Saturday, December 22, 2012

(TIMES ZM) Veep flags off seed distribution

Veep flags off seed distribution
December 21, 2012

VICE-President Guy Scott has said 90,000 hectares of maize have been ravaged by army worms out of the total 300,000 hectares countrywide.

Dr Scott said this in Chisamba yesterday when he flagged off the distribution of 360 tonnes of maize seed to commence the re-planting exercise.

The vice-president described the army worms attack as the worst damage to the agriculture sector.

He called on farmers that were receiving the maize seed for re-planting to ensure that it was used for the intended purpose.

The Government, he said, was using taxpayers’ money to purchase the maize seed and cautioned farmers against selling the input.

Dr Scott said 90,000 hectares of maize had been affected in seven provinces in the country.

The Government has already spent more than K15 billion towards the purchase of the input for the affected farmers.

Meanwhile, Disaster Management Mitigation Unit national coordinator Patrick Kangwa said 360 tonnes of maize seed was for Chibombo while 2,000 tonnes had been bought for the seven provinces.

He said of the seven regions that had been hit, Eastern Province was the worst affected followed by Central Province.

Agriculture Minister Emmanuel Chenda and Central Province Minister Phillip Kosamu witnessed the ceremony.

Labels: ,


(STICKY) (TIMES ZM) Seal tax loopholes, Saasa urges Govt

COMMENT - Glencore International PLC is world renowned for it's tax evasion. Glencore, called the Goldman Sachs of commodities because of it's ruthless business practices, is even headquartered in Switzerland. How obvious do they need to be? They even have Tony Hayward of BP who is now a senior non-executive director at Glencore (see 4). For more information on Glencore's activities, read:

1) Mopani pilot audit reveals tax payment irregularities
Thursday, February 10, 2011, 8:48


3) WBAI AfrobeatRadio, 06.09.2012
Glencore International's exploitation of child mining labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aired on AfrobeatRadio, on WBAI, 99.5 FM, New York City,

3) Contracts, human rights and taxation: How a company exploits a country
The case of Glencore in the DRC - Study written by Chantal Peyer in collaboration with Yvan Maillard (Bread for All); Fieldwork in the Democratic Republic of Congo led by Freek Cronje, Jean-Didier Losamgo Nzinga, Vidette Bester and David van Wyk (Bench Marks Foundation)

4) (DAILY MAIL UK) Greed Inc: A special investigation into pollution, dubious tax practices and exploitation of African workers at Glencore

Seal tax loopholes, Saasa urges Govt
December 21, 2012

ECONOMIST Oliver Saasa has said revelations that K40 trillion was siphoned out of Zambia reflects serious lapses in the tax system which the current Government should urgently address.

And the Zambia Congress of Trade of Unions (ZCTU) says the loss of the K40 trillion between 2000 and 2010 was evidence of a failed tax monitoring system under the MMD administration which the Patriotic Front (PF) leadership should immediately address.

Professor Saasa said in Lusaka yesterday that the country had continued to lose huge amounts of money through tax evasion and corruption.

He said the Government should seal all the loopholes, especially in the mining sector.

“This is a wake-up call for the PF Government to institute measures to overhaul our fiscal tax regime. There is no need to lose trillions,” he said in an interview.

Prof Saasa hailed the pronouncement by Finance Minister Alexander Chikwanda that the matter would be probed.

ZCTU leader Leonard Hikaumba echoed similar concerns on the need to curb tax evasion as evidenced through the revelation by the Washington-based Global Financial Integrity in its report.

Meanwhile, Mopani Copper Mines (MCM) has indicated that all taxes, royalties and other dues to the Zambian Government are paid in line with the country’s legislation.

The mining company is audited annually by Deloitte and its accounts have always been given a clean bill of health and kept at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This is contained in the April 2012 submissions by Glencore International Plc, the major shareholders of MCM and made available to the Times in Kitwe yesterday by MCM head of communications and public relations, Cephas Sinyangwe.

Mopani is convinced that the taxes, royalties and other dues to the Government have always been calculated and paid in the proper manner in line with the applicable legislation,” read the submissions in part.

Labels: , , , , , ,


(LUSAKATIMES) Wynter Kabimba Don’t Bring Winter (ukwingisha abantu impepo) Over Our Democracy

Wynter Kabimba Don’t Bring Winter( ukwingisha abantu impepo) Over Our Democracy
TIME PUBLISHED - Thursday, December 20, 2012, 2:19 pm
By M. Makalu

As if the shortages of mealie meal and fuel, the misuse of the Public Order Act to suppress people’s political rights, the failures to implement election promises, etc were not enough doom and gloom in the nation, one Wynter Kabimba has embarked on a crusade to blanket our democracy under a heavy winter.

To begin with, no sooner had he become Minister of Justice than he banned NGOs from conducting constitution sensitization meetings unless under the supervision of the technical committee. And this is a committee of just about 18 people. How do you expect them to supervise massive constitution sensitisation programmes by various NGOs which must endevour to reach millions of people? How people-driven can such a constitution be?

He was asked, correctly and morally so, by some sections of society to relinquish either the ministerial post or the party post. In his defence, he cited a mediocre precedent set during the days of ‘political engineering’ under Chiluba, when we were dribbled into having Sata as both MMD Secretary General and Cabinet Minister. Should we be dribbled now just because we were dribbled then?

he defended this immorality by saying by-elections are budgeted for… we can have as many as possible, the budget will cater for them

Then allegations of corruption were leveled against him. He quickly wrote a letter to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), giving them a 7-day ultimatum to investigate him and announce their findings. He argued that as a citizen, he had the right not to have his name tarnished by baseless accusations. But this argument was fake. His real motives were to intimidate the ACC into not investigating him. This he proved when he went with an entourage of PF cadres to the ACC and refused to be interrogated except in the presence of his cadres. How does a Minister of Justice turn an institution intended to advance justice into a theatre for political fame?! Is he really a Minister of Justice or he is a Minister of Jokes? Not only that, how do you, as an executive, who claim to be allergic to corruption, intimidate the very institution that treats corruption allergies from checking you to ensure you are indeed free from the allergy?

Actions speak louder than words: Our leaders are allergic to fighting corruption.

The Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) was recently conducting constitution awareness activities in Kasama. Mr. Wynter Kabimba wrote them a letter, copied to the IG of Police, threatening them with arrest.
Clearly, spreading winter – ukwingisha abantu impepo – is the modus operendi for this Minister.

Fully aware that Given Lubinda was out on government business, Mr. Wynter hoped against hope that his 7-day winter (intimidation) notice to Given to exculpate himself of baseless accusations would pass without him doing so. He hoped he would then use this as an excuse to freeze Given out of PF, but Given knows better and he is smarter. He beat the winter, wrote the exculpatory letter and emailed it.

GBM must be laughing with pity as he watches Wynter’s one-man-against-the-party-and-country crusade, as Wynter mobilized PF cadres to demand that Given be expelled from the party, just to intimidate him (Given) further. Wynter should be eternally grateful to Kambwili for the courage and leadership he (Kambwili) has provided against pathetic foolishness (PF) in their party.

To crown it all, Wynter was quoted in the media telling blatant lies that the people of Zambia want one-party state. When he was challenged on radio that the PF were creating unnecessary by-elections with their ‘poaching tactics,’ he defended this immorality by saying by-elections are budgeted for… we can have as many as possible, the budget will cater for them.

Such comedy from a Minister is unacceptable. We want a Minister of Justice not a Minister of Jokes. Mr. Wynter Kabimba must not throw our democracy back into winter. The dark ages of UNIP and the corrupt ages of MMD were freezing enough!

No to Wynter! No to winter! Is there a Man of Action somewhere??!

Labels: , , ,


(LUSAKATIMES) 50,000 girls to be vaccinated with Human Papilloma Virus in 2013

50,000 girls to be vaccinated with Human Papilloma Virus in 2013
TIME PUBLISHED - Friday, December 21, 2012, 6:41 am

A total of 50,000 young girls are expected to be vaccinated with the human papilloma virus (HPV) during the cervical cancer national pilot project.

Head of Cervical Cancer Training and Prevention Programme (CCTPP) in Zambia, Sharon Kapambwe, disclosed the development in a telephone interview with ZANIS in Lusaka yesterday

Dr. Kapambwe said the demonstration project, which will begin with Lusaka province in March next year, was aimed at reducing newcervical cancer infections in the country.

She said the project, which will target mainly school girls, will later be rolled out to all the other provinces of the country.
Dr. Kapambwe further explained that one of the major objectives of the pilot programme was to prevent new cervical cancer infections especially in young girls who are not yet sexually active.

The human papilloma virus vaccines are given to protect women against cervical cancer infections.

Government, through the Ministry of Health and in partnership with other stakeholders, has intensified the fight against breast and cervical cancer which are the most common cancers found in Zambian women and causes more deaths than any other cancer.


Labels: , ,


Friday, December 21, 2012

(WHATS LEFT) Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work?

Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work?
Posted in Communism, Public Ownership and Planning, Socialism, Soviet Union, USSR by what's left on December 21, 2012

Compared to capitalism, the USSR’s publicly owned, planned economy worked remarkably well.

By Stephen Gowans

The Soviet Union was a concrete example of what a publicly owned, planned economy could produce: full employment, guaranteed pensions, paid maternity leave, limits on working hours, free healthcare and education (including higher education), subsidized vacations, inexpensive housing, low-cost childcare, subsidized public transportation, and rough income equality.

Most of us want these benefits. However, are they achievable permanently? It is widely believed that while the Soviet Union may have produced these benefits, in the end, Soviet public ownership and planning proved to be unworkable. Otherwise, how to account for the country’s demise? Yet, when the Soviet economy was publicly owned and planned, from 1928 to 1989, it reliably expanded from year to year, except during the war years.

To be clear, while capitalist economies plunged into a major depression and reliably lapsed into recessions every few years, the Soviet economy just as unfailingly did not, expanding unremittingly and always providing jobs for all. Far from being unworkable, the Soviet Union’s publicly owned and planned economy succeeded remarkably well. What was unworkable was capitalism, with its occasional depressions, regular recessions, mass unemployment, and extremes of wealth and poverty, all the more evident today as capitalist economies contract or limp along, condemning numberless people to forced idleness. What eventually led to the Soviet Union’s demise was the accumulated toll on the Soviet economy of the West’s efforts to bring it down, the Reagan administration’s intensification of the Cold War, and the Soviet leadership’s inability to find a way out of the predicament these developments occasioned.

By the 1980s, the USSR was showing the strains of the Cold War. Its economy was growing, but at slower pace than it had in the past. Military competition with its ideological competitor, the United States, had slowed growth in multiple ways. First, R&D resources were being monopolized by the military, starving the civilian economy of the best scientists, engineers, and machine tools. Second, military spending had increased to meet the Reagan administration’s abandonment of detente in favour of a renewed arms race that was explicitly targeted at crippling the Soviet economy. To deter US aggression, the Soviets spent a punishingly large percentage of GDP on the military while the Americans, with a larger economy, spent more in absolute terms but at a lower and more manageable share of national income. Third, to protect itself from the dangers of relying on foreign imports of important raw materials that could be cut off to bring the country to its knees, the Soviet Union chose to extract raw materials from its own vast territory. While making the USSR self-sufficient, internal sourcing ensnared the country in a Ricardian trap. The costs of producing raw materials increased, as new and more difficult-to-reach sources needed to be tapped as the older, easy-to-reach ones were exhausted. Fourth, in order to better defend the country, the Soviets sought allies in Eastern Europe and the Third World. However, because the USSR was richer than the countries and movements it allied with, it became the anchor and banker to other socialist countries, liberation movements, and states seeking to free themselves from despoliation by Western powers. As the number of its allies increased, and Washington manoeuvred to arm, finance, and support anti-communist insurgencies in an attempt to put added strain on the Soviet treasury, the costs to Moscow of supporting its allies mounted. These factors—corollaries of the need to provide for the Soviet Union’s defence—combined to push costs to the point where they seriously impeded Soviet economic growth.

With growth slowing, and the costs of defending the country increasing, it appeared as if it was only a matter of time before the USSR would find itself between the Scylla of an untenable military position and the Charybdis of arms race-driven bankruptcy. Mikhail Gorbachev, the country’s last leader, faced a dilemma: he could either bankrupt the economy by trying to keep pace with the Americans on arms spending or withdraw from the race altogether. Gorbachev chose the latter. He moved to end the Cold War, withdrawing military support from allies, and pledging cooperation with the United States. On the economic front, he set out to transform the Soviet Union into a Western-style social democracy. However, rather than rescuing the country from a future of ever slowing economic growth, Gorbachev’s capitulations on foreign and economic policy led to disaster. With the restraining hand of the Soviet Union lifted, the United States embarked on a series of aggressions around the world, beginning with Iraq, proceeding to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, and then Libya, with numerous smaller interventions in between. Gorbachev’s abandonment of economic planning and efforts to clear the way for the implementation of a market economy pushed the country into crisis. Within five years, Russia was an economic basket case. Unemployment, homelessness, economic insecurity and social parasitism (living off the labour of others) returned with a vengeance.

On Christmas Day, 1991, the day the USSR officially ended, Gorbachev said, “We live in a new world. The Cold War is finished. The arms race and the mad militarization of states, which deformed our economy, society and values, have been stopped. The threat of world war has been lifted” (Roberts, 1999). This made Gorbachev wildly popular in the West. Russians were less enthusiastic. Contained within Gorbachev’s words was the truth about why the world’s first conscious attempt to build an alternative to capitalism had been brought to a close. It was not because the Soviet economic system had proved unworkable. On the contrary, it had worked better than capitalism. The real reason for the USSR’s demise was that its leadership capitulated to an American foe, which, from the end of World War II, and with growing vigour during the Reagan years, sought to arms race to death the Soviet economy. This was an economy that worked for the bottom 99 percent, and therefore, if allowed to thrive, would have discredited the privately owned, market-regulated economies that the top one percent favoured and benefited from. It was this model of free enterprise and market regulation which made vast wealth, security and comfort the prerogatives of captains of industry and titans of finance, and unemployment, poverty, hunger, economic insecurity, and indignity—the necessary conditions of the top one percent’s riches—the lot of everyone else.

The 21 years since the defeat of the USSR have not been kind. Stalin, under whose tutelage the world’s first publicly owned, planned economy was built, once issued a prophetic warning: “What would happen if capitalism succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction in all the capitalist and colonial countries. The working class and the oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of international communism would be lost” (Stalin, 1954). And just as Stalin had accurately prophesied 10 years before Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the USSR, that his country had only 10 years to prepare for an attack, so too did he accurately foresee the consequences of the Soviet Union’s falling to the forces of capitalism. An era of the blackest reaction has, indeed, set in. Washington now has more latitude to use its muscular military to pursue its reactionary agenda around the world. Public ownership and planning hang on in Cuba and North Korea, but the United States and its allies use sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military harassment to sabotage the economies of the hold-outs (as they did the Soviet economy), so that the consequences can be falsely hung on what are alleged to be the deficiencies of public ownership and planning. They are in reality the consequences of a methodical program of low-level warfare. Encouraged to believe that the Soviet economic system had failed, many people, including both communist supporters and detractors of the Soviet Union, concluded that a system of public ownership and planning is inherently flawed. Communists abandoned communist parties for social democratic ones, or abandoned radical politics altogether. Social democrats shifted right, eschewing reform, and embracing neo-liberalism. In addition, Western governments, no longer needing to blunt the appeal of public ownership and planning, abandoned the public policy goal of full employment and declared robust public services to be no longer affordable (Kotz, 2001). At the same time, privatization in the former Soviet Union and formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe expanded the global supply of wage-labour, with predictable consequences for wage levels worldwide. The Soviet Union’s defeat has ushered in a heyday for capital. For the rest of us, our throats, as Stalin warned, have been seized.

The world’s largest capitalist economies have been in crisis since 2008. Some are trapped in an austerity death-spiral, some in the grips of recession, most growing slowly at best. Austerity—in reality the gutting of public services—is the prescribed pseudo-remedy. There is no end in sight. In some parts of Europe, official unemployment reaches well into the double-digits, youth unemployment higher still. In Greece, a country of 11 million, there are only 3.7 million employed (Walker and Kakaounaki, 2012). Moreover, the crisis can in no way be traced to an outside power systematically working to bring about capitalism’s demise, as the United States and its allies systematically worked to bring about the end of public ownership and planning in the USSR. Yet, free to develop without the encumbrance of an organized effort to sabotage it, capitalism is not working. Few point this out. By contrast, the Soviet model of public ownership and planning—which, from its inception was the target of a concerted effort to undermine it—never once, except during the extraordinary years of World War II, stumbled into recession, nor failed to provide full employment. Yet it is understood, including by some former supporters of the Soviet Union, to have been unworkable. Contrary to a widely held misconception, the experience of the Soviet Union did not demonstrate that an inherent weakness existed within its publicly owned, planned economy that doomed it to failure. It demonstrated, instead, the very opposite—that public ownership and planning could do what capitalism could not do: produce unremitting economic growth, full employment, an extensive array of free and nearly free public services, and a fairly egalitarian distribution of income. Moreover, it could do so year after year and continued to do so until the Soviet leadership pulled the plug. It also demonstrated that the top one percent would defend private ownership by using military, economic, and ideological means to crush a system that worked against them but worked splendidly for the bottom 99 percent (an effort that carries on today against Cuba and North Korea.)

The defeat of the Soviet Union has, indeed, ushered in a period of dark reaction. The way out remains, as ever, public ownership and planning—which the Soviet experience from 1928 to 1989 demonstrates works remarkably well—and struggle against those who would discredit, degrade or destroy it.

What Soviet public ownership and planning did for ordinary citizens of the USSR

The benefits of the Soviet economic system were found in the elimination of the ills of capitalism—an end to unemployment, inflation, depressions and recessions, and extremes of wealth and poverty; an end to exploitation, which is to say, the practice of living off the labour of others; and the provision of a wide array of free and virtually free public services.

Among the most important accomplishments of the Soviet economy was the abolition of unemployment. Not only did the Soviet Union provide jobs for all, work was considered a social obligation, of such importance that it was enshrined in the constitution. The 1936 constitution stipulated that “citizens of the USSR have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with quantity and quality.” On the other hand, making a living through means other than work was prohibited. Hence, deriving an income from rent, profits, speculation or the black market – social parasitism – was illegal (Szymanski, 1984). Finding a job was easy, because labour was typically in short supply. Consequently, employees had a high degree of bargaining power on the job, with obvious benefits in job security, and management paying close attention to employee satisfaction (Kotz, 2003).

Article 41 of the 1977 constitution capped the workweek at 41 hours. Workers on night shift worked seven hours but received full (eight-hour) shift pay. Workers employed at dangerous jobs (e.g., mining) or where sustained alertness was critical (e.g. physicians) worked six or seven-hour shifts, but received fulltime pay. Overtime work was prohibited except under special circumstances (Szymanski, 1984).

From the 1960s, employees received an average of one month of vacation (Keeran and Kenny, 2004; Szymanski, 1984) which could be taken at subsidized resorts (Kotz, 2003).

All Soviet citizens were provided a retirement income, men at the age of 60, and women at the age of 55 (Lerouge, 2010). The right to a pension (as well as disability benefits) was guaranteed by the Soviet constitution (Article 43, 1977), rather than being revocable and subject to the momentary whims of politicians, as is the case in capitalist countries.

Women were granted maternity leave from their jobs with full pay as early as 1936 and this, too, along with many other benefits, was guaranteed in the Soviet constitution (Article 122, 1936). At the same time, the 1936 constitution made provision for a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens, while the revised 1977 constitution obligated the state to help “the family by providing and developing a broad system of childcare…by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children’s allowances and benefits for large families” (Article 53). The Soviet Union was the first country to develop public childcare (Szymanski, 1984).

Women in the USSR were accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life (Article 122, 1936), including the equal right with men to employment, rest and leisure, social insurance and education. Among its many firsts, the USSR was the first country to legalize abortions, which were available at no cost (Sherman, 1969). It was also the first country to bring women into top government positions. An intense campaign was undertaken in Soviet Central Asia to liberate women from the misogynist oppression of conservative Islam. This produced a radical transformation of the condition of women’s lives in these areas (Szymanski, 1984).

The right to housing was guaranteed under a 1977 constitutional provision (Article 44). Urban housing space, however, was cramped, about half of what it was per capita in Austria and West Germany. The reasons were inadequate building in Tsarist times, the massive destruction of housing during World War II, and Soviet emphasis on heavy industry. Prior to the October Revolution, inadequate urban housing was built for ordinary people. After the revolution, new housing was built, but the housing stock remained insufficient. Housing draws heavily on capital, which the government needed urgently for the construction of industry. In addition, Nazi invaders destroyed one-third to one-half of Soviet dwellings during the Second World War (Sherman, 1969).

City-dwellers typically lived in apartment buildings owned by the enterprise in which they worked or by the local government. Rents were dirt cheap by law, about two to three percent of the family budget, while utilities were four to five percent (Szymanski, 1984; Keeran and Kenny, 2004). This differed sharply with the United States, where rents consumed a significant share of the average family budget (Szymanski, 1984), and still do.

Food staples and other necessities were subsidized, while luxury items were sold well above their costs.

Public transportation was efficient, extensive, and practically free. Subway fare was about eight cents in the 1970s, unchanged from the 1930s (Szymanski, 1984). Nothing comparable has ever existed in capitalist countries. This is because efficient, affordable and extensive public transportation would severely limit the profit-making opportunities of automobile manufacturers, petroleum companies, and civil engineering firms. In order to safeguard their profits, these firms use their wealth, connections and influence to stymie development of extensive, efficient and inexpensive public alternatives to private transportation. Governments, which need to keep private industry happy so that it continues to provide jobs, are constrained to play along. The only way to alter this is to bring capital under public control, in order to use it to meet public policy goals set out in a consciously constructed plan.

The Soviet Union placed greater stress on healthcare than their capitalist competitors did. No other country had more physicians per capita or more hospital beds per capita than the USSR. In 1977, the Soviet Union had 35 doctors and 212 hospital beds per 10,000 compared to 18 doctors and 63 hospital beds in the United States (Szymanski, 1984). Most important, healthcare was free. That US citizens had to pay for their healthcare was considered extremely barbaric in the Soviet Union, and Soviet citizens “often questioned US tourists quite incredulously on this point” (Sherman, 1969).

Education through university was also free, and stipends were available for post-secondary students, adequate to pay for textbooks, room and board, and other expenses (Sherman, 1969; Szymanski, 1984).

Income inequality in the Soviet Union was mild compared to capitalist countries. The difference between the highest income and the average wage was equivalent to the difference between the income of a physician in the United States and an average worker, about 8 to 10 times higher (Szymanski, 1984). The elite’s higher incomes afforded privileges no greater than being able to acquire a modest house and car (Kotz, 2000). By comparison, in 2010, Canada’s top-paid 100 CEOs received incomes 155 times higher than the average full-time wage. The average full-time wage was $43,000 (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2011). An income 10 times larger would be $430,000—about what members of the capitalist elite make in a single week. A factor that mitigated the modest degree of Soviet income inequality was the access all Soviet citizens had to essential services at no, or virtually, no cost. Accordingly, the degree of material inequality was even smaller than the degree of income inequality (Szymanski, 1984).

Soviet leaders did not live in the opulent mansions that are the commonplace residences of presidents, prime ministers and monarchs in most of the world’s capitals (Parenti, 1997). Gorbachev, for example, lived in a four-family apartment building. Leningrad’s top construction official lived in a one-bedroom apartment, while the top political official in Minsk, his wife, daughter and son-in-law inhabited a two-bedroom apartment (Kotz and Weir, 1997). Critics of the Soviet Union accused the elite of being an exploiting ruling class, but the elite’s modest incomes and humble material circumstances raise serious doubt about this assessment. If it was indeed an exploiting ruling class, it was the oddest one in human history.

The Soviet economy’s record of growth under public ownership and planning

From the moment in 1928 that the Soviet economy became publicly owned and planned, to the point in 1989 that the economy was pushed in a free market direction, Soviet GDP per capita growth exceeded that of all other countries but Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. GDP per person grew by a factor of 5.2, compared to 4.0 for Western Europe and 3.3 for the Western European offshoots (the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) (Allen, 2003). In other words, over the period in which its publicly owned, planned economy was in place, the USSR‘s record in raising incomes was better than that of the major industrialized capitalist countries. The Soviet Union’s robust growth over this period is all the more impressive considering that the period includes the war years when a major assault by Nazi Germany left a trail of utter destruction in its wake. The German invaders destroyed over 1,500 cities and towns, along with 70,000 villages, 31,000 factories, and nearly 100 million head of livestock (Leffler, 1994). Growth was highest to 1970, at which point expansion of the Soviet economy began to slow. However, even during this so-called (and misnamed) post-1970 period of stagnation, GDP per capita grew 27 percent (Allen, 2003).

While Soviet GDP per capita growth rates compare favorably with those of the major capitalist economies, a more relevant comparison is with the rest of the world. In 1928, the Soviet Union was still largely an agrarian country, and most people worked in agriculture, compared to a minority in Western Europe and North America. Hence, the economy of the USSR at the point of its transition to public ownership and planning was very different from that of the industrialized Western capitalist countries. On the other hand, the rest of the world resembled the Soviet Union in also being largely agrarian (Allen, 2003). It is therefore the rest of the world, not the United States and other advanced industrialized countries, with which the USSR should be compared. From 1928 to 1989, Soviet GDP per capita not only exceeded growth in the rich countries but exceeded growth in all other regions of the world combined, and to a greater degree. Hence, not only did the publicly owned, planned economy of the Soviet Union outpace the economies of richer capitalist economies, it grew even faster than the economies of countries that were most like the USSR in 1928. For example, outside its southern core, Latin America’s GDP per capita was $1,332 (1990 US dollars), almost equal to the USSR’s $1,370. By 1989, the Latin American figure had reached $4,886, but average income in the Soviet Union had climbed far higher, to $7,078 (Allen, 2003). Public ownership and planning had raised living standards to a higher level than capitalism had in Latin America, despite an equal starting point. Moreover, while the Soviet peacetime economy unfailingly expanded, the Latin American economy grew in fits and starts, with enterprises regularly shuttering their doors and laying off employees.

Perhaps the best illustration of how public ownership and planning performed better at raising living standards comes from a comparison of incomes in Soviet Central Asia with those of neighboring countries in the Middle East and South Asia. In 1928, these areas were in a pristinely pre-industrial state. Under public ownership and planning, incomes grew in Soviet Central Asia to $5,257 per annum by 1989, 32 percent higher than in neighboring capitalist Turkey, 44 percent higher than in neighboring capitalist Iran, and 241 percent higher than in neighboring capitalist Pakistan (Allen, 2003). For Central Asians, it was clear on which side of the Soviet Union’s border standards of living were highest.

US emulation of Soviet public funding of R&D

Advocates of a free enterprise economy would have you believe that public ownership and planning stifle innovation, while free enterprise encourages it. If that is the case, how do we explain:

• That the Soviet Union beat the United States into space in the 1950s, piling up a record of firsts in space exploration, and consequently setting off a panic in Washington?
• Most of the innovations in the United States, from the internet to Google’s search engine algorithm to advanced drugs and the i-Phone, are based, not on private investment, but government funding?

In fact, the truth about innovation is the exact opposite of what free-enterprise promoters would have us believe. It is not free enterprise, but planning and public funds, that drive it.

Soviet accomplishments in space, considered in light of the mistaken view that the USSR was always a poor second-best to the supposedly more dynamic United States, is truly startling. Soviet achievements include the first satellite, first animal in orbit, first human in orbit, first woman in orbit, first spacewalk, first moon impact, first image of the far side of the moon, first unmanned lunar soft landing, first space rover, first space station and first interplanetary probe. The panic created in Washington after the allegedly innovation-stifling Soviet economy allowed the USSR to beat its much richer ideological rival into space galvanized the United States to take a leaf from the Soviet book. Just as the Soviets were doing, Washington would use public funds to power research into innovations. This would be done through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The DARPA would channel public money to scientists and engineers for military, space and other research. Many of the innovations to come out of the DARPA pipeline would eventually make their way to private investors, who would use them for private profit (Mazzucato, 2011). In this way, private investors were spared the trouble of risking their own capital, as free enterprise mythology would have us believe they do. In this myth, far-seeing and bold capitalists reap handsome profits as a reward for risking their capital on research that might never pay-off. Except this is not how it works. It is far better for investors to invest their capital in ventures with less risk and quicker returns, while allowing the public to shoulder the burden of funding R&D with its many risks and uncertainties. Using their wealth, influence and connections, investors have successfully pressed politicians into putting this pleasing arrangement in place. Free enterprise reality, then, is based on the sucker system: Risk is “socialized” (i.e., borne by the public, the suckers) while benefits are “privatized” (by investors who have manipulated politicians into shifting to the public the burden of funding R&D.)

A study by Block and Keller (2008) found that between 1971 and 2006, 77 out of R&D Magazine’s top 88 innovations had been fully funded by the US government. Summarizing research by economist Mariana Mazzucato, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne (2012) points out that the

[a]lgorithms that underpinned Google’s success were funded by the public sector. The technology in the Apple iPhone was invented in the public sector. In both the US and Britain it was the state, not big pharma, that funded most groundbreaking ‘new molecular entity’ drugs, with the private sector then developing slight variations. And in Finland, it was the public sector that funded the early development of Nokia – and made a return on its investment.

Nuclear power, satellite and rocket technology, and the internet are other examples of innovations that were produced with public money, and have since been used for private profit. US president Barack Obama acknowledged the nature of the swindle in his 2011 State of the Nation Address. “Our free-enterprise system,” began the president, “is what drives innovation.” However, he immediately contradicted himself by saying, “But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.”

All of this points to two important facts. (1) The United States kick-started innovation in its economy by emulating the Soviet model of state-directed research because free enterprise was not up to the task. (2) Rather than emulate the Soviet model for public benefit, the United States channels public money into R&D for private profit. From the second point can be inferred a third: The fact that the Soviets socialized the benefits that flow from socialized risk, while the United States privatizes them, reflects the antagonistic nature of the two societies: One, a mass-oriented society organized to benefit the masses; the other, a business society organized to benefit a minority of business owners. Capitalism, as the US president acknowledges, does not promote innovation, because “it is not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research.” On the other hand, state-directed funding is the source of innovation. Clearly, then, a political agenda has nurtured two myths: (a) That a system of public ownership and planning stifles innovation; (b) That the profit system stimulates it.

Why growth slowed

While the Soviet economy grew rapidly from 1928 to 1989 it never surpassed the economies of North America, Western Europe and Japan. Consequently, the USSR’s per capita income was always less than that of the industrialized capitalist economies. The comparative disadvantage in incomes and living standards was falsely attributed to the alleged inefficiencies of public ownership and planning, rather than to the reality that, having started further back than the rich capitalist countries, the Soviet Union had more ground to cover. When the race began in 1928, the Soviet Union was still a largely agrarian country while the United States was industrialized. Hence, the Soviet Union had to cover ground the United States had already covered when Russia was under the stifling rule of Tsarist tyranny. Moreover, it had to do so without riches extracted from other countries, as the United States, Britain, France and Japan had based part of their prosperity on exploiting their own formal and informal empires (Murphy, 2000). True, the USSR did have an empire of sorts—countries in Eastern Europe over which it exercised hegemony, but, except in the early post-WWII years, these countries were never exploited economically by the Soviet Union. If anything, the Soviets, who exported raw materials to Eastern Europe in return for manufactured goods, came out on the losing end of its trade relationship with its satellites. So long as they remained part of the Warsaw Pact—a defensive alliance formed after and in response to the creation of NATO—and maintained some semblance of public ownership and planning, Moscow allowed its Eastern European allies to chart their own course. Soviet hegemony, then, was limited to enforcing these two conditions (Szymanski, 1979).

By the mid-1970s there was serious concern in Washington that the Soviet economy was on a course to overtake that of the United States. Since Washington always pointed to the United States’ greater average income and higher living standards to mobilize the allegiance of its population to the free enterprise system, a Soviet lead would deal a mortal blow to the legitimacy of US capitalism. Careful estimates prepared in the United States showed that Soviet gross national product was gaining on that of the United States. In 1950, the Soviet economy was only one-third the size of the US economy but had grown to almost one-half only eight years later (Sherman, 1969). From the perspective of planners in Washington in the late 1950s, the danger loomed that at current rates of growth, the Soviet economy would overtake the US economy by 1982. At that point, the entire foundation of the US population’s belief in the legitimacy of free enterprise—that it produced higher living standards than public ownership and planning—would crumble. Something had to be done.

By 1975, the CIA estimated that the Soviet economy was 60 percent as large as the US economy (Kotz and Weir, 1997). However, Soviet economic growth was starting to slow. According to figures provided by Allen (2003), Soviet GDP per capita grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent from 1928 to 1970, but at less than half that rate, 1.3 percent, from 1970 to 1989. Had the United States, alarmed at being beaten into space, and agitated by what seemed to be the very real prospect of being overtaken economically by the USSR, set out to sabotage Soviet economic progress?

The Cold War was never going to be kind to Soviet growth prospects. Soviet leaders recognized that a planned, publicly owned economy was an anathema to the captains of industry and titans of finance who use their wealth and connections to dominate policy in capitalist countries. The USSR had been invaded multiple times, and on two occasions by aggressive capitalist powers with the objective of wiping the Soviet system off the map. In order to deter future aggressions, it was necessary to keep pace militarily. Therefore, the Soviet Union struggled as best as it could to achieve a rough military parity to maintain a peaceful coexistence with its capitalist neighbours (Szymanski, 1979).

However, the smaller size of the Soviet economy relative to that of its ideological competitors created problems. The necessity of maintaining a rough military parity would mean spending a far higher percentage of GDP on the military compared to what the United States and other NATO countries spent on their armed forces. Resources that could otherwise have been deployed to industrial expansion to help the country catch up economically had instead to be channelled into self-defence (Murphy, 2000). From the 1950s through the 1970s, the Soviets spent 12 to 14 percent of their GDP on the military (Szymanski, 1984; Allen, 2003), a figure that would grow even higher later, when the Reagan administration hiked US military spending, anticipating a Soviet effort to keep up that would harm the USSR’s economy.

Another constraint imposed on the Soviet economy by the need to deter military aggression was the monopolization of R&D resources by the military. Keeping pace militarily involved an unceasing battle to catch up to US military innovations. When the United States exploded the first atom bomb in 1945, the Soviet Union raced to match the United States’ grim scientific feat, which it did four years later. The US introduction of the hydrogen bomb in 1952 was quickly followed by the Soviets exploding their own hydrogen bomb a year later. A US first in submarine-launched nuclear missiles was matched by the USSR a few years after. No major weapon was developed by the USSR first, with a single exception—the ICBM. Unlike the United States, the USSR had no military bases ringing its ideological rival, and therefore needed a way of delivering nuclear warheads over long distances. However, the aim was self-defence, and that the Soviet Union was usually in catch-up mode on weapons systems demonstrated that the United States was spurring the Cold War forward, not the USSR. For the Soviets, the Cold War was economic poison. For the Americans, the Cold War was a way to ruin the Soviet economy.

Because self-defence was a priority, the USSR’s best scientists and engineers were channelled into the military sector (Sherman, 1969). Soviet consumer goods were often said to have been of low quality, but no one ever said the same about Soviet military equipment. The reason why is clear: the military got first dibs on the best minds and best equipment and was never short of funding. There is a subsidiary point: high-quality Soviet arms were produced by a system of public ownership and planning, despite the myth that such a system is incapable of producing high-quality goods (Kotz, 2008). The necessity of channelling the bulk of, and best, R&D resources to the military meant that other sectors suffered, and GDP growth was impeded. For example, the Soviets floundered in their efforts to increase petroleum production because the metals, machinery, scientists and engineers needed to boost oil output were detailed to the military sector (Allen, 2003). Half of the machine tools produced and at least half of the R&D expenditures were going to the defence industry (Schweizer, 1994).

Another reason for the post-1975 slowdown in the Soviet economy was that the USSR had become ensnared in a Ricardian trap (Allen, 2003). The Soviet Union had an abundant supply of all the raw materials an industrial economy needed, and at first, they were easy to reach and therefore could be obtained at low cost. For example, in the early years of the USSR’s industrialization, open pit mines were dug near industrial centres. Minerals were close to the surface and could be transported over short distances to nearby factories. Therefore, production and transportation costs were minimal. However, over time, the minerals that were close to the surface were scooped out and pits became deeper and narrower. At deeper depths, the quantity of minerals that could be extracted diminished and the costs of reaching them increased. Eventually, the mines were exhausted, and new mines had to be opened, but at greater distances from industrial centres, which meant higher costs to transport raw materials to factories. The Soviet petroleum industry was equally caught in a Ricardian trap. In the early 1970s, the USSR was spending $4.6 billion per year to maintain its oil industry. As oil became more difficult to reach, the Soviets had to drill deeper and through harder rocks. Costs increased, reaching $6.0 billion by the end of the decade. By the early 1980s, costs had climbed to $9.0 billion a year (Schweizer, 1994). The Soviets could have escaped the Ricardian trap by shopping around for less expensive imports. However, that would have left them vulnerable to supply disruptions. The United States and its allies—who would always be hostile to the USSR, except when expediency dictated temporary alliances or easing of tension—could interdict raw materials heading to the USSR to bring the Soviet economy to its knees or extort concessions. In other words, given the very high likelihood that the United States would exploit opportunities to place the Soviet Union at a disadvantage, shopping around for cheap imports, rather than implementing a policy of resource self-sufficiency, was not a realistic option.

Another reason the Soviet economy slowed was that the costs to the USSR to support its allies began to mount to unsustainable levels. One way to bolster self-defence is to find friends who share the same enemy, and the Soviet Union set out to expand its alliance of friends by providing economic and military assistance to countries and movements hostile to the forces of reaction. In doing so, it became the banker for national liberation movements, Eastern European socialist countries, and various Third World countries seeking to escape and remain free from domination by powerful capitalist states. By 1981, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies had 96,000 economic advisers in 75 countries and 16,000 military advisers in 34 countries, together with a contingent of 39,000 Cuban troops in Africa, an army for which Moscow was ultimately footing the bill. At the same time, the Soviets were picking up the tab for 72,000 Third World students enrolled in Soviet and East European universities (Miliband, 1989). By 1980, Moscow was spending $44 billion a year on its allies (Keeran and Kenny, 2004). It gave $4.5 billion in aid to Warsaw from August 1980 to August 1981 alone to help contain the US-supported Solidarity movement (Schweizer, 1994). Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan was draining the Soviet treasury to the tune of $3 to $4 billion per year. In other words, the costs of sustaining allies had grown enormous, raw material costs were mounting, the best scientists, engineers and machine tools were being monopolized by the military, and military expenditures were consuming a punishingly large percentage of national income.

A large part of the predicament the Soviets found themselves in was due to a decision the Reagan administration had taken to try to cripple the Soviet economy. In October 1983, US president Ronald Reagan unveiled what would become known as the Reagan Doctrine. “The goal of the free world must no longer be stated in the negative, that is, resistance to Soviet expansionism,” announced the US president. Instead, the “goal of the free world must instead be stated in the affirmative. We must go on the offensive with a forward strategy of freedom” (Roberts, 1999). This was a declaration of the end of détente. The gloves were off.

More formally, the Reagan Doctrine was spelled out in a series of national security decision directives, or NSDDs. NSDD-66 announced that it would be US policy to disrupt the Soviet economy, while NSDD-75 committed the United States to trying to drive up costs in the Soviet economy in order to plunge the USSR into a crisis. The Soviet economy was to be squeezed, and one of the ways was to induce Moscow to increase its defence budget (Schweizer, 1994). A hi-tech arms race would be the key. It would not only force Moscow to divert more resources to the military, but would channel even more of the USSR’s scientists, engineers, machine tools, and budget into military R&D, reducing productive investments and hobbling the civilian economy even more than the Cold War already had. The aim was to force the USSR “to expend precious lifeblood to run a race against a more athletic foe” (Schweizer, 1994), a foe which had a larger economy and more resources to last the race because it had started at a higher level of development and was plundering various countries around the world of their riches.

Over the first six years of his presidency, Reagan more than doubled US military expenditures, buying 3,000 warplanes, 3,700 strategic missiles, and close to 10,000 tanks (Schweizer, 1994). To keep up, Soviet military spending, previously at 12 to 14 percent of GDP, started to climb. Already twice as large as the United States’ as a percentage of national income (Silber, 1994) the defence budget grew larger still. Military expenditures increased by 45 percent in five years, considerably outpacing growth in the Soviet economy. By 1990, the Soviets were spending more than 20 percent of the country’s GDP on defence (Englund, 2011). At the same time, Moscow increased its military R&D spending nearly two-fold. In the spring of 1984, Soviet leader Konstantin Chernenko announced that ‘the complex international situation has forced us to divert a great deal of resources to strengthening the security of our country” (Schweizer, 1994).

Meanwhile, the Reagan administration had taken a page out of Che Guevara’s book. The Argentine revolutionary had called for not one, not two, but three Vietnams, to drain the US treasury. Turning Che’s doctrine against communism, CIA Director Bill Casey called for not one, not two, but a half a dozen Afghanistans. To bog down the Soviets in “their own Vietnam,” the Afghan mujahedeen were showered with money and arms. In Poland, financial, intelligence, and logistical support was poured into the Solidarity movement, forcing Moscow to increase support to the Polish government (Schweizer, 1994).

The Soviet media complained that the United States wanted to impose “an even more ruinous arms race,” adding that Washington hoped the Soviet economy would be exhausted (Izvestiya, 1986). Soviet foreign secretary Andrei Gromyko complained that the United States’ military build-up was aimed at exhausting the USSR’s material resources and forcing Moscow to surrender. Gorbachev echoed Gromyko, telling Soviet citizens that,

The US wants to exhaust the Soviet Union economically through a race in the most up-to-date and expensive space weapons. It wants to create various kinds of difficulties for the Soviet leadership, to wreck its plans, including in the social sphere, in the sphere of improving the standard of living of our people, thus arousing dissatisfaction among the people with their leadership (Schweizer, 1994).


By the mid-1980s, it was clear in both Washington and Moscow that the Soviet Union was in trouble. It was not that the system of public ownership and planning was not working. On the contrary, recognizing the advantages of the Soviet system, the United States itself had emulated it to stimulate innovation in its own economy. Moreover, the Soviet economy was still reliably expanding, as it had done every year in peacetime since Stalin had brought it under public control in 1928. However, defending the country in the face of a stepped up Cold War was threatening to choke off economic growth altogether. It was clear that Moscow’s prospects for keeping pace with the United States militarily, while at the same time propping up allies under attack by US-fuelled anti-communist insurgencies and overthrow movements, were far from sanguine. The United States had manoeuvred the Soviet Union into a trap. If Moscow continued to try to match the United States militarily, it would eventually bankrupt itself, in which case its ability to deter US aggression would be lost. If it did not try to keep pace, it could no longer deter US aggression. No matter which way Moscow turned, the outcome would be the same. The only difference was how long it would take the inevitable to play out.

Gorbachev chose to meet the inevitable sooner rather than later. His foreign affairs adviser, Anatoly Chernayaev, recalls that it was “an imperative for Gorbachev that we had to put an end to the Cold War, that we had to reduce our military budget significantly, that we had to limit our military industrial complex in some way” (Schweizer, 1994). The necessity of reining in the defence budget was echoed by another Gorbachev adviser, Aleksandr Yokovlev, who would later recall that “It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it” (Blum, 1995). Gorbachev therefore withdrew support from allies and pledged cooperation with the United States. This was a surrender. The capitulation was hidden behind honeyed phrases about promoting international cooperation and fostering universal human values, but the rhetoric did not hide the fact that Gorbachev was throwing in the towel. He described the surrender as a victory for humanity, declaring that he had averted “the threat of nuclear war,” ended the “nuclear arms race,” reduced “conventional armed forces,” settled “numerous regional conflicts involving the Soviet Union and the United States,” and replaced “the division of the European continent into hostile camps with … a common European home” (Gorbachev, 2011). In reducing the threat of a global nuclear conflagration, Gorbachev had indeed achieved a victory for humanity. However, the victory was brought about by caving in to the United States, which was now free to run roughshod over countries that were too weak to refuse US demands that they yield to US political, military and economic domination.

On domestic matters, Gorbachev—who identified himself with the virtually social democratic position of the Italian Communist Party (Hobsbawm, 1994)—tried to turn the Soviet Union into a Western-style social democracy (Roberts, 1999). He cited the need to reverse the slowdown in the Soviet economy as his rationale for the transition (Gorbachev, 1988). Economic growth had certainly slowed, and there was indeed a danger that continued slow growth would threaten the country’s position vis-à-vis its capitalist rivals. However, Gorbachev’s solution amounted to, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” The planning apparatus, which had unfailingly charted a course for unremitting growth during peacetime, was dismantled, in order to move the economy toward regulation by market forces. Rather than boosting economic growth, as Gorbachev hoped, the abandonment of planning did the very opposite. The economy tumbled headlong into an abyss, from which the USSR’s successor countries would not emerge for years. As one wag put it, “Stalin found the Soviet Union a wreck and left it a superpower; Gorbachev found it a superpower and left it a wreck.” Gorbachev is still widely admired in the West, but his popularity stops at the Russian border. A March 2011 poll found that only one in 20 Russians admire the Soviet Union’s last leader, and that “perestroika,” the name for Gorbachev’s move toward a market economy, “has almost purely negative connotations” (Applebaum, 2011).

The superior system

With few exceptions, what passes for serious discussion of the USSR is shot through with prejudice, distortion, and misconception. Locked in battle with the Soviet Union for decades, Washington deliberately fostered misunderstandings of its ideological foe. The aim was to make the USSR appear bleak, brutal, repressive, economically sluggish and inefficient—not the kind of place anyone of sound mind would want to emulate or live in. Today, scholars, journalists, politicians, state officials, and even some communists repeat old Cold War propaganda. The Soviet economy, in their view, never worked particularly well. However, the truth of the matter is that it worked very well. It grew faster over the period it was publicly owned and planned than did the supposedly dynamic US economy, to say nothing of the economies of countries that were as undeveloped as the USSR was in 1928, when the Soviet economy was brought under public control. The Soviet economy was innovative enough to allow the USSR to beat the United States into space, despite the United States’ greater resources, an event that inspired the Americans to mimic the Soviet Union’s public support for R&D. Moreover, the Soviet system of public ownership and planning efficiently employed all its capital and human resources, rather than maintaining armies of unemployed workers and inefficiently running below capacity, as capitalist economies regularly do. Every year, from 1928 to 1989, except during the war years, the Soviet economy reliably expanded, providing jobs, shelter, and a wide array of low- and no-cost public services to all, while capitalist economies regularly sank into recession and had to continually struggle out of them on the wreckage of human lives.

The US National Intelligence Council warns ominously that a crisis-prone world economy could produce chaos and distress on an even greater scale than the last crisis (Shanker, 2012). Offering a “grim prognosis” on the world economy, the UN warns of “a new global recession that mires many countries in a cycle of austerity and unemployment for years” (Gladstone, 2012). Yet at the same time, we are told that the Soviet economy never worked, and that capitalism, with its regular crises, and failure to provide employment, food, clothing and shelter to all, is both the only game in town and the superior system. Clearly, it is neither superior—on the contrary, it is clearly inferior—nor it is the only choice. Not only can we do better, we have done better. It is time to tear down the wall of politically engineered misconceptions about public ownership and planning. For too long, the wall has kept us from seeing a viable alternative model to capitalism whose track record of unequalled success points to a realistic and possible future for the bottom 99 percent—a future free from unemployment, recessions, extremes of wealth and poverty, and where essential goods and services are available at no cost to all.

Allen, Robert C (2003). Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution, Princeton University Press, 2003.

Applebaum, Binyamin (2012). “A shrinking military budget may take neighbours with it”, The New York Times, January 6, 2012.

Block, Fred and Keller, Matthew R (2008). “Where do innovations come from? Transformations in the U.S. national innovation system, 1970-2006,” Technology and Innovation Foundation, July 2008.

Blum, William (1995). Killing Hope: U.S. Military Interventions since World War II, Common Courage Press, 1995.

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (2011). “Hennessy’s Index”, February, 2011.

Englund, Will (2011). “Gorbachev in London: Credit, no cash”, The Washington Post, July 16, 2011.

Gladstone, Rick (2012). “U.N. presents grim prognosis on the world economy,” The New York Times, December 18, 2012.

Gorbachev, Mikhail (1988). Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, Harper & Row.

Gorbachev, Mikhail (2011). “Is the world really safer without the Soviet Union?” The Nation, December 21, 2011.

Hobsbawm, Eric (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991, Abacus, 1994.

Izvestiya (1986). “Chance missed, search continues”, October 17, 1986, cited in Schweizer, 1994.

Keeran, Roger and Kenny, Thomas (2004). Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union, International Publishers, New York, 2004.

Kotz, David M (2000). “Socialism and Capitalism: Lessons from the Demise of State Socialism in the Soviet Union and China,” in Socialism and Radical Political Economy: Essays in Honor of Howard Sherman, edited by Robert Pollin, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2000, 300-317.

Kotz, David M (2003). “Socialism and Global Neoliberal Capitalism”, Paper written for the International Conference: The Works of Karl Marx and Challenges for the XXI Century, Havana, Cuba, May 5-8, 2003.

Kotz, David M (2008). “What Economic Structure for Socialism?” Paper written for the Fourth International Conference “Karl Marx and the Challenges of the XXI Century, Havana, May 5-8, 2008.

Kotz, David M (2011). “The Demise of the Soviet Union and the International Socialist Movement Today”. Paper written for the International Symposium on the 20th Anniversary of the Former Soviet Union and its Impact, Beijing, April 23, 2011.

Kotz, David with Fred Weir (1997). Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System, Routledge, 1997.

Leffler, Melvyn P (1994). The Specter of Communism: The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1953, Hill and Wang, 1994.

Lerouge, Herwig (2010). “How the October Revolution and the Soviet Union contributed to the labour movement in Western Europe, and more particularly in Belgium”, Belgium Works Party, May 05, 2010.

Mazzucato, Mariana (2011). The Entrepreneurial State, Demos, 2011

Miliband, Ralph (1989). Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary Capitalism, Oxford University Press, 1989.

Milne, Seumas (2012). “Budget 2012: George Osborne is stuck in a failed economic model, circa 1979,” The Guardian (UK), March 20, 2012.

Murphy, Austin (2000). The Triumph of Evil: The Realities of the USA’s Cold War Victory, European Press Academic Publishing, 2000.

Parenti, Michael, (1997). Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, City Light Books, 1997.

Roberts, Geoffrey (1999). The Soviet Union in World Politics: Coexistence, Revolution and Cold War, 1945-1991, Routledge, 1999.

Schweizer, Peter (1994). Victory: The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy that Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 1994.

Shanker, Thom (2012). “Study predicts future for U.S. as No. 2 economy, but energy independent”, The New York Times, December 10, 2012

Sherman, Howard J (1969). The Soviet Economy, Little, Brown and Company, 1969.

Silber, Irwin (1994). Socialism: What Went Wrong? An Inquiry into the Theoretical and Historical Sources of the Socialist Crisis, Pluto Press, 1994

Stalin, J.V., Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954, vol. 9, pp. 28-29. Report delivered at the 7th enlarged Plenum, December, 1926.

Szymanski, Albert (1979). Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union Today, Zed Press, London, 1979.

Szymanski, Albert (1984). Human Rights in the Soviet Union, Zed Books Ltd, London, 1984.

Walker, Marcus and Kakaounaki, Marianna (2012). “Struggles mount for Greeks as economy faces winter,” The Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2012.

Labels: , , ,


(MnG SA) Feeding frenzy in South Sudan

Feeding frenzy in South Sudan
21 Dec 2012 13:44 - Richard Poplak, Kevin Bloom

As South Sudan begins its journey towards development, the rest of the world is descending in droves. Kevin Bloom and Richard Poplak report.

We wake early, for a televised election. The Afex River Camp, situated on the banks of the White Nile, passes for luxury in the world's newest capital. Fist-sized insects thwack against our $125-per-night containers, where we lay like refrigerated produce. We disengage our phone alarms and stumble into the bilious light of a parking lot. In the shadows on the far side, CNN blares.

It is a Wednesday in November, the halfway mark of one of those weeks that creak beneath the weight of historical significance. As we enter the kitchenette belonging to the International Republican Institute, the Grand Old Party's pet non-governmental organisation, vote counting is already underway for the contest between President Barack Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney. A day later, China's 18th Party Congress will begin the process of installing Xi Jinping as its new leader, determining the course of the world's second largest economy for the coming decade. In Juba, principal city of a recently independent South Sudan, these events seem both portentous and menacing. In Juba, geopolitical alliances shift with the inclement weather.

"South Africans!" says Billy, brightly, when we enter the boardroom. "My drinking buddies from Iraq were South Africans!" Billy is one of the Republican faithful, an army reservist and psychological operations specialist whose halcyon days were spent in Mosul. "A free-fire zone, man!" he says of the place. "No cameras, no media. Just us and the bad guys."

Here, Billy is a babysitter for the young Americans who preach freedom and democracy to President Salva Kiir's ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). As we eat our way through egg sandwiches and hash browns, the Electoral College numbers pile up for the Democrat incumbent, and the mood in the room sours.

"Our job is to help build capacity for legislators, and to try encourage working, functional opposition parties," says James Turitto, Resident Programme Officer, and the morning's chief egg fryer. "We're very close to the SPLM. So when senior members tell us they're going to Beijing for ten days, it's a little tough for us to swallow. Truthfully, USAID and State are worried about the path the SPLM are taking. You could see how China would appeal to them."

(Photo: Africa 3.0)

Conversely, we can see how South Sudan would appeal to the Chinese, the Americans, and the dozens of others circling the region with vulpine intent. "Everyone wants a piece of the pie that is Juba, South Sudan," wrote Kenyan investigative journalist Wanjohi Kabukuru, in a paper published by Norwegian People's Aid.

Since independence was celebrated on July 9, 2011, Kiir's government has been locked in a dispute over oil revenues with Khartoum, a stalemate that's led to the cessation of oil exports and the implosion of the economy. Oil, when it is pumping, traditionally accounts for 98% of the South Sudanese budget. But oil is only one element in the dizzying compound of economic possibilities that South Sudan represents. There is almost no infrastructural development here: few paved roads; no electricity grid; a non-existent sanitation system.

Independence referendum
The vacuum promises untold riches. According to a 48-page dossier titled "The New Frontier," commissioned by Norwegian People's Aid and written by David Kuol Mading, the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between north and south in 2005 kicked off a land grab. Foreign interests now control 5.74 million hectares of land in the South Sudanese agribusiness sector alone-almost 9% of the country's landmass. South African companies have had a field day: SAB Miller pumped R354 million into South Sudan Beverages Limited (tagline-"The taste of progress"), while PetroSA purchased oil concessions, and Global Engineering Consortium SA signed a R180 million contract with the Sudan Railway Corporation.

Politically, the players with the largest stake, when the two Sudans are taken as a piece, are the Chinese and the Americans. While the CPA was largely a result of consistent American pressure, the independence referendum in January 2011 could never have happened without the Chinese conceding to its inevitability. China has for years owned controlling stakes in Sudan's big energy consortiums, and thus could expect roughly 60% of the 490,000 barrels of oil that flowed to Port Sudan, through pipelines they'd built and maintained.

The questions become more urgent by the day: how will South Sudan's fledgling government manage the feeding frenzy? Whose sphere of influence will they enter? When will the oil start flowing? And will the people of this battered nation get a chance to reap the rewards of an independence that cost millions of lives and decades of darkness?

Meanwhile, on the flat screen at the head of the boardroom, Wolf Blitzer makes it clear that the numbers have all but sunk Romney's campaign.

"Fuck it," says Billy, standing. "I'm going to put in an order for a thousand rounds of ammo."

The architecture, if you can call it that, is minutely descriptive. The Ministry of Petroleum is a mirrored gangster palace-cum-70s Baghdad nightclub, with tight security and a consigliore in a fine suit who barks, when we enter, "What is your agenda?" At the Ministry of Industry and Commerce we find no security and compact, welcoming buildings. The Ministry of Wildlife resembles a bombed-out park.

In office after office, while we wait for interviews that will never happen, we get reminders of the morning's election. Obama's victory speech-"you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over War and Depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope"-has already been downloaded as a ringtone. In Juba, democracy is a powerful brand, but a bitch to implement.

If there is anyone here who properly understands this, who can pick at the myriad threads that bind and knot his country into an impenetrable tangle, it must be Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping. Known to South African journalists as the man who once unofficially represented the SPLM in Pretoria, and to the world's press as the diplomat who engineered a breakaway of African states at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference (when he was chief negotiator for the so-called G77 bloc and China), Di-Aping is currently in charge of his country's development vision.

His liberal-humanist bona fides are impressive-stints at Yale, at Oxford, at the United Nations and McKinsey & Co. Although he was the architect, with the assistance of George Soros, of the hundred million dollar Climate Green Fund, he drew the ire of the West for comparing its climate policy to the Holocaust, and for "ask[ing] Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries." He faced down President Obama over the negotiating table, and did not blink.

(Photo: Africa 3.0)

As for his own homeland, Di-Aping is no less resolute. "There is no such thing as reconstruction in South Sudan," he says, "we have only construction. We have no powerful vested interests that can impede a developmental state the way South Africa's transformation plan was scattered. Ideologically, we have no power struggles within the movement, such as there are in the ANC."

Performance-oriented leadership
We have met him at an outdoor café in downtown Juba, where it appears to us that the broader vested interests are on full display-NGO-types vying for tables with Chinese businessmen, local politicians whispering lest they be heard by American ears-but we take his point: compared to South Africa's ruling party, the SPLM is a paragon of virtuous unity. Di-Aping's contention is that neither the market fundamentalists nor the socialists within his party are strong enough to dictate policy, and that given the tabula rasa before him, what needs to be emulated are the blueprints of countries like Botswana and Mauritius.

He speaks of ordinary citizens taking precedence over the demands of big capital, of performance-oriented leadership, of an autonomous bureaucracy manipulated neither by the market nor by politics. For Di-Aping, the per capita prosperity of Botswana and Mauritius is important mainly in hindsight-what was critical when those African exemplars were coming up was how they managed to spread the wealth. "Luckily enough," he says, "in South Sudan we own the oil resources. Now we need to orient that towards the vision."

Hesitating for a moment, Di-Aping then opens his laptop, and invites us to have a look at a document. This, he explains, is the manifesto for South Sudanese development; we are among the first outsiders to see it. Due to be endorsed in December 2012, he says, it will inform three things: all of South Sudan's development processes, its entire project of state formation, and its constitutional framework going forward.

The writing in the 33-page document, which was overseen by a committee of seven, was done mostly by the man before us-in the context of the greed and misery we've already witnessed on Juba's streets, it soon becomes apparent that we've been given access to a profoundly beautiful (if profoundly ambitious) growth plan.

Di-Aping scrolls through the pages until he arrives at a certain paragraph, which he asks us to read aloud: "The mission of the SPLM is to construct a knowledge economy in South Sudan and to build a nation and society that is inspired by peace, freedom, justice, unity, prosperity and progress. The SPLM will ensure democracy under the rule of law and good governance, to safeguard fundamental human, economic, social, cultural and religious rights and freedoms. Through the people, SPLM shall govern."

The question is obvious: a knowledge economy in a country with one of the lowest literacy rates on Earth, where barely a quarter of the populace is able to read and write?

"The only way ahead for South Sudan is through a massive educational programme," says Di-Aping. "This is the difference between where Africa went wrong and where the Asian tiger economies went right. You cannot think of creating opportunities when the majority of your people are illiterate, I don't care whose theories you've read. Okay?"

According to Di-Aping, its late admittance as an independent state has given South Sudan the opportunity to learn from the developing world's mistakes-and what it's learned is that where education hasn't been a priority, only suffering has been harvested. He rejects the assertion that his country lacks "capacity," countering that whatever the term means, no nation in history ever started off with it. "What we need," he says, "is the will and the wit."

The developing world's mistakes
It's the country's vast pool of youth, Di-Aping continues, that's at the core of the manifesto. South Sudan's thousands of young, returning exiles-the so-called "Lost Boys," who in the '80s and '90s trekked on foot across the border, receiving their secondary education in refugee camps, gaining admittance to universities in the United States-have been earmarked to haul the rest of the nation up. It will be up to them to erect what the SPLM recognises as the Five Pillars: mass education; effective petroleum and mining management; sustainable agriculture and climate change policies; infrastructural development; financial and industrial growth.

Later, while we're taking cover from a torrential downpour, Di-Aping stresses the urgency of getting this vision squared away. "We understand how the West plays the game-that's old hat. As for the Chinese, the only way you manage them is after you have everything spelt out. Otherwise? Otherwise they'll finish you."

(Photo: Africa 3.0)

It's a Saturday afternoon in Unity State, the oil-rich province on the border with Sudan, and James Adiok Mayik is once again quoting John Garang. Killed in a helicopter crash in 2005, South Sudan's liberation icon is never far from the thoughts of the country's intelligentsia. Adiok, recently returned from Portland, Oregon, more than fits the bill-armed with a Masters of Education, he is exactly the caste of young leader of whom Di-Aping spoke.

"'Bring the town to the people,'" he intones, as we lounge on the concrete roof of our bare-bones hotel, "'not the people to the town.'"

Like most of his ilk, Adiok's Lost Boy history began when he was in his early teens, and his life is marked with violence and hardship. A firstborn Nuer herder who was never meant to enter a schoolhouse, he was forced to walk barefoot across the country, finding refuge in Kenya. Ironically, without the war, Adiok would not have learned to read and write. Now, he teaches teachers how to teach.

Garang's quote, which Adiok repeats twice for effect, pumps through the veins of local thought-leaders-it implies a decentralised system of governance, where service delivery to the rural areas slows the pace of urbanisation that has all but destroyed many African states. Still, the pull of petroleum is irresistible, and Unity State illuminates the oppositional forces at work in South Sudan.

Bentiu, for instance. A town that swells by the day, thumping with the noise of generators for a few raucous hours after dusk. Standing at midnight in its starlit, sewage-lined streets, in a preternatural quiet that speaks to the lack of basic 20th century amenities, we come to understand the scale of the country's challenges.

Fully demarcated
The governor of Unity State is an ex-warlord named Taban Deng Gai- according to a local civil rights activist, who speaks to us on condition of anonymity, he's "not only the most corrupt man in South Sudan, but in all of Africa." Deng, who has been absent from his state for almost three months, is currently paying a visit to his heavily fortified bush camp. With him, we have it on good authority, are his deputies, come to provide reports on the latest events.

He is unlikely to receive much good news. After Chevron found oil near Bentiu in 1981, Sudan's then president, Jafaar Nimieri-who in 1983 rekindled hostilities between the Muslim north and Christian/animist south by introducing sharia law-tried to push the nominal border as far back as possible. Unity was thus rendered a permanent frontline, and in arming proxies and stoking inter- and intra-ethnic grievances, Khartoum froze the area in the Stone Age.

At its quietest, the state writhes with political and ethnic tension. In many regions, particularly in the restive north, where the border has yet to be fully demarcated, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) has scant authority, and roving rebel commanders have enormous sway. Characterising the war as a conflict between north and south becomes almost laughably reductive-Deng himself was variously aligned with Khartoum, the SPLA, and a range of splinter groups. The alliances, broken, renewed, or otherwise, resemble the plot of a particularly convoluted soap opera.

Partly in preparation for our trip to South Sudan, we met in October with China's Special Envoy to Africa, Ambassador Zhong Jianhua, at the Foreign Ministry in Beijing. The ambassador's brief has always focused (some might say to a disproportionate degree) on the Sudan issue; his predecessor, Liu Guijin, was instrumental in brokering talks with then Chinese premier Hu Jintao and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, a dialogue that led directly to the independence referendum.

"Africa used to buy expensive and sell cheap," Ambassador Zhong told us. "Now, they sell expensive and buy cheap."

He was referring to the unprecedented opportunities that an oil price of $100 a barrel presents to South Sudan, and his outlook reflects a key difference in how China and the West view the region. Seen through Beijing's lens, the country is in a far better position than China was after the Cultural Revolution, when commodity prices were at an historic low. Ambassador Zhong made it clear that, for him, South Sudan is a universe of potential. Whereas from Washington's perspective, the country is not much more than a basket case, a backwater in need of nursing and aid.

Ambassador Zhong assured us that negotiations were underway to turn the oil taps back on. By the time we arrive in Bentiu, his words have proved prescient: the pipelines are being flushed, and the lifeblood might flow as soon as December, or January, or some other point in the not-too-distant future.

Sell expensive and buy cheap
On the Sunday following our arrival, in order to allow us to see for ourselves, Adiok arranges a four-by-four, an armed guard, and an audience with the local security chief. We are allowed to proceed along the path of the buried pipeline, through swampy wastelands, to the refinery of the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, 40% owned by the China National Petroleum Corporation.

A few kilometres beyond a bridge that al-Bashir's warplanes failed to bomb in April, the craters lying muddy and deep by the side of the road, we stop for lunch. "This place used to be beautiful when the oil was flowing," Adiok informs us-although amid the stench and the torpor, it's hard to imagine how.

Forty minutes later, we're inside an aluminium compound, in conversation with a local superintendent. We are led to a second compound, where the refinery's Chinese production manager appears less than thrilled to see us. "But they are looking for Chinese investment in Africa," says the superintendent. "That is you!"

Laughs all 'round. And then there are six men at the production manager's door, two large members of the project's security detail having just joined the fray. The production manager is thus rescued, allowed to return to his Sunday rest. We are led away and mildly interrogated. Who are we? What do we want? The large men, almost sympathetic to our story, in the end play it safe. Like everyone else in Unity State, they are pawns in a geopolitical game. The rules at this refinery are determined by Beijing, by Khartoum, and-still only last-by Juba.

That night, on a TV hanging in a boma in a Bentiu hotel, we watch news of the highway being built between South Sudan and Kenya, with help from China Exim Bank. A contingent arrives on November 15, to hasten negotiations. Adiok sighs.

"There you go," he says.

Security detail
The feeding frenzy will continue, as will the struggle for South Sudan's soul. Shortly before our arrival, the creation of the country's new capital is announced: according to the Sudan Tribune, the Pan-China Construction Group will fund and build a glittering modern metropolis from the nothingness of Ramciel, which lies in the dead centre of the country.

There is an all too apt parable lurking in the news of Ramciel. As the nascent United States of America did with Washington, D.C., South Sudan will fashion a fresh government seat to echo its fresh democracy. Except that here, construction comes at the behest of the Chinese. Ideals versus pragmatics: the curse of the postmodern liberation movement.

What would John Garang, who wanted to bring the town to the people, say about Ramciel, about Bentiu, about Juba, about the 18 months following independence?

For his part, Adiok doesn't equivocate. "The war smashed our way of life," he says. "We need to heal. What good will come of people going to the city? What will they do there?"

This article was made possible by a grant from the China-Africa Reporting Project, managed by the Journalism Department of the University of Witwatersrand. For more on the China-Africa story from Bloom and Poplak, visit africa3point0or follow them at Twitter

An earlier version of this story online contained several inaccuracies due to subbing errors. The Mail & Guardian Online apologises for these errors.



(STICKY) (MnG SA) Billions illegally taken out of Zambia over past decade, shows report

Billions illegally taken out of Zambia over past decade, shows report
18 Dec 2012 15:29 - Guardian Reporter

Campaigners say most of the illegally siphoned money ends up in offshore banks and tax havens and can be traced to mining multinationals.

US-based group Global Financial Integrity blamed "crime, corruption and tax evasion" for the loss of $8.8-billion from the resource-rich country. The lost money, most of which can be traced to multinational copper mining operations, is equivalent to almost half of Zambia's GDP.

Dev Kar, an economist and co-author of the report, said: "They [big global mining companies] are robbing the opportunities for the countries to advance, it [the money] could have been used to build hospitals and schools, and lift the economy out of poverty."

Kar said it was difficult to track where the money goes, but said most of it ends up in "offshore banks and tax havens".

* Read the report here.

Sarah Freitas, the other author of the report, said $4.9-billion of Zambia's lost funds between 2000 and 2010 could be traced to trade misinvoicing, in which importers pretend to pay more to foreign companies than they actually do, with the remainder slipped into offshore bank accounts. "This is a very serious problem," she said.

"Zambia's GDP was $19.3-billion in 2011. Its per capita GDP was $1 413. Its government collected a total of $4.3-billion revenue. It can't afford to be haemorrhaging illicit capital in such staggering amounts."

Zambia's deputy finance minister, Miles Sampa, said the report highlighted "what we have always been saying with regard to tax avoidance and income leakages in general".

Tax avoidance and transfer pricing

Sampa has accused multinational mining companies of using legal tax avoiding measures to escape $2-billion a year in taxes. He said only one or two mining operations declare they are making profits from Zambian copper mines, which hold 6% of the world's known copper reserves.

"The other mines for one reason or another, some genuine, some not, are always making losses," he said. "Most of it is due to transfer pricing or tax avoidance. We're looking at developing a law that will criminalise false reporting."

He said closing the loopholes could generate Zambia at least an extra $1.5-billion a year. "How many hospitals can that build? How many roads can that help us to develop?"

The UK government has investigated allegations surrounding Zambia's lost tax revenues from foreign-owned mines, including claims that Glencore avoided paying up to £76-million a year in tax on its Mopani mine in the countrty. Glencore denies the allegations.

Zambia is currently investigating its justice minister, Wynter Kabimba, over claims he took bribes from multinational trading company Trafigura. Both Kabima and Trafigura deny the claims.

The GFI report said "illicit capital flight" has cost developing countries $859-million in 2010, the last year for which IMF figures are available.

"Astronomical sums of dirty money continue to flow out of the developing world and into offshore tax havens and developed country banks," Raymond Baker, the GFI's director, said.

"Regardless of the methodology, it's clear: developing economies are haemorrhaging more and more money at a time when rich and poor nations alike are struggling to spur economic growth. This report should be a wake-up call to world leaders that more must be done to address these harmful outflows."
– Guardian News and Media 2012

Labels: ,


(MnG SA) Melinda Gates on family planning

Melinda Gates on family planning
18 Dec 2012 21:45 - Faranaaz Parker

The M&G caught up with Melinda Gates while she visited Lilongwe, Malawi to see how a family planning campaign in the country was going.

The trip comes at the end of a year in which Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, not only worked hard at promoting family planning and its benefits, but also put this topic back on the global agenda and helped secure pledges for $2.6-billion in funding for the cause.

Last week, the Mail & Guardian spoke with Gates to find out why family planning is so important, particularly in developing countries such as Malawi, where an estimated 3 000 women die during or shortly after pregnancy each year, and about some of the practical steps that can be taken to ensure that women who want to use contraception have access to it.

Why is family planning now so important for the foundation, which is better known for its work around vaccination?

We still focus hugely on HIV, tuberculosis; you’re hearing a big push with Bill being the strong voice on polio. Always on our agenda had been family planning. If you look at the history of the foundation – when Bill and I started – we actually started with vaccines and with family planning. There were some internal reasons why we got away from family planning for a while but it’s always been important to us and this felt like the right year to really move forward with family planning.

Also, this is the year we wanted to make sure family planning got back on the global health agenda, and it felt like the right time to do it … that’s why you see me speaking out on it much more. I’ve been very involved in maternal and child work for quite some time with the foundation, and as I travelled around this issue just kept coming up over and over again from women.

You often speak about putting women at the centre of family planning issues. What does this mean for you?

It means making sure women are both educated about contraceptives and making sure they have access to contraceptives. But this means more than just the contraceptives: it means girls can stay in school – hopefully all the way through secondary school – so that at the other end they have a different trajectory for economic output for themselves and their family.

Why is family planning so important, particularly for a country like Malawi?

One of the things we know from some long-term longitudinal studies that happened in Bangladesh, is that families who use family planning end up healthier and wealthier over the long term.

In Malawi, one of the great things going is that the [family planning] idea is already there. When you get up to 42% modern contraceptive use, to push it up to 60% honestly in some ways shouldn’t be that hard.

It’s one of the reasons why I was so enthused about coming to Malawi. One of the first times I met President Joyce Banda was in Washington DC, almost five years ago at the Women Deliver Summit, I was so impressed by what she had done by focusing on child mortality.

If it has such obvious benefits, why is access to contraception such a controversial issue in parts of the world?

That’s hard to answer by country. It’s still controversial in my country, which it shouldn’t be. In each country you have to look at what their religious issues are and what constraints have been placed on women, for example: do they or don’t they have power?

Part of the issue frankly is just education and supply. Once a woman knows that it’s not just God’s will, that she can do something about [her reproductive life], and gets educated about what her options are … it can take hold pretty quickly. And that’s why you’re starting to see contraceptives change a lot in places like Ethiopia, Senegal and Nigeria.

You spoke of supply as one of the things that keeps women from accessing contraception. Supply chain management is a very real and practical barrier to providing access to family planning. What sort of interventions can be made to get this one thing right?

I think part of the huge issue is we haven’t focused on family planning as a world. That’s why the family planning summit was so important, and because of that you have all these problems all the way down the chain.

If we focus on the supply chain issues like we’ve done with antiretrovirals (ARV), I think we can totally solve this. But we’ve got to decide that it’s important and we’ve got to put it in the clinics in the right way.

The clinics that I visited in Lilongwe already had good HIV or antiretroviral therapy (ART) services and now they’re putting in the family planning component. It’s a model for the country.

They’re doing all the right things. They’re not only making sure that they have the supply of contraceptives, but they’re doing something to integrate the services, by having a checklist and asking women who visit the clinic whether they have been asked about family planning.
“Do you know about family planning, do you want contraceptives?”

In Senegal there’s a model where they’re combining the public and the private sector. So the public sector does all the family planning, in a holistic clinic. They have a checklist, they ask women all over the clinic, at any point they come into the clinic, about family planning, they get them over for family planning but they use the private sector to supply the channel of contraceptives.

The private sector does a push model where they fully stock the clinic and they come every 15 days. They get a report by cell phone ahead of time, telling them whether they need more Depo-Provera [birth control shot] or more IUDs.

Malawi’s maternal death rate is among the highest in the world. Some of this stems from the young age at which many Malawian women have their children. There’s a growing lobby in Malawi to raise the age of marriage from 16 to 18 years. Why is raising the legal age for marriage important?

It’s important for women and girls all over the world. There are still 10-million child brides across Africa; and those are the girls who often have very little power in their relationship to negotiate to use contraceptives.

It’s incredibly important because it has all kinds of ramifications for a young girl who has a baby too soon. Her chances of dying or ending up with fistula are incredibly high.

But even if the age of marriage is raised to 18 or higher, in a country like Malawi, which is very poor and dependent on agriculture, what is there for women afterwards? What can women do to empower themselves in other ways?

I’ve travelled just outside of Lilongwe, to visit the villages in 2009, and when you do community empowerment in the village, it’s the health worker and a lot of the community [members] going out to do dramatisations to elucidate the issue in the village and let the villagers realise themselves what’s going on.

In one of the dramatisations I saw a healthcare worker ask: ‘”Why is it that women are dying in childbirth in the village?” The villagers started to elucidate the problem themselves and said, “We don’t take them to the clinics”. Then we asked them, “Why don’t you take them to the clinics?” And they started to map out what the problems were: in the rainy season they didn’t have a bridge to get across, or they didn’t have transport money, or the men wouldn’t allow it because women don’t have power.

That’s when you start to get to the real [picture]: it’s because we’re not allowing girls to stay in school. If they don’t stay in school they don’t have economic means, if they don’t have economic means, they don’t have power in their village.

All of those things have to happen with empowerment at the village level and it often means on-going discussion between a community health worker, helping the village to come together to map themselves and then come together once a week to talk about the issues in the village. It has profound implications in places around the world. It really changes things for women.

Health workers can provide services but changing the mindsets of men is very tricky. How do you get men and women to relate in a different way so you don’t have cases where a woman can’t get access to contraceptives because her husband doesn’t allow her to?

At the Lighthouse Clinic in Lilongwe, I was speaking to women about the role of their husbands and it comes up over and over again that the husband doesn’t want the wife to use family planning.

You have to work at the issue from both angles, from the top and the bottom. Working with the youth is great because you’re getting them to talk about sexual empowerment at a younger age and you’re getting the girls and the boys to talk about it together but you also have to work at the issue from the top down.

President Banda wants us to meet with the chiefs. You’ve got to work from both sides so the chiefs then are also are saying to the villagers, how do we create economic empowerment? That means leaving our girls in school for longer. How do we keep our girls in school longer? You actually need to have family planning services even for the youth so that they don’t get married early and drop out of school, and then girls don’t have the chance to do secondary school and have economic means. So you work at both ends of the system.

Again, you have to understand the context of the country.

We were in Niger this summer and in Niger the power structure is held by the imams. So we talked with them, and that network is just starting to help us get the message out because they need to give the messages out.

They can help us in Niger, along with these husband schools that have being created in Niger, so the women start to understand through the men. If you don’t get through to the men in Niger, we won’t reach the women for quite a while.

In every country, you have to understand the context of who holds the power at the village level and at various levels of hierarchy.

With countries that are very aid-dependent, projects that are funded by donor organisations often collapse when that funding dries up. How do you build sustainability into a project so that it continues after that funding ends?

That’s why it’s so important to work with the government upfront.

Another thing is to have realistic goals for countries, to say what’s actually achievable in a country. We now have this large sum of money $2.6-billion with realistic plans by 2020 to get to 120-million new women but the plans are built from the bottom up.

Since the London Family Planning Summit there are six countries that have very specific plans that they’re rolling out now. Each of those plans has a component in it that says, what happens after 2020? Where does the government start to plan for itself in its health budget?

One of the things the governments have to plan for is, as we drive more demand for family planning it will create more demand as well. The other piece that needs to happen between now and 2020, which the foundation and others will be involved in is to drive the prices of contraceptives of down.

By having this $2.6-billion we can now purchase in bulk and already we’ve got a couple of agreements with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the prices of the implants and Depo-Provera.

You’ve known Joyce Banda for some time now, and she’s only become president this year. What are your hopes for Banda’s presidency?

One of the things about Joyce Banda is that she’s a bold leader; she’s not afraid to do things that are unpopular sometimes and she’s already said that she wants to also focus on family planning. The fact that she decided not to have Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir at the AU meeting, and that meant not having the AU meeting here was a bold move by a brand new leader.

I think Joyce is willing to stand up and do some things that are hard to do. She has believed in women for a long time and she knows the power of women for her own country.

[This conversation has been edited for clarity, brevity and grammar.]

Faranaaz Parker is a reporter for the Mail & Guardian.

Read more from Faranaaz Parker
Twitter: @Faranaaz

Labels: , , , ,