Demystifying the Virtual Power Structures An Interview with Susan George By Geert Lovink At Hybrid Workspace, Documenta X, Kassel July 16, 1997 [Susan George is the vice-director of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam and was from 1990-1995 on the board of Greenpeace International. She is a well known critic of the Worldbank and the IMF and has publiced several books on the debt crisis.] Geert Lovink: I was surprised about the opening statement of your 100 days lecture. You stated that economy and ecology are at war. Here in Germany, many from both the corporate world and the ecological movement think in terms of collaboration and harmony. Influenced by New Age, they think that the two might go together in the end. You called yourself an 'alarmist'. Susan George: For the first time in history, we do not have much time ahead of us. If New Age people think that everything can be made into sweetness and light, they have not examined power relationships very carefully. I fear that if people can be persuaded that these two paradigms can be made to match without deep changes, it will distract them from the kind of politics that we have got to do. You are speaking from a very German point of view. Germany is at the very forefront of ecological awareness. Where I live, in France, people are way behind in such things as recycling. For the first time, France has got now green MPs and a green minister. Allthough the United States might have a high degree of awareness in some areas, politically speaking this has not been translated into reality. The kind of radical politics that I was trying to talk about has not yet reached any kind of level where major changes are going to come about. Many of these changes are taking place at the international level. And that's where it is going to be most difficult to act. Many of the destroyers of the planet are acting with inpunity, because they are acting at the international level. They are not transparent and are answerable to no one. GL: You have been on the board of Greenpeace for many years. Are you optimistic about the growth and strength of the ecological movement? SG: I left the board at the end of 1995. The new administration tends to engage a lot less in confrontations. Personally, I think that is a mistake. Confrontation and exposure are still very much needed. There are areas where one can cooperate with businesses. Yesterday I mentioned the insurance industry which is getting knocked out. They incurred $ 50 billion of losses within the last ten years. Why? Because of global warming and the increasing frequency of storms. Even if George Bush and Bill Clinton were not convinced of global warming, the insurance companies are. And they are listening to Greenpeace and teaming up. The case of the Greenpeace refrigerator has been overblown badly. It was clear that the manufacturers were not interested in listening, or doing any research about new technologies that would not destroy the ozon layer. What Greenpeace did, with a couple of scientists from East Germany is simply to show that it can be done. The same holds true for a car engine, that would use much less petrol. But who wants that in the oil industry? That is what I mean with confrontation: embarrassing the decision-makers by showing the consumer that it can be done. These products are also coming to developing societies like China and India, highly populous countries, where a substantial middle class is now in a position to buy refrigerators. If all of China is going to have refrigerators with CFCs, we might as well put on our hands and sunglasses and hope for the best. Not all manufacturers have switched, even in France. You live in a paradise here. GL: In your lecture you did not mention the debt crisis. Could you give us an update? How do look at the recent developments, having done more than ten years of research into it? SG: I only mentioned the debt crisis in relation with the ecological crisis in the South and the East and the capacity of the Worldbank and the IMF to impose neo-liberalism. As soon as a country has no other source of fresh cash, it has to go to these international institutions. Then they are in a position to say, we lend you money, but on the following conditions. That is how they have been able to forcebly integrate into the global economy close on a hunderd countries. I published my first book on the topic in 1987, having worked on it for two years. There comes a time when you have to leave a subject alone. In the last year, I have prepared a report on Mediterranean debt for the Italian government. Most activists are concentrating on Africa. As well they should. But what I discovered in the cases of the Maghreb countries, Egypt, Jordan, etc is that the scale of the problem is much greater. The impossibility of this debt ever being payed back is exactly the same as for black Africa. The boomerang arguments (the impacts it has on the North) hold true and Europe has allready started to pay heavily for the debt crisis in the Southern Mediterranean rim. GL: Within circles of cyberculture, money has been looked at from the angle of virtualization. Most of capital is now virtual, no longer related to the realm of the production of material commodities. It is seen as a closed, 'other' computer network, next to the Internet, and where the money is circulating constantly, all over the world. SG: The existence of those financial electronic network is not a secret, but it is difficult to get access and knowledge about it. Without electronics, economic globalization could not have happened. In the foreign exchange market you got $ 1.2 trillion circulating every day. Less than 5% of that represents actual cash transactions. Most of it is just making money out of money. When I looked at the quite boring annual report of the Bank for International Settlements, a serious institution, the central bank of the central banks, in Basel, you detect a note of utter panic. What they are saying is that the financial markets are inventing new instruments, much faster then we can get a grip on them. The IMF stepped in when we had the crisis in Mexico, in Russia and now in the Phillipines. My question is: when we have the big crash, as we are going to have. quite soon, where is the IMF that is going to move in? There is nothing big enough to counter an accident like that. When it is going to come, this crash is going to create tremendous suffering, as it did in Mexico in january 1995. Workers lost their job, malnutrition rate immediately went up, the suicide rate and the crime rate are way up. The effects of electronic markets actually fall down on society. GL: In his article in the 'Atlantic Monthly', George Soros has also warned for this to happen. He is supporting a lot of the NGOs, worldwide. How do you look at the growing importance of the NGO-sector? SG: I am not aware of growing power of NGOs. I am not well informed about the activities of his foundation, but I would love to meet him. I think he has got the right attitude towards the stockmarket because he does not follow the herd. He also proved that central banks are totally powerless when confronted a determented army of speculators. I want to say here that these people are perfectly identifiable. One should not treat this market as something mysterious, like giving the law on high, like God speaking to Moses and then we all have to follow it. This is 30-50 major banks, about the same number of brokerage firms, and a few, mostly US pension funds, which are in on this. 250 major guys doing all this. There is no reason, in my view, why, if governments got their act together, and were a little bit less cowardly, then there is no reason why these transactions could not be taxed. The moeny should not go to the UN. But there is no reason that one could not constitute international funds which could be democratically managed. One could palliate the debt crisis and write off debts with that sort of a fund. GL: This campaign here in Hybrid Workspace is dealing with bandwidth. We are trying to map who is owning the cables. What are your experiences in visualizing those abstract structures? SG: To be honest, yes, I was able to name the major players in the debt crisis. I began to do work on those emerging markets. I could not carry it out because it was too expensive. I was able to interview people in South Africa because I was there for a conference. The same thing for the Phillipines. That is another reason why Soros is important, because he is demystifying a lot of what the markets are doing. Being one of the players himself, he certainly is not down on his knees, worshipping them. That is one of the dangers. Capital is like a religion. The antropologist Fabricio Sabelli sees institutions like the IMF depending on believe systems, with the Worldbank as the mediaval church with its heaven and hell. The same thing is true for the market. There is a good deal of popularizing to be done, in this case, to demystify the Internet. And do remember that half of the world has never made a telephone call. (edited by Patrice Riemens)