Industrialization & Power:Colonialism & Multinational Corporations

Summary This lesson introduces students to the history of colonialism and how it relates to the production of primary/secondary resources and power networks. It then extends these concepts and links into modern multinational corporations and sweatshop labour in an attempt to draw connections between historical colonialism and what might be described as neo-colonialism. The lesson looks at how production/consumption influences power networks on an international scale.

Objectives Students should gain an understanding of the history of colonialization and how it has impacted the formation of the world and the distribution of wealth (this will be further developed in the lesson that follows). Students should understand primary/secondary resources and how these create or redistribute wealth. Additionally, students should develop a sense of the continuity between colonialism and multinational corporations, and the way in which globalization has shaped the world.

Materials Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton, 1999.

The Corporation. Dirs. Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. Zeitgeist, 2003. (Netflix)

Africa: States of Independence. “Episode 1: The Scramble for Africa.” Al Jazeera English. (YouTube)

“The Scramble for Africa.” The Economist. Millennial Issue. 23 December 1999. (http://www.economist.com/node/347120)

Khalek, Rania. “21st Century Slaves: How Corporations Exploit Prison Labor.” AlterNet. (http://www.alternet.org/story/151732/21st-century_slaves%3A_how_corporations_exploit_prison_labor)

Ainger, Katharine. “The Scramble for Africa: Wars for Africa’s Wealth.” New Internationalist 367 (2004): 9-12.

Braeckman, Colette. “The Looting of the Congo: Wars for Africa’s Wealth.” New Internationalist 367 (2004): 13-16.

“Redesigning the Global Economy.” New Internationalist 320 (2000): 4 pag.

“Should Foreign Investment Replace Aid for Africa?” New Internationalist 445 (Sept. 2011): 34-36.

Nandy, Ashis. “Paternal Deceits.” New Internationalist 405 (Oct. 2007): 10-11.

Lummis, C. Douglas. “Development as Forced Labour.” New Internationalist 324 (2000): 26-28.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

1

Pre-Work Ensure access to videos Print off multiple copies of resource articles Divide into groups for Literature Circle

Ensure each group has assigned readings for Guns, Germs, and Steel

Develop/photocopy hand-outs for Expository Text Literature Circle Photocopy reflection sheets for Africa: States of Independence and The Corporation OR prepare questions for log entries Determine which articles will be used for jigsaw groups Break students into groups & assign articles

Plan

Warm-Up (2 classes)

Before the warm-up class, assign students into groups of approximately 3-4 members. Each group will receive a section from Guns, Germs, and Steel for an expository text literature circle. Chapters to be discussed will be: Prologue: Yali’s Question (p. 13-32), Chapter 12: Blueprints and Borrowed Letters (p. 215-238), Chapter 13: Necessity’s Mother (p. 239-264), Chapter 19: How Africa Became Black (p. 376-401). Students will have class time to read the chapter and to work through their literature circles. They will connect the content from the chapter to the unit content, but will be able to form their own connections as well. After Literature Circles are complete, each group will write out key points and terms on chart paper and put it up around the classroom. Students will then circulate and, as a class, we will draw parallels and connections as a foundation for the rest of the unit.

Main Act(3 classes)

1. Review key terms and concepts. Terms include: colonialism, corporations, globalization, industrialization, primary resource, secondary resource, developing nation, developed nation, development, trade.2. View Africa: States of Independence (Scramble for Africa) (from 0:00 – approximately 20:00) and The Corporation (from 19:00-0:24). Distribute critical reflection sheets OR give learning log prompts. 3. Break students into assigned groups and distribute supplementary articles. Students should read articles. It is important that students have a night to think about the article; do not go directly into group discussion. If class wraps up early, encourage students to delve into the other supplementary articles or review concepts they may find unclear through research (textbooks may be useful here).

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

2

4. Students will reconvene in their small groups and discuss the articles. They should be sure they can summarize their article, articulate whether they agree or disagree, and connect the content of the article to the material we have viewed and the concepts we’ve discussed thus far. 5. Students will each develop a summary sheet of their article and of the unit content – this can be written, visually depicted, idea clouds, etc. Be sure to check on these as they’re developed. This will aid students who may have difficulty in memory recall or in articulating their thoughts.5. Jigsaw: Split up group members so that one member of each group is present in a jigsaw group. Students should then discuss their articles and how they relate. If discussion is slow, give students thematic prompts. All articles in your file have notes on them for key themes and many will ‘riff‘ off each other.

Conclusion(1 classes)

1. Class-wide discussion in which the concepts students have encountered in the lesson are formalized. How has industrialization impacted the distribution of wealth in the world? How are colonialism and globalization connected? What are some repercussions to ‘development’? What does ‘development’ mean?2. Learning log prompts: What do students think they’ve learned? How do they expect their knowledge to change/deepen as we progress through the unit? What questions would they expect their classmates to be able to answer on this part of the unit?

Assessment Informal assessment: Check student engagement while circulating and observing student discussion. Check in on each student’s summary sheet to see if they’re grasping the concepts and the connection between real world injustice and the conceptual framework. Students should be able to generate multiple connections; a lack of connection may indicate that students have not grasped what has been covered so far. If this is the case, keep an eye on students during jigsaw groups to determine if teaching the content has helped them.

Adaptations No specific adaptations required, but ensure that weaker readers have articles with an easier vocabulary. Visual learners may benefit from articles with charts or other visual representations.

Extensions Students who complete learning logs early should be encouraged to review the articles they didn’t have a chance to read. Direct them to the extension folder for this unit.Students could also be encouraged to look at King Leopold’s Ghost or to write on a proposal for positive/non-exploitative development. They could weigh in on the foreign investment vs. foreign aid debate.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

3

Research/Resources

King Leopold’s Ghost (Adam Hochschild) -- Non-Fiction BookThe End of Poverty (Jeffrey D. Sachs) -- Non-Fiction Book“Resource Wars: The Facts.” (Sven Torfinn) The New Internationalist

367, Article. (See Attached Articles)

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

4

The Scramble for Africa, The Economist Millennial IssueThe Europeans were slow to seize black Africa, ruthless in doing so, harsh when they had done it—but by no means doers only of harmDec 23rd 1999

OF ALL the targets of European empire-builders, Africa was nearest; and “black Africa” among the least advanced. Yet, save for its far south, it was the last to be grabbed. Its coast had been known to Europeans for centuries and was dotted with their trading posts. But until around 1860 the interior was protected. Fevers killed off intruding white men, roads were few and cataracts blocked access by river.

Then, setting off from their enclaves along the shores, European explorers began to walk old Arab trade routes. They searched for the truth of ancient stories about the dark continent and the sources of its mighty rivers. By 1862 they had reached the source of the Nile. A little later, they traced the route of the Niger. They confirmed the reality of Africa's fabled riches—ivory, gold, diamonds, emeralds, copper. Entrepreneurs also saw that, instead of buying crops like cotton or palm oil from its villagers, they could set up plantations and use cheap local labour to work them. Africa was becoming too valuable to be left to the Africans. Besides these were violent, savage and backward, in need of Christianity and civilisation, were they not?

Yet, ripe for takeover as Africa was, the European grab for it was neither inevitable nor consistent. Britain at first opposed a carve-up, but ended with the richest parts: today's South Africa, Ghana and Nigeria. Belgium's King Leopold II was one of Europe's least powerful rulers. But once he had carved out the Congo basin as a personal fief, other countries were quick to stake claims. Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of the strong new Germany, put in a bid for huge chunks of East and West Africa.

Europeans, quick to fight each other at home, were loth to do so for slices of a continent that they barely knew. Besides, it would set a bad example to the natives. So in 1884 the powers met in Berlin to share Africa out. In some areas, ignorant of people and geography alike, they made frontiers simply by drawing straight lines on the map.

The Africa they seized was technologically in the iron age, and politically divided into several thousand units, some based on language and culture, others on conquest, paying tribute to their conquerors. Much of the continent was in turmoil, as slaving gangs sent out by some of its own rulers spread war and sent communities fleeing.

Some Africans resisted the takeover, but the Europeans, no slouches at savage violence, most often swept their spear-wielding armies aside with the Maxim gun and repeater rifle, and brutally crushed local resistance. Much of Africa gave in without a fight, its kings signing away their sovereignty with a thumb-print. Many allied with the intruders, maybe believing that these would not stay long and would give help against some local rival. Some tried to play one set of Europeans off against another. Others were overawed by technology: the kingdoms of northern Nigeria surrendered to forces, led by a handful of white men, far smaller than their own. By 1914 Europeans ruled all of Africa, bar Liberia, the state founded by America for its ex-slaves, and Abyssinia (Ethiopia), an ancient kingdom which had fought off the Italians in 1896.

Posing as parents to Africans, Europeans counted them, taxed them and ordered their communities into tribes—or, where true tribes did not exist, invented them. Meanwhile, the best

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

5

land was taken for plantations, and the minerals dug out and shipped off to be processed in Europe (a division of labour—and, inversely, of profits—which, except in South Africa, largely continues today). The storehouse was steadily exploited, but Africans saw little of its wealth.

Yet not all was oppression, nor plunder. King Leopold's arm-choppers were no improvement on the past; Christian missionaries mostly were. Europeans brought schools and hospitals; and order, and the start of modern administration, on which independent states would later be built.

Not late enough, thought many colonial administrators. The European occupation of black Africa was short-lived—barely a generation in some areas. After the second world war (in which many Africans died fighting for the Allies), America wanted an end to European imperialism, and African leaders, often socialist and aided by the Soviet Union, wanted self-rule. In Algeria, Kenya and Rhodesia, white settlers tried to keep power by force, but in time lost support from “home”. White South Africans—far more numerous and longer in place—held out into the 1990s, but, facing unrest and outside pressure, had to give up.

It is too soon to draw up a balance-sheet of colonialism. Perhaps the Africans' worst loss was not of land or power but self-respect, as the newcomers taught them that their ways, cultures and gods were inferior and should be abandoned. The alien religion put in their place often caught on; but the Europeans kept their version of politics, which arguably was indeed superior, for use at home, merely chucking Africa a few tattered pretences at it as they lowered the flag. Africa was left both psychologically and politically impoverished. Much of it still is so.

The result today is a continent of states stranded between its old ways and modernity. African rulers grabbed the European-style institutions bequeathed to them, but nearly everywhere ran them into the ground, without creating new ones based on African traditions and values. Whose fault was it? In 1998, on the 100th anniversary of the battle of Omdurman, the British ambassador to Sudan was asked if he planned to apologise to his hosts for that butchery of their Mahdist forefathers resisting invasion. “Why not?” he said, “as long as we also apologise for the roads, hospitals, schools and university; indeed for creating a country called Sudan.”

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

6

21st-Century Slaves: How Corporations Exploit Prison LaborIn the eyes of the corporation, inmate labor is a brilliant strategy in the eternal quest to maximize profit.

July 21, 2011  |  Rania Khalek, AlterNet

There is one group of American workers so disenfranchised that corporations are able to get

away with paying them wages that rival those of third-world sweatshops. These laborers have

been legally stripped of their political, economic and social rights and ultimately relegated to

second-class citizens. They are banned from unionizing, violently silenced from speaking out and

forced to work for little to no wages. This marginalization renders them practically invisible, as

they are kept hidden from society with no available recourse to improve their circumstances or

change their plight.

They are the 2.3 million American prisoners locked behind bars where we cannot see or hear

them. And they are modern-day slaves of the 21st century. 

Incarceration Nation

It’s no secret that America imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation in history. With

just 5 percent of the world’s population, the US currently holds  25 percent of the world's

prisoners . "In 2008, over 2.3 million Americans were in prison or jail, with one of every 48

working-age men behind bars," according to a study by the  Center for Economic and Policy

Research (CEPR). That doesn’t include the tens of thousands of detained undocumented

immigrants facing deportation, prisoners awaiting sentencing, or juveniles caught up in the

school-to-prison pipeline. Perhaps it’s reassuring to some that the US still holds the number one

title in at least one arena, but needless to say the hyper-incarceration plaguing America has had a

damaging effect on society at large.

The CEPR  study observes that US prison rates are not just excessive in comparison to the rest

of the world, they are also "substantially higher than our own longstanding history." The study

finds that incarceration rates between 1880 and 1970 ranged from about "100 to 200 prisoners

per 100,000 people." After 1980, the inmate population "began to grow much more rapidly than

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

7

the overall population and the rate climbed from "about 220 in 1980 to 458 in 1990, 683 in

2000, and 753 in 2008."

The costs of this incarceration industry are far from evenly distributed, with the impact

of excessive incarceration falling predominantly on African-American communities. Although

black people make up just 13 percent of the overall population, they account for  40 percent  of

US prisoners.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics  (BJS), black males are incarcerated

at a rate "more than 6.5 times that of white males and 2.5 that of Hispanic males and "black

females are incarcerated at approximately three times the rate of white females and twice that

of Hispanic females."

Michelle Alexander points out in her book  The New Jim Crow  that more  black men  "are in

prison or jail, on probation or on parole than were enslaved in 1850." Higher rates of black drug

arrests do not reflect higher rates of black drug offenses. In fact, whites and blacks engage in

drug offenses, possession and sales at roughly comparable rates.  

Incentivizing Incarceration

Clearly, the US prison system is riddled with racism and classism, but it gets worse. As it turns

out, private companies have a cheap, easy labor market, and it isn’t in China, Indonesia, Haiti, or

Mexico. It’s right here in the land of the free, where large corporations increasingly employ

prisoners as a source of cheap and sometimes free labor.

In the eyes of the corporation, inmate labor is a brilliant strategy in the eternal quest to

maximize profit. By dipping into the prison labor pool, companies have their pick of workers

who are not only cheap but easily controlled. Companies are free to avoid providing benefits

like health insurance or sick days, while simultaneously paying little to no wages. They don’t

need to worry about unions or demands for vacation time or raises. Inmates work full-time and

are never late or absent because of family problems. 

Extending the Discussion: How do you think corporations justify this type of exploitation? Recall the discourse described in both The Scramble for Africa and The Corporation.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

8

Redesigning  the  Global  EconomyNew  Internationalist,  320  (2000).

Grab  your  mortar  and   trowel!  Wayne  Ellwood   reckons   the   time  is   right   to   bend  our  backs  and  rebuild  the  financial  system  so  that  it  benefits  us  all,  not  just  a  narrow  elite.

From  where   I'm   standing   right   now,   smack   in   the  middle   of   the   Canadian   prairies,  people  may  not  be  able  to  put  their  finger  on  the  global  financial  system  as  the  source  of  their  difficulties.  But  they  sure  know  something  is  wrong.

Here  in  Saskatchewan,  the  most   agricultural  of  Canadian  provinces  and  the  heartland  of   the   country's  vaunted   wheat   lands,   it's  not   been   a  good  year.   Too  much  rain   in   the  Southeast.   Too  dry  in   the  Southwest.   And  the  price  of   grain   has  been  drifting  down  all  summer.

Today,   on   the   road   from   Yellow   Grass   to   Weyburn,   local   farmers   are   out   in   force  protesting   the  perilous  state  of  farm   incomes  and  the  decline  of  their  once-­‐vibrant  rural  communities.  Frustrated  tourists  in  camper  vans  and  townspeople  in  sedans  and  station  wagons  creep  along  behind  a  convoy  of  farmers  in  tractors.  4x4s,  grain  haulers  and  pickup  trucks.  The  queue  of  vehicles  stretches  back   for  several  kilometres  in  the  burning  prairie  sun.

These  farmers  are  angry.   The  leaflet   that   they're  handing   out   as   the  traffic  slows  to   a  halt  sets  out  the  cause  of  their  upset.

'The   reason   we're   slowing   down   traffic   today   is   to   bring   to   the   attention   of   the  Government   and   the   public   that   the   family   farm   is   disappearing.   We're   in   danger   of  losing  our  farms  because  we  are  not   realizing  enough  out  of  crops  to   cover  the  costs  of  producing   these   commodities.'   The   leaflet   continues:   'In   the   past   number   of   years  shipping   costs   and   input   costs   have   increased   dramatically   while   the   prices   of   our  products  have  been  steadily  dropping.'

In  fact,  net  farm  incomes  in  Saskatchewan  plummeted  by  over  40  per  cent  in  1998  and  are   still   falling.   Last   year   the   price   of   canola   (the   oil-­‐seed   grain   sometimes   called  rapeseed)   was   so   low   a   grower  would   have  had   to   produce   25-­‐per-­‐cent   above  average  yields  just  to  break  even.  In  the  face  of  this  squeeze  farmers  have  few  options.  Thousands  simply   throw   in   the   towel:   rows   of   combine   harvesters,   seeders   and   tractors   sit   in  abandoned  farm  yards  where  they  await  the  auctioneer's  gavel.  Other  farmers,  those  with  more   guile   or   luck,   take   another   tack.   Instead   of   getting   out,   they   get   bigger   -­‐-­‐   in   an  attempt   to   lower   unit   costs   and  make   the  economics   of   farming   work   in   their   favour.  Even  those  who  work  2,000  hectares  or  more  live  modestly.  Most  of  their  capital  is  tied  up  in  land  and  machinery  and  there's  precious  little  left  after  the  bills  are  paid.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

9

Still,   thousands  of  the  province's  farmers   leave  the  land  every  year.  The  results  of  the  rural   exodus  are  startlingly   visible  across   the  countryside.  Short-­‐line  railways  have  been  abandoned.   Hundreds   of   the   distinctive   brightly   coloured   grain   elevators   which   once  dotted  the  countryside  have  been  demolished.  Small  communities  are  decaying  as  schools  and  shops  close.  A  way  of  life  is  dying.

This   is   the   human   face   of   industrial   agriculture  and   it's  a   pattern  which  will   worsen  dramatically  if  the  global  economic  system  continues  on  its  current  course.  Free  trade  in  farm  products  -­‐-­‐  what  the  World  Trade  Organization  (WTO)  in  the  sanitized  language  of  bureaucracy  calls  the  'fair  and  market-­‐oriented  agriculture  trading  system'  -­‐-­‐  is  one  of  the  main   goals   of   the  WTO.   If   that   goal   is   reached,   if   countries   are   forced   to   remove   all  protection   for  their  domestic  food  producers,  this  would  be  an   immense  catastrophe.   It  would   change   irrevocably   the   ability   of   the   global   community   to   feed   itself   and   of  individual  nations  to  control  their  own  food  security.

Small-­‐farm   experts   like  Peter  Rossett   warn   that   economic  globalization   is   'the   single  gravest  threat  faced  today  by  the  world's  peoples  and  ecologies'.  Rossett,  of  the  California-­‐based  Institute  for  Food  and  Development  Policy,  says  that  further  'liberalization'  of  trade  in  agricultural  products  will  mean  'greater  freedom  for  the  big  to  drive  out  the  small'.  He  adds   that   it   will   force   people   everywhere   to   depend   on   distant   global   markets   with  unpredictable  price  swings  for  their  daily  meals.  This  would  prompt  another  mass  exodus  from   rural   areas,   further   the   growth   of   cities   and   'could   lead   to   the   final   triumph   of  inefficient   and   ecologically   destructive   monocultures   over   ecologically   rational   and  sustainable  farming  practices'.[1]  Free-­‐trade  advocates  ground  their  faith  in  the  notion  of  economic   efficiency.   Success   is   measured   not   by   healthy,   living   communities   but   by  profitability:  money  supersedes  all  else.  In  the  case  of  farming,  subsidized  grain  from  the  US   and   the   European   Community   is   dumped   on   Third   World   countries,   destroying  internal   markets   for   local   foodstuffs   and   favouring   the   expansion   of   export   crops   like  palm  oil  or  pineapples.   In   today's  global  market,  competition  means  keeping   costs   low,  and  the  easiest  costs  to  control  are  wages.  Open  markets  in  farm  products,  as  in  shoes  or  computers,   pit   farmers   and  workers   in   different   countries   against   each   other   in   what  globalization  critics  call   'a  race  to   the  bottom'.  We  may  end  up  with  cheap  bananas  or  a  bargain-­‐basement  microwave.  But  at  what  price  for  society  as  a  whole?

Since   the   North   American   Free   Trade   Agreement   (NAFTA)   smashed   trade   barriers  between  Canada,   the  US   and  Mexico   the  US   has   lost   more  than   250,000   jobs   and   it   is  estimated  that  Mexico  has  lost  more  than  two  million.  Meanwhile,   in  Canada  more  than  100,000  public-­‐sector   jobs  have  been   cut   since  1994   and  wages  for   those  who   still   have  them  have  been  frozen  for  nearly  a  decade.  All  to  please  big  investors  who  demand  'fiscal  prudence'   from  governments  -­‐-­‐   ie  balance  your  budgets  no  matter  what  the  cost,  unless  you  want  the  rug  pulled  out  from  under  your  currency.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

10

This   ratcheting   down   of   standards   is   all   in   aid   of   'comparative   advantage'   in   the  marketplace.   Slash  education  and  healthcare  spending?   Pollute  the  air,  water  and  land?  Sell   off  state-­‐owned  enterprises?  Merge  corporations  and  cut  jobs?  It's  all  to   the  good  as  long  as  it's  'economically  efficient'.  Many  would  argue  that  this  is  the  central  principle  on  which  the  current  economic  model  of  'neo-­‐liberalism'  is  based.

Neo-­‐liberalism   adds   a   new   twist   to   the   old   liberal   faith   in   free   trade   of   goods   and  services  -­‐-­‐   an  unflinching,   dogmatic  belief  in   the  rights  of  private   capital.   It   is  a  system  with  a  Western  (and  particularly  a  US)  world  view  which  puts  economic  values  and  goals  first   and   social   goals   a   distant   second.   It   calls   for   a   world   prised   open   to   the   free  movement   of   both   goods   and   capital,   though   not   labour.   The   International   Monetary  Fund   (IMF),   the   WTO   and   the   World   Bank   are   the   institutions   which   manage   and  enforce   the   laws   of   neo-­‐liberalism.   These   three   function   as   an   unelected   world   state  accountable   to   no-­‐one   except   the   bond   traders   in   London   and   Tokyo   and   the   mega-­‐corporations   that   are   the  major  beneficiaries  of  the  emerging   global   system   and  whose  resources  dwarf  those  of  most  nation-­‐states.  Maybe  Karl  Marx  was  right  after  all  when  he  said  'modern  state  power  is  merely  the  executive  committee  charged  with  managing  the  affairs  of  the  bourgeoisie'.

The   system   wasn't   meant   to   function   that   way.   The   roles   of   the   IMF,   the   WTO  (formerly  GATT,   or   the  General   Agreement   on   Tariffs   and  Trade)   and   the  World  Bank  have   changed   radically   since   they   were   first   dreamed   up   at   Bretton   Woods,   New  Hampshire  in   July  1944.  As  World  War  Two   drew  to  a  close,  44  nations  met   in  the  New  England   resort   village  to   erect   a  new   framework   for   the   post-­‐war  global   economy.   The  economic  frenzy  of  the  1920s  had  spiralled  into  worldwide  depression  in  the  1930s  and  led  to  the  collapse  of  an  international  exchange  system  based  oil  the  gold  standard.

The   aim   of   the   Bretton   Woods   conference   was   to   build   a   stable,   co-­‐operative  international  monetary   system   which  would   promote  national   sovereignty   and  prevent  future   financial   crises.   The  main   proposal   was   for   a   system   of   fixed   exchange   rates   -­‐-­‐  floating  rates  were  seen  as   inherently  unstable  and  destructive  of  national   development  plans.

The   three  global   institutions  which  emerged   from   the  conference  each  had  a  distinct  role  (see  The  Bretton  Woods  Trio,  right).  But  none  of  them  had  the  authority  which  they  have  since  arrogated  to   themselves.  Their  key  job  was  to  sort  out  temporary  balance-­‐of-­‐payments   problems;   they   had   no   control   over   the   economic   decisions   of   particular  countries   nor   could   they   intervene   in   national   policy.   The   original   Bretton   Woods  agreements   specifically   sought   to   limit   the  movement   of  finance  capital   and  contain   it  within  national  borders.

Britain's  delegate,   John  Maynard  Keynes,  was  especially  adamant   about   this.   'Nothing  is  more  certain,'  he  wrote,   'than  that  the  movement  of  capital  funds  must   be  regulated.'  

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

11

Otherwise  the  money  would  'shift  with  the  speed  of  a  magic  carpet  and  these  movements  would   have   the   effect   of   disorganizing   all   steady   business'.   So   Article   VI   of   the   IMF  Articles   of   Agreement   allows   members   'to   exercise   such   controls   as   are   necessary   to  regulate  international  capital  movements'.

It  was  not  to  be.  Sparked  by  the  radical  right-­‐wing  policies  of  Margaret  Thatcher  in  the  UK   and  Ronald  Reagan   in   the  US,   free   trade   found   a   new  audience  and   restraints  on  global   investment  were  slowly  unbuckled.  With  London  and  Wall  Street  leading  the  way,  deregulation  and  the  computer  revolution   combined  to   transform  banking,  finance  and  investment.   The  Bretton  Woods   institutions,   essentially   controlled  by   the  G7   group   of  rich   nations,   were   pulled   into   this   frenzied   rush   to   free   markets,   spreading   strictly  enforced  structural-­‐adjustment  programmes  across  the  Third  World.

And  what   is   structural   adjustment  but  neo-­‐liberalism   with  a  different   name,  another  way  to  shift  wealth  into  the  pockets  of  the  already  well-­‐off?  The  UN  Conference  on  Trade  and  Development  (UNCTAD)  has  meticulously  documented  the  transfer  of  wealth  from  wages   to   profits   in  dozens  of  countries  over   the   past   two  decades.  And  not   only   in  the  South.  Even  in  the  US  real  wages  (adjusted  for  inflation)  have  fallen  and  income  equality  has  worsened  since   the  Bretton  Woods  agreements   fell   apart.   The  top  one  per   cent   of  Americans  have  doubled  their  share  of  the  national  wealth  since  the  mid-­‐1970s  and  now  control  40  per  cent  of  the  total.

The   result   is   that   national   governments,   both   North   and   South,   have   become  subordinate   to   the   dictates   of   supra-­‐national   organizations   with   apparently   limitless  power.  As  the  Harvard  economist  Jeffrey  Sachs  has  stated,  the  IMF  now  dictates  economic  policy  for  1.4  billion  people  or  nearly  60  per  cent  of  the  developing  world  outside  China  and   India   which   are   not   under   its   programmes.[2]   True   believers   in   the   neo-­‐liberal  agenda  would  prefer  a  pliable  nation-­‐state,  one  which  supports  them  when  it's  necessary  and  stands  aside  the  rest  of  the  time.  'National  governments  can't  be  trusted  to  be  either  rational   or   efficient,'   they  crow.  Never  mind   that   we're   talking   here  about   all   national  governments,   including   those   that   are   democratically   elected.   The   thoughts   of   an  employee  of  the  Lehman  Bros  investment  firm  after  the  downfall  of  the  Social  Democratic  Government   in   Sweden   a   few   years   back   are   instructive.   'The   international   financial  markets,'  he  quipped,  'are  on  a  religious  crusade  to  roll  back  social  democracy.'[3]

And  not  just  social  democracy.  What  is  being  challenged  fundamentally  is  the  ability  of  national  governments  to   implement  economic  policy  in  the  interests  of  their  citizens.  In  this  sense  neo-­‐liberalism   is  as   great   a   threat   to   democracy   and   national   sovereignty  as  we've  seen  this  past  century.

Nevertheless,  there  are  signs  that  what  is  sometimes  called  the  'Washington  consensus'  is  beginning  to  wear  thin.  Distinct  cracks  have  emerged  in  the  neo-­‐liberal  facade  since  the  catastrophic   economic  meltdown   in   Asia   two   years   ago   and   the   subsequent   crises   in  

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

12

Russia,  Brazil   and  parts  of  Latin  America.  More  than  20  million  people  are  estimated  to  have   lost   their   jobs   since   the   crisis   first   erupted.   Social   unrest   and   anger   has   been  growing.   In   Indonesia   it   led   to   the   downfall   of   the   Suharto   dictatorship.   In   Brazil  thousands  have  protested  against  IMF-­‐imposed  spending  cuts.  Even  G7  leaders  like  Tony  Blair   and   Bill   Clinton   have   made   soothing   noises   about   'taming   speculators'   and  rebuilding  the  'global  financial  architecture'.

But,   more   importantly,   the   crisis   has   invigorated   a   worldwide   citizens'   movement  whose   insistent   calls   for   change   are   attracting   increasing   numbers   of   supporters.   And  those   in  power   are   taking  note.   US   Trade  Representative  Charlene  Barshefsky   recently  said  that  'there  is  growing  distrust'  of  globalization  in  both  the  North  and  the  South.  'The  single   greatest   threat'   to   the   global   financial   system,   she   admitted,   is   'the   absence   of  public  support'.

At  New  Internationalist  we  see  this  as  a  sign  of  hope.  National  governments  are  either  too  weak  or  too  compromised  in  their  dealings  with  the  current  global  financial  order.  An  international  citizens'  movement  is  the  only  way  to  convince  states  to  act  in  the  interests  of   their   people.   There   is   now   a   growing   popular   movement   to   redesign   the   Bretton  Woods  architecture   from   the  ground  up.  And  that  means  more  than   just   tinkering  with  the  wiring.  Instead,  we  need  a  radical  rethink  that  will  put  humans  in  control,  at  the  heart  of  the  global  economy.  The  goal  should  be  a  new  international  financial  architecture  that  will  restore  the  social  vision  of  meaningful  employment  and  human  rights.  One  that  will  prejudice  the   local   over  the   global.   And   one   that  will   restore   the  ecological   health  and  natural  capital  of  our  planet.

Tens  of  thousands  of  people  in  dozens  of  countries  around  the  globe  are  now  working  on   this  project.  Many  of  the  ideas  found  in  this   issue  are  rooted  in  their  inspiration  and  vision  in  what  we  feel  will  become  the  most  critical  debate  of  our  time  -­‐-­‐  at  the  start   of  this  new  millennium.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

13

Development  as  Forced  LabourLummis,  C.  Douglas.  New  Internationalist  324  (2000):  26-­‐28.

Democracy:  Bulldozing  ItSeveral  years  ago,  in  a  book  called  Radical  Democracy,  I  wrote  that:  'Economic  

development...  is  antidemocratic  in  that  it  requires  kinds,  conditions  and  amounts  of  labour  that  people  would  never  choose  -­‐  and,  historically  have  never  chosen  -­‐  in  a  state  of  freedom.  Only  by  giving  society  one  undemocratic  structure  can  people  be  made  to  spend  the  greater  part  of  their  lives  labouring  "efficiently"  in  fields,  factories  or  offices,  and  handing  over  the  surplus  value  to  capitalists,  managers,  Communist  Party  leaders,  or  technocrats.'

A  book  reviewer  for  the  prestigious  journal  Foreign  Affairs  responded  tersely  that  in  fact  'the  people  have  been  voting  with  their  feet  in  favour  of  capitalist  prosperity  pretty  convincingly  for  some  time  now'.

This  is  the  myth,  stated  with  fine  succinctness.  Industrial  capitalism  was  freely  chosen.  How  can  anyone  call  it  antidemocratic?

Of  course  what  most  of  the  people  in  the  world  actually  got,  whatever  they  may  have  voted  for,  was  capitalist  poverty.  But  did  this  voting  actually  take  place,  and  if  so,  when?  'For  some  time  now'  could  mean  recent  decades  or  recent  centuries.  Are  we  supposed  to  believe  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  industrial  revolution  in  England,  the  farmers  who  trudged  into  the  cities  to  become  the  first  generations  of  industrial  wage  workers  were  voting  retroactively  with  their  feet  in  favour  of  having  been  driven  off  their  land  by  enclosure?  Are  we  supposed  to  believe  that  the  peoples  of  Asia,  Africa  and  Latin  America  voted  in  favour  of  being  colonized?  Perhaps  the  reviewer  is  thinking  of  the  era  following  World  War  Two,  when  colonialism  and  imperialism  gave  way  to  an  allegedly  more  benign  policy  of  'the  development  of  underdeveloped  countries'.

For  while  few  have  claimed  that  colonialism  had  the  consent  of  the  colonized,  part  of  the  ideology  of  development  implies  such  consent.  Without  it,  how  could  development  -­‐  which  means  the  restructuring  of  societies  such  that  they  will  sustain  the  industrial  capitalist  mode  of  production  -­‐  support  its  claim  to  be  different?

When  Harry  Truman  in  1949  announced  his  'bold  new  program'  for  'the  development  of  underdeveloped  areas',  he  was  launching  the  most  massive  sustained  assault  on  both  nature  and  culture  that  history  has  ever  known.  At  the  same  time  he  was  launching  a  massive  paradigm  shift  in  political  economy.  Before  his  announcement,  'modernization'  did  not  exist  as  a  technical  term  in  the  social  sciences  and  the  only  thing  that  could  be  'underdeveloped'  was  camera  film.  After  his  announcement  the  world  was  covered  with  under-­‐  developed  countries  in  which  development  and  modernization  were  either  taking  place  or  just  about  to.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

14

The  ideological  power  of  the  concepts  of  'modernization'  and  'development'  comes  from  their  use  of  retroactive  teleology.  Put  bluntly,  this  means  redefining  something  so  that  what  you  are  about  to  do  to  it  appears  as  its  predetermined  destiny.  For  example,  we  call  a  certain  kind  of  stone  'iron  ore',  which  means  that  if  we  crush  it  to  powder  and  subject  it  to  intense  heat,  it  will  yield  iron.  It  wasn't  'ore'  until  this  technology  was  discovered.  But  once  we  have  the  technology,  we  redefine  the  stone  such  that  extracting  iron  from  it  is  seen  as  the  actualization  of  its  latent  potential,  its  fated  end,  its  telos.  Not  only  that:  the  dictionary  defines  'ore'  as  'native  metal  from  which  precious  or  useful  metal  may  be  profitably  extracted'  (Oxford  English  Dictionary;  emphasis  added).  Even  the  market  system  is  retroactively  implanted  into  our  definition  of  this  natural  object:  when  the  market  value  drops,  what  was  ore  today  may  be  stone  tomorrow.

'Underdeveloped  society'  is  a  word  like  'ore'.  It  is  a  redefinition  made  possible  by  the  fact  that  the  leaders  in  the  industrial  capitalist  countries  believe  they  have  the  power  and  the  technology  to  smash  such  a  society,  melt  it  down  and  remold  it  on  the  industrial  capitalist  model.  At  the  same  time,  the  word  gives  the  impression  that  to  do  this  is  to  fulfill  that  society's  predetermined  destiny.  This  conceals  the  violently  antidemocratic  nature  of  development.

In  the  heady  first  years  after  Truman's  speech,  the  new  modernization/development  ideologues  propagated  the  myth  that  the  chief  motivating  force  behind  development  would  be  'the  revolution  of  rising  expectations'  brought  about  by  the  'demonstration  effect'  of  industrial  capitalist  life.  Merely  being  exposed  to  this  way  of  life  -­‐  whether  through  pictures  in  magazines,  or  movies,  or  stories  you  got  from  your  cousin  who  scrubs  floors  at  the  local  Hilton  -­‐  would  cause  the  scales  to  fall  from  your  eyes,  after  which  you  would  drop  everything  (culture,  tradition,  values,  whatever)  to  have  it.

But  at  the  very  time  the  ideologues  were  popularizing  this  myth,  they  knew  well  that  it  wasn't  really  happening.  In  1963,  in  his  Communications  and  Political  Development,  Lucian  Pye  wrote:  'It  is  no  longer  possible  to  assume  that  people  in  traditional  societies  will  readily  experience  a  revolution  of  rising  expectations  simply  by  being  exposed  to  the  prospect  of  new  standards  of  material  life...  Instead  of  having  to  cope  with  an  agitated  population  carried  away  with  exaggerated  expectations,  most  governments  in  transitional  societies  are  confronted  with  the  problem  of  a  disturbingly  apathetic  public  which  is  inured  to  all  appeals  for  action.'

Merely  renaming  the  stones  'ore'  did  not,  it  seems,  cause  them  to  disintegrate  into  powder  and  leap  into  the  furnace  on  their  own.  But  this  did  not  cause  the  developmentalists  to  abandon  the  revolution  of  rising  expectations.  The  myth  persists  to  this  day.  There  is  a  doublethink  here.  What  matters  is  not  what  people  actually  want  but  what  they  are  theoretically  bound  to  want.  Underdevelopment  is  to  development  what  

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

15

the  acorn  is  to  the  oak.  Development  is  what  the  acorns  want  by  their  very  nature,  and  if  they  aren't  aware  of  that,  well,  they'll  find  out  soon  enough.

Developmentalists  engage  in  a  similar  kind  of  doublethink  with  regard  to  the  history  of  colonialism  and  imperialism.  These  unfortunate  things  happened,  as  Marion  Levy  argued  in  his  Modernization  and  the  Structure  of  Societies,  but  they  weren't  essential  to  the  inevitable  process  of  modernity  overcoming  tradition.  To  focus  on  imperialism  can  only  be  a  distraction,  since  'the  morals  of  imperialists  are  essentially  irrelevant  to  the  problems  faced  by  members  of  relatively  non-­‐modernized  societies  in  contact  with  modernization'.

Of  course,  this  won't  do.  What  happened  in  colonial  and  imperial  times  is  not  peripheral  to  the  story  of  economic  development  -­‐  it  is  the  first  chapter  in  that  story.  In  the  1933  International  Encyclopedia  of  the  Social  Sciences,  written  before  the  shift  to  the  development  paradigm,  there  is  an  entry  which  discusses  forced  labor  in  the  modern  world.  In  most  tropical  areas  the  'white  man'  is  unable  or  unwilling  to  perform  manual  labor  and  enterprise  must  rely  either  upon  the  local  population  or  upon  imported  coolie  labor.  Since  the  material  wants  of  primitive  peoples  are  few  and  they  are  unfamiliar  with  a  money  economy  and  unaccustomed  to  arduous  and  continuous  toil,  they  are  usually  unwilling  to  work  for  European  entrepreneurs.  Out  of  this  conflict  between  native  indifference  and  the  desires  of  governments  and  industrialists,  forced  labor  arose.  Many  of  the  chief  tropical  railways  and  roads  have  been  constructed  by  forced  labor.  Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  tropics  could  have  been  held  and  developed  without  it.

Forced  labor,  the  author  continues,  is  still  -­‐  ie  in  the  1930s  -­‐practised  in  all  of  Central  Africa,  French  Algeria  and  Indo-­‐China,  British  India,  Dutch  East  Indies,  Belgian  Congo,  British  East  Africa,  Madagascar  and  French  West  Africa,  Liberia,  Portuguese  West  Africa,  Dutch  Java.  The  author  goes  on  to  describe  some  of  the  actual  consequences.  When  the  'native'  is  suddenly  and  forcibly  thrown  into  contact  with  industrial  civilization  their  psychological  resistance  to  diseases  such  as  tuberculosis  is  lowered.  Because  of  the  compulsory  methods  used  in  the  construction  of  the  Congo-­‐Ocean  railway  in  French  Equatorial  Africa  and  a  lack  of  adequate  precautions,  17,000  native  workers  engaged  on  the  enterprise  died  between  1925  and  1929.

The  author  then  summarizes  the  justification  colonialists  offer  for  using  forced  labor,  an  argument  in  which  we  can  see  the  postwar  ideology  of  development  in  its  embryonic  form:  'Many  businessmen  [sic]  and  some  colonial  officials...  defended  forced  labor  for  private  enterprises  on  the  ground  that  primitive  peoples  will  not  progress  until  they  learn  to  work  and  that  the  wealth  of  the  tropics  cannot  be  exploited  for  the  outside  world  unless  forced  labour  is  employed.'

Still,  in  most  colonies  direct  forced  labor  was  used  only  for  public  works  and  not  by  private  enterprise.  In  some  colonies,  however  -­‐  for  example,  parts  of  British  South  and  East  Africa  -­‐  indigenous  people,  having  been  deprived  of  land  adequate  enough  for  

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

16

independent  economic  existence,  were  literally  compelled  to  labor  for  European  mine  or  plantation  owners.  They  may  also  have  been  indirectly  subjected  to  heavy  cash  taxes  which  they  could  not  pay  except  out  of  wages.

Here  we  find  the  first  generation  of  'underdeveloped'  people  'voting  with  their  feet'  for  the  life  of  the  industrial  wage  earner.  When  you  are  driven  off  the  land  by  new  laws  of  private  ownership,  or  when  the  forest  from  which  you  draw  your  livelihood  is  cut  down  and  replaced  by  a  plantation,  there  may  be  nothing  for  it  but  to  trudge  down  the  road  to  the  owner's  house  and  ask  for  a  job.  And  remember,  this  process  -­‐  the  transformation  of  the  natural,  social  and  legal  environment  such  that  wage  work  becomes  the  only  choice  -­‐  is  not  something  that  disappeared  when  colonialism  was  replaced  by  development.  This  is  development.

In  the  1968  revised  edition  of  The  International  Encyclopedia  of  the  Social  Sciences  the  entry  'Forced  Labor'  has  disappeared.  It  is  hardly  ever  mentioned  in  any  work  on  economic  development.  Industrial  capitalism  is  a  system  of  rule;  it  rules  people  by  gaining  control  over  their  means  of  subsistence.  Economic  development  is  the  extension  of  this  system  of  rule  to  every  corner  of  the  globe.  In  the  age  of  colonialism  this  required  direct  forced  labor.  In  the  age  of  development  it  is  done  by  means  of  indirect  forced  labor,  supplemented  by  the  political  power  of  the  Development  Dictatorship.  In  the  age  of  globalization  the  process  seems  to  be  nearing  completion:  industrial  capitalism  is  now  claiming  to  be  The  Only  Game  in  Town.  In  this  situation,  to  look  at  the  long  column  of  development  refugees  trudging  down  the  road  from  the  blasted  countryside  into  the  slums  of  the  cities  in  search  of  jobs,  and  to  say  these  people  are  'voting  with  their  feet  for  capitalist  prosperity',  is  to  make  a  bad  joke.  Isn't  a  plebiscite  where  there  is  just  one  candidate  supposed  to  be  a  symbol  of  tyranny?

But  of  course  this  is  not  really  the  only  game  in  town,  nor  the  only  set  of  rules.  In  recent  decades  people's  movements  all  over  the  world  have  defied  'economic  common  sense'  to  block  development  projects  that  threaten  their  subsistence.  The  search  for  an  alternative  economic  logic  -­‐  or  non-­‐economic  logic  -­‐  is  something  that  no  longer  takes  place  only  in  books.  The  Zapatista  chant  -­‐  'the  First  World  ?  Ha,  ha,  ha!'  promises  to  echo  deep  into  the  21st  century.  The  real  election  of  the  feet  -­‐  the  long  march  to  a  democratized  economy  -­‐  is  yet  in  the  future.

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

17

Resource Wars: the FactsThe New Internationalist, 367Sven Torfinn / Panos / www.panos.co.uk

War•  During  the  1990s  5  million  people  around  the  world  are  estimated  to  have  been  killed  in  

con<licts;  6  million  <led  to  neighbouring  countries  and  a  further  11-­‐15  million  were  

internally  displaced.1

•  In  Africa,  economic  losses  due  to  war  are  approximately  $15  billion  per  year.2

•  However,  since  1990  the  world  has  been  signi<icantly  safer  from  con<licts  between  

nations;  the  risk  of  such  con<licts  was  only  half  as  great  during  the  1990s  as  during  the  Cold  

War.3

•  Between  1989-­‐2001  there  have  been  115  armed  con<licts  around  the  world,  108  of  which  

were  civil  con<licts.  The  most  serious  of  these  have  been  in  Africa.4

Loot•  States  dependent  on  primary  resource  exports  are  over  20  times  more  likely  to  suffer  a  

civil  war  than  non-­‐dependent  countries.5

•  The  more  that  states  rely  on  exporting  raw  materials,  the  worse  their  standard  of  living  is  

likely  to  be.  The  greater  a  country’s  level  of  mineral  dependence,  the  lower  its  ranking  in  

the  Human  Development  Index  between  1991-­‐98.6

•  The  more  that  states  rely  on  mineral  exports,  the  smaller  the  share  of  income  that  accrues  

to  the  poorest  20%  of  the  population.6

•  Countries  highly  dependent  on  oil  and  mineral  exports  are  more  vulnerable  to  economic  

shocks  as  prices  have  grown  more  volatile  since  1970.6

Poverty and resource-dependence: the links6

This  table  indicates  statistically  signi<icant  links  between  poor  development  indicators  and  

countries’  reliance  on  mineral  and  oil  exports  (controlling  for  the  in<luence  of  per  

capita  GDP).

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

18

Resource dependence reduces economic growth:

Estimated revenue from conflict resources, selected cases1

Combatant  Resource  Period  Estimated  revenue  UNITA  (Angola)  diamonds  1992-­‐2001  

$4,000  million  total  RUF  (Sierra  Leone)  diamonds  1990s  $25  -­‐  125  million/year  Charles  

Taylor  (Liberia)  timber  Late  1990s  $100  -­‐  187  million/year  Government  of  Sudan  oil  Since  

1999  $400  million/year  Government  of  Rwanda  coltan  1999-­‐2000  $250  million  total

Forgotten wars

Tens  of  millions  of  people  are  threatened  by  con<lict  and  violence,  but  response  to  their  

needs  is  led  by  political  expediency.  Focus  on  the  ‘war  on  terror’  has  exacerbated  the  

neglect  of  ongoing  humanitarian  crises  while  wealthy  countries  are  reluctant  to  commit  

troops  to  UN  peacekeeping.7

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

19

Small but deadly•  The  real  weapons  of  mass  destruction.  90%  of  civilian  casualties  are  caused  by  small  

arms.  Around  the  world  one  person  every  minute  is  killed  with  conventional  weapons.  In  

that  same  minute,  15  new  arms  are  

manufactured  for  sale.2

•  The  ;irearm  stockpile  for  sub-­‐  Saharan  

Africa  (44  countries)  is  estimated  at  less  than  

30  million  <irearms.3

•  Deadly  trade.  Despite  the  relatively  small  

size  of  the  arms  market,  the  prevalence  of  

weak  and  non-­‐existent  states,  rebel  

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

20

movements  and  endemic  civil  violence  make  the  sub-­‐Saharan  African  gun  trade  deadly.3

•  Smuggling.  Illicit  and  smuggled  weapons  may  rival  the  number  of  legal  weapons  in  sub-­‐

Saharan  Africa.3  It  is  estimated  that  80-­‐90%  of  illegal  small  arms  start  off  in  the  legal  trade.2  

The  illegal  trade  in  small  arms  could  be  worth  up  to  $10  billion  per  year.3

•  Small  arms.  Most  small  arms  sold  to  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa  appear  to  be  cheap,  second-­‐hand  

weapons  from  sources  that  are  dif<icult  to  trace,  mostly  originating  in  Central  and  Eastern  

Europe  or  in  Asia.  Russia  is  a  major  supplier  of  small  arms  to  African  countries.3

•  The  big  exporters.  The  world’s  most  powerful  countries  are  also  the  world’s  biggest  

arms  suppliers.  France,  Russia,  China,  Britain  and  the  US  together  account  for  88%  of  the  

world’s  conventional  arms  exports.  In  the  last  four  years  the  US,  Britain  and  France  earned  

more  income  from  arms  exports  to  Africa,  Asia,  the  Middle  East  and  Latin  America  than  

they  provided  in  aid.2Military  spending  in  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa  averages  $9.8  billion;  in  2001  

Angola  spent  3.1%  of  GDPon  the  military  compared  with  2.7%  on  education;  Sierra  Leone  

spends  3.6%  of  GDP  on  the  military  and  1%  on  education.10

Human cost•  Since  the  end  of  the  Cold  War,  90%  of  those  killed  in  con<lict  have  been  non-­‐combatants,  

compared  with  15%  at  the  beginning  of  the  century.11

•  Children  account  for  at  least  half  of  all  civilian  casualties.10

•  Beyond  its  direct  cost  in  human  lives,  con<lict  can  undermine  economies,  destabilize  

governments,  damage  infrastructure,  disrupt  social  service  delivery  and  provoke  mass  

movements  of  people.10

•  Forced  migration:  according  to  the  UNHCR,  ‘armed  con<lict  is  now  the  driving  force  

behind  most  refugee  <lows’  as  people  are  forced  to  <lee  their  homes.  There  are  some  13  

million  refugees  and  asylum-­‐seekers  worldwide  –  Africa  is  host  to  a  quarter  of  them.12

•  More  than  14  million  people  face  hunger  due  to  present  or  recent  con<licts  globally.10

•  Today,  as  many  as  300,000  children  under  18  serve  in  government  forces  or  armed  rebel  

groups,  some  as  young  as  eight  years  old.2

•  In  some  militaries  of  sub-­‐  Saharan  Africa  more  than  half  the  soldiers  are  HIV-­‐positive.1

Sven Torfinn / Panos / www.panos.co.uk

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

21

1. Michael  Renner,  ‘The  Anatomy  of  Resource  Wars’,  Worldwatch  Institute  20022. Control  Arms  campaign  media  brie<ing,  ‘Key  facts  and  <igures’,  http://www.controlarms.org  

9  October  20033. Small  Arms  Survey  2002,  2003,  Oxford  University  Press4. Michael  Ross,  ‘Natural  Resources  and  Civil  War’,  University  of  California  20025. Paul  Collier,  ‘Economic  Causes  of  Civil  Con<lict  and  their  Implications  for  Policy’,  World  Bank,  

15  June  20006. Michael  Ross,  ‘  Extractive  Industries  and  the  Poor’,  Oxfam  America  20017. ‘Beyond  the  Headlines:  an  agenda  to  protect  civilians  in  neglected  con<licts’,  Oxfam  

International  20038. United  Nations  Peacekeeping  Operations  Monthly  Summary  of  Contributors  (military  

observers,  civilian  police  and  troops)  as  of  31  January  2004.9. ‘Forgotten  Wars:  Coverage  of  wars  and  con<licts  in  Africa  in  International  TV  News  

programmes’,  Agenda  Setting  Newsletter,  http://www.agendasetting.com  200310. UNDP  Human  Development  Report  2003,  Oxford  University  Press11. Saferworld  (2003)  Cost  of  ConElict,  http://www.saferworld.co.uk/media/stats.htm12. World  Refugee  Survey  2003

Global Geography 12, R. Wheadon

22