Globalization
...ufacture of "rationalizations for a new kind of corporate colonialism, visited upon the poor countries and the poor in the rich countries." The 'corporate colonialism' described by Mander too often comes under the guise of international aid for development. Tinker notes that the aid packages provided by the colonial powers only "perpetuate poverty and the imbalance of power arrangements among states and peoples." In sum, international aid packages impose socioeconomic conditions, often through the International Monitory Fund and/or the World Bank, which turn recipient nations into contemporary, corporate-managed colonies. Advocates of this form of colonization employ the term 'development' to mask the imposition of "monoculture - the homogenization of culture, lifestyle, and level of technical immersion, with the corresponding dismantelment of local traditions and economies." Bonino identifies of the colonizing effect of Western style 'development' in Latin America in this statement: "Latin America suddenly realized that it had been incorporated into the modern world indeed, but not as a junior partner with increasing participation in the total enterprise but as a dependent, serving the further development of the owners profit." The colonizing effect of imposed Western style development is cleverly masked throughout the world. A recent article in The Economist argues that "it is hard to find an emerging economy whose situation is now getting worse." It notes, for example, that South Korea's GDP rose by nearly 11% in 1999. "Its output is now above pre-crisis levels," notes the magazine. However, The Economist fails to note that the GDP is a limited economic indicator. The GDP, which measures a country's domestic production of goods and services, and the GNP, which includes income from a country's foreign operations, are both insensitive to environmental damage and work conditions. Consequently, the approximate 11% rise in South Korea's GDP in 1999 may be similar to South Korea's increasing GNP in the 1970's, behind which "there were many women workers who worked under miserable conditions in the textile companies." Consequently, if the church is to resist collusion with the emerging patterns of economic exploitation, it must first be sensitized to the issues. Euphemisms such as 'development' and misleading economic indicators like the GDP complicate the issues. The complex webs of contemporary colonial relations can overwhelm individuals and restrict understanding. Balasuriya writes: This melange and intermingling of oppressions can explain the condition of awareness of domination in one direction mingled with a collusive oppressor in another dimension. This depends very much on one's consciousness and one's option in the concrete situations of life. Similarly, the church must acknowledge its past collaboration with the colonial enterprise if it is to appreciate its role in resisting contemporary colonization efforts. This means recognizing the connection between colonial efforts in the past and contemporary, corporate-managed colonial relations. Most importantly, Bonino writes: "The churches can only be credible if they recognize their involvement and, in the necessary reforms that they demand for society, endeavor to make the corresponding changes in themselves." In short, time and geography do not restrict the economic exploitation identified in earlier discussions regarding the colonization of North American. Contemporary systems of colonial exploitation, although masked by euphemism and the guise of benevolence, and their relatedness to past colonial ventures, demand the church's attention. II In 1986 the final draft of Economic Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the US Economy was approved at a meeting of US bishops. The five bishops responsible for writing the pastoral message labored for five years with the aid 148 contributors; including theologians, economists, Jewish and Protestant leaders, and eight bishops from Latin America. The letter employs a significant amount of quantitative data and testifies to the US economy's failure to meet "the converging demands of [the] three forms of basic justice." These forms are: (1) commutative justice between private individuals or groups, (2) distributive justice, involving the "allocation of income, wealth and power in society [evaluated] in light of its effects on persons whose basic material needs are unmet," and (3) social justice, which "implies that persons have an obligation to be active and productive participants in the life of society and that society has a duty to enable them to participate in this way." The pastoral letter is well researched, clear and at times prophetic in its criticism of the US economy. For example, regarding the illusion of foreign aid, the bishops note that in 1985 "nearly two-thirds of [US foreign aid] took the form of military assistance (including subsidized arms sales)." However, a number of prophetic passages were omitted or altered in the final draft. For example, the following passage appeared in an early draft of the letter: In order to create a new kind of political democracy [the founders of our nation] were compelled to develop ways of thinking and political institutions which had never existed before â€| We believe the time has come for a similar experiment in economic democracy: the creation of an order that guarantees the minimum conditions of human dignity in the economic sphere for every person. The 1986 draft includes a similar passage with the omission of the term 'economic democracy.' It instead, reads: "We believe the time has come for a similar experiment in securing economic rightsâ€|" According to Cort, this omission indicates the bishops unwillingness to write the words, "Government must be the employer of last resort â€| If all of us who can afford it have to pay higher taxes in order to guarantee this most basic of human rights, the right to work, then we must pay higher taxes." However, it may also be the case that Cort is unwilling to relinquish the assumption of industrial production. If this is the case, then both Cort and the bishops are guilty of continuing what Tinker describes as: â€| a pattern all too common among liberal, well-intentioned, conscientious Christians [that] overlooks the single largest group of people who participate in and are affected by the world economy and most of the national economies - the indigenous peoples and cultures that have been and are being oppressed by all modern economies. Nevertheless, Cort argues that the bishop's analysis of the US economy demonstrates a specificity in indicting the Northern Economies, which is absent from Protestant critiques. However, Cort's brief content analysis comparing statements from the 1948 Amsterdam and 1983 Vancouver meetings of the World Council of Churches reveals otherwise. The following statements are drawn from the WCC assembly in Amsterdam: (1) capitalism tends to subordinate what should be the primary task of any economy - the meeting of human needs - to the economic advantages of those who have most power over its institutions, (2) it tends to produce serious inequalities, (3) it has developed a practical form of materialism in the Western nations in spite of their Christian background, and (4) it has also kept people of capitalist countries subject to a kind of fate which has taken...