Student Council Alliance of the Philippines  is  still looking for donations for the victims of  typhoon Ondoy! 36B Madasalin St., together with the office of Akbayan Party List, are  also requesting for more help.

you can help by donating items listed: These will be brought to the different sites in Metro Manila and some provinces. Please help spread the word.

- Ready to eat food (cooked rice, boiled egg, bread, easy to open canned goods)
- Water (bottled, or in 10-gallon containers)
- Blankets and towels
- Clothes

Volunteers are also needed to help pack and deliver the items.

If you wish to help, pls call or txt: 925-58-43/ 09175381816 (Bayantel lines down so use these numbers).

YOU CAN ALSO TEXT US THROUGH SMS 09207392102 / 09299523774 /0926682704/ 09153089753

Look for Eriza and Bianca

The past weeks have seen the emergence of a novel viral disease – the Influenza A (H1N1). Many people became worried, others remained calm and confident, a few others have been infected, and one Filipino who works for the House of Representatives had died of complications.

With H1N1, Filipinos reacted differently. But as we begin to face another, more serious threat to our nation’s health – a disease that can quickly spread and grow into a pandemic like H1N1, we as a people must react – and act – collectively. Now is the time to build the preventive measures against this emerging sociopolitical epidemic.

The House of Representatives Resolution 1109 is the most pressing and rapidly growing disease that inflicts our national society today. Last June 2, 2009, this ‘social virus’, which we would like to call ‘HR1109’ in accordance to conventional naming of influenza strains, contaminated our legislature, bringing about a constellation of ‘signs and symptoms’ – the untimely and ‘acute onset,’ or rather railroading, of the resolution, without even conducting a nominal voting; the attempt to paralyze the Senate by not including them in the Constituent Assembly – the body that should be responsible for revising the Constitution; the inability of the legislators to consult as many people as possible regarding changing the Constitution; and the potential to prolong the hold of tyrants in office due to the transition stage associated with a shift to parliamentary government. All these ‘disease manifestations’ are indeed horrible and unacceptable.

In public health, it is important to investigate the mechanism by which a disease occurrence starts and spreads. If the Con-Ass is the disease, the causative agent is a virus that, just like H1N1, is a fusion of different viral components – deception, greed, corruption, unlawfulness, and oppression. Viruses can spread by direct contact or droplets, but the virulent elements of Con-Ass are transmitted by vectors – the members of the House of Representatives who voted for the passing of House Resolution 1109. These vectors are nurtured not by stagnant waters or barks of trees, but by those in power who desire to perpetuate their regime.

No antiviral drug can eradicate this dreaded social virus – only our total and collective opposition can slow down, prevent the contagion of, and eventually, totally eliminate this virus that attempts to kill the very foundations of our democracy. At first we thought we cannot battle against H1N1 – but we realized that healthy lifestyle and proper etiquette are the cornerstones of prevention. HR1109 and all its associated ailments can also be easily overcome – if we work together, here and now!

Therefore, we, the University Student Council of the University of the Philippines Manila, the National Health Sciences Center of the Philippines, call each member of the University – students, faculty, administrators, staff – and all Filipinos to remain vigilant of the events that will unfold in the coming weeks and months and to spread the virus not of Con-Ass, but of freedom and opportunity by educating each other about the presentation and complications that this fearful but avoidable disease may bring about. Participation in social movements and activities that advocate real change and genuine progress – not through Con-Ass but through active and participative democracy – is also key to effective ‘infection control.’ By registering and voting for the 2010 national elections, we declare our distaste for Con-Ass and other attempts to prolong the ‘infection’ brought about by officials who desire not national growth, development, and survival, but senility, disability, and death. While public health experts remember the pandemics that killed millions in the past, let us also put these ambitious parliamentarians in mind and avoid them in the upcoming 2010 elections. In this way, we can be assured that our country will be declared ‘disease-free’ in the future.

The Philippine health system headed by the Department of Health together hospitals, medical schools, and research institutions, including UP-PGH, responded adequately to H1N1 through a complete armamentarium of education, infection control, and early diagnosis and treatment. With the same collective effort and unified stand as land-loving people, we can disinfect our towns and cities – our beloved Philippines – from Con-Ass and Cha-Cha – our nation’s real pandemic.

June 25, 2009

UP Manila

Ramon Lorenzo Luis Rosa Guinto

University of the Philippines

Doctor of Medicine Class of 2012

]]> http://scapnational.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/up-manila-usc-on-hr-1109/feed/ 0 Bianca http://scapnational.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-2009-scap-ncr-assembly/ http://scapnational.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-2009-scap-ncr-assembly/#comments Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:39:56 +0000 Paula Bianca Lapuz http://scapnational.wordpress.com/?p=375 ]]>

First Posted:

June 09, 2009 at 11:05am Facebook

House Resolution No. 1109 Salient Points:

A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO CONVENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING PROPOSALS TO AMEND OR REVISE THE CONSTITUTION, UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

1. Convening the members of congress in order to amend or revise the 1987 constitution being used by the country today

a. It is provided that the Members of Congress have the constitutionally ordained powers to amend or revise the constitution given the exercise of their constituent power as recognized in Article XVII, section 1 of the Constitution.

2. The method to which this provision is enacted upon came from distinction evoked from the constitutional change that occurred in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 constitutions.

a. Evident difference with the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions have led this house resolution to be so. Changes that are of crucial value are:

i. The deletion of the phrase “in joint session assembled” as found in the 1935 constitution

ii. The deletion of the phrase, “all members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately” as found in the 1935 constitution, there by obscuring the distinction as to which institution of Congress a representative is part of when it comes to the voting requiring three-fourths of all the members

b. Proposals to amend or revise the 1987 constitution can only be provided only when there is already a call to convene the Members of Congress.

i. The proponents of this resolution then pledged that any form of change may be presented at the appropriate times given that other constitutional issues involving the construction and interpretation of the 1987 Constitution is conducted by the Honorable Supreme Court.

ii. Controversies that may be related to this resolution may be resolved with finality that:

1. The terms of office of the incumbent President and Vice-President, as well as the Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials whose term of office shall expire in 2010 shall not be extended;

2. The terms of office of the twelve (12) senators whose term shall expire in 2013 shall not be shortened;

3. That there shall be elections in 2010.

4. The economic provisions making the Philippines an internationally competitive country attracting foreign investments and technology transfers is also mentioned, but can only be presented and acted upon when there is already a convention to amend or revise the constitution and will be made operational through the application of Article XVII of the present Constitution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BE CONVENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS AND THAT UPON ITS BEING CONVENED SHALL ADOPT ITS RULES OF PROCEDURES THAT SHALL GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS

Last Tuesday, June 2, 2009, the Philippine House of Representatives passed House Resolution 1109 which calls for the convening of Congress into a Constitutional Assembly. The decision, voted by means of acclimation, was reached after four (4) hours of interpolation and to much debate by both Administration and Opposition congressmen.

House Resolution 1109 provides the House of Representatives with powers to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution given their right to exercise their constituent power as stipulated in Article XVII, Section 1 of the said constitution. The method adopted in the writing of this resolution was enacted upon with respect to the changes in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 constitutions. This resolution then entails the Members of the Congress (i.e. the Senators and Congressmen) to vote jointly – not separately – on any amendment or revision to be made with the 1987 Constitution.

In matters of constitutional issues involving the construction and interpretation of the 1987 Constitution, it is the Honorable Supreme Court that shall decide on all affairs.H.R. 1109 has provisions for the prohibition of the extension of terms of the incumbent President and Vice-President, as well as the Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials whose term of office shall expire in 2010, the office of the twelve (12) senators whose term shall expire in 2013 shall not be shortened, and that there shall be elections in 2010.

The Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral, as an institution founded on the principle of Democracy – with its values of participation, responsible representation, and forwarding national interest, stands firm in positing that H.R. 1109:

1. has clearly not been, and is still not at the best interest of the Filipino people at the moment

2. has not undergone the proper process of consultation by seemingly railroading the resolution into approval without proper regard for objection and queries from various individuals and groups.

3. is seemingly and potentially a product of dubious intention by powers that have significant influence in Congress

The Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral, as an institution founded on the principle of National Dignity and Social Justice, firmly believes that H.R. 1109 is a mere distraction to more pressing legislative matters such as the pending Student Rights and Welfare Bill, efforts to protect our economy from the effects of the global recession and other legislative agenda championing the interests of the poor and marginalized in society.

The Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral questions the timing at which the members of the House have chosen to push for this arguably unconstitutional first step in attempting to amend the constitution. The realities of the upcoming elections include the logistical difficulties of preparing for a plebiscite in case amendments are forwarded by an assembly and the suspicions over the real motive behind this effort.

The Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral, is an institution that partakes in the endeavors of the youth, which it sees as the primary stakeholder of the nation. The implications of H.R. 1109 are clearly not in line with the interests of the youth today. The Sanggunian firmly supports the desire of the youth to exercise its democratic right to vote in the 2010 national elections.

Therefore, the Sanggunian ng mgaMag-aaral stands firmly against moves to amend the constitution via a Constituent Assembly. It believes that NOW is NOT the time to amend the constitution.

The Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral, as an institution that represents, integrates, and provides services to the student body calls on the student body to

(1) participate in discourses and forums to be set-up by the Sanggunian and other groups to be properly educated on the political situations;

(2) continue to participate in voters’ registration which will be important whether an election or a plebiscite happens in 2010;

(3) be vigilant of the poll automation process that is happening in COMELEC. If a plebiscite will occur or the 2010 election pushes through, we shall rely heavily on those machines that are being set-up in determining our future leaders.

(4) create political space in cyberspace by discussing this issue with your friends;

(5) write what your stand is to your congressmen and senators;

(6) write to the Supreme Court that we trust them to uphold what is true, unbiased and just in their decision regarding HR 1109;
(7) participate in the major protest concert on June 10, 2009 in Makati, Tondo, or Katipunan as well as the regular noise barrages that will happen on seven consecutive Fridays starting June 12 until the July 27 SONA of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
Scincerely,
Gregorio Ramon A. Tingson

President
Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila

Media Person: Eriza Dapitan (eriza.dapitan@gmail.com)

Youth group, Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP), denounced the administration solons brazen move to railroad Charter Change proposal in House of Representatives, yesterday, June 2, 2009.

Kick Con-Ass!

House Bill 1109 introduced by House Speaker Prospero Nograles was approved before 12 midnight of June 02, where legislators supporting the convening of Congress as a Constituent Assembly to change the 1987 Charter defeated the minority, in the plenary vote on Charter Change (ChaCha).

“This is yet again a slap on our democracy. GMA allies have gone way too far. They should prepare for the ultimate consequence of this action, mass protests will definitely greet them starting two o’clock this afternoon in St. Peter’s Church, Commonwealth,” says SCAP Secretary-General, Paula Bianca Lapuz.

The Alliance has retained its opposition against GMA’s ChaCha since it was first proposed in 2007. The group was quoted saying that they believed that “the Government’s motivation for changing our current political system is to ensure the political survival of the beleaguered presidency of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo.”

SCAP emphasized in its previous statements that “genuine pursuit of necessary and essential reforms in our political and electoral system could never take place under the present administration.”

Hence, the Alliance reiterates that initiatives for genuine political reforms must come from groups, institutions and individuals which/who have the moral and political ascendancy to lead the process of Charter Change, otherwise this process might just be used to further curtail the civil and political rights of our people.

Furthermore, the youth group cited that our people’s participation in the process of Charter Change is of utmost importance, if only, to legitimize the whole process.

“Doing ChaCha through Con-Ass is the highest form of treason. The administration cohorts in the lower house have betrayed the people yet again. Instead of prioritizing laws like Magna Carta of Students or the Extension and Reform of CARP, GMA allies chose to pass Con-ASS bill hastily, with great prejudice to minority leaders who had still wanted to raise arguments against the faults of the bill,” adds Lapuz.

Having condemned ConASS, SCAP maintained its stance that Charter Change could best serve the interest of the people if done through a Constitutional Convention, where delegates will be voted by the people in order to convene an independent body which will tackle revisions and/or amendments in the charter.

CARPER at Magna Carta of Students HINDI CHACHA

“Kick Con-ASS! That’s what we are saying. No to Charter Change under the GMA administration! Let’s not bring this country to an absolute political fiasco,” quips Lapuz.

“Student groups forming the Coalition for Students’ Rights and Welfare (STRAW) have been lobbying incessantly in the House of Representatives (HoR) during the past weeks in order to get the Magna Carta of Students passed at the committee level. It is very frustrating to see our legislators passing a bill which is highly detrimental to our democracy. We cannot tolerate this blatant disregard of the real important bills, which will in fact, help our people, especially our farmers and students greatly,” says coalition spokesperson Jamie Pring.

“We are deeply saddened by the developments in the lower house; we wish that Congress would tackle Magna Carta of Students and the Extension and Reform of CARP instead of insisting to convene a Constituent Assembly. This is a very crucial moment for genuine political reforms to take place and we are appalled to witness the slow death of our reform agenda in HoR especially if our legislators themselves are putting them off, case in point, the ChaCha Express,” adds Pring.

SCAP, being a co-convenor of the coalition, reminds solons that young people will not hesitate to go out in the streets again to show their indignation of this government’s outright mockery of our country’s democratic institutions and processes.

SCAP and the Coalition for STRAW are praying that key reform bills will be passed before the recess of Congress. Likewise, they are registering their protest against ChaCha.

“EDSA dos is likely to happen again. Young people are not ignorant; we saw and felt the youth power in 2001. This government never learns, as if GMA was not installed through the EDSA II uprising. We will ensure that our voices will be heard. HoR should legislate Magna Carta of Students NOW and as well as CARPER,” Lapuz concludes.

Magna Carta of Students has been pending in Congress for more than a decade already. No substantial discussion was brought out in the past to get it moving. The coalition hopes that through more rigorous lobbying, congress will finally legislate this into law.

CARPER was just passed in the Senate while the House was busy tackling Con-ASS. HoR closed without passing the bill in the plenary.

####

By: WALDEN BELLO

Published: 12/02/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

As goods pile up in wharves from Bangkok to Shanghai and workers are laid off in record numbers, people in East Asia are beginning to realise that they are not only experiencing an economic downturn but are living through the end of an era.

For over 40 years now, the cutting edge of the region’s economy has been export-oriented industrialisation (EOI). Taiwan and South Korea first adopted this strategy of growth in the mid-1960s, with Korean dictator Park Chung-Hee coaxing his country’s entrepreneurs to export by, among other measures, cutting off electricity to their factories if they refused to comply.

The success of South Korea and Taiwan convinced the World Bank that EOI was the wave of the future. In the mid-1970s, then-bank president Robert McNamara enshrined it as doctrine, preaching that “special efforts must be made in many countries to turn their manufacturing enterprises away from the relatively small markets associated with import substitution toward the much larger opportunities flowing from export promotion”.

EOI became one of the key points of consensus between the World Bank and Southeast Asia’s governments. Both realised that import-substitution industrialisation could only continue if domestic purchasing power were increased via a significant redistribution of income and wealth, and this was simply out of the question for the region’s elites. Export markets, especially the relatively open US market, appeared to be a painless substitute.

Japanese Capital Creates an Export Platform

The WB endorsed the establishment of export processing zones, where foreign capital could be married to cheap (usually female) labour. It also supported the establishment of tax incentives for exporters and, less successfully, promoted trade liberalisation. Not until the mid-1980s, however, did the economies of Southeast Asia take off, and this was not so much because of the WB but because of aggressive US trade policy.

In 1985, in what became known as the Plaza Accord, the United States forced the drastic revaluation of the Japanese yen relative to the dollar and other major currencies. By making Japanese imports more expensive to American consumers, Washington hoped to reduce its trade deficit with Tokyo. Production in Japan became prohibitive in terms of labour costs, forcing the Japanese to move the more labour-intensive parts of their manufacturing operations to low-wage areas, in particular to China and Southeast Asia. At least $15 billion worth of Japanese direct investment flowed into Southeast Asia between 1985 and 1990.

The inflow of Japanese capital allowed the Southeast Asian “newly industrialising countries” to escape the credit squeeze of the early 1980s brought on by the Third World debt crisis, surmount the global recession of the mid-1980s, and move onto a path of high-speed growth. The centrality of the endaka, or currency revaluation, was reflected in the ratio of foreign direct investment inflows to gross capital formation, which leaped spectacularly in the late 1980s and 1990s in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.

The dynamics of foreign investment-driven growth was best illustrated in Thailand, which received $24 billion worth of investment from capital-rich Japan, Korea and Taiwan in just five years, between 1987 and 1991. Whatever might have been the Thai government’s economic policy preferences – protectionist, mercantilist or pro-market – this vast amount of East Asian capital coming into Thailand could not but trigger rapid growth. The same was true in the two other favoured nations of northeast Asian capital: Malaysia and Indonesia.

It was not just the scale of Japanese investment over a five-year period that mattered, however. It was the process as well. The Japanese government and keiretsu or conglomerates, planned and cooperated closely in the transfer of corporate industrial facilities to Southeast Asia. One key dimension of this plan was to relocate not just the big corporations like Toyota or Matsushita but also the small and medium enterprises that provided their input and components. Another was to integrate complementary manufacturing operations that were spread across the region in different countries. The aim was to create an Asia-Pacific platform for re-export to Japan and export to third-country markets.

This was industrial policy and planning on a grand scale, managed jointly by the Japanese government and corporations and driven by the need to adjust to the post-Plaza Accord world. As one Japanese diplomat put it rather candidly: “Japan is creating an exclusive Japanese market in which Asia-Pacific nations are incorporated into the so-called keiretsu [financial-industri al bloc] system.”

China Masters the Model

If Taiwan and South Korea pioneered the model and Southeast Asia successfully followed in their wake, China perfected the strategy of export-oriented industrialisation.

With its reserve army of cheap labour unmatched by any country in the world, China became the “workshop of the world,” drawing in $50 billion in foreign investment annually by the first half of this decade. To survive, transnational firms had no choice but to transfer their labour-intensive operations to China to take advantage of what came to be known as the “China price,” provoking in the process a tremendous crisis in the labour force in the advanced capitalist countries.

This process depended on the US market. As long as US consumers splurged, the export economies of East Asia could continue in high gear. The low US savings rate was no barrier since credit was available on a grand scale. China and other Asian countries snapped up US Treasury bills and loaned massively to US financial institutions, which in turn loaned to consumers and homebuyers.

But now the US credit economy has imploded, and the US market is unlikely to serve as the same dynamic source of demand for a long time to come. As a result, Asia’s export economies have been marooned.

The Illusion of “Decoupling”

For several years China has seemed to be a dynamic alternative to the US market for Japan and East Asia’s smaller economies. Chinese demand, after all, had pulled the Asian economies, including Korea and Japan, from the depths of stagnation and the morass of the Asian financial crisis in the first half of this decade.

In 2003, for instance, Japan broke its decade-long stagnation by meeting China’s thirst for capital and technology-intensiv e goods. Japanese exports shot up to record levels. Indeed, China had become by the middle of the decade “the overwhelming driver of export growth in Taiwan and the Philippines, and the majority buyer of products from Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Australia”.

Even though China appeared to be a new driver of export-led growth, some analysts still considered the notion of Asia “decoupling” from the US locomotive to be a pipe dream. For instance, research by economists CP Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh underlined that China was indeed importing intermediate goods and parts from Japan, Korea and Asean, but only to put them together mainly for export as finished goods to the United States and Europe, not for its domestic market. Thus, “if demand for Chinese exports from the United States and the EU slow down, as will be likely with a US recession,” they asserted, “this will not only affect Chinese manufacturing production, but also Chinese demand for imports from these Asian developing countries.”

The collapse of Asia’s key market has banished all talk of decoupling. The image of decoupled locomotives – one coming to a halt, the other chugging along on a separate track – no longer applies, if it ever had. Rather, US-East Asia economic relations today resemble a chain gang linking not only China and the United States but a host of other satellite economies. They are all linked to debt-financed middle-class spending in the United States, which has collapsed.

China’s growth in 2008 fell to 9% from 11% a year earlier. Japan is now in deep recession, its mighty export-oriented consumer goods industries reeling from plummeting sales. South Korea, the hardest hit of Asia’s economies so far, has seen its currency collapse by some 30% relative to the dollar. Southeast Asia’s growth in 2009 will likely be half that of 2008.

The Coming Fury

The sudden end of the export era is going to have some ugly consequences. In the last three decades, rapid growth reduced the number living below the poverty line in many countries. In practically all countries, however, income and wealth inequality increased. But the expansion of consumer purchasing power took much of the edge off social conflicts.

Now, with the era of growth coming to an end, increasing poverty amid great inequalities will be a combustible combination.

In China, about 20 million workers have lost their jobs in the last few months, many of them heading back to the countryside where they will find little work. The authorities are rightly worried that what they label “mass group incidents”, which have been increasing in the last decade, might spin out of control.

With the safety valve of foreign demand for Indonesian and Filipino workers shut off, hundreds of thousands of workers are returning home to few jobs and dying farms. The loss of their remittances will drive millions of their dependents below the poverty line.

Suffering is likely to be accompanied by rising protest, as it already has in Vietnam, where strikes are spreading like wildfire. South Korea, with its tradition of miltant labour and peasant protest, is a ticking time bomb. Indeed, East Asia may be entering a period of radical protest and social revolution that went out of style when EOI became the fashion three decades ago.

* Walden Bello is professor of sociology at the University of the Philippines, president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, and senior analyst at the Bangkok-based research and advocacy institute Focus on the Global South.

January 20, 2009

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive… that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

]]> http://scapnational.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/full-transcript-of-us-president-barack-obamas-inaugural-address/feed/ 0 Bianca http://scapnational.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/the-coming-capitalist-consensus/ http://scapnational.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/the-coming-capitalist-consensus/#comments Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:42:42 +0000 Paula Bianca Lapuz http://scapnational.wordpress.com/?p=316 ]]>

Published on Wednesday, December 24, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus

Washington, DC

by Walden Bello*

Not surprisingly, the swift unraveling of the global economy combined with the ascent to the U.S. presidency of an African-American liberal has left millions anticipating that the world is on the threshold of a new era. Some of President-elect Barack Obama’s new appointees – in particular ex-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to lead the National Economic Council, New York Federal Reserve Board chief Tim Geithner to head Treasury, and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk to serve as trade representative – have certainly elicited some skepticism. But the sense that the old neoliberal formulas are thoroughly discredited have convinced many that the new Democratic leadership in the world’s biggest economy will break with the market fundamentalist policies that have reigned since the early 1980s.

One important question, of course, is how decisive and definitive the break with neoliberalism will be. Other questions, however, go to the heart of capitalism itself. Will government ownership, intervention, and control be exercised simply to stabilize capitalism, after which control will be given back to the corporate elites? Are we going to see a second round of Keynesian capitalism, where the state and corporate elites along with labor work out a partnership based on industrial policy, growth, and high wages – though with a green dimension this time around? Or will we witness the beginnings of fundamental shifts in the ownership and control of the economy in a more popular direction? There are limits to reform in the system of global capitalism, but at no other time in the last half century have those limits seemed more fluid.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has already staked out one position. Declaring that “laissez-faire capitalism is dead,” he has created a strategic investment fund of 20 billion euros to promote technological innovation, keep advanced industries in French hands, and save jobs. “The day we don’t build trains, airplanes, automobiles, and ships, what will be left of the French economy?” he recently asked rhetorically. “Memories. I will not make France a simple tourist reserve.” This kind of aggressive industrial policy aimed partly at winning over the country’s traditional white working class can go hand-in-hand with the exclusionary anti-immigrant policies with which the French president has been associated.

Global Social Democracy

A new national Keynesianism along Sarkozyan lines, however, is not the only alternative available to global elites. Given the need for global legitimacy to promote their interests in a world where the balance of power is shifting towards the South, western elites might find more attractive an offshoot of European Social Democracy and New Deal liberalism that one might call “Global Social Democracy” or GSD.

Even before the full unfolding of the financial crisis, partisans of GSD had already been positioning it as alternative to neoliberal globalization in response to the stresses and strains being provoked by the latter. One personality associated with it is British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who led the European response to the financial meltdown via the partial nationalization of the banks. Widely regarded as the godfather of the “Make Poverty History” campaign in the United Kingdom, Brown, while he was still the British chancellor, proposed what he called an “alliance capitalism” between market and state institutions that would reproduce at the global stage what he said Franklin Roosevelt did for the national economy: “securing the benefits of the market while taming its excesses.” This must be a system, continued Brown, that “captures the full benefits of global markets and capital flows, minimizes the risk of disruption, maximizes opportunity for all, and lifts up the most vulnerable – in short, the restoration in the international economy of public purpose and high ideals.”

Joining Brown in articulating the Global Social Democratic discourse has been a diverse group consisting of, among others, the economist Jeffrey Sachs, George Soros, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the sociologist David Held, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, and even Bill Gates. There are, of course, differences of nuance in the positions of these people, but the thrust of their perspectives is the same: to bring about a reformed social order and a reinvigorated ideological consensus for global capitalism.

Among the key propositions advanced by partisans of GSD are the following:
Globalization is essentially beneficial for the world; the neoliberals have simply botched the job of managing it and selling it to the public;

It is urgent to save globalization from the neoliberals because globalization is reversible and may, in fact, already be in the process of being reversed;

Growth and equity may come into conflict, in which case one must prioritize equity;

Free trade may not, in fact, be beneficial in the long run and may leave the majority poor, so it is important for trade arrangements to be subject to social and environmental conditions;

Unilateralism must be avoided while fundamental reform of the multilateral institutions and agreements must be undertaken – a process that might involve dumping or neutralizing some of them, like the WTO’s Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs);

Global social integration, or reducing inequalities both within and across countries, must accompany global market integration;

The global debt of developing countries must be cancelled or radically reduced, so the resulting savings can be used to stimulate the local economy, thus contributing to global reflation;

Poverty and environmental degradation are so severe that a massive aid program or “Marshall Plan” from the North to the South must be mounted within the framework of the “Millennium Development Goals”;

A “Second Green Revolution” must be put into motion, especially in Africa, through the widespread adoption of genetically engineered seeds.

Huge investments must be devoted to push the global economy along more environmentally sustainable paths, with government taking a leading role (“Green Keynesianism” or “Green Capitalism”);

Military action to solve problems must be deemphasized in favor of diplomacy and “soft power,” although humanitarian military intervention in situations involving genocide must be undertaken.

The Limits of Global Social Democracy

Global Social Democracy has not received much critical attention, perhaps because many progressives are still fighting the last war, that is, against neoliberalism. A critique is urgent, and not only because GSD is neoliberalism’s most likely successor. More important, although GSD has some positive elements, it has, like the old Social Democratic Keynesian paradigm, a number of problematic features.

A critique might begin by highlighting problems with four central elements in the GSD perspective.

First, GSD shares neoliberalism’s bias for globalization, differentiating itself mainly by promising to promote globalization better than the neoliberals. This amounts to saying, however, that simply by adding the dimension of “global social integration,” an inherently socially and ecologically destructive and disruptive process can be made palatable and acceptable. GSD assumes that people really want to be part of a functionally integrated global economy where the barriers between the national and the international have disappeared. But would they not in fact prefer to be part of economies that are subject to local control and are buffered from the vagaries of the international economy? Indeed, today’s swift downward trajectory of interconnected economies underscores the validity of one of anti-globalization movement’s key criticisms of the globalization process..

Second, GSD shares neoliberalism’s preference for the market as the principal mechanism for production, distribution, and consumption, differentiating itself mainly by advocating state action to address market failures. The kind of globalization the world needs, according to Jeffrey Sachs in The End of Poverty, would entail “harnessing…the remarkable power of trade and investment while acknowledging and addressing limitations through compensatory collective action.” This is very different from saying that the citizenry and civil society must make the key economic decisions and the market, like the state bureaucracy, is only one mechanism of implementation of democratic decision-making.

Third, GSD is a technocratic project, with experts hatching and pushing reforms on society from above, instead of being a participatory project where initiatives percolate from the ground up.

Fourth, GSD, while critical of neoliberalism, accepts the framework of monopoly capitalism, which rests fundamentally on deriving profit from the exploitative extraction of surplus value from labor, is driven from crisis to crisis by inherent tendencies toward overproduction, and tends to push the environment to its limits in its search for profitability. Like traditional Keynesianism in the national arena, GSD seeks in the global arena a new class compromise that is accompanied by new methods to contain or minimize capitalism’s tendency toward crisis. Just as the old Social Democracy and the New Deal stabilized national capitalism, the historical function of Global Social Democracy is to iron out the contradictions of contemporary global capitalism and to relegitimize it after the crisis and chaos left by neoliberalism. GSD is, at root, about social management.

Obama has a talent for rhetorically bridging different political discourses. He is also a “blank slate” when it comes to economics. Like FDR, he is not bound to the formulas of the ancien regime. He is a pragmatist whose key criterion is success at social management. As such, he is uniquely positioned to lead this ambitious reformist enterprise.

Reveille for Progressives

While progressives were engaged in full-scale war against neoliberalism, reformist thinking was percolating in critical establishment circles. This thinking is now about to become policy, and progressives must work double time to engage it. It is not just a matter of moving from criticism to prescription. The challenge is to overcome the limits to the progressive political imagination imposed by the aggressiveness of the neoliberal challenge in the 1980s combined with the collapse of the bureaucratic socialist regimes in the early 1990s. Progressives should boldly aspire once again to paradigms of social organization that unabashedly aim for equality and participatory democratic control of both the national economy and the global economy as prerequisites for collective and individual liberation.

Like the old post-war Keynesian regime, Global Social Democracy is about social management. In contrast, the progressive perspective is about social liberation.

Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies

Walden Bello is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus, a senior analyst at the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South, president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, and a professor of sociology at the University of the Philippines.

(note: this article is also in INQUIRER)

Below is Rep. Risa Hontiveros’ explanation of vote on the Joint Resolution extending CARP without compulsory acquisition:

To vote YES to the Joint Resolution would be to vote for the death of agrarian reform.

Compulsory acquisition is the heart and soul of the agrarian reform program. The 1987 Constitution commands the State to undertake the just distribution of ALL agricultural lands. The fact that all agricultural lands should be the subject of CARP tells us that acquisition should be compulsory and not at the option or whim of the landowner. I cannot, in good faith, sign my name on a Resolution manifestly unconstitutional and grossly illegal.

Huwag na po nating kumbinsihin ang ating sarili na an gating ginagawa ngayon ay para sa magsasaka. Huwag na po tayo maghugas ng kamay sa ating magiging pagkasala sa sambayanan.

There are 1.3 M hectares of land yet undistributed. These lands are in agrarian reform hotspots like Negros and Bondoc Peninsula, where landowner resistance has resulted not only in non-distribution but also in oppression and outright violence. These are the types of landowners who would never voluntarily give up their lands. If they have managed to circumvent the law under a policy regime of compulsory acquisition, how much more under a framework of optional agrarian reform?

Hinahamon ko ang mga ginagalang na kasama sa Negros at sa mga iba pang kasama na may lupa na boluntaryo ninyong ipasaklaw sa agrarian reform ang inyong mga lupa. Huwag natin gamitin ang Kongreso at ang ating posisyon upang ipagtanggol ang sarili nating interes. Ipamahagi ninyo sa loob nitong anim na buwan ang inyong mga lupa.

Ginoong Speaker, napakalaki na po ng utang ng kasaysayan sa ating mga magsasaka. Sa Joint Resolution na ito, tuluyan na natin silang papatayin.

Tonight, Ginoong Speaker, we have managed to obliterate an entire class. The countryside will never forget this moment. We have let our farmers down.

Akbayan votes no.