Special Publications no.12: The Changing Nature of Third World Exploitation

The exploitation of third world countries has evolved over the centuries. The period of colonialism1 was succeeded by imperialism and then capitalism. Whatever the system in operation the consequences have been the same - third world peoples have had their institutions and ways of life wrecked. Vast numbers of people have been slaughtered or, at best, enslaved and used as a source of cheap labour. Third world resources such as minerals, timber and Animals (whether livestock, fish, exotic Wildlife, or, increasingly, Animal genes) have often been stolen or acquired cheaply through bribery or corruption. Vast areas of land have been expropriated to grow cash crops - in the process of which tens of millions of people have been pushed off their land, many have been killed, all have been made landless, often impoverished. A wide range of commodities has then been syphoned out of third world countries for the delectation of consumers in the over-industrialized world: tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, vegetable oils, bananas, coconuts, timber, grains, etc.. Very little of the money made from the export of third world resources has ever benefitted third world people - except third world elites which are propped up by, and beholden to, one or other of the over-industrialized nations. The third world has been exploited in every conceivable way, politically, economically, socially, culturally, materially, etc., and no country has escaped irreparable damage. Whilst some countries are recovering from this onslaught many others are currently disintegrating.

The chances of changing the current world trading system by appealing to people's compassion or sense of justice are minimal. This tactic faces difficulties even on the most basic level. Third world groups do not have the resources to publicize the human costs of everyday exotic commodities. Even when the injustices of third world trade are featured on prime time television e.g. band aid/comic aid, the message appears as a one-off which is easily ignored. Consumers know about the human costs of the commodities they enjoy even if they do not know all of the details, and most are unwilling to voluntary give up consumerism to eradicate third world poverty. But, even if consumers paid more for their products the most likely beneficiaries would be third world elites and multi-national corporations rather than plantation workers/miners. In addition, price increases would do nothing whatsoever to help landless people stranded outside the cash economy. Even though it is in the economic interests of the over-industrialized nations for third world countries to prosper (in order to provide a market for their own goods) there are economic obstacles, primarily multi-national corporations and corrupt global elites, which prevent the development of a more just economic order. Despite twenty five years of campaigning against global exploitation, the situation now is far worse than it was and, with gatt, is set to deteriorate further.

Another failure of this political reponse is that no analysis seems to have been carried out to determine which third world resources are causing the most widespread poverty. All commodities exported from the third world seem to be treated equally as if they all created as much poverty as each other. The only analysis carried out into cash crop third world resources is their contribution to gross domestic product (gdp). And yet just because exports boost gdp this doesn't mean they will help to alleviate poverty since the money raised is rarely used to combat poverty. On the contrary, boosting exports usually increases poverty.

By far and away the biggest causes of third world poverty are the Animal exploitation industry and the car, and car related, industries but most third world groups do not perceive either industry as being major factors in global poverty. Both industries contribute to boosting third world gdp but both also boost poverty. It seems strange that campaigns are not focussed on the worst forms of third world exploitation - especially so since these industries are two of the most ecologically damaging industries on Earth.

Politically, the debate about global warming has been couched so far primarily in terms of which countries have dumped the most pollution into the atmosphere and thus who has the most responsibility for reducing this pollution to prevent a climatic disaster.

As far as third world countries are concerned, the over-industrialized countries have dumped the most pollution into the atmosphere and so it is their responsibility to combat global warming. Third world countries reject the argument that all countries should reduce their Carbon emissions by the same percentage - as implied by the scientific working group of the inter-governmental panel on climate change which recommended an immediate cut of 60-80% in global Carbon emissions. One commentator has rightly argued that .. "simple appeals to developing countries to join the industrialized countries in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions are not only naive but morally indefensible. No approach to climate stabilization can be successful unless it simultaneously rekindles economic growth and social progress in the Third World. An international effort to solve the Third world development debacle has to be part and parcel of overcoming the global environmental crisis."

As far as the over-industrialized countries are conerned, they are doing their best to ignore their responsibility for polluting the Earth's atmosphere by emphasizing that in the future the biggest polluters will be third world countries such as china, india and brazil.

These arguments about responsibility for atmospheric pollution do not, however, expose the entire nature of the new form of third world exploitation - this can be appreciated only through a more comprehensive understanding of global warming.

The amount of Carbon pollution in the atmosphere influences the Earth's average temperature. The level of atmospheric Carbon is determined firstly, on what could be called the supply side of the Earth's Carbon spiral, by the release of Carbon into the atmosphere and, secondly, on what could be called the demand side, by the Photosynthesis carried out by Trees and Vegetation (both terrestrial and marine). The quantity of Carbon in the atmosphere has been increasing ever since the start of the industrial revolution when, what were then called the 'industrializing countries' began dumping increasing quantities of pollution into the atmosphere and deforesting an increasing proportion of their lands.

In order to ensure there are no climatic disasters caused by anthropogenic global warming it is necessary for all countries around the world to control the global level of Carbon emissions and the scale of the Earth's Forest cover. The crucial issues of climate politics are, firstly, determining the level of global Carbon emissions and the scale of Forest cover which will ensure climatic stability and, secondly, determining the contribution which every country around the world should make to this objective i.e. the amount of Carbon pollution they are allowed to release and their scale of Forest cover. If no agreement can be reached between the over-industrialized countries and the industrializing/disintegrating countries as to what each country's Carbon emissions and Forest cover should be, then every country around the world will continue polluting the atmosphere and deforesting the Earth until there is a geophysiological collapse - and, on current trends, this could happen within the next three decades. The only way the global community can combat global warming is through global ecological equity between all countries. This means that all countries must balance their historical Carbon budgets.

Countries which have released more Carbon than they have absorbed through Photosynthesis (known as Carbon debtor countries - mainly the over-industrialized nations) would have to reduce their Carbon emissions and Reforest their lands until they have balanced their Carbon budgets. Countries which have released less Carbon pollution than they have absorbed (known as Carbon creditors - mainly third world countries) would be entitled to go on releasing Carbon pollution/reducing the scale of their Forest cover, until they have balanced their ecological budgets. If all countries around the world balanced their historical Carbon budgets the threat of anthropogenic global warming would have been averted on the basis of global geophysiological equality

It should now be possible to highlight the nature of the new form of third world exploitation. The climate is a shared 'resource' to which all countries should have equal access. If one country (or group of countries such as the over-industrialized nations) damages the climate it will have an adverse affect on all other countries, and if all countries damage the climate then the Earth's life support system for humans will collapse. Conversely the climate is a 'resource' which all countries must share responsibilities for looking after. Each country must protect its share of the Earth's life support system if the entire system is not to collapse. If one country (or group of countries such as the over-industrialized nations) shirks its responsibility for ensuring climate stability, this will eventually start to destabilize the climate and damage all other countries. Historically, since the start of the industrial revolution, the over-industrialized nations have been destabilizing the climate whilst third world countries have helped to stabilize it. The former have been over-exploiting this shared resource whilst the latter have been diligently caring for it.

Fortunately, although the over-industrialized countries have dumped huge quantities of pollution into the atmosphere and cut down their Forests throughout the industrial revolution, they have not provoked a climatic disaster because third world countries have ensured climatic stability by dumping far less pollution into the atmosphere and preserving the bulk of their Forests. In the process of creating more and more wealth, the over-industrialized nations have been undermining the stability of the climate, but have been able to enjoy a steady state climate because of the stability generated by third world countries - since 1860 global temperatures have risen by only 0.5C. The third world has ensured that the over-industrialized nations have not suffered the disasterous climatic consequences of their ecologically destructive economic activities. In effect the over-industrialized nations have been sponging off the geophysiological prudence of third world countries. It is only in the last few decades as widescale industrialization has taken place in many third world countries that the climate has begun to show obvious signs of increasing destabilization.

But why, it might be asked, should the over-industrialized nations take responsibility for the ecological damage and climatic destabilization they have caused over the last couple of hundred years. Such a notion seems utterly preposterous to any right thinking person who knows nothing whatsoever about the life support processes of the only known Planet in the universe on which they can live. The answer is that half the Carbon released during the industrial revolution is still in the atmosphere. Whilst it is impossible for the over-industrialized nations to rectify the centuries old political injustices they have perpetrated against third world countries, they cannot escape their geophysiological responsibilities for boosting global warming. The over-industrialized nations' crimes against the Earth are not dead and buried in the long distant past like so many imperialist crimes but are omnipresent and about to take their toll not merely on present but on future generations.

Third world countries currently dismiss this new form of exploitation. They have failed to appreciate the political and economic advantages which accrue from the imperative of restoring climatic stability and rectifying the burdens of climatic inequalities. Instead of playing their strongest negotiating card in the debates with the over-industrialized nations about combatting global warming i.e. that they are Carbon surplus countries, they have done their best to limit or avoid discussions about their historical role in maintaining climatic stability.

Third world countries fear climate politics for a number of reasons. Firstly, they are fearful of all environmental regulations because of the possibility that they might be used to limit third world exports, "Like the GATT secretariat, many developing country governments view arguments in favour of a 'green protection' code in the GATT with cynacism. Many fear that it would merely become the source of a new set of non-tariff barriers to imports, and there can be little doubt that this danger exists."

Secondly, they believe the over-industrialized nations will force them to protect their Forests and deny them the right to develop these areas. Far from seeing the issue of Forest cover as a means of bringing about global equality, they just want to cut down their Forests and make as much money as quickly as they can.

Third world countries regard 'climate exploitation' not so much in terms of what the over-industrialized nations owe them for ensuring climatic stability but in terms of the over-industrialized countries forcing them to protect their Forests thereby keeping third world people's impoverished. To third world countries 'climate exploitation' is something to be avoided by cutting down their Forests. It is not to be highlighted in order to save their Forests.

The destruction of third world Forests would be a disaster for all concerned. Global warming is an opportunity for third world countries not a liability - another burden foisted upon them by the over-industrialized nations, "There is no conflict between policies to combat poverty and policies to combat climate change."; "Africa, of all the continents, has invested least in the northern model of development. It, therefore, has the least to lose, and perhaps the most to gain, from pursuing a path in which economic development, fighting poverty and combating environmental degradation, are one and the same. Global concern about climate change provides Africa an opportunity to take up this challenge."

It would be hugely advantageous for third world countries to take global warming seriously. There is no other way in which third world countries are going to eradicate poverty and develop equality with the over-industrialized nations without adopting climate politics. The introduction of a global Carbon budget and national Carbon budgets for each country would require the over-industrialized countries to pay-off their climate debts whilst allowing third world countries not merely to continue developing but to catch up with the over-industrialized countries - thereby creating gobal equality.

The over-industrialized countries are not going to return all of the resources they have stolen from third world countries; they are not going to financially repay everything they have stolen from third world countries; and they are highly unlikely to even compensate third world countries for all the crimes perpetrated against third world peoples. But, they must repay the climate debts they owe, not so much to third world countries, but to the Earth - and, to an extent, these debts will contain some compensation for the imperialist crimes which have been committed against third world countries. This will give third world countries a massive opportunity to abolish poverty and provide their people with a decent way of life. Third world countries have every right to expect the over-industrialized nations to repay their Carbon debts because if they don't then quite simply the over-industrialized world, and humans in general, are doomed.

Throughout five hundred years of exploitation, third world countries have always had 'right' on their side but they have never had sufficient 'might' to deter exploitation. Climate politics gives third world countries enormous power over the over-industrialized nations. This power does not come out of the barrel of a gun; it is not a secret weapon which can be targetted against rich countries but, nevertheless, it possesses an awesomely destructive capability that is matched only by nuclear weapons. It is a climate weapon, a doomsday bomb, which threatens the survival of all countries and perhaps even the human race. Third world countries have the power to destroy the over-industrialized countries - although only by destroying themselves. This weapon is Forest cover. If third world countries destroy their Forests, just as most of the over-industrialized nations have done, then global warming will accelerate rapidly and eventually the Earth's life support system for humans will collapse. They have no other weapon of such magnitude to back up their claim for global justice.

The over-industrialized countries have no other choice. They must invest in third world countries to abolish poverty or third world countries will abolish their Forests in a fruitless quest to mitigate poverty. It is in the Planetary interests of the over-industrialized nations to invest in the abolition of poverty in third world countries. It is not possible to stabilize the climate without abolishing global poverty, "The greenhouse effect is driven by a confluence of environmental impacts that have their source not only in the nature of human resource use, but also in the nature of the current international economic order. Climate stabilization therefore requires a comprehensive turn toward environmentally sound and socially equitable development - in short, an unprecedented North-South Compact on sustainable development."

It has often been argued that global warming is a bigger threat to third world countries than to the over-industrialized world. One commentator has pointed out, "The economists who have embraced this cost-benefit approach (to global warming) acknowledge that, as a result of growing greenhouse gas emissions, there will be an increase, by some estimates, of tens of millions of deaths by the middle of the next century .. But, they argue, these will cost less overall than curtailing our fossil fuel habits." Another commentator has argued, "While poverty cannot be said to cause climate change, climate change will lead to increased poverty. Continent wide, Africa is expected to suffer most from climate change. Poor people will be hardest hit."

However, if recent climatic disasters are anything to go by the reverse may be true. Over the last five years california has suffered a series of huge climatic disasters and seems to be perpetually at risk from further damage. Texas is another major american state under intense ecological threat. North west europe has also suffered a number of major climatic calamities since 1987.

Scientifically it has often been suggested that it is in the self interest of third world countries to maintain climatic stability - which is why, politically, the over-industrialized nations have been reluctant to help third world countries to protect their ecologies and, if anything have made even more demands on third world countries to destroy their Forests at an even faster rate. But, it is even more in the self interests of the over-industrialized countries not merely to restore their own ecologies but to help third world countries to protect theirs. This gives third world countries an enormous degree of power over the over-industrialized nations. Basically third world countries have the over-industrialized countries over a barrel. And, unlike in a military conflict, there is nothing the over-industrialized nations can do to counter such power. They can't invade third world countries and force them to look after their Rainforests. They can't occupy Rainforests in the hope of saving them. Forests cannot be defended militarily.

The Causes of Third World Poverty.

A sizeable proportion of the land in the disintegrating/industrializing countries is covered by cash crops for consumers in the over-industrialized nations, "The pressure of foreign debt and the growing integration of Third World agriculture into the world commodity market has led to a major shift of agricultural land from domestic food production into large-scale export production dominated by international agribusiness corporations. According to FAO statistics, an estimated 14% of Third world agricultural cropland is now devoted to export production." These commodities include tea, coffee, cocoa, vegetable oils, bananas, etc.. Whilst it may have been hoped that cash crop exports would bring wealth to poor countries in practice it has exacerbated poverty in a number of ways:-

The over-industrialized nations have rigged international trade to the detriment of third world countries. They refuse to allow third world countries to process their raw material before being exported. The value which would be added to cash crops if raw materials could be processed would be enormous, "In the early 1980s, the World Bank estimated that the removal of tariffs on processed varieties of eight agricultural products would raise the local value added by 20%, equivalent to more than the transfers resulting from the industrial countries' Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) schemes combined!"

The car, and car related, industries have expropriated a large area of land in the disintegrating/industrializing countries to grow cash crops to provide raw materials for the manufacture of cars e.g. the rubber industry. Increasing areas of land are also being usurped to produce biofuels (green petrol) for cars. In brazil huge areas of land are being used to grow sugar beet to produce ethanol, "Brazil has 8 million cars running on a mixture of petrol and ethyl alcohol. More than 6 million acres of the best agricultural land are now devoted to feeding cars .."

Of the world's 400 million cars the vast majority are owned by people in the over-industrialized nations. However, many of the raw materials used to manufacture cars come from the disintegrating/industrializing countries, "The overwhelming majority of all ores (from third world countries) are used elsewhere ..."; "The Third World's share of global ore production rose dramatically in the 20thC. Between 1913 and 1970 the proportion of the world's iron ore mined there rose from 3% to 39%."; "Between 1913 and 1970 .. the rise in bauxite production (in third world countries) was even more dramatic - from less than half a per cent to nearly 60%."

The raw materials mined/grown for the car, and car related, industries are produced using cheap labour. There are innumerable examples of the car, and car related, industries exploiting third world workers, "Construction News reports that child labour has been used to help build a UK-funded and constructed road in Nepal. The children, on £1.60 for a 12 hour day, are working on a £16.5 million contract for Kier International and the crown agents, the Government's overseas supplies arm. The road engineers say they have done all they can to stop child labour beng used on the project."

The car, and car related, industries not only exploit workers in the workplace they also exploit people in their communities. Fiat was involved in the construction of a highly controversial dam project in africa. The reservoir created by the bakolori dam on the sokoto river displaced 13,000 people and threatened to ruin the livelihood of 40,000 families living on the floodplain, "In 1979, there was a peasant uprising against the newly completed dam. The rebellion lasted seven months and ended in .. massive bloodshed at Birnin Tudu, the headquarters of the construction company. The ancient floodplain farming system was destroyed at great cost. The only winner in this farrago was the Italian company Fiat, which had built the dam and canals, and supplied most of the equipment from tractors and trucks to the advanced laser technology for levelling the fields (in the floodplain)."

Third world countries earn large sums of money from the export of cash crops/ores for the road/car/oil industries. Unfortunately most of this money is expropriated by third world elites. Instead of trying to alleviate poverty, third world elites spend their country's export earnings either on military hardware or on expensive, luxury cars and the importation of petrol, "Excessive motorization also deepens the oil dependence that is draining national economies. Even with the recent fall in crude prices, fuel bills are particularly harsh for indebted developing nations that spend large portions of their foreign exchange earnings on imported oil. In 1985, low-income developing countries (excluding china) spent on average 33% of the money they earned through merchandise exports on energy imports; many spent more than half."; "The resulting dependence on imported oil often cripples the already strained economies of these countries. In a country like Brazil , for example, the value of oil imports in 1985 was some 43% of imports as a whole."; "Much of the new wealth in the (third) world goes into armies and Merecedes Benzs and services for the tiny minority of very rich ..." For example, "In Haiti, only one out of every 200 people owns a car, yet fully one-third of that country's import budget is devoted to fuel and transportation."

Third world elites also run up huge national debts by borrowing money which is lavished on luxury cars. These national debts impose a considerable financial burden on hundreds of millions of people, "The net result of car centred developments according to Michael Replogle is to boost imports, increase foreign debts and make life worse for the poor."

Third world elites import luxury cars/petrol for their own use and devote a considerable proportion of state spending to the car infrastructure to ensure they can use their prize possessions. They promote the interests of the car even though the vast majority of the population do not own cars and rely on less high tech transport, "less than 1% of the population of the Third World can afford a car, despite the fact that many of their cities are dominated by impressive main roads and multi-storey car parks. Unfortunately our love affair with the car has inspired many developing countries to motorize, at the expense of their existing low tech, but not necessarily inefficient, transport infrastructure."

Third world elites not only give priority to cars over other forms of transport, they promote cars at the expense of the poor and thereby directly boost poverty. It is bad enough that a tiny ruling elite spends the state's assets on private cars, it is far worse when third world elites impoverish hundreds of thousands of poor people so that they can use their cars, "Bicycles and their three and four wheeled cousins can enhance mobility at little cost, improve access to services, and create a wide range of employment opportunities. Yet deeply impoverished countries pour precious export earnings into motorised transport, ignoring or even subverting human-powered options that people and governments alike could better afford."; (Bicycles have many benefits). "But bias against human-powered vehicles is severe in Third world cities, and even worse in the countryside. For decades, governments have devoted rural funds to building motorable roads, neglecting the fact that few people there have cars or trucks, and that motorised public transit rarely reaches them."; "Third world governments are believing the propaganda about the freedom and prosperity that comes with an auto-dominated economy. In 1989, officials in Jakarta banned becaks, a three wheeled cycle-rickshaw, because they were the main cause of increasing traffic congestion. For some of Jakarta's poor this not only resulted in the loss of their jobs, they also lost their home and their savings. For them the becak represented all three. Similarly, authorities in Dakha in Bangladesh annouced plans in 1987 to ban pedicabs even though they employed more than 100,000 people."; "China's image as the Bicycle kingdom suffered a jolt in 1993, as oficials in Guangzhou and Shanghai announced their intention to ban bicycles from certain thoroughfares in order to make way for cars and trucks. At least in Guangzhou, the mayor - blasted by an immediate public outcry - was forced to alter his proposed ban."; "Although policymakers could improve transport at little cost by supporting bicycles .. they seldom do. City governments are often hostile to rickshaws and similar services, either discouraging them with regulations, fines and taxes, or wiping them out entirely through bans and confiscations. In Jakarta, the city has confiscated some 100,000 cycle rickshaws over the past five years and dumped them into the sea - to "reduce traffic congestion." Dacca, Bangladesh, recently threatened to phase out rickshaws - despite the fact they account for more than half the passenger trips in the city and employ an estimated 140,000 people. Rickshaws throughout South Asia, and even in some African countries, where they are less common, are also in jeopardy."

The carism of third world elites, which impoverishes people for the sake of the car, is reinforced by international agencies which prefer to invest money in motorized private transport rather than on projects which would help the poor, "During the 1970s transport was the largest area for investment in developing countries accounting for almost a quarter of world bank loans and one fifth of International Development Agency credits. Around half of such loans and almost 95% of world bank transport research funds were for roads."

Although only a small proportion of the world's cars are used in the disintegrating/industrializing countries, the vast majority of cars in these countries are concentrated in urban areas where they cause a huge level of pollution which has serious impact on human health. .. "summer photochemical smog, mostly caused by emissions from vehicles working in areas which are subject to windless, oppressive weather. Such smogs are reckoned to affect around one billion people around the world.". "If air pollution is considered a major problem in the cities of north America and Europe, the newly industrialized large cities of Latin America, Asia and Africa can only be described as operational disaster areas. .. Mexico city would, if properly monitored, reveal that more people die there every year from killer toxic fumes than died in London during the fatal 'killer fog'."42

"About 700,000 lives are lost yearly, according to the World Health Organization through the violence that motor-cycles, cars, buses, and trucks wreak on the highways and byways of the world. In addition, between 10 and 15 million persons are estimated to be injured. This grim toll represents a death every fifty seconds, and an injury every two seconds around the world. Developing countries are the hardest hit, experts say, accounting for about two-thirds of mortality, or for 500,000 deaths each year. But even worse, mortality trends are on the rise. For example - mortality on roads increased in 18 developing countries alone by 13% in over a decade, or by over 260,000 deaths, a survey shows. In industrialized countries, road deaths are estimated at 200,000 yearly. While still high, trends are on the decline. For instance - in 13 countries mortality on roads decreased by 18% over 10 years, or by 88,000 deaths. To cite but two countries: In the united states of america alone, deaths declined by 8%, from 51,153 to 47,093; and in the United kingdom by 26%, from 6,831 to 5,050 over the decade. Overall, the chances of being killed by a motor vehicle are lowest in the developing countries. They are least motorized. Yet, because of poor standards of traffic safety, there are between 20 to 50 times more deaths per vehicle in those countries than in industrialized ones. For instance, Ethiopia, with one vehicle per 1,000 population, reported 151 deaths per 10,000 vehicles - the world's worst safety record. Rwanda and Papua New guinea, each with 4 vehicles per 1,000 people, reported 115 and 69 deaths respectively, ranking 32nd and 31st. The standards of safety for eastern European countries, about 5 times lower than elsewhere in Europe, are similar to the develping countries. As car ownership increases, so too do deaths on the road. In Poland, for instance, fatalities climbed from 4,688 to 7,333 just between 1985 and 1990 - or by 56%. The victims of road violence are also pedestrians. In industrialized nations, about 20% of all those killed on the road are pedestrians.In developing countries, many ore pedestrians die. In South-East Asia and Latin America, they account for about 30% of road deaths; in the Western Pacific and Africa, for about 40; in the caribbean, for about 45; and in the Eastern mediterranean, for about 50%. (Manufacturers are buildingfaster cars). In 1967, for instance, only 10% of cars built in France could hit speeds of 150 kilometres per hour; in 1987, 75% could."

Cars are one of the major contributors to global warming. Although most of the damage which cars inflict on the climate is caused by the over-industrialized countries, the third world also makes a contribution. Third world countries boost global warming through vehicle exhaust emissions and through the destruction of the Earth's Phytosynthetic capacity e.g. strip mining for ores. Global warming will cause a dramatic increase in third world poverty .. "climate change will lead to increased poverty. Continent wide, Africa is expected to suffer most from climate change. Poor people will be hardest hit." In other words, third world countries not only suffer exploitation for the sake of cars, they will suffer from the ecological damage caused by cars. Not only do third world countries get the least benefit from cars, they will also suffer the worst ecological consequences of the car.

To take one example of third world exploitation for the sake of the car: shell's exploitation of nigerian oil. Shell is one of the world's biggest multi-national corporations. It has a huge oil operation in nigeria. 95% of nigeria's foreign currency earnings come from the export of oil and shell produces 50% of the country's oil46; "More than US$30 billion worth of oil has been extracted from the Ogoni region of the Niger delta. Oil provides Nigeria with the bulk of its export income. Shell gets 14% of its global crude oil production from Nigeria, the second largest area of operations after the USA."47 Although shell has provided huge export earnings for nigeria most of this money has been expropriated, in one way or another, by the ruling elite.

Shell's exploitation of nigerian oil has produced some appalling conditions. Despite the extraction of huge quantities of oil from the ogoni region of the nigerian delta, none of the region's inhabitants have benefitted in the slightest. On the contrary, oil extraction has caused widespread environmental damage and ruined the livelihoods of many people, , "Greenpeace research has found that, between 1982 and 1992, Shell spilt 1.6 million gallons of crude oil in the Nigerian delta region .. The Ogoni live mainly by farming and fishing, making the pollution particularly devastating." Local people resent what they see as the rape and pillage of their lands and this has led to conflicts with shell who have called in the police to quell disturbances which are seen as a threat to the continued flow of oil, 'When a village in the Niger delta organized protests to draw attention to the damage which Shell's oil production was causing to villagers' crops and farmland, Shell called in Nigeria's mobile police to crush the demonstration. The mobile police returned the day after the first demonstrations, and killed 82 people, demolished all 495 houses in the village, and cut down all economic trees to prevent vilagers from continuing to earn a livelihood in the area.'; "For the last 30 years the (Ogoni) people's land has been criss-crossed by surface pipelines and illuminated by 24 hour gas flares. In October 1990 demonstrators occupied a Shell rig at Umuechem, halting oil production. The authorities sent in the Nigerian Mobile Police Force. Eighty demonstrators were allegedly killed and 495 homes destroyed."; "The Ogoni say that more than 1,800 of their number have now been killed."

Several years ago shell revealed its concern for the environment. In 1990 environmentalists in california submitted a set of radical, environmental protection measures known as Proposition 128 (popularly called Big Green) for a state referendum. It was defeated because several multi-national corporations spent over a million dollars on advertising campaigns to persuade people to vote against the proposition. Shell gave $608,000; ICI, $380,000; and BP, $171,000. "Proposition 128 was decisively defeated 64%-36%. The rejection of Big Green represented a crushing defeat for environmentalists. It stipulated some of the toughest regulations in the industrialized world against agricultural pesticides, logging of ancient trees, emissions of CFCs and production of carbon dioxide. But a richly funded opposition campaign from business interests emphasized the cost and overtook an initial lead for the measure."

More recently of course there has been the case of shell wanting to dump into the north sea its brent spar oil rig which contained hundreds of tonnes of pollutants, "A Shell UK spokesperson stated that, "Shell UK remains convinced that the sinking in the deep Atlantic is the most responsible way of disposing of the Brent Spar."" The dumping of the brent spar was deliberately timed to take place after the 1995 comic relief campaign which shell had helped to sponsor. It would not have looked good for shell to have tried dumping the rig during comic relief's fund raising events. But all the time it was attracting good publicity because of its sponsorship of this event it was planning on dumping the brent spar and all its pollutants into the north sea. Perhaps shell was hoping that all the good publicity it attracted for its sponsorship of comic relief would enable it to portray those who might protest against the dumping as wacky extremist environmentalists who could thereby be dismissed.

Even if rich car owning socialists refuse to recognize it, cars are one of the archetypal symbols of third world exploitation. It is extremely rare to hear any criticisms of cars from a third world perspective primarily because so many third world activists are car owners, "The car .. cannot exist without exploitation in its various guises. And car exploitation operates on two levels. Firstly, virtually all its components are made from resources appropriated from the third world: leaving a long trail of environmental and health depradations to those who can least afford them. Second, the less direct level of exploitation within capitalist economies. In every industrialized country, a minority of car owners live off a majority of non-car owners."

A colossal part of the Earth's land surface has been devoted to pasture, "A quarter of the earth's landmass is used as pasture for cattle and other livestock .."55 Some of this land has been acquired through expropriation. This is as true in the third world today as it was centuries ago in the over-industrialized nations. Large numbers of poor people have been imprisoned, made homeless, killed, or have starved as a result of big landowners expropriating land for pasture. The same sort of expropriation has occurred, although not on the same scale, to provide grains for livestock Animals in the over-industrialized world. As has been pointed out above 14% of the land in third world countries is being used for cash crops although it is not known what proportion of this land is being used to grow grains for the Animal exploitation industry.

The same is also true as regards the crops which provide feed for livestock Animals. Huge numbers of people are going hungry even though third world countries are producing vast quantities of grains which are exported to feed livestock in the over-industrialized nations, "Although soybeans are consumed directly as tofu and soy sauce in many countries, food use accounts for a small fraction of the world harvest. Most of the world's soybeans are grown primarily for the protein meal that is widely used in pork and poultry rations. Argentina and Brazil .. crush most of their beans and export them largely as meal, retaining much of the oil for domestic consumption."

The over-industrialized world cannot grow enough feed for its livestock and have to import huge quantities of fodder from third world countries, "Because of the large amounts of grain required to produce beef, the geographic location of cattle herds can be misleading. Most industrial countries do not have sufficient agricultural land to support their meat consumption. Beef production is particularly land-intensive, because one calorie of meat production requires 3 calories of grain inputs for pork and 10 calories for beef. Land requirements can be up to 50 times higher than for protein production from grain. As a result, a great deal of the feed consumed in industrialized countries is not produced on the home farm, but purchased from developing countries. For example, Western Europe imports more than 40%, or 21 million tons per year, of its feed grains from the Third World.";"Feeding the meat-eating (world) class takes nearly 40% of the world's grain, grown on close to one-fifth of the world's cropland."; "There has been a fundamental shift in world agriculture this century from food grains to feed grains, and cattle now compete with people for food. A third of the world's fish catch and more than a third of the world's total grain output is fed to livestock."61 Huge numbers of third world peoples are starving because the crops grown in their country are exported to fatten Animals in the over-industrialized nations, "More people are hungry now than ever before. Many states where hunger is prevalent are net exporters of food." Even during times of famine, grains continue to be exported from third world countries to the over-industrialized world, "In addition, about two-thirds of the total domestic grain crop goes to feed-lots. The agribusiness production of grains for foreign exchange-earning exports to the industrialized region is one among several factors in the displacement of the rural poor in the Third world onto marginal, ecologically sensitive land. The magnitude of the food value involved in this trade is significant: the 500 million people suffering starvation could find relief from this condition if they had the cash to buy the grains exported to industrial country feedlots. In that sense, the present level of meat consumption in the wealthy industrialized countries is directly related to starvation in the poor countries of the world."

Animals are a major export earner in many third world countries .. "African export earnings from this source (live animals, meat, hides and skins) exceed those from tobacco, tea or bauxite." Just as was the case with exports of cash crops and raw materials for the car industries, the wealth generated by Animal exports is expropriated by third world elites. Third world elites, like consumers in the over-industrialized nations, are meat eaters, and some of their countries' export earnings are used to sustain a carnivorous diet. Third world elites would rather spend money on buying meat for their own consumption rather than alleviating poverty. They are therefore responsible for some of the poverty caused by the Animal exploitation industry.

Secondly, the Animal exploitation industry is such a land extensive enterprise that little land left for the development of local agriculture or other industries;

Thirdly, the Animal exploitation industry uses only a small workforce, thereby further limiting the spread of wealth throughout the population; and,

Finally, the Animal exploitation industry is a capital intensive industry which means that little capital is left for other industries.

As a consequence, "No other agro-export has contributed less to the welfare of the Guatemalan population than beef. Cattle ranching has displaced hundreds of small farmers and employed very few workers. Moreover, Guatemala was no exception to the process common throughout central America by which countries of the region rapidly increased beef exports to the united states to meet the demands of fast food chains like MacDonalds, while per capita domestic consumption declined."

It was pointed out above that the over-industrialized nations cannot produce enough grains to feed their own livestock Animals and need to import huge quantities of grains from third world countries. The injustices of this situation are compounded by the oppression of world trade. The over-industrialized countries prevent third world countries from subsidizing their agricultural products whilst at the same time giving huge subsidies to their own pharmers. As a consequence of these subsidies the over-industrialized pharmers produce huge food mountains which are then dumped on third world countries ruining their agricultural industry because the grains from over-industrialized nations are cheaper than locally produced third world grains - even though the former has often been transported half way around the world. Furthermore the over-industrialized nations prevent third world countries from blocking the importation of subsidized agricultural products from the over-industrialized nations, "The grain imports required to compensate for this shift of agricultural land further undermines the self reliance of developing countries: Grain exports from industrialized countries to Third World countries are routinely subsidized." The injustices of world trade exacerbate the injustices caused by the Animal exploitation industries in third world countries.

Firstly, a quarter of the Earth's land surface is now used for pasture and much of this has been created by razing Forests, "In Mexico alone, 37 million acres of forest have been destroyed since 1987 to provide grazing land for cattle.";

Secondly, some of the land used to provide fodder for livestock has also been created by razing Forests; and,

Thirdly, huge numbers of people who have been chucked off their land by Animal exploiters invade the Forests in order to grow crops. They use primitive slash/burn techniques which entails setting fire to the Forests to provide fertiliser ash for crops. Due to the increasing numbers of slash/burn farmers the Forests no longer have the time to recover.

Most of the damage resulting from the Animal exploitation industry is caused by the over-industrialized countries but the third world also contributes to the damage. Once again it is likely that third world countries not only benefit least from the Animal exploitation industry, but will suffer the most from the climatic disasters caused by this industry.

Firstly, the Animal exploitation industry causes more poverty in third world countries than any other industry. It is by far and away the biggest cause of third world poverty.

Secondly, the Animal exploitation industry causes more poverty in third world countries than all the cash crop industries combined - e.g. coffee/tea.

Thirdly, third world poverty will never be abolished until some of the land currently being used by the Animal exploitation industry is distributed to the poor in order to abolish global poverty.

Fourthly, most livestock Animals are consumed in the over-industrialized world, "Most people in the world live on a substantially vegetarian diet. Meat eating is a habit largely peculiar to the affluent West."; "Per capita meat consumption is currently six times higher in the industrialized countries than in the developing world (78kg/cap-yr compared to 14 kg/cap-yr). Moreover, while industrial country per capita consumption has risen by another 20% in the last 15 years, it has stagnated in the Third World."

Finally, it is impossible for everyone in third world countries to eat as much meat as consumers in the over-industrialized nations. Despite the fact that china now produces as much meat as america, it has a far larger population than america and will never be able to produce the same level of per capita meat consumption, "China and the United States now dominate world meat production. Somewhat surprisingly, surging pork production in China in recent years has made it the world's leading consumer of red meat. Its output of red meat in 1992 totalled 31.6 million tons, compared with18.6 million tons in the United States. When poultry is included, total meat production in China is nearly 37 million tons versus 31 million tons in the United States."72; "The major producers of poultry in 1993 were the United States at 12.5 million tons, China at 5.1mt, Brazil at 3.2mt, and France at 2 mt. Together, these four countries accounted for over half of world poultry output."

THE DISINTEGRATING NATIONS.

The division used in this work is between the over-industrialized nations, the industrializing nations and the disintegrating nations. The countries which once belonged to the 'first world' are probably more accurately categorized as over-industrialized. The industrializing countries include some east european countries; some south east asian countries such as malaysia; and some south american countries like brazil, argentian, mexico. The disintegrating nations74 consist of what were once known as third world countries. The widespead poverty in these countries has not been reduced by industrialization but has become worse whether because of the injustices of world trade, declining commodities prices, government corruption, civil wars, or ethnic disputes, etc..75

"The indebtedness of the world's developing countries rose again slightly in 1993 to $1.77 trillion. Developing countries spend more each year servicing their debt than they do on the military, a notorious drain on resources. Taken as a whole, the Third world owes an amount equal to about half of its yearly income. Debt service has not grown since the mid-eighties, and now stands slightly below its 1987 peak. Nevertheless, developing countries pay $180 billion every year in debt service. On the whole, developing countries owe more than they earn from exports in a year. Creditors like the World bank and the International Monetary Fund have tried to put indebted countries on the track to repayment through structural adjustment programs. To date, their record has been mixed at best, and many countries that accepted adjustment programmes are worse off than they were before."78

Food production in many countries seems to be declining, "Food production fell behind population growth in two-thirds of developing countries between 1978 and 1989."80 More than 100 countries are dependent upon American grain. The situation, however, is not as bad as this suggests since the measure of food production is derived solely from what is grown in the formal economy. The disintegration of some countries has been a considerable benefit to some sections in society who have been able to grow their own food for the first time rather than being exploited by a central government/ruling elite/military dictatorship.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/