pointing fingers
Did you hear about it? Four children died from malnutrition in the Argentine province of Tucumán. In terms of international distress, the four children are much less newsworthy than, say, starvation in Africa in the 1980s. But here in fertile Argentina, the problem is not a national lack of food: this can not be construed as a natural disaster. So on whom should the blame fall instead?
In the Argentine papers, news of the four children was quickly followed by a chorus of officials and public figures defending themselves and trying to shuffle the blame. The Argentine cabinet chief Alfredo Atanasof pointed the finger at the economic model followed by ex-president and current candidate Carlos Menem:
structural adjustments And so he directs the blame and shifts the focus to the ongoing negotiations with the International Monetary Fund. After decades of roller-coaster economic cycles and foreign borrowing, Argentina is the fourth biggest recipient of bailout loans, below only Indonesia, China, and Mexico. The current cycle of default and economic depression began in late 2001, after a period in the late 1990s of welcome growth and relative prosperity.
The 11-month negotiations with the IMF over the terms of a financial bailout have a familiar ring to them, for anyone who watched the same process, most prominently following the late 1990s crises in Southeast Asia. As a prerequisite for further IMF loans (loans to prevent default on former loans), the IMF, the World Bank, and the authoritative countries that support them (primarily the United States) demand budget policies to enforce fiscal austerity.
These policies, which serve to depress wages, limit spending on social programs like education and public health, and slow economic growth, are often bitterly contested within the country. Imagine if business bankrupcy proceedings worked the same way for, say, Enron. All of Enron's employees and shareholders would be subjected to drastically lower wages, their medical plans would be cut, their schools would receive less funding, and their city services (roads, highways, police, fire) would deteriorate. All in the name of paying their debt. The Enron 'citizens' would protest that it was not their debt, that they should not pay for the sins of previous directors. They'd need a visa for employment in another company, which would be very difficult to get because who would take on the dead weight of an Enron-ian?
Presidential candidate and provincial governor José Manuel de la Sota summarized many people's feelings toward the IMF negotiations:
default Friday, Argentina announced that it would send only the $80 million interest portion of an $800 million payment to the World Bank, thereby moving into default and endangering further promised World Bank payments. This news (not the news of the children) was a headline in papers across the United States, and it was accompanied by more finger-pointing, directing the blame back at Argentina. The Miami Herald called the move a "risky step taken only by the world's biggest deadbeat nations". Reuters quoted the IMF managing director, who said "Argentina must take responsibility for its crisis." President Dualde defended the decision, saying, "To pay today, in these conditions, would be risky for the economy. I refuse to make promises that cannot be fulfilled."
Argentina puts a fair amount of blame on the IMF but, like the IMF and American pundits, does not fail to criticize its own politicians. After the children's deaths, the Minister of Production attributed the deaths of the children to
the headline in the english-language paper
The director of the health department where the children died said milk assistance alone would not resolve the problem: "What would resolve the problem here is salaries for secure work, access to potable water, quality nutrition, and a responsible government."
beyond blame After 11 months of the worst depression in its history, half of Argentina's 36 million people live in poverty, and national unemployment is above 20 percent. Today the newspapers carry the same bad news: that 49 children have died this year from malnutrition in another province; that unemployed protesters have blocked roads throughout the capital; that a meeting of governors is slowly going over a draft IMF agreement with the president and the minister of the economy.
Russians, themselves familiar with continued unrest, have a common saying that translates loosely to, "What is to be done?" I imagine them saying it with a shrug of the shoulders, conveying not exactly futility but a sense of being overwhelmed. Here, Argentines either shake their heads in disbelief that they have found themselves in this Catch-22 position, or, motivated by hunger and need, move to the streets to demand that their needs are accounted for.
In the Argentine papers, news of the four children was quickly followed by a chorus of officials and public figures defending themselves and trying to shuffle the blame. The Argentine cabinet chief Alfredo Atanasof pointed the finger at the economic model followed by ex-president and current candidate Carlos Menem:
"This model, which didn't begin yesterday, has been precisely the cause of the troubles in Argentina, that have brought us malnutrition and the deaths we mourn today. [...] Argentina will not continue to support the savage model of structual adjuistment as a strategy to escape from this crisis. That’s how we ended up in the longest negotiation in the history of the IMF."
structural adjustments And so he directs the blame and shifts the focus to the ongoing negotiations with the International Monetary Fund. After decades of roller-coaster economic cycles and foreign borrowing, Argentina is the fourth biggest recipient of bailout loans, below only Indonesia, China, and Mexico. The current cycle of default and economic depression began in late 2001, after a period in the late 1990s of welcome growth and relative prosperity.
The 11-month negotiations with the IMF over the terms of a financial bailout have a familiar ring to them, for anyone who watched the same process, most prominently following the late 1990s crises in Southeast Asia. As a prerequisite for further IMF loans (loans to prevent default on former loans), the IMF, the World Bank, and the authoritative countries that support them (primarily the United States) demand budget policies to enforce fiscal austerity.
These policies, which serve to depress wages, limit spending on social programs like education and public health, and slow economic growth, are often bitterly contested within the country. Imagine if business bankrupcy proceedings worked the same way for, say, Enron. All of Enron's employees and shareholders would be subjected to drastically lower wages, their medical plans would be cut, their schools would receive less funding, and their city services (roads, highways, police, fire) would deteriorate. All in the name of paying their debt. The Enron 'citizens' would protest that it was not their debt, that they should not pay for the sins of previous directors. They'd need a visa for employment in another company, which would be very difficult to get because who would take on the dead weight of an Enron-ian?
Presidential candidate and provincial governor José Manuel de la Sota summarized many people's feelings toward the IMF negotiations:
"If they are asking us for more taxes, more belt-tightening or throwing people out into the streets, then there is nothing to talk about. These recipes have brought us to this crisis, which is killing children."
default Friday, Argentina announced that it would send only the $80 million interest portion of an $800 million payment to the World Bank, thereby moving into default and endangering further promised World Bank payments. This news (not the news of the children) was a headline in papers across the United States, and it was accompanied by more finger-pointing, directing the blame back at Argentina. The Miami Herald called the move a "risky step taken only by the world's biggest deadbeat nations". Reuters quoted the IMF managing director, who said "Argentina must take responsibility for its crisis." President Dualde defended the decision, saying, "To pay today, in these conditions, would be risky for the economy. I refuse to make promises that cannot be fulfilled."
Argentina puts a fair amount of blame on the IMF but, like the IMF and American pundits, does not fail to criticize its own politicians. After the children's deaths, the Minister of Production attributed the deaths of the children to
"a sick society and a government made up of sons of bitches, among whom I include myself. [...] Reality has been twisted little by little every day. This little boy didn't die yesterday, he died ages ago, and others will follow. This is a chronic situation, resulting from a continued lack of attention to these problems."
The director of the health department where the children died said milk assistance alone would not resolve the problem: "What would resolve the problem here is salaries for secure work, access to potable water, quality nutrition, and a responsible government."
beyond blame After 11 months of the worst depression in its history, half of Argentina's 36 million people live in poverty, and national unemployment is above 20 percent. Today the newspapers carry the same bad news: that 49 children have died this year from malnutrition in another province; that unemployed protesters have blocked roads throughout the capital; that a meeting of governors is slowly going over a draft IMF agreement with the president and the minister of the economy.
Russians, themselves familiar with continued unrest, have a common saying that translates loosely to, "What is to be done?" I imagine them saying it with a shrug of the shoulders, conveying not exactly futility but a sense of being overwhelmed. Here, Argentines either shake their heads in disbelief that they have found themselves in this Catch-22 position, or, motivated by hunger and need, move to the streets to demand that their needs are accounted for.
previously there was Subte
afterwards you have importing
Not that I blame you. The first time I read a whole section of a Berlin newspaper in German, I was regaled with news about giraffes, Chancellor Helmet Cabbage, and so on.
My cheekiness thusly stated, good analysis. The over-20% unemployment is indeed staggering, and it's amazing that the effects of such have not shown themselves in photographable society. Could this be a result of a society that is more used to a lack of capitalist-driven prosperity, and has learned not to despair when the IMF rears its ugly interest rates?
Best, and keep writing,
Ryan [submitted on 23 Nov 02]
dr [submitted on 24 Nov 02]