November 3, 1999

Subject: The Anti-Establishment Files: Info and background material on the coming World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle -- for your review (Sorry no time to prepare personal comments tonight)

As a complement to this material about the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle, the Earth Action Network (over 1,700 citizens groups in more than 150 countries) has launched a major campaign entitled "Take the World's Forests off the WTO Chopping Block". On their material, it is said "In the time it takes you to read this Action Alert, an area of rainforest the size of 50 city blocks will have fallen to chain saws, bulldozers and flames. Now a new international trade agreement threatens to accelerate the destruction. You can help to stop it."

I strongly urge you to read their action package at and get involved to help stop the magalomaniacs soon meeting in Seattle and bent on destroying the world for their own selfish profit.

From: "Joanne Stephenson" <>
Subject: October 25, 1999 - KIN Newsletter
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 99

The Social Activist's Site for World Peace

Toward Freedom

Sept/Oct 1999

Should countries have the right to set health and safety standards for the
food their citizens eat? Should they be allowed to exclude
foreign-produced foods that don't meet national standards? Or should these
questions be decided by the World Trade Organization (WTO)? Like it or
not, these issues are being decided right now. In the latest trade dispute
between the world's two largest trading partners, the US placed sanctions
worth about $117 million on European goods in late July. The goal is to
force the Europeans to import US beef that is raised with growth hormones.

Ordinarily, the decision to place 100 percent tariffs on French truffles,
foie gras, and other delicacies that most of us have never tasted would
violate our international trade agreements. But, in this case, the US has
the backing of the WTO, a 134-nation body that was created four years ago
to negotiate and govern world trade. Ruling that Europe's ban on
hormone-treated beef is illegal, it authorized the US to impose
retaliatory trade sanctions against the European Union. Consider the
arguments: The Europeans don't allow beef that is treated with growth
hormones to be sold in their markets, regardless of where it's produced.
They just don't think it's all that safe to eat. But most US beef is, in
fact, treated with these hormones. So the government, at the request of
the US beef industry, filed a complaint at the WTO, arguing that the ban
was an unfair restriction on trade. The WTO's rules say that any health or
environmental standard that affects trade must be supported by scientific
evidence. Thus, it appointed a three-judge panel, which decided in March
1997 that there wasn't enough scientific evidence to justify Europe's ban
on hormone-treated beef.

An independent panel of scientists, assigned by the European Commission to
consider these questions, reached a different conclusion. They found that
one of the six hormones commonly found in beef is a "complete carcinogen."
For the other five, they concluded that further study would be needed -
although anyone reading the 142-page report would undoubtedly wonder why
the US allows these drugs to be pumped into its livestock.

Well, if most people actually knew what they were eating, they probably
wouldn't - especially those most susceptible to the effects of the
hormones, such as children and pregnant women. But there are no labeling
requirements for these extra ingredients in US hamburgers. Regardless of
how one assesses the scientific evidence, shouldn't the Europeans be
allowed to err on the side of caution if they so choose? Most people would
say yes. This case is particularly outrageous because everyone agrees that
the law against hormone-treated beef was designed to protect Europe's
consumers, not its domestic cattle industry. And the law applies without
discrimination to both domestic and foreign producers. Yet, the WTO
insists that an unaccountable, three-judge panel, meeting in secret, can
overturn a European law - simply because it has an adverse impact on

Clearly the tail (trade) is wagging the dog here. And this is exactly what
environmental, consumer, and labor groups warned would happen when the WTO
was created four years ago. Its track record has validated these warnings.
In 1997, for instance, the US Environmental Protection Agency weakened its
regulations on contaminants in imported gasoline, in order to comply with
a WTO ruling that found these rules to be an unfair trade barrier. The
enforcement of the US Endangered Species Act - specifically, the
protection of sea turtles - has also been compromised by recent WTO

>From the point of view of big business, and especially large multinational
corporations, these aren't disturbing developments. For them, it's only
natural to see human beings and the environment as mere instruments for
expanding global trade and commerce. They are quite comfortable with
having these decisions made by a tribunal of an international organization
where they can have the predominant influence - unencumbered by any
congress, parliament, or other elected officials that might have to care
what ordinary citizens think. The WTO is their creature, and so it has
been pretty consistent in taking the side of business against the rights
of citizens and the global community. As more people are beginning to see,
this is the crux of the problem. Institutions like the WTO, the
International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank - as well as commercial
agreements embodying the same principles, like NAFTA or the recently
derailed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) - are deliberately
designed to transfer power over economic decision-making from governments,
which are at least somewhat (and potentially more) accountable to their
citizens, to unaccountable decision-makers.

These institutions aren't likely to change their basic mission in the
foreseeable future. But they can be stopped from pursuing it. In the case
of the WTO, the next and possibly pivotal battle will take place in late
November, when ministers from nearly 150 countries gather in Seattle to
launch a new round of trade negotiations. Preparations are underway for a
massive "mobilization against globalization" at this meeting. Tens of
thousands of steelworkers and longshoremen will join environmental
activists from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth, AIDS
activists, students, and international activists from Canada, India,
Malaysia, Germany, and Mexico to protest corporate globalization. The Wall
Street Journal recently quoted a trade lobbyist who compared the planned
Seattle protests to the convergence of anti-war activists on Chicago in
1968. The protesters descending upon Seattle will convey a strong message
against corporate globalization to the world leaders there, as well as the
international media covering the launch of a new round of trade
negotiations. And when citizen activists aren't in the streets (or forming
a human chain around the convention center where the official meeting is
taking place), they will be attending events at a parallel "citizens'
summit," where participants can learn more about the WTO's record and the
impacts of globalization. Among the events being planned for Seattle are:
a Globalization Teach-In at the Seattle Symphony Hall, hosted by the
International Forum on Globalization; a rally and march organized by the
AFL-CIO and fair trade networks in the Seattle area; and an international
interfaith church service put on by the Washington Association of
Churches. At the citizens' summit, activists and scholars from NGOs and
social movements around the world will address the impacts of the WTO and
globalization on the environment, health, livelihoods, human rights,
women, democracy, and more. There also will be plenty of opportunity for
direct action: The Ruckus Society and the Seattle-based Network Opposed to
the WTO are planning creative actions to draw attention to the WTO's
abuses. Mark Weisbrot is research director and Neil Watkins is a research
associate at the Preamble Center.

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999
From: Mike Dolan <>

Check it out!

Your "one-stop" WTO web site is now up and running:

The calendar of all the events planned for Seattle are posted here,
you can sign up to volunteer, find housing during the Ministerial,
learn more about the WTO and globalization, find tons of great links
to organizations, and find out what YOU can do to STOP the WTO! This
page will be updated almost daily, so make sure to bookmark it and
check it often.



From November 1-4, 1999 trade representatives from throughout the western hemisphere will convene in Toronto, Canada. Their goal is to remove all social and environmental impediments to trade in the Americas. Their plan promises to benefit multinational corporations, while devastating national economies, sending people into deeper poverty, and destroying the natural environment. How do they intend to do this? Through the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

The FTAA is an expansion of the 1994 NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). The FTAA intends to bind 34 countries in the western hemisphere to further remove restrictions on the free movement of capital, goods, and services. Like the attempted Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), the FTAA will further extend the implications of NAFTA, while eliminating its environmental and labor side agreements. The FTAA plans to broaden definitions of investment to further eradicate the distinctions between short and long term investment, thus promoting socially irresponsible financial speculation.

Such "quick buck" speculation, encouraged by recently liberalized international trade policy, was largely responsible for the 1995 peso crash and the more recent economic crisis in Southeast Asia. If the FTAA continues in the direction of NAFTA and the MAI, the affected nations will also be prohibited from distinguishing between domestic and foreign investment. Thus, Latin American countries will be forced to allow foreign companies to take advantage of and extend low environmental and labor standards, while providing little benefit to their local economies. As for direct effects to North America, jobs will disappear as companies continue to move south. The recent moves to liberalize trade have created worldwide social and economic disaster.

The trade ministers of the FTAA fear an interruption in the negotiations could halt the entire process. Here lies the weak link. We must show our opposition to the FTAA.

What can you do?
1) Come show your opposition at the Toronto rally. Organize affinity groups and carpools. Come with words, banners, puppets, flyers, and lots of people.
2)Write your congressperson. The Clinton Administration has not received permission from Congress to be in these negotiations. Demand that these talks cease!
3) Call US negotiator on investment issues, Lisa Kupiske at (202) 395-3510. Tell her no FTAA!

For further information please contact ACERCA or the Metro Network for Social Justice:

Action for Community & Ecology in the Rainforests of Central America POB 57
Burlington, VT 05402 USA
(802) 864-8203 Fax

Metro Network for Social Justice
2 Carlton St, Suite 1001
Toronto, ON M5B 1J3 CANADA
(416)351-0095 Extension 237
(416)351-0107 Fax

Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999
From: Margrete Strand-Rangnes <>
Subject: [mai] The Guardian: "Faceless in Seattle"

1999.10.07 - Thursday 7 October - 2 months 24 days to 2000.01.01

Faceless in Seattle

The awesome power of the World Trade Organisation to rewrite
national laws to favour global business is being challenged at
the grass roots. Andy Rowell reports from the frontline of

Wednesday October 6, 1999

The party of the millennium is not, contrary to popular thinking,
happening on New Year's Eve. It's occurring just over a month
earlier in Seattle, where environmental, human rights and labour
organisers are planning a ding-dong of a protest.

Last month, the cream of the American direct action community
held a five-day strategy meeting at Pragtri Farm, a 25-acre
small-holding in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains, north of
Seattle, on America's Pacific Coast.

The protesters' aim is to stop the third ministerial meeting of
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Seattle in late November.
John Sellers, director of the Ruckus Society, organisers of the
strategy meeting, says: "I feel like we have all the ingredients
to create a defining political moment."

There is a similar feeling in European cities, where
environmental and other protesters are planning their own

The WTO was set up in 1995 at the formal end of the Uruguay round
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is now
the most powerful trade body in the world, with some 134 member
nations and a further 33 wanting membership. WTO trade agreements
provide legally binding rules for international commerce and
trade policy. Trade disputes are settled by three unelected
bureaucrats, operating in secret.

At Seattle, the delegates will be discussing a new round of trade
liberalisation talks - called the Millennium Round - in areas
such as investment, agriculture, forest products and government
procure ment. In Europe, where the EU is pushing in favour of the
new round, discussions are about to start as to what negotiating
line to take.

What happens in Seattle will help to define the trade,
environmental, development and health agenda into the new
century. In Britain, it may change the future of public
education, the minimum wage and the NHS, which could face
anti-trade rulings by the WTO.

"It is the policy of industry lobbyists to press for
liberalisation of health care," argues David Price, research
fellow at Northumbria University. "Conditions are being created
to pressurise the government to privatise health services."

The WTO is accused of being a faceless, undemocratic organisation
which puts the interests of corporations above everything else.
"The WTO has the right to completely rescind any law passed by
the citizenry to protect the environment, health and labour
rights," says Kelly Quirk, head of the Rainforest Action Network,
co-sponsors of the Ruckus camp. Every environmental or public
health law challenged at the WTO has been ruled illegal.

"What is wrong with the WTO is that it is totally representative
of the interests of corporations and money and the richest
one-tenth of 1% of people on the planet" says David Korten,
author of When Corporations Rule the World, who spoke at the
camp. "In that sense, it is contrary to life, the principles of
life and everything we need to get a world that works both for
people and planet."

Activists point out the record of the WTO on dolphins, sea
turtles as well as the three Bs - bananas, beef and Burma. The
WTO ruled in favour of commercial interests against dolphins
protected by the US marine mammals act and turtles protected
under the US endangered species act. It ruled in favour of US
banana interests in Central America which objected to Europe
buying bananas from small-scale Caribbean producers. It ruled
against the EU, which did not want to import US hormone-treated
beef because of its links to cancer. And a law passed in
Massachusetts against working with companies investing in the
repressive regime in Burma was also attacked at the WTO.

Another 'B' could be added to the list, as biotechnology will be
one of the main issues discussed at Seattle. Any measures by
Europe to stop the import of GM food will be ruled as a violation
of trade.

Worried that it is losing the argument, the WTO is fighting back
with a PR offensive, saying that nation states, not them, are to
blame. Mike Moore, former New Zealand prime minister who is the
new head of the WTO, also believes that everyone can benefit from
free trade. "People who march in Seattle will be marching against
opportunities for poor people to sell their products and
services," he says.

But the protesters won't only be marching. At the Ruckus training
camp, direct action techniques were taught. Workshops were held
in political theatre and WTO delegates will be greeted by an
array of thousands of colourful puppets. Activists were taught
about the ethics of non-violence, and practised de-escalating
violent situations.

They also learned from their British counterparts. In the early
1990s, British activists took the philosophy of Earth First in
the US and imported it over here. Mass direct action and protest
was born and redefined on the roads schemes at Twyford Down,
Newbury and the M11 in east London. Since then, groups like
Reclaim the Streets (RTS) have turned protests into mass parties
of resistance.

Dave, from the Art and Revolution collective in San Francisco,
says: "RTS has influenced and inspired a lot of activists in
America." And John Sellars adds: "The great challenge for us in
the US is to start putting up the same numbers of people
protesting against globalisation that we have seen in Europe and
in the global south."

A debate raging within direct action communities is whether
property destruction is a legitimate form of non-violent protest.
"One thing that has happened in Europe, which I very strongly
believe will not play here, is mass demonstra tions that lead to
some sort of property destruction," says Kelly Quirk. "Private
property is God."

Another reason for the Ruckus camp was alliance building. John,
from RTS, says: "There is more of a willingness to make
broad-based alliances in the US. To see steelworkers, reformists,
anarchists, peace activists and environmentalists all sitting
around the campfire was amazing."

"For years, unions have tried to stand on their own," says Ron,
one of the steelworkers, "but it doesn't work. The corporations
used to tell their workers that if you get involved with
environmentalists they will come and shut your plant down. We
have found that that is not true and they will help you with your
job." Environmentalists and steelworkers have formed the Alliance
for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment.

Celia, a consultant to the steelworkers, believes that the
growing labour and environmental alliance is one of the strongest
cards that the opposition has in the run-up to Seattle. "Because
labour and environmentalists are both strong constituencies that
have to be listened to, the idea that they are singing the same
song is really scary to a lot of policy makers," she says.

Indeed, a comprehensive alliance has formed to fight the WTO.
Over 1,000 organisations from 87 countries have signed a
statement opposing the Millennium Round and any further
liberalisation. "In the past five years, the WTO has contributed
to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich few;
increasing poverty for the majority of the world's population;
and unsustainable patterns of production and consumption" says
the statement.

They are joined by an array of interests, from international
churches and unions to Indian peasants and French farmers.

The protesters definitely feel that the momentum is behind them
with two recent significant anti-free trade victories. They
felled the ill-fated multilateral agreement on investment (MAI)
and in the US they stopped Bill Clinton's "fast track" of the
North American Free Trade Agreement. "I do think it is a
strategic moment in an on-going confrontation between civil
society and corporate rule," says Mike Dolan.

"I think there is a definite possibility that the WTO will be
defeated after Seattle, so what do we do then?" asks John, from
RTS. "We have to remember to go for the heart of the beast, which
is capitalism itself."

Many environment and social justice groups say the WTO
undermines national governments and threatens people as well as
nature. This week, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) argued
that WTO rules were threatening seven hard-won treaties and were
being used to prevent new environmental laws.

Two new treaties are at risk: WTO rules would take precedence
over the proposed Persistent Pollutants Agreement, seeking to
curb toxic chemical pollution; and the Biosafety Protocol on the
trade in GM organisms has all but collapsed because rich
countries want weaker WTO rules to govern the trade.

Strengthening existing treaties could also be threatened: the
Convention on Biological Diversity is at risk because WTO rules
on intellectual property conflict with the convention's aims to
help developing countries patent local knowledge; and, WWF says,
the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, the Kyoto climate
change convention and the Basle convention banning the export of
hazardous waste to countries where it cannot be properly managed
could all be challenged.

The WWF wants an agreement implemented to exempt environmental
trade measures from challenge by the WTO. "Every time an
agreement is seen to threaten economic interests, WTO rules are
invoked to weaken the proposals," says Nick Mabey, of WWF.


Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist who attended the Ruckus
camp as a guest.

"Current economic assumptions are part of the crisis, not part of the solution."

Quoted from the article below previously published in the Share International magazine,

The dilemma of consumption-led growth

by John Laird

Writer and journalist John Laird addresses the emerging global economic and ecological crisis, the devastating effects of over-consumption and the need for a managed global economy. In his second article, he discusses the emerging global environmental crisis brought about by over-consumption. (1606 words)

Bangkok, Thailand As the world's major trading nations mull over the need for a new "global financial architecture "to mitigate the chaos that has lately buffeted currency markets, economists have reverted to a common prescription to remedy the woes of recession-hit governments in Asia: stimulate consumption. "Everybody, spend more money on buying things!" is a commonly heard exhortation.

In Thailand, on 20 October 1998, the Governor of the Bank of Thailand, Chatu Mongol Sonakul, urged Thais to spend more to help battered businesses, in order to help pull Thailand out of its still-deepening economic crisis. But how many Thais would want to spend their savings on non-essential consumption when they were unsure if they would still have their jobs the following year?

Japan is in a similar dilemma (as are other countries). Conventional economic wisdom says that ordinary Japanese must increase their consumption (especially of foreign goods) to lead a recovery in Asia and perhaps even to save the global economy from further meltdown. But, like Thais, ordinary Japanese are experiencing job losses at the fastest rate since World War II.

Is this 'imperative to consume' the answer to economic well-being? Paradoxically for Thailand and Japan, both Buddhist countries, the teachings of the Buddha say no to materialistic consumption as a way of life.

In addition, unsustainable consumption (including much of what we take for granted in our daily lives) is seen by environmental authorities as posing increasing danger to ecological stability in the future. Japan's Environment Agency declared in a 1995 publication that current economic assumptions, coupled with a growing global population, would continue to increase natural resource consumption and to worsen pressure on the environment. The agency noted: "To avoid this situation, we must strictly curtail further increases in environmental load and we must form a sustainable society. It added: "It is necessary to review the concepts that underlie modern civilization " mass production, mass consumption, mass disposal. We must change our civilization into a sustainable one which has its economic/social system based on the concept of circulation, and where nature and people live in harmony."

Even more ironically, American and European economists of the free-trade school are pressuring the Japanese Government to cut taxes in order to spur consumption. Yet the Environment Agency -- along with environmental experts from many countries and from the United Nations -- are calling for taxes on consumption that has a negative impact on the environment.

The agency noted: "By utilizing economic measures such as taxes and charges, environmental costs could be reflected in the trade prices of services and products. This, in turn, would make it possible to utilize inherent market mechanisms in an environmentally positive way."

Thus, we face the dilemma that the call for increased consumption in Asia, stimulated by government-sponsored credit to consumers and by government spending programmes, may lead us out of the current deflationary crisis only to usher us more hastily into a broader and more severe, ecologically-based crisis.

It is folly to believe that the priority of human endeavour will always be to increase production, leading to the ever-increasing generation of wealth, with the ultimate end-goal of life seen as ever-increasing consumption. The creation of material wealth may be a priority now for countries with an impoverished population. But, even in those countries, redistribution of wealth and emphasis on public infrastructure, shared resources, and universal access to a clean and healthy natural environment can do a lot to bring the society into a satisfying balance.

As alluded to previously, the preoccupation with ever-increasing industrialization, production and consumption should be seen as a phase that the global economy is currently passing through. The overall aim of this next phase may be described as nothing less than a stewardship of the global environment. If the global environment becomes severely destabilized, there can be no economic stability or security. Yet, humankind is advancing steadily along the road to such destabilization.
Super-hurricane Mitch, which tore through five countries of Central America creating enormous devastation in October 1998, is already being cited as an example of the extreme climatic events predicted by scientists to become more and more common as global warming advances.

If humankind cannot drastically reduce air pollution from greenhouse gases " the major one being carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels " the global climate will heat up significantly in the latter half of the 21st century, with potentially catastrophic results.
Expanding oceans would threaten to inundate low-lying coastal cities (where a majority of the world's urban population lives). Increasing temperatures could wreak havoc on agriculture in many countries through drought and invasions of pests; and an upsurge in disease throughout the world has been predicted. Social strife and massive movements of populations could result. And add to that the devastation of extreme climatic events such as super-hurricane Mitch.

Winds from Mitch reached almost 300km per hour and dumped huge amounts of driving rain on the region over several days, causing extensive flooding and mudslides. The Economist called it Central America's worst natural disaster in its modern history; Cable Network News reported it was the region's worst natural disaster in 200 years. The death toll was reported at more than 11,000. More than one million people in worst-hit Honduras and Nicaragua were left without shelter, and the devastation to infrastructure and agriculture was estimated to have set both countries' development back by as much as one generation.

At the Kyoto climate conference in December 1997, most developed countries agreed to reduce emissions by an average of 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. At the Buenos Aires session in November 1998, negotiations continued on how to put pledges into operation. But little progress was made, and it may take years before agreement can be reached.

Meanwhile, many environmentalists say that the Kyoto targets are much too modest. An international gathering of Green politicians in London in November cited an "authoritative assessment" saying that a world-wide carbon dioxide reduction of 50-70 per cent was necessary to contain climate change. On the other hand, world energy demand is forecast to grow by some 65 per cent from 1995 to 2020, according to data presented to the Buenos Aires meeting. Without action by leading economies to limit air pollution levels, global output of carbon dioxide emissions will climb 70 per cent.
Another emerging environmental crisis is the coming global scarcity of fresh water, with all the social dislocations, human misery and international tensions that could cause. At the International Conference on World Water Resources in 1998, UNESCO Director-General Federico Mayor warned that the present usage of fresh water was not sustainable, as population growth, changing consumption patterns and increasing urbanization have put a greater demand on water supplies with a parallel increase in waste water. Global warming and the coming water shortage are just two " although major " examples of environmentally linked crises. The Earth's land, sea and air are in a state of man-made degeneration. Another crisis is the alarming loss of biodiversity " the full range of plant and animal species.

So far, the world's major economic upheavals " for example, the Great Depression of the 1930s " have followed in the wake of financial crashes, caused by the "get-rich"mentality of free-market capitalism and the inability of governments to avoid its boom-and-bust cycles in an increasingly-complex global economy.

But what if such a financial and economic crash in the future was accompanied by a full-scale ecological crisis, with rising sea-levels, increasing temperatures, upsurges in deadly diseases world-wide, a changing climate, desertification, destruction of farmlands, social strife and massive movements of populations?

It is becoming apparent now that current economic assumptions are part of the crisis, not part of the solution.

If the conventional economists " whose concerns are confined to lubricating the workings of the free-market, consumptive, economic model " could not see the 1997-98 financial crisis coming, would anyone be surprised that they are also failing to acknowledge a much broader, more pervasive crisis brewing?

At stake here is the stability of the global ecosystem, the vastly complex relationship between the organic elements which make up the biological web of life and the non-organic elements which constitute the atmosphere, the oceans and the land. This dynamic relationship has given rise to a life-supporting global ecology over millions of years.

This relatively stable global ecology " the ecological baseline " has allowed human beings to evolve. It forms the foundation which has allowed civilizations and their economies to emerge.

This, then, is the challenge to policy makers: any solution to the current global financial malaise must contain the seeds of a solution to the looming ecological crisis. Of course, economic growth is needed to lift crisis-hit countries out of poverty, and to bring development to impoverished countries. But such growth should first and foremost serve goals of future ecological stability while avoiding unsustainable, vanity consumption.

It is a truism that economics must serve ecology, because the free-enterprise, value-creating sector is really the only source of funds to protect the ecological baseline. This truism has been largely ignored during 150 years of self-absorbed industrial revolution; now a new balance between economy and ecology has to be fashioned.

Condensed from a chapter in John Laird's forthcoming book, "Money Politics, Globalization and Crisis: The Case of Thailand". Contact: John Laird, PO Box 16, Hua Hin 77110 Thailand. Tel/Fax: (66-32) 511 966.

Mr Laird is a New Zealand writer and journalist based in Thailand, specializing in international affairs and sustainable development.

This article is from the May 1999 issue of Share International.

If you would like to subscribe to the Emergence Online newsletter published monthly by Share International, send a message to:

In the body of your message include the following:

subscribe emergenceonline your email address. unsubscribe emergenceonline your-email-address.

Background information is available at:

- - -

Information and updates are provided on the worldwide activities of the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN), the global civil-society movement organized to challenge the imposition of structural adjustment programs.

Tony Avirgan <>