di Rick Kelly
– Prime cifre
per la ricostruzione del Libano, gli Usa offrono poco più di un decimo di
quello che versano ogni anno per l’esercito israeliano (e gli europei poco più
della metà degli USA).
Il tasso di
disoccupazione potrebbe salire in Libano a più del 20% e il PIL si è ridotto
drasticamente.
Il PIL
procapite, che non aveva ancora raggiunto il livello pre-guerra civile,
potrebbe cadere del 10%.
La spartizione
del potere tra comunità religiose ostacola le liberalizzazioni chieste da
organismi internazionali e dai gruppi finanziari. –
- Usa Europa e Arabi con rappresentanti dell’Onu, della
Banca Mondiale e del Fondo Monetario Internazionale si sono impegnati in aiuti
al Libano per 940 milioni di dollari, facendo crescere la cifra totale
internazionale a 1,2 miliardi. Il Programma di Sviluppo dell’Onu ha calcolato
in 15miliardi $ il valore dei danni fisici ed economici. - Il governo libanese ha
stimato i danni delle strutture per 3,6 miliardi $, Siniora pagherà 40mila $
alle famiglie le cui case sono distrutte o danneggiate. Con 130mila persone con
diritto a ricevere questa somma il costo sarà di 5miliardi $. - Arabia Saudita, Kuwait e altri Stati del Golfo ricchi
di petrolio provvederanno alla cifra totale promessa per 1,2 miliardi $,
l’Europa 117 milioni $, Usa 230milioni $. - E’ stimato che il tasso di disoccupazione sarà per il
resto dell’anno di più del 20%. Secondo l’Economist per il 2006 il PIL del
Libano potrebbe essere del 10% in meno rispetto alle previsioni. - All’inizio dell’anno il reddito pro capite del paese
era di 1/3 in meno rispetto al 1975. Il tasso di disoccupazione era del 9%, il
doppio per la disoccupazione dei giovani. - Washington non ha interessi
negli aiuti al Paese. Gli Usa non hanno offerto oltre i 230milioni $ promessi
all’inizio della guerra. - Secondo fonti ufficiose USA gli Usa prenderebbero
seriamente in considerazione richieste israeliane fino a 2miliardi $ per
ri-equipaggiare la Forze Armate di Israele. Questi soldi sarebbero un sussidio
militare in più rispetto ai più di 2miliardi $ che già gli Usa offrono ogni
anno. - Il governo libanese, che stima che l’accerchiamento
israeliano stia costando al paese 45miliardi $ al giorno, ha accusato Israele
di condurre una guerra economica. - Il Libano ha un debito
pubblico di 40 miliardi $ e il più alto rapporto tra debito e PIL (180%). - Dichiara la Banca Mondiale:
“L’esperienza passata nel mondo ha dimostrato sistematicamente che i mercati
privati non possono indefinitamente venire incontro a debiti pubblici in
crescita. Anche il più fedele investitore può perdere fiducia nella capacità
del governo di onorare il suo debito, e una crisi maggiore può quindi seguire,
con effetti devastanti sull’economia e sul tessuto sociale - Il Fondo Monetario Internazionale e la Banca Mondiale
aveva richiesto al governo libanese di ridurre il suo debito con l’innalzamento
delle tasse, tagliando le spese e privatizzando industrie dello Stato, anche la
rete elettrica, delle telecomunicazioni e dell’acqua. Investitori
internazionali avevano anche fatto pressioni per condizioni favorevoli per gli
investimenti attraverso una minore regolamentazione, meno barriere commerciali,
più flessibilità del mercato del lavoro e una riduzione dell’amministrazione
pubblica. - Queste richieste furono
espresse dai creditori del Libano alla conferenza di “Parigi II” nel 2002, che puntava ad evitare un fallimento
nazionale ristrutturando il debito. Poche delle misure richieste sono state
successivamente realizzate, a causa di opposizione popolare e divisioni al
governo. - L’economia e la politica del
paese rimangono caratterizzate da una divisione del potere tra comunità, dove
le varie etnie hanno potere di veto sulla maggioranza delle proposte politiche. - Mai il governo della borghesia
libanese (dall’indipendenza del paese) era dipeso da questo settarismo, che
pervade ogni aspetto della vita politica sociale economica del paese. - La situazione politica
esistente è vista come un ostacolo alla realizzazione delle richieste del
capitale finanziario. La mancanza di istituzioni moderne, la perpetua paralisi
amministrativa e politica rendono difficile l’organizzazione di progetti per
riforme economiche e politiche.
Major powers offer devastated Lebanon a pittance in
aid
By Rick Kelly
4 September 2006
An international donors’ conference for
Lebanon, held in Sweden on August 31, was an exercise in unabashed hypocrisy.
Amid the wreckage inflicted by Israel during its criminal month-long assault, the world’s major powers offered
the Lebanese people a pittance and then congratulated themselves for their
efforts. “Our message should be clear and firm: you are not alone,”
Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson pompously declared. “War may be the
business of some, but peace will always be our common duty.”
Proceedings at the conference demonstrated the
cynicism of such statements. The
US, European, and Arab powers, together with representatives of the UN, World
Bank and International Monetary Fund, pledged aid of $940 million, raising
total international assistance to $1.2 billion. This money represents
just a small fraction of what is required. The UN Development Program has estimated that the war
inflicted $15 billion worth of physical and economic damage.
Israel systematically destroyed much of
Lebanon’s social and economic infrastructure. Beirut airport was bombed along
with power stations, roads, bridges, and homes and businesses. The Lebanese government has
calculated that direct structural damage will cost $3.6 billion to repair.
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has also pledged to pay up to $40,000 compensation
to families whose homes were destroyed or damaged. With about 130,000 people eligible
to receive this payment, the scheme is expected to cost more than $5 billion.
Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, and other oil-rich Gulf states provided most of the $1.2
billion pledged, while the European Union committed $117 million and the US
promised $230 million. These donations will not
cover Lebanon’s immediate reconstruction requirements, let alone ease the
severe economic crisis caused by the war. The unemployment rate is expected to be more than 20
percent for the rest of the year. The Intelligence Unit for the Economist magazine has warned that Lebanon’s gross domestic product
for 2006 may be 10 precent lower than previous estimates.
“The damage is such that the last 15 years of
work on reconstruction and rehabilitation, following the previous problems that
Lebanon experienced, are now annihilated,” Jean Fabre, of the UN Development
Program, declared last week. “Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a
month.”
Lebanon’s “previous problems” include two
Israeli invasions, in 1978 and 1982, an 18-year Israeli occupation of the
country’s south, and a 15-year civil war between 1975 and 1990. Even before
Israel’s latest bombardment, the widespread destruction and dislocation in
Lebanon had not been resolved. At the beginning of the year, the country’s per capita income was
one-third lower than what it was in 1975. The official unemployment rate was 9
percent, with youth unemployment twice that.
The conference made no condemnation of Israel
for the war or the social disaster left behind. Nor was there any criticism of
the US, which collaborated with Israel’s war preparations and welcomed the
invasion as a means to advance its domination of the Middle East. For three
weeks the US blocked calls for an immediate ceasefire and urged Israel to step
up its bombardment.
While US representatives attended the
conference, Washington has
no interest in helping to rebuild Lebanon or assisting its people. The Bush
administration refused to pledge any additional money to the $230 million it
had promised shortly after the ceasefire took effect.
A Jerusalem
Post article entitled “US may consider additional aid to IDF”, published on
the day of the aid conference, demonstrated the Bush administration’s real
priorities. According to an unnamed senior US official, Washington would “seriously consider” any request
from the Olmert government for up to $2 billion to re-equip the Israeli Defence
Forces. This money would be an additional grant on top of military aid worth
more than $2 billion provided by the US every year.
The US delegate refused to join other
international representatives in criticising Tel Aviv’s ongoing sea and air
blockade of Lebanon. The
Lebanese government, which estimates that Israel’s encirclement is costing the
country $45 million a day, has accused the Israeli state of waging economic war.
The blockade, which has been in force since the war began on July 13, has
caused widespread shortages of fuel, medicine, and other vital supplies.
Even the UN was forced to issue a protest
against Israel’s brazenly illegal operations. “Aid when there is a blockade is
like putting someone on life support when there is a foot on their wind pipe,”
UN Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown declared.
Economic restructuring
The major powers attending the donors’
conference were likewise motivated by self-interest. A number of countries in
Europe and the Gulf region have significant investment and trade interests in
Lebanon, and hope to use economic aid as leverage for advancing pro-business
economic reforms. These measures will further impoverish ordinary working
Lebanese people and exacerbate social inequality and sectarian divisions.
Lebanon
has a public debt of $40 billion and the world’s highest debt to gross domestic
product ratio at 180 percent. International investors
have warned of a crisis unless this debt is paid off. “Past experience around the world systematically
demonstrates that private markets cannot indefinitely accommodate rising public
debt ratios,” the World Bank stated in a report issued last November. “Even the
most faithful investors can eventually lose confidence in the government’s
capacity to honour its debt, and a major crisis can then ensue, with
potentially devastating effects on economic and social fabrics.”
The
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have demanded that the
Lebanese government reduce the debt by raising taxes, cutting spending, and
privatising state owned industries, including the electricity network,
telecommunications, and water. International investors have also pressed for
more favourable investment conditions through less business regulation, fewer
trade barriers, greater labour market “flexibility”, and a smaller civil
service.
These
diktats were laid out by Lebanon’s creditors at the “Paris II” conference in
2002, which aimed at avoiding national bankruptcy by restructuring the debt.
However, few of the required measures were subsequently implemented, due to
popular opposition and divisions within the ruling elite.
“The root of Lebanon’s problems lies in its
governance structure,” the World Bank complained. The country’s political and economic institutions rest
upon a communalist division of power, in which the Sunni, Shiite, Christian,
and other minority sect elites can veto major policy proposals. Ever since
independence, the Lebanese bourgeoisie’s rule has depended on this
sectarianism, which pervades every aspect of the country’s political, social,
and economic life.
The
existing political set-up, however, is now widely viewed as an obstacle to the
implementation of finance capital’s demands.
“While a semblance of a modern state exists, there are no modern institutions,” the
Washington-based Carnegie Endowment noted. “In short, Lebanon has a
confessional oligarchy. The result is perpetual political and administrative paralysis;
the existing institutions cannot introduce needed reforms for fear that these
changes would alter the status quo and the balance of interests among the
communities. This makes it
almost impossible to devise a national agenda for political and economic
reform.”
The European and Arab powers view the crisis
induced by the Israeli invasion as an opportunity to overcome these barriers to
economic restructuring. While the international delegates at the donors’
conference in Sweden were careful to project a humanitarian image and did not
explicitly make their aid pledges conditional upon economic reform, there is no
doubt that the donors expect a quid pro quo.
“International
aid providers naturally want to know that their funds are being put to good use
and they usually dictate how the money is best spent,” Jim McCredie, a senior
manager with accounting firm KPMG, told the BBC.
“For some this is the opportunity to impose changes designed to enhance the
economic performance or improve the social infrastructure provision in the
country. It will also be
an opportunity to exert regional influence through Lebanon’s strategic location
in the Middle East.”