Labor Unions have long been vibrant forces for change, struggling to improve conditions in their individual workplaces. Increasingly, trade unions are enlarging their agendas to include issues such as national social and economic policy.

For example, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) is pressing the South African government to consider nationalisation of mines in the world's largest producer of platinum. The decision is stifly opposed by foreign investors in the country. South Africa's largest trade union is heading up the call for "more equitable ownership, especially collective ownership through the state" in order to empower the nation's poor and redistribute mineral wealth in a vastly unequal economy. Also, a smaller construction union demanded higher wages for workers building the stadiums and rail stations for Africa's first World Cup. The dispute was settled yesterday but the growing direct actions of the labor movement in South Africa is having resonannce throughout the halls of parliament.

In South Korea last year, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), nearly collapsed the conservative government of President Lee Myung-bak over a free-trade deal with the US and organized a series of crippling strikes and street protests that eventually succeeded in stalling government policy on the issue. Earlier this month, despite fears that a wage increase would deter private investment in South Korea, the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) joined KCTU in pushing government officials to increase the hourly minimum wage rate. The end result was tripartite agreement between the government, businesses, and unions for an increase in hourly minimum- wage. The two unions, however are expected to demand an even higher increase.

The government of Peru, led by President Alan Garcia, has been facing a series of mass protests and strikes largely promoted by domestic trade unions. In opposition to the perceived pro-business policies of the government that favor foreign investors over the needs of citizens, thousands of Peruvians have taken to the streets led by some of the countries largest trade confederations. The end result of these popular outbursts is unclear, but cabinet shifts by Garcia suggest some changes in economic policy are on the horizon.

We often discuss international donors, private businesses, and government as the most salient actors in development policy. The reality may actually be that oranized labor in many cases is the most significant determinate of development policy outcomes in the global South. It is interesting to watch the extent to which workers in the global economy can secure fairness and justice not only in their workplaces but on the national stage.

As the debate about the safety and fairness of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by large agribusinesses intensifies around the world, is it rational for the United States not to be debating the use of such products as food-aid to poor countries? Mandated by law in the United States, 75 perecent of all U.S. food donations must be produced, processed, and shipped by U.S. companies.

Large agribusinesses have recently been lobbying around the world to secure markets for their GMO products. Major agricultural oligopolies claim that their genetically modified products are completely safe. Furthermore, any attempt by governments to guard local farmers from their more advanced products was simply "protectionism".

But that hasn't stopped the groundswell of resistance in the European Union for example. Many countries inside the European Union refuse to accept many varieties of GMO's which are bought and sold in the United States. Citing higher safety standards than the United States, European countries remain committed to denying access of some GMO's into their territories. Eleven European Union countries will call next week for the right to opt-outs for growing genetically modified crops.

In response, to the question "should GMOs be banned in Europe?” conducted in April 2009, 79 percent said yes, 18 percent no and 3 percent did not know. There is no question that in Europe there is a deep skepticism about the growing pressure from agricultural powerhouses to pump their products into European markets.

In the US, fifteen groups in the top wheat-exporting countries of Canada, the U.S. and Australia released a joint statement of opposition to GMO wheat this month. The group cited competitive concerns as their primary resistance.

"If (genetically engineered) wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE...Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses."

If such a resistance is emerging in the global North on the grounds of either safety concerns or competition with larger oligopolies, why is there virtually no debate about the use of these same genetically modified products flooding into poorer countries as aid, let along be sold in the US?

These products have been long criticized by advocacy organizations for hurting local farmers who can't compete. Concerns about the safety of these products are also voiced in regions of the world where cash-strapped governments are less likely to question the safety standards.

As the United States looks to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance to developing countries. There is an important but sadly absent debate about US food aid and GMOs that could prevent us from doing more harm than good.

It would be a complete shame if a little pink cat on youtube could host a more honest discussion on GMOs than the US government. Well i'll be darned....

That was the title of today's provocative policy seminar at the libertarian Cato Institute where the moderator marveled that panelists could say things that you'll only hear at CATO, such as Edward Luttwak's insistence that we just let African states disappear.

The panelists were actually refreshing in that they took a critical look at the impact of aid in all its forms (humanitarian, economic development, military, non-governmental, etc) from the West to sub-Saharan African states.

   Read More »

Save Darfur has become such a rallying cry to end the genocide in Western Sudan that it has even spawned its own advocacy organization: Save Darfur.  Yet, in the overarching debate of Western intervention in “developing” countries’ affairs, particularly in African countries, the impact of language is often ignored or dismissed.  However, the language we use to describe the West’s normative and positive policies is incredibly important.

   Read More »