Google

www ISR
For ISR updates, send us your Email Address


Back to issue 4

International Socialist Review Issue 4, Spring 1998

Notes of the quarter

Asia: Has the crisis passed?

IF YOU paid attention to the free-market ideologues and the politicians who serve them, you might think that the Asian economic crisis has passed.

In proclaiming the crisis over, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer exuded:

The strategy followed in the IMF-supported programs in Korea and Thailand is beginning to work, and we are confident that it can work, too, in Indonesia. The Asian crisis has been contained, and it is reasonable to believe that, deep and unfortunate as the crises in individual countries have been, growth in this region can resume within a reasonable period.

At last November’s Vancouver meeting with the leaders of 17 Pacific Rim nations, President Clinton dismissed the problems in Asia as a "few little glitches in the road; we’re working through them."

The reasons for the politicians’ relief weren’t hard to find. After a period of freefall in the Asian stock markets and currencies in the second half of 1997 and early 1998, the crisis seems to have leveled out. Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines and Indonesia have swallowed their foul-tasting IMF-prescribed medicine and now the U.S. banks can resume looting their corporate assets at bargain-basement prices.

The banks may be breathing a sigh of relief, but the mass of workers across Asia are facing conditions comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In February alone, more than 2 million Indonesian workers lost their jobs. The currency crash in that country plunged the pay for workers at Nike’s factories from $2.46 per day to 70 cents per day.

But don’t expect to hear too much concern about the social crisis which is devastating Asia–especially from the people who are most responsible for it.

This is certainly true of of Western banks and financial institutions, which in the lead-up to the crisis pumped capital into Asia as if there were no tomorrow.

The five countries that have been the most damaged by the crisis–Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines–had "net private inflows of $41 billion in 1994. By 1996, this had jumped to $93 billion. Over these years the inflows substantially exceeded the total current deficit, allowing governments to accumulate $37 billion in additional reserves," wrote Martin Wolf in the Financial Times in March. "Then, in 1997, came the panic: the net inflow turned into an estimated outflow of $12 billion. The swing in the net supply of private capital was $105 billion in just one year, a staggering 10 percent of the combined pre-crisis gross domestic of the five countries… So the capital inflows were the carrier of the new Asian flu."

Only a year ago, the same experts who are saying today that the Asian crisis has passed were telling us that Southeast Asia represented the best that the world economy could offer investors.

Then, the U.S. ambassador to Malaysia described the country as "the cherished child of investors," according to the Far Eastern Economic Review. Credit Risk International, a research firm for Wall Street, continued that "on a scale of 1 to 7 measuring the risk of countries, Malaysia was classified 1, minimum risk in April 1997. Fleming Investment Management agreed, claiming in February 1997 that the "Asian miracle is not finished."

Of course, this is the same Malaysia which, today, forks over almost one-fifth of its gross national product (GDP) to banks in debt service. Banking sector debt stands at 185 percent of the GDP.

Stanford University economist Paul Krugman, looking back on his forecasts for Asia was more honest than most. Recently, he told an audience of bankers in Hong Kong:

In short, I was 90 percent wrong about what was going to happen to Asia. However, everyone else was 150 percent wrong –they saw only the ‘miracle’, and none of the risks. So while nobody predicted what actually happened, I guess in that sense I came closest–which is presumably why I'm here right now.

So what is going to happen to Asia now? Let me let you in on a secret: I don't really know. And I wouldn't be surprised if whatever I say now turns out to be 90 percent wrong all over again. But what isn't a secret, of course, is that nobody really knows what comes next. And if I can get it even 10 percent right, I am probably well ahead of the game.

Krugman is certainly not the dimmest bulb among economists. And unlike those who work for the IMF, he doesn’t have an ideological reason for proclaiming the end of the Asian crisis. But if he admits he doesn’t know what is going to happen, where does that leave all the other so-called experts who have pronounced the crisis over?

It isn’t simply that their record on Asia should make one doubt the mainstream economists’ current pronouncements. It’s that they won’t even understand the nature of the crisis. In reality, the economic meltdown which began last July in Thailand isn’t really an Asian crisis per se. It is part of a world economic crisis brought on by the same economic forces that the press and politicians are so eager to celebrate.

From the 1970 onward, the "Asian Tigers" pursued economic policies of export-led development. They carved out an increasingly large niche for themselves in the world markets by combining slightly out-of-date technology bought from Western firms with low-wage labor. In this way, they were able to move on from textiles to iron and steel, shipbuilding electronic components and finally to cars.

The problem is that this model relies on the rest of the world–and especially the U.S. and Europe–to buy the growing volume of exports. But demand for the Tigers’ exports slumped when there were recessions or stagnation elsewhere in the system. And the more that countries try to follow the "export-led" path, the more problems they all face when the export strategy is no longer easy.

Before the Asian economies crashed, the Tigers’ industrial plants operated at only 60-70 percent of capacity. In China, 8-10 percent of national output is piled up in warehouses, unable to be sold. With products piling up unsold, firms have found themselves unable to repay loans extended to them on the assumption that sales would continue to grow.

The Asian economies’ overproduction is only the sharpest edge of a world crisis of overproduction. In industry after industry worldwide, capacity to produce far outstrips the ability of the bosses to sell their goods profitably. If the worst of the crisis appears to be over, the underlying conditions which led to Asia’s crisis haven’t been addressed.

The IMF-enforced free-market dogma calls on the Tigers to export their way of the crisis. With massive currency devaluations, their goods are cheaper by world standards. Yet the credit crunch is so tight that corporations haven’t been able to acquire enough capital to gear up production for the export market. For this reason, the predicted "flood" of cheap exports putting pressure on certain U.S. industries hasn’t yet been felt. But when these production systems come on line, the world glut will become an even bigger problem.

Moreover, the second largest economy in the world —Japan’s–continues to wallow edge of recession. Clinton and other U.S. policy makers harps on Japan to stimulate its economy. The U.S. is certainly concerned to get the Japanese to buy more American goods. But it is even more concerned to keep the Japanese economy from falling into an even deeper crisis.

An MIT economist recently remarked,

In Tokyo, everybody is waiting for ‘Big Bang.’ They might be in for a surprise; big bang might be the collapse of the Japanese economy rather than a new age of comptitive finance. Surely the greatest paradox today is that one of the richest countires in the world, Japan, is flirting with bankruptcy.

The more savvy or honest analysts know that only too well that the Asian crisis is far from over. As Morgan Stanley’s Tim Condon argued at the end of last year:

It's not over. It would be nice to go into the holiday season comfortable in the knowledge that the Asian turmoil is dying down and will become an unpleasant memory sometime in 1998. But that's too good to be true. I expect Indonesia and Malaysia to become the next flash points in the Asian drama. Even after the flashes cease, the Asian debt crisis will not be fully resolved in 1998.

Indonesia today is more tense that at any time in President Suharto's 32-year rule. Despite a huge IMF program, onshore confidence in the stability of the currency is almost non-existent. Ordinary Indonesians refuse to hold their currency, the rupiah.…It is reasonable to expect social unrest to be expressed through spontaneous violent demonstrations.

The military clearly expects this and security forces have been increased in Jakarta. But controlling outbreaks of violence in several parts of the archipelago will make it clear to all that the military is ruling the country. While all this is going on, the economy will be a secondary concern, and during the first quarter of 1998 I expect the currency to sink to a now unthinkable level.

So no matter what the pundits say, the Asian crisis is not over. Quite the contrary. Asia’s crisis is part of the world crisis and its effects will leave no part of the world economy–including the U.S.–untouched.


Republicans in a box

WHITEWATER SPECIAL Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s best efforts to keep the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal alive failed to cut into President Clinton’s high standing in the polls. In fact, in a period the press proclaimed the "most dangerous" of his presidency, Clinton enjoyed his highest popularity ratings ever.

About two-thirds of Americans polled say they approve of Clinton’s job performance, even while majorities say they don’t believe his denials of an affair with Lewinsky and other alleged White House sexual escapades.

In a February meeting with congressional Democrats, Clinton proposed an explanation for his popularity.

"I defy you to find a time in the last 20 years when more Democratic ideas have made their way into the lifeblood of America than they have through the balanced budget, raising the minimum wage and other things that were done," Clinton said.

Clinton’s was a telling statement in two ways. First, he acknowledged the obvious: proposing to spend money on education, child care and "saving" Social Security–all key parts of his January State of the Union message–is widely popular.

The deficit-driven politics of austerity of most of the 1990s is giving way to a debate by politicians about how to spend projected budget surpluses. Even the Republicans can’t use the excuse that "there’s no money"–since they’re offering to spend $218 billion on roads and public works. For this reason, Clinton’s recent rhetoric has sounded closer to the old-time Democratic religion than at any other time in his presidency.

This is a far cry from 1995, when the GOP "revolutionaries" swept into Congress and set the pace for mainstream politics over the next two years. In 1998, Clinton and the Democrats have seized the initiative. "[Clinton’s plan has] got Republicans in a box. It really does. And they don’t like it. It leaves it to Republicans to explain that, in fact, you cannot do what [Clinton] seeks to do," a GOP consultant told Congressional Quarterly. The "Republican revolution" has been reduced to a massive pothole-filling operation.

But while Clinton raised a more liberal agenda, he also claimed credit for balancing the budget–a longtime conservative Republican obsession. Clinton crowed about his success in repackaging Republican politics as "Democratic ideas."

All of this left the Republicans and the rest of the right in disarray. After the State of the Union address, GOP congressional leaders hauled out all the Reaganite rhetoric about "big government" and "tax and spend" policies to attack Clinton. When that didn’t work, they had very little else but the sex scandals to bash Clinton with.

Yet Clinton’s record is one of big talk and little action when it comes to initiatives to improve working people’s lives. His recent budget is no different. Despite the big promises, Clinton’s spending initiatives would increase the budget by an average of only 1.2 percent a year over the next five years. This hardly makes up for the massive cuts in social spending that Clinton has pushed through over the last several years to "end welfare as we know it."

"These increases are really very, very small in comparison to the overall size of the budget; however, it’s in both parties’ interest to exaggerate their size," said former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert D. Reischauer, now a budget analyst at the Brookings Institution. "The president can’t really come out and say these are really a drop in the bucket…and the Republicans can’t frontally assault these proposals, because they are very popular with the American people, so their attack has to be that this is the return of the big government monster."

The majority of "new" spending in Clinton’s budget goes to the Pentagon. Military spending would rise from $265 billion in fiscal 1998 to $289 billion in 2003. Domestic discretionary spending would rise from $269 billion to $287 billion over the same period, according to Clinton administration projections. And his plan to "save Social Security first" offers a politically popular way to plow money into reducing the government debt. One Democratic congressional aide told Congressional Quarterly that Clinton’s Social Security policy made paying down the government debt "sound sexy."

However meager, a program of expansion of education, health care and child care certainly fits with the public mood. After Judge Susan Webber Wright’s April "boys will be boys" dismissal of Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton, the White House pressed the advantage against the GOP.

This sea change since 1995 has raised the possibility that the Democrats could recapture the House of Representatives in the 1998 elections. An April Pew Research Center poll showed that 52 percent of registered voters were inclined to vote for Democratic congressional candidates, compared to 40 percent for Republican candidates.

While the political picture today doesn’t guarantee a Democratic sweep in November, it does raise questions about the underlying sources of this support. Clinton and the Democrats are raising working people’s expectations. The gap between what people want from Washington and what Washington is planning to deliver is wide. Working people have to organize to force the politicians to deliver.


The employers strike back

Union leaders hailed the International Brotherhood of Teamsters strike victory over United Parcel Service (UPS) last August as a sign of a revived and increasingly powerful labor movement. In the weeks following the UPS strike, unions won several strikes, including those at the San Francisco Bay transit system, the Toro lawn mower plant in Minnesota and in Philadelphia Catholic high schools. And labor’s role in defeating fast track trade legislation last fall pointed up the potential for real political clout.

Yet, six months later, the situation looked very different. Statistics showed that union membership fell by 159,000 in 1997, and that union representation dropped from 14.5 to 14.1 percent of workers. The same union officials who basked in the glory of the UPS victory shied away from major strikes amid a series of sharp legal and political attacks by the government and business–and made not a peep of protest over the ouster of Teamsters President Ron Carey.

It is precisely because labor made modest gains that the employers are stepping up their offensive against unions. But the AFL-CIO’s response has been to run for cover. After standing at Ron Carey’s side to pledge labor’s backing in the UPS strike, Sweeney kept silent while the government ousted the man who led the biggest strike victory in 25 years. The AFL-CIO’s passivity has only encouraged labor’s enemies.

Last fall, Michigan Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra’s hearings on Carey’s alleged involvement in a scheme to use union funds to finance his reelection campaign in 1996 established the political climate that led to Carey’s ouster. Meanwhile, investigators named AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) President Gerald McEntee as alleged participants in the Teamsters’ illegal fundraising scheme.

Conservatives also stepped up efforts to pass so-called "paycheck protection" restrictions on the use of union dues for political donations. Since such a measure couldn’t survive a Clinton veto in Congress, the GOP is pushing paycheck protection at the state level. While backers of such laws wrap their program in the rhetoric of "workers’ rights," they are seeking revenge for labor’s attacks on the Republicans and to limit unions’ ability to defend Social Security and public education. Already in Washington state, officials used such a law to fine the Washington Education Association $800,000 for spending union funds to fight a referendum establishing school vouchers. Similar paycheck protection measures are pending in 20 states.

Other legal attacks on labor abound. In Congress, the Republicans are seeking to outlaw "salting"–the practice of sending union organizers to take jobs at nonunion companies–although Clinton is certain to veto the measure. The Pacific Maritime Association, the organization of West Coast shipping bosses, is suing labor activists for picketing a ship that handled scab cargo in the two-year Liverpool dockworkers’ struggle. And nursing-home operator Beverly Enterprises sued Cornell University labor researcher Kate Bronfenbrenner for defamation in her testimony about the company’s union-busting activities.

The GOP-led political attacks might seem to give credibility to labor’s support for the Democratic Party. But Clinton himself has used the law against labor, repeatedly invoking his legal right to ban transportation strikes, most recently at Amtrak and at American Airlines. And while congressional Democrats welcome labor’s funding and support, they get far more money from Corporate America and have always been a pro-business party.

Workers are already paying a high price for labor leaders’ failure to stand up to the political attacks. With Carey abandoned by top AFL-CIO officials, the Teamsters entered negotiations on the National Master Freight Agreement with leading trucking employers in disarray. While a tentative deal avoided major concessions and won pension improvements, it didn’t make the advances of the UPS strike. The chilling effect of the political attacks has reached other unions as well. In Philadelphia, the Transport Workers Union won a major victory in 1995 with a militant, active strike. But this time, the local transit authority has made systematic preparations for scabbing. In response, union leaders granted an "hour-by-hour" contract extension that is in its third week as this is being written.

If the union leaders are reluctant to take on the employers, rank-and-file workers are increasingly angry at demands for concessions. But this anger needs to be organized, as the recent battle over the ratification of a contract with Caterpillar, Inc. showed. After a seven-year fight that included two long, bitter strikes, United Auto Workers (UAW) leaders endorsed a contract with massive concessions on wages and working conditions and dropped 441 unfair labor practice complaints against the company. Striking workers had rejected a similar contract by an 80 percent vote in 1995, only to have union leaders force a return to work by cutting off strike benefits. Rather than authorizing mass pickets to shut down production, UAW International leaders surrendered instead and disappeared for two years.

After a fight that destroyed thousands of lives and led to 12 workers’ suicides, workers found concessions alone difficult to swallow. But the sticking point in the deal for many workers was union amnesty for scabs without the unconditional rehiring of all 160 workers terminated in the struggle. Thus a network of activists around a newsletter, Kick the Cat, worked to mobilize the "no" vote that forced union leaders to renegotiate an agreement that brought back all the fired workers. While the deal, ratified the following month, includes the concessions, the company must now accept the return of militants it has tried to get rid of for years.

Winning back the jobs of fired workers is a key first step in rebuilding the union at Cat. And by defying union leaders to achieve that goal, Cat workers have set an example for the rest of the labor movement. Companies like Caterpillar, which back the political and legal attacks on labor, simply aren’t interested in "partnership" with unions unless the companies dictate the terms. If labor leaders won’t rise to that challenge, rank-and-file workers must be prepared to push them aside.


France: Deals with the devil

After losing their majority in last year’s national elections, conservatives in France have shown that they are willing to make a deal with the devil to hold onto their seats. Mainstream conservatives from the Union for French Democracy (UDF) in several regions sought the support of the fascist National Front (FN) in order to win regional elections on March 20. Seven UDF councillors were elected regional presidents (similar to governors in the U.S.) with FN backing, including such prominent figures as Charles Millon who was France’s defense minister from 1995 to 1997.

But the conservatives’ deal-making blew up in their faces. Far from staving off defeat, alliances with the fascists have only created more problems for the already fragile conservative coalitions. Many people across France are questioning the mainstream right’s legitimacy after the pacts. Moreover, not only did the right lose seats to the left in the wake of the uproar caused by the alliances, but the maneuver has actually spurred a swing to the left across France.

The leadership of the main conservative parties, the UDF and the Rally for the Republic (RPR), raced to denounce the deals and immediately forced five of the FN-backed councillors to resign. President Chirac (of the RPR) called the FN "racist and xenophobic" and has vowed to change voting laws to end proportional representation, a system of voting which can give an advantage to smaller parties. Millon, who was elected with FN support, turned around and called Le Pen a "1920s fascist."

Despite embarrassed denunciations from Chirac and other conservatives, the recent crisis reflects a trend that has been growing for years as conservatives have adopted a strategy of conceding to the political program of the fascists in order to beat the left competition. Chirac may complain today that Le Pen’s party has nothing to do with "French values," but when it comes to the question of law and order and immigration controls the mainstream right has been more than happy to accept FN positions as their own. In many areas, the FN has set the political agenda for the mainstream parties.

Now, the FN stands to reap the rewards of the pact instead of the conservatives. Until recently, many considered the FN, which garners support by channeling people’s fears of high unemployment into anti-immigrant scapegoating, a marginal force in French politics. That situation has changed. While the conservatives clearly hoped to hold onto power by relying on the support of the "marginal" FN, the latest maneuver actually brought the FN one step further into the mainstream of French politics. Le Pen’s number two man Bruno Megret argued that the FN was now seen as a "legitimate, democratic movement" because of the alliances, and argued that the FN has become the third pole of French politics.

The FN stands to benefit further from the crisis. The fascists have already built a considerable base in the South, where they control three towns and command a stable portion of the vote. While nationally the FN vote has stabilized at 15 percent, in Province-Alpes C’ote D’Azure region the fascists won a terrifying 27 percent of the vote in the last elections. As conservatives scramble to piece together their crumbling coalitions, Le Pen can once again pose the FN as the one party untouched by scandal and corruption, and as the one unwavering voice of national pride left in France.

Yet if the March elections showed the consequences of mainstream pandering to the far right, they also exposed the other face of social polarization in France. Most people in France are looking to the left, not the right. While the FN vote remained largely stable, the left won the greatest share of the popular vote–40 percent compared to the conservatives’ 36 percent and the FN’s 15 percent. The revolutionary left represented by Lutte Ouvrier and League Communiste Revolutionaire won almost one million votes.

Perhaps even more important, the conservatives’ deal-making provoked a huge upsurge in antifascist and antiracist organizing. In the wake of the recent election fiasco, 200,000 people mobilized in anti-fascist demonstrations across France, including a demonstration of 50,000 in Paris endorsed by all of the main left parties as well as anti-fascist and revolutionary organizations. These demonstrations are adding to the pressure for social change spurred on by the large unemployed occupations and student protests that have taken place since last fall.

The latest round of antifascist organizing is forcing politicians who have long remained silent to take a firmer stand against the FN. In early April, France’s highest court banned FN-run police and prison unions, arguing that the unions were only FN front groups which did nothing to represent workers. Any attack on the FN is welcome, but the recent alliances prove that we cannot rely on the politicians and the courts to stop the FN. More important, the same politicians and courts which preside over high unemployment and growing bitterness cannot be relied on to solve the very problems which the FN nazis feed on.

While the level of polarization–and struggle–is sharpest in France, the picture is similar across Europe. In Germany, fascists are once again on the rise (the Chicago Tribune reported that hate crimes have increased from 254 in 1989 to 2,353 in 1996) at the same time that the mainstream right has fallen into decline and the majority of people are looking to the left.

If SPD leader Schroeder defeats Chancellor Helmut Kohl in German elections later this year, social democratic parties will have replaced long-entrenched conservative governments in Britain, France and Germany. And while the shift to the left in elections reflects workers’ disgust with decades of attacks under conservative rule, each of these politicians faces challenges that they will not be able to meet. After having agreed to the terms of the European Monetary Union, each leader is faced with the problem of how to squeeze workers who are already facing decades of declining wages and record-high unemployment rates. As the unemployed movement in France has shown, this will be no easy task.

The recent events in France show that an alternative is possible–an alternative that can stop the fascists, and can build on the sentiment for change that brought down the conservatives. The question that remains is whether socialists will rise to the challenge.

Back to top