valuables and not only laptops,” said an expert consulted by the daily newspaper Folha de S. Paulo.[34]

… v podkupovalne afere, zaradi katerih je danes v številnih preiskavah. Denimo zaradi podkupovanja v Nigeriji:

In early December 2010, the Nigerian government filed corruption charges against Cheney in connection with his role as the chief executive of Halliburton.[47][48] The case relates to an alleged $182 million contract involving a four-company joint venture to build a liquefied natural gas plant on Bonny Island in southern Nigeria.[49] Earlier in 2009, KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, agreed to pay $402 million after admitting that it bribed Nigerian officials, and Halliburton paid $177 million to settle allegations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission without admitting any wrongdoing.[50][51] In mid-December 2010, the case was settled when Nigeria agreed to drop the corruption charges against Cheney and Halliburton in exchange for a $250 million settlement.[50] According to Femi Babafemi, the spokesperson for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the $250 million would include approximately $130 million frozen in a Swiss bank, and the rest would be paid as fines.[49]

Nedavno je Halliburton zaradi pritiska SEC sprožil notranjo preiskavo zaradi podkupovanja v Angoli in Iraku.

Seveda je tovrstnih zgodb, povezanih tudi z drugimi ameriškimi korporacijami, bistveno preveč, da bi jih tukaj navajal. In ko tako košček za koščkom gledate v delček “drobovja” mednarodno financiranih projektov ter projektov uradne pomoči (kot se denimo izvaja tudi prek USAID), postaja Perkinsova izpoved dejansko precej dober opis dejanskega delovanja mehanizma ameriškega sodobnega imperializma. USAID, sicer vladna agencija za promocijo mednarodnega razvoja, po mnogih navedbah ostaja še vedno ključna organizacija za širjenje ameriškega političnega in gospodarskega vpliva. Nekaj navedb, zbranih v wikipediji:

USAID states that “U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” However, non-government organization watch groups have noted that as much as 40% of aid to Afghanistan has found its way back to donor countries through awarding contracts at inflated costs.[45]

Although USAID officially selects contractors on a competitive and objective basis, watch dog groups, politicians, foreign governments and corporations have occasionally accused the agency of allowing its bidding process to be unduly influenced by the political and financial interests of its current Presidential administration. Under the Bush administration, for instance, it emerged that all five implementing partners selected to bid on a $600 million Iraq reconstruction contract enjoyed close ties to the administration.[46][47]

Some critics[48][49][50][51] say that the US government gives aid to reward political and military partners rather than to advance genuine social or humanitarian causes abroad. William Blum has said that in the 1960s and early 1970s USAID has maintained “a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under USAID cover.”[52] The 1960s-era Office of Public Safety, a now-disbanded division of USAID, has been mentioned as an example of this, having served as a front for training foreign police in counterinsurgency methods (including torture techniques).[53]

In the summer of 2012, ALBA countries (Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, San Vicente y Las Granadinas, Dominica, Antigua y Barbuda) called on its members to expel USAID from their countries. [56]

In 1990 when the Yemeni Ambassador to the United Nations, Abdullah Saleh al-Ashtal, voted against a resolution for a U.S.-led coalition to use force against Iraq, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering walked to the seat of the Yemeni Ambassador and retorted: “That was the most expensive No vote you ever cast”. Immediately afterwards, USAID ceased operations and funding in Yemen.[58][59]

Kako to, da je Perkins še živ?

Tipično vprašanje, ki se je porodilo tudi meni, ko mi je žena predstavljala obrise Perkinsove knjige, je bilo: Če je vse to res, kako je lahko Perkins še živ?. Če so ameriške vladne in para-vladne agencije ter njihovi (neuradni) pogodbeni partnerji v številnih letalskih nesrečah in atentatih “umaknili” voditelje držav ter z udari strmoglavili vlade, zakaj so pustili pri miru Perkinsa?

Perkins se je iz vloge ekonomskega morilca umaknil leta 1980 in ustanovil svoje podjetje za promocijo alternativnih energetskih virov. Pravi, da je bilo njegovo podjetje zelo uspešno tudi zato, ker je dobival posle, zato, da bi bil tiho. Leta 1990 je podjetje prodal in se napotil v Amazonijo, da bi razumel in pomagal njihovemu ljudstvu. Vmes je štirikrat začel s pisanjem te knjige. Vsakokrat naj bi ga ustavili bodisi z grožnjami njemu in njegovi družini, bodisi s podkupninami. Kot pravi na svoji spletni strani:

He contacted other EHMs and jackals (who go in when EHMs fail to corrupt government officials and either overthrow or assassinate the leaders). He received threats on his life and his infant daughter’s life. Taken out to dinner by the CEO of Stone & Webster, he was offered a legal “bribe” of $500,000: they would use his resume and he would not write the book. He agreed. Donated much of the money to writing more books and doing and supporting non-profit work.

Po letu 2001 se je spet lotil pisanja knjige:

He committed to writing Confessions but this time in secret. Once he completed the entire manuscript and his agent sent it to major publishers it was his best insurance policy. Killing him would sell books and make him a martyr.

John Perkins pravi, da ga je njegovo prejšnje življenje kot ekonomskega morilca prepričalo, da:

to devote his life to facilitating changes in consciousness and in social, political, and economic systems. He is founder and board member of Dream Change and co-founder of The Pachamama Alliance, nonprofits dedicated to creating a sustainable, just, peaceful, and thriving world.

:::::::::

Če vse te navedbe Perkinsa ter razkriti dokumenti mednarodnih organizacij (denimo Svetovne banke: Development Debacle: The World Bank in the Philippines) ne samo o neučinkovitosti razvojnih in infrastrukturnih projektov v nerazvitih državah, pač pa o nasprotnih učinkih teh projektov (povečanje revščine in zadolženosti) držijo, bo seveda treba temeljito premisliti ekonomske razvojne modele. V veliki meri se je to že zgodilo, saj v zadnjem desetletju Svetovna banka in ostale mednarodne institucije dajejo prednost tistim razvojnim projektom, ki zmanjušujejo revščino v nerazvitih državah. Seveda pa je vprašanje, če se je “politično-ekonomski mehanizem” v ozadju kaj spremenil, kar lepo dokazuje primer podjetja Halliburton v zadnjih dveh desetletjih. Koliko denarja iz razvojnih projektov, za katere se zadolžijo nerazvite države, se dejansko potroši v posameznih nerazvitih državah in koliko se ga prelije v razvite države? Koliko uradne razvojne pomoči držav konča v podjetjih, ki so povezana s posamezniki v vladah donatorskih držav? Čemu vsa ta maškerada?

No, to zadnje je bilo seveda neumno in zgolj retorično vprašanje.

_________

Knjiga je Johna Perkinsa je pred tedni izšla tudi v slovenskem prevodu pod naslovom Izpovedi ekonomskega morilca. Časopisno recenzijo pod avtorstvom Jožice Grgič lahko preberete v Delu, tuje pa denimo v Guardianu. Koristna bo tudi ta vzporedna primerjava verodostojnosti izpovedi Perkinsa, objavljena v Huffington Postu.

NSA in State Department sta seveda zanikala kakršnokoli vpletenost ter izpovedi Perkinsa označila kot “fantazije“.

2 responses

  1. Hm. Velik infrastrukturni projekt, veliko denarja za izvajalca, ustrezna provizija ustreznim v državi…. z drugimi besedami, korporacije pomagajo vladajočemu ropati lasten narod. Vsekakor neetično, ampak predvsem na strani vladajočega.

    Pa ne branim korporacij. Ampak VEDNO bo obstajal “svetovalec”, ki bo bil pripravljen to svetovat.

  2. Tudi jaz nisem ljubitelj teorije zarot, ampak bolj kot ne zaprisežen skeptik. Zato se zelo strinjam z vašimi pomisleki. In zaradi svoje nravi postanem zelo razdražljiv, kadar domnevno izmišljeno teorijo zarote nekakšen visoko leteč strokovnjak zavrača tudi s takšnim argumentom za telebane:

    ” … and since 1980 the number of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen by about 200 million … ”

    Res sem navaden bimbo in morda prav zaradi tega prepričan, da tako trditev lahko na prvo žogo kupi samo navaden kreten ali fanatik s parcialnimi interesi.

    Kajti od leta 1980 do februarja leta 2006, ko naj bi bil ta Mallabyjev članek objavljen, je realna vrednost dolarja upadla vsaj za polovico. Plehki Mallaby bi torej moral podati primerjavo med številom ljudi, ki so leta 1980 morali preživeti z enim dolarjem na dan, leta 2005 pa z okrog 2,37 dolarja dnevno. Slednjo orientacijsko vrednost sem čisto nestrokovno povzel iz naslednjih virov:
    http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php
    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com, http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
    http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/value_of_a_dollar_today.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Value

    Ker gre pri dolar-na-dan ljudeh za golo preživetje, se pravi minimalno prehrano, lahko za ilustracijo sprevržene idiotskosti Mallabyjevega “argumenta” vzamemo tudi dinamiko cene McD-jevega hamburgerja:
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100508143003AAHphp7

%d bloggers like this: