Nevertheless, we all know that it is not the same to work calculating the profitability of financial investments, "placing" securities or selling endless products of dubious utility, than to work co-operatively on projects of solidarity, recovering the forests or lending assistance to marginalised collectives.
Therefore, it is necessary to promote socially useful and environmentally sustainable occupations in local activities, which will allow the improvement of the quality of life of the community. As G. Lunghini argued, in a paper presented at a seminar on unemployment and the spreading of work organised by the Fundación de Investigaciones Marxistas, in April of 1994, : "to search for the solution to the problem of unemployment, not in the market sphere of production of exchange values, but in the production of use values. There are many socially useful jobs which can produce things which are never found in the market but which nevertheless are in urgent demand... Allocating more resources to education, health, social assistance and the care of nature(...) to pay the unemployed a salary not through the market, in exchange for jobs not of the market, although useful to society. One could recover then, in a world dominated by exchange value, the category of use value."
In summary, it is necessary to promote a more local economy in which economic activity is territorially linked, promoting the development of internal resources and therefore local jobs, and on the other hand, the countries of the North should select in a positive fashion their trade with the underdeveloped countries to set the foundation for harmonious economic development which will seek the preservation of the soils and forests, energy efficient technologies, housing, food, potable water, education and public health.
There will be no sustainable development allowing the survival of all of humanity in the global village, without a new value system. This is a challenge which cannot be postponed. *
Towards a different Europe! Alternative conference, demonstrations ana omer actva
The Dutch Committee for a Different Europe invites you to take part in debates and actions for a social, green, democratic and feminist Europe.
• preparations for the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) are leading to the dismantling of public services and social security and rising unemployment in almost every EU member state.
• the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) has begun: the fifteen member states are negotiating to revise the Maastricht Treaty, the treaty that has propelled the European Union into its current credibility crisis. According to plan, these negotiations are supposed to end with the signing of a new treaty by the heads of government during their June 1997 Amsterdam summit.
Together the EMU and IGC will largely determine the character of the European Union and thus the daily lives of Europe's citizens. But discussion of these developments is going on mainly among politicians.
For the moment there is no broad debate under way about the threats posed by European integration, like the plans for an EU defense bloc, with the "Europeanisation" of the nuclear arsenals of France and the United Kingdom. Our Europe must be a Europe that carries out a strong social and environmental policy, creates jobs, eliminates the democratic deficit, offers equal opportunities to women and men, safeguards the rule of law, is hospitable to refugees, is open to the East and in solidarity with the South, disarms in order to contribute to peace, and promotes sustainable development both inside and outside Europe.
Parallel to the June 1997 Amsterdam Summit, there will be an alternative conference, demonstrations and other activities. We invite all progressive parties, groups, NGO's and others to take part in this Summit for a Different Europe.
Get in touch!
Committee for a Different Europe, c/o A SEED Europe, P.O. Box 92066, 1090 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected], Tel: (+31) 20/66.82.23.6
#280, September 1996 19
* Social clauses
Social clauses: the Indian case
The governments of the "developing countries" have deferred the imposition of social clauses in international trade agreements. But these same governments have done little else to safeguard the rights of labour. by Sharit K. Bhowmik INDIA IS ONE OF THE FEW COUNTRIES WHERE there is near unanimity between the government, the employers and the trade unions on opposition to linking the social clause with international trade. But most developing countries fear that whatever competitive edge they have in the world market will be offset by the imposition of the social clause. By unfairly highlighting the provisions in the social clause, the developed countries can create trade obstacles through issues like human rights and unfair labour practices. There is a lurking fear among the developing countries that in the present unipolar world these measures will be used by the developed countries, especially the US, to intervene in the internal affairs of the developing countries, thus eroding their political sovereignty.
These fears are without doubt well-founded. The US especially has linked trade with developing countries with human rights in a selective manner. For example, the US is spearheading the economic blockade of Cuba in the name of human rights, even thought there is no concrete evidence of any major violation. At the same time, China is given the status of Most Favoured Nation, despite the fact that it has unabashedly curbed democratic opposition. Such examples of double standards are very common. Which makes one doubt the genuineness of the concerns voiced by many of the developed countries about the sad plight of labour in the developing countries. Are these countries taking up the issue of the social clause because they sincerely believe that this would enable a better deal to labour in the developing world or are they using it as a ploy for their own interests by raising non-tariff barriers to international trade and in the process causing greater harm to labour in these countries? 20 International Viewpoint
Reactions of developing countries towards the imposition of the social clause have been quite strong. They have unanimously rejected its linkage with international trade. The fifth conference of labour ministers of non-aligned and other developing countries held in Delhi on January 18-23 1995 rejected what it termed as the "westsponsored" move seeking to link international trade and labour enforcement standards. The conference, which was attended by labour ministers of 57 countries, decided to oppose all international fora any attempt to link ILO conventions with international trade. Speaking at the valedictory function of the conference, India's commerce minister Pranab Mukherjee said that the social clause was a means of depriving developing countries of all the opportunities provided to them by globalisation and free trade following the GATT agreement. This united opposition of developing countries has had some effect on the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It has temporarily decided to delink the social clause from international trade.
An immediate fall-out of the aggressive attitude of the developed countries in this matter is that the developing countries are becoming increasingly war of any attempt by international bodies to grant protection to labour. This could be clearly seen in their attitudes towards a proposed convention on home-based workers by the ILO recently. While the international trade union movement was unanimous in supporting the move for a convention, most of the governments of countries with large home-based workers thought otherwise. Some, such as India and China, favoured a recommendation rather than a convention, while most others opposed both. Interestingly, countries like the US and Britain, which have been at the forefront on the issue of the social clause, opposed both convention and recommendation on home-based work. Perhaps they were worried that this protection would result in higher wages to the large section of informal sector workers (mainly immigrants who work in sweat-shops) in these counties. Here too, we can see double standards at work. Issues raised
The developing countries have for the present been able to defer the adverse effects of the social clause on international trade. Nonetheless, it is necessary to take an objective look at the basic issues raised by the controversy, namely, the sad plight of labour in the developing countries and to view the social clause from this aspect, rather than as a tool of the developing countries to suppress the developing world, which it has, unfortunately, become, due to its linkage with trade.
The six ILO conventions comprising the social clause have been passed at various times. Some have been in existence for at least two decades. Governments in most of the developing countries have endorsed these conventions. Yet, most of the provisions are not yet fully implemented in these countries.
Most developing countries, including India, have passed laws on the issues condemning the social clause, but these have made no significant difference on the actual conditions of work. In India, the Equal Remuneration Act was passed by the government in 1976, and the Child Labour Act was modified in 1985. Yet women in the unorganised sector still get wages lower than those of men, and children below 15 are widely employed in all types of hazardous work. Similarly, the right to freedom of association has been granted long since, but the overwhelming majority of India's workers, especially those in the unorganised sector, are yet to know what trade unions are. The Constitution of India abolishes all forms of discrimination based on caste, religion and race, but we find that in public sector undertakings, the job quotas for scheduled ["low"] castes and scheduled tribes are never filled
BUY CHILDREN'S DONT BLOOD
up. Is it so difficult to find workers or Class
Four employees belonging to these categories, or is it because the largely upper cast officers who dominate these services refuse to do so?
These are some of the issues which should have been discussed earlier by the government and the trade unions. Unfortunately, they crop up only when there is a threat to international trade. Hence it is ironic that while some countries in the developed world attempt to use the social clause to better their own position in world trade, developing countries are counteracting these manoeuvres by opposing any attempts to protect their workers. They now tend to view any move to improve conditions of workers as external threats. How else can one explain the government's opposition to the ILO convention on home-based workers?
Had the conventions embodied in the social clause been sincerely implemented by the government, the position of labour in India might not have been as helpless as it is now. In this respect, the support of trade unions, together with employers and the government, for opposition to the social clauses seems somewhat incongruous with the objectives of trade unionism. The trade unions have opposed the social clause in order to uphold the national interest. However, had the provisions of the social clause been implemented, the quality of life of the workers would have improved, and this too would have served the national interest.
The major trade unions in India have largely ignored the problems of workers in the unorganised sector. This sector covers 92% of all workers in India. It is by far the major employer of women and children. The problems of these workers have largely remained invisible to the policy-makers. Hence, it is not at all surprising that the sad plight of child labour in the country became an issue only after international exposure. The pressure for eliminating child labour was built up only after it became an international issue.
As a result, the labour ministers of the developing countries who met in Delhi gave sufficient importance to the elimination of child labour. The government of India too has announced an ambitions scheme for the elimination of child labour. The question now is, were not the government and the trade unions aware of the gross exploitation of children earlier? If yes, then why was it necessary for international pressure to mount before any substantive step could be taken towards its elimination? Why have the national trade unions not given enough importance to the question of child labour in the past? The high incidence of child labour is not merely a reflection of poverty in the countryside. It also implies that hundreds and thousands of children have been denied elementary education, which in turn will affect the quality of the population in the future. The unorganised sector
Perhaps one of the reasons for the indifference towards implementing the provisions of the social clause was that they were relevant to the unorganised sector which has remained largely outside the interest of the national trade unions. The organised sector has implemented the provisions to a large extent. Here too the exception is the tea plantation industry which, with nearly one million permanent workers, happens to be the largest employer in the organised manufacturing sector. In the tea plantations of West Bengal and Assam, which eollectively employ about 750,00 permanent workers, wages are abnormally low, and child labour is officially permitted, through the Plantation Labour Act. The figures provided by the Tea Board indicate that these two states employ around 60,000 children (aged 12-15) as permanent workers. Though there is a high degree of unionisation among tea workers, these basic issues have never been on the agenda of any of the national trade unions, including the more radical ones like AITUC and CITU.
It is mainly in the unorganised sector that there have been violations of the ILO conventions. Because of the absence of trade unions in this sector, the meagre legal protection provided by government is hardly ever enforced. The workers are not organised in order to ensure that the legislation can be enforced. Their protection is left to the good offices of the bureaucrats in the government (the officials in the labour department).
At the same time, it can be seen that wherever agricultural workers or workers in the informal sector have been unionised, they have been able to improve their living conditions. Trade Unions like the Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA), National Federation of Construction Labour, National Forum of Fishworkers and some of the unions of agricultural workers have been
Social clauses * fairly successful in making some gains for the workers in this sector. These attempts are limited, and are restricted to the areas of operations of these unions. They are also disparate and they seek to make sectional claims for the specific workers. These unions are unable to focus on the problems of the myriad occupations comprising the unorganised/informal sector. The national trade unions on the other hand are able to take up the problems of workers in the organised sector at the national level and thus force government to pass legislation in their favour. The recent move of the major unions in the unorganised sector to come together to form a national federation, the National Federation for Labour (NCL) is a promising develop ment. The NCL has been formed precisely because the unorganised sector workers have no forum to raise their issues at the national level. This move will hopefully gain visibility to this large section of underpaid, unprotected workers. However, this move also exposes the failure, or more likely the indifference of the national trade unions in taking up issues confronting the majority of the working class in India. One can therefore hope that, with a national level union of unorganised workers, the issue of implementing the social clause with sincerity will be brought to the forefront. The point to be stressed here is that only the organisations of the working class can be effective in solving workers' problems. Neither the bureaucracy nor any other organisation can fill in this need.
The manner in which the developed countries (especially the US) have been using (or misusing) the social clause cannot be supported by any self-respecting people. The way in which some of these countries have utilise this issue will lead to worsening of conditions of labour in developing countries rather than improving them. At the same time, while opposing these moves should we oppose the social clause itself, for reasons of national interest?
Moreover, why should the working class alone make sacrifices for the nation? Reduction in costs can be achieved by lowering the profit rates of industrialists and not merely by cutting down wage rates but how come nobody sets this on the agenda? While on the question of national interest, it should be borne in mind that any move to improve the living and working conditions of the cast majority of unprotected labour should serve the national interest as these people too are a part of our country. * This article first appeared in India's Economic and Political Weekly, vol.30 n°50
#280, September 1996 21
* Social clauses
Solidarity? What solidarity?
Anke Hintjens
THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE DEMAND FOR "social clauses" is getting so much approval is one of an increasingly global economy. International investments are increasing. International trade is growing faster than global production. World trade in goods amounted to $3,485 b. in 1990. Trade in services, which accounted for $50 b. in 1978, today represents $810 b.
Although developing countries still depend on export of primary commodities, their share of world manufactures exports increased from 4% in 1955 to 19% in 1989.1 At the same time, the industrialised countries are devastated by structural unemployment, and "jobless growth". Unions are trying to find explanations and answers for this situation. Businessmen want to be able to compete without being threatened with competition.
As if by magic, everyone discovers the new term of "social dumping". GATT defines dumping as "exporting goods at a price blow their 'normal' value (for example the price on the internal market)". Hence, "social dumping" is export of goods at a price below their normal price, as a result of low wages and inhuman working conditions which keep production costs low. Scape-goating the III World
Many unions in the industrialised countries have come to see "social dumping" as a partial explanation for unemployment in their countries. This scape-goating of the third world is nothing new. In 1881 the US Federation of Organised Trade and Labor which later became the AFL-CIO federation) demanded that the government introduce protectionist measures against competition from low salary countries. The US unions wanted a "cost equalisation" through import taxes.
The foundation agreement of the GATT in 1948 provided for commercial measures against countries which allowed compulsory (forced) labour. The 1984 and 1989 Lomé Agreements between the European Community and its ex-colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific, included some very general principles on social conditions. But these were not concrete enough to be mean22 International Viewpoint ingful, and the agreements did not establish any means of control.
The new GATT agreement, in operation since January 1995, goes much further: it is a big leap forward in the deepening of global inequalities. This new GATT agreement is the crowning of a process of deregulation of exchange of goods and money. The opening of third world markets and the privatisation programmes which these countries were formerly obliged to apply under IMF structural adjustment programme's are now elevated into binding legislation, through the creation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
These negotiations, like any others, started from a certain relationship of forces between the different parties. The dependant countries did not gain. On the contrary. Their weak position led to an odd (if not tragic) situation, where the negotiations on tariff reduction resulted in a 19% reduction on the products which the least developed countries export, whereas tariffs on products important for the other countries were cut by 38%. The import taxes applied against manufactured products from Third world countries are still five times higher than the taxes on their commodities. This is only one of the ways whereby development is made difficult for third world countries.
Agriculture was not covered in former GATT agreements. This is because of its importance for the internal stability of the richest countries. For example, Europe has been transformed from a net importer of food in the fifties into a main exporter in the nineties. The European Community's part in the world market for beef increased from 0% in 1971 to 25% in 1990. For wheat and sugar the situation is comparable. The EC could only obtain this position through spending high amounts of money on subsidies (an average of 60% of EC budgets in this period went to the agricultural sector) and exporting the products beneath their "normal" value i.e... dumping. This had bad consequences on sugar exporting third world countries. which lost income because they lost a part of the sugar market, and because of falling prices on the world market. Countries in the Sahel region of Africa saw their cattle sector destroyed because of dumping of cheap EC beef.
The reduction of export subsidies, as agreed in the GATT, may seem positive for third world agriculture, but the part of the world market that the EC is losing is being taken over by the USA., not by third world countries.
Secondly, the agreement prohibits the cheapest way of defending internal agricultural production in the richest countries - i.e. through controlling imports. GATT now obliges third world countries to import sufficient foodstuffs to cover at least 2% of their internal consumption. Besides the pressure this measure will put on the balance of payments of these countries, it is also a clear attack on internal food production in the third world. What was until now only possible under the flag of food aid will be possible on a continual basis. With the integration of, as the agreement calls it, "trade related investment measures", GATT imposes the totally free circulation of capital, a principle which, in spite of many attempts, was never before accepted by the UN General Assembly. All countries are now forbidden to develop any policy restricting foreign investments. No priorities for local investments, no obligatory transfer of technology. National and foreign investment must be treated in the same way. "Repatriation" of capital has to be "free". And the agreement explicitly states that activities of multinationals (MNO's) should not be controlled. These enterprises control 70% of world trade, and 75% of investments. An incredible 40% of world trade takes place between the different branches of MNO's! Import substitution measures, or any real economic policy at all, becomes impossible.
Instead of being free for general use, science and technology are now strongly protected by patent rights. The firm that is able to register a piece of knowledge can make the others pay. The multinational Grace has patented toothpaste and medicines produced according to techniques which Indian farmers have been using for years to exploit the virtues of the neem tree, This industries will now be destroyed, because they are not able, and not willing, to pay Grace for the patents to carry on doing what they have always done.
With this GATT agreement any attempt
to construct a new economic world order, as pleaded for in UNCTAD, is buried.
The WTO can take sanctions when a country doesn't respect the rules. And sanctions can be taken against any sector of the country targeted. If India doesn't pay the
Grace multinational its patent rights on neem tree products, the WTO can decide to take sanctions against the Indian export of towels.
Or pencils.
Trade is an unequal fight. The GATT instruments serves the strong. Who will take reprisals against the European Union if they don't stop their dumping of beef in Northern
Africa? No-one. This GATT agreement makes inequality into law. Workers' organisations and movements in solidarity with the third world should have fought with all their might against this agreement. But they didn't.
Discovering unfair competition
Since the formation of the present international "division of labour," people in third world countries are subject to cruel exploitation. Nicaraguan plantation workers are sprayed with insecticides at the same time as the bananas. The word for coffee still used in south-west Uganda, "Chiboko" means the whip! As long as this was confined to the commodity sector, little protest from unions in the north was heard
It's not an accident that the northern textile workers' unions are the first to be asking their governments to include "social clauses" in international trade agreements. Textiles is one of the rare sectors, (beside leather, iron, steel and chemicals) where some third world countries have been able to gain some competitiveness.
Normally, free trade "logic" would support the abolition of the 1974 Multi Fibre Agreement (MFA). This imposed quotas on textile exporting countries of the south and the east. The agreement affected at least 50% of the world trade in textile. The explicit aim was to give the industrialised countries the possibility to adapt their industry to the increasing competition of developing countries. Quotas for third world exports to the imperialist countries were only to be allowed to increase by 6% every year.
Although textile and clothing are important in the export earnings of some southern countries (India 22%, Sri Lanka 31%, Pakistan and Bangladesh 67%), only 18% of the commercialised clothes and 5% of textile in the EC comes from developing countries.2
Some researchers say that without the MFA, developing countries would have exported 82% more textile and 93% more clothing. No surprise, then, that the GATT agreement prolongs the MFA for another 10 years! Textile remains one of the most protected sectors of the industry of the developed countries. and the fear of losing this privilege is great.
In 1993, as the GATT negotiations came into their final phase, the French Union of Employers of Textile Industry started a advertisement campaign against child labour in the textile industry in the developing countries. In October 1993, Belgian textile workers' unions and employers organised a joint demonstration, against child labour. Bosses and the unions joined together to ask consumers to buy Belgian goods, to save the children and the Belgian textile industry. In February 1994, the European Parliament asked for social clauses to be added to international agreements. At the same time, the three international trade union federations (ICFTU, WCL and ETUC) also asked for social clauses to be introduced into trade agreements, although some of the southern branches of these federations had questions on this strategy to fight for better working conditions. This opposition was particularly strong at the world congress of the WCL, where the unions of northern countries had to use all their influence to get the resolution voted.
The federations effectively accept GATT and the WTO, and the idea that trade brings welfare and jobs. This is not a new point of view. European trade unions had the same attitude towards the unification of Europe. They believed, or tried to make us believe, that unification would bring us lots of jobs. The reality shows the contrary. This may be-
Social clauses evident to revolutionary Marxists, but it is important to keep reminding people about this serious mistake, in the debates that go on in our movement about other international organisations, particularly those concerned with "free" trade.
The northern countries protect themselves twice as hard against imports from the south than from other "developed" countries.3
Protectionism through tariffs has gradually decreased, but non-tariff protectionism increased by 20% between 1987 and 1990. Import taxes against the manufactured products of the third world are five times as high as those applied against their primary commodities. Industrialisation of the third world is hampered by this protectionism, which costs these countries some $500 billion every year.4
BUY CHILDREN'S DON T BLOOD International Viewpoint 23
* Social clauses Unemployment Unemplovment
One element in the increase of wages is the unionising of workers and the struggles they win. An other element is the industrialisation of labour. As long as wages are an important element in the cost structure of products, higher wages are difficult to obtain. Brand & Hoffmann argue that when the progression of wages exceeds the progression of productivity, the competitiveness of the III world country "would decrease and with it the rhythm of development itself."5
Martin Khor supposes that social clauses would lead to loss of jobs. "If... wages and other labour costs are forced up, far above the country's prevailing general level of incomes, and in a situation of large labour surplus or high unemployment, the result would be a loss of jobs in the companies, industries or sectors concerned, which would no longer be competitive against other domestically located firms or imports or other coun tries as an investment location. In other words, there is a correlation between labour costs and the "number of jobs." 6 Stopping child labour?
The ILO estimates that in the developing countries 18% of children between 10 and 14 years old work regularly. There is a general agreement that these children should be at school. But, since children work mostly in the informal sector and only very rarely in enterprises which produce for export, this phenomenon can not be combated by an instrument that, by its definition, only applies to the exporting industries. It is also important to note that the ILO convention on the prohibition of child labour not is ratified by one third of the European countries. These include Denmark, Great Britain, Portugal, and Austria. Other industrialised countries which didn't ratify this convention are the USA, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The Belgian example
In Belgium the first demand for social clauses came from the textile trade union. The textile sector is in big problems. Since 24 International Viewpoint
1980 there is an annual loss of 115.000 jobs inside Europe. The textile unions are desperately seeking an explanation for this situation. Trapped in the capitalist logic and not Willing to organise the workers to defend their jobs, they have "discovered" a scapegoat - the third world countries. Third world countries, in the social clause logic, are not only responsible for their own misery. They are now also responsible for the misery in the industrialised world!
In reality, the import of textiles from Asia into Belgium has risen only 0.3% since 1980. The cause of increasing unemployment does not lie in higher imports from developing countries. Neither are the much-discussed "run-away" factories responsible for unemployment in the "developed countries. Only 16% of implantation of Belgian enterprises in other countries are real de-localisation i.e. leading to a stop or a decrease of their activities in Belgium. And not less then 51% of such implantations take place in other European countries. 16% go to central Europe, 15% to the far-east and 7% to North Africa. Only 5% of Belgian direct investment goes to "runaway" countries. 80% goes to other European countries.
According to the World Bank, the three most important reasons for this situation are: • the increase in productivity: 48 Belgian workers can now produce the same quantity as 100 workers back in 1975. • competition between industrialised countries. • reduction of demand.
After such arguments became better known, the textile union adapted its discourse. They now agreed that social clauses wouldn't save jobs in Belgian industry. But they went on pleading for them in the name of international solidarity with the exploited workers of the developing countries! What kind of solidarity?
This might not seem such a bad consequence of the social clause debate. But when discussing a strategy to fight something, it's important to see where the causes lie. A recent phenomenon that significantly aggravated the social situation of the people in the south is the question of the third world debt. Debt service made the financial flow from south to north since 1983 bigger than the total resources the south receives in investments, credit and public aid together. Austerity measures imposed by the multilateral organisations made it impossible for third world parents to continue paying their children's school fees. Structural adjustment programs make developing countries export more, against ever decreasing prices. To attract more foreign investments special "Free trade zones" are created. Research shows that workers' rights in these zones are less respected than in the rest of the country?
Since the explosion of the debt crisis, the wages in the non-agricultural sectors of Latin America decreased by 45%. High time for the unions to fight for the cancellation of the third world debt! Perhaps the international federations could sign the international appeal against the policy of the Bretton Woods institutions?
In 1992, textile workers in India went on strike for higher pay. At the end of 1993 the (female) workers of Thai Durable Textile in Thailand went on strike and occupied their factory to protest the sacking of 376 workers. They won their cause. Where was the solidarity from European textile unions?
The demand for social clause is the consequence of a negative balance-sheet of the solidarity of the unions of the industrialised world with those of the south. We didn't mobilise enough. We are starting to see our fellow workers as our competitors. With the social clauses our unions want international institutions to do the job for them.
There is no short way to international solidarity. Sometimes it can be useful to boycott factories violating workers' rights. But only on the demand of popular organisations of the south. And a boycott is under our own control as consumers, and far more effective for the cultivation of public opinion. * Notes For a more exhaustive explanation on the consequences of GATT on the third world countries, see International Viewpoint, issue 258 July 1994 1. Lang and Hines, The new protectionism, Earthscan, p.17. 2. UNCTAD, Handbook of international trade and development statistics, 1988. 3. UNDP Rapport annuel sur le développement humain, 1993. 4. UNDP estimate. 5. Brand and Hoffmann, op. cit. p. 7. 6. Khor Martin, in Third World Resurgence No 45, p.32. 7. Brand and Hoffmann, op.cit. p. 8
Polynesia *