SUMMARY: This is an English translation of a grassroots (popular) education pamphlet produced some months ago by CIEPAC in Spanish on the international financial institutions (IFIs) for use by civil society organisations and indigenous communities in Chiapas.  It is intended as a simple guide to the IFIs for those with no previous knowledge of the topic.  The full pamphlet in Spanish, complete with cartoons, is available on CIEPAC’s web site and can be downloaded in two formats (see: http://www.ciepac.org/otras%20temas/desbanque/000index.html).  Full cartoon versions in Tzotzil, Tseltal and English will soon be available as well.

Introduction

1)       What are the International Financial Institutions?

The International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have, broadly speaking, similar functions and structures.  They provide loans to governments to cover deficits and fund large-scale infrastructure projects.  Some examples of the most important are the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).  However, there are others.  For example, in Central America there is the Central American Bank for Economic Integration.  There is also the Asian Development Bank and the African Development Bank, but here we will only deal with the first three mentioned. 

Other names for the International Financial Institutions are:

                *Multilateral Banks

*Multilateral Development Banks

                *Multilateral Economic Institutions

Of all these names, we will only use “International Financial Institutions” or IFIs.

“Multilateral” refers to the fact that these institutions receive funds to operate from many sources, that is, from the various countries that make up the institutions and from countries that they lend money to.

2)       Why should this topic interest me?

Because these IFIs are behind many of the changes we’ve seen in the world over the past 20-25 years.  Changes that, as we will explain later, have caused greater hunger, poverty and misery in Latin America and throughout the Global South.  Some studies have said that the International Financial Institutions are behind the “globalisation of poverty” and the “destruction” rather than the “development” of the world. 

If you, or someone in your family, have had more problems than in the past finding work, eating well, accessing health care or education, or if you are unemployed, the IFIs have had a role.  The IFIs have forced countries  to make changes that have had a negative impact on our lives and communities, some more than others, and the poorest have been hit the hardest. 

But few of us know why we are poorer, or why, with each passing day, it is more expensive to educate our children, why supposedly free schools are asking us for more money, why clinics do not attend to us well, or why they now make us purchase the medicine, bandages and syringes that used to be distributed for free. 

We feel we’ve been hit but don’t know who threw the punch.  It turns out that the IFIs are among those responsible.

3)       Are there differences among the organisations that make up the International Financial Institutions?

Yes, there are differences.  The World Bank is not the same as the International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank does its own thing.  However, we are not going to “split hairs” here.  What matters most, for our purposes, are the similarities, not the details that distinguish them.  And one of the great similarities is that all the IFIs work under the neoliberal (or “free-market”) framework, which is to say, they work with a blind faith in the supposed “efficiency” of private enterprise.

Neoliberalism prefers that schools, clinics or urban distribution of drinking water be run by a private company rather than by local or state government or by grassroots committees.  So, rather than a public school to educate all girls and boys, the IFIs prefer private schools, but these enrol only children whose parents can pay tuition.

The perversity of this logic is immediately apparent– what matters to the private sector is maximising short-term profit.  However, for some aspects of our life or community, we need to think about the long term.  The well-being of our country depends on the education of ALL and the health of ALL, not just of those who can pay. 

The IFIs’ neoliberal logic favours companies, in particular, big business, while ignoring people’s needs, particularly those of the poor, the marginalized, women and the elderly, in other words, the majority. 

The IFIs believe that if big business is strengthened and earns more money, the lives of the poor will be improved via the “trickle-down effect”.  That is, from the table of the rich, crumbs will fall and, if recognised and taken advantage of by the poor, will improve their well-being.

If we went to Washington, D.C., the headquarters of some IFIs, and entered the World Bank building, we would see golden inscribed letters in the lobby that read, “Our dream is a world without poverty”.  But instead of directly helping the poor, the World Bank prefers to help the rich get richer. 

Absurd, isn’t it?  It sounds quite absurd to us but that’s how the IFIs work – with this ridiculous logic.

Unfortunately, the IFIs have promoted this logic for 25 years and the results have been disastrous.  There is more poverty, insecurity and unemployment in the world.  There is no worse blindness than those who will not see. 

4)       What are the IFIs pursing today?

The IFIs have continued on their established path – promoting the neoliberal agenda.  They come offering loans at times when a country is especially weak -- perhaps it has had some type of serious economic problem or crisis.

The International Monetary Fund is especially disturbing in this sense.  Its loans may offer favourable conditions, including low interest rates to attract governments in crisis.  If the government takes the bait, a “letter of agreement” is signed with the IMF in which the former commits to changes in economic policy.  If the government refuses or delays changes, the IMF withholds disbursement.  

Changes demanded by the IMF have, for example, forced governments to sell a country’s assets at rock-bottom prices to private companies.  What once belonged to all citizens becomes the property of one person, or a group of wealthy people, or a business.  Later, the IMF forces governments to fire large numbers of its personnel even though their jobs have to do with the well-being of all citizens, such as teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, street sweepers, etc.  The IFIs compel governments to open borders to products made in other countries, forcing many of the nation’s factories to close, thus increasing unemployment.  This has also happened to many small-holder farmers who are unable to sell their goods on the market due to competition from foreign producers.  Many of them have been forced to migrate.

Even more disturbing is the IMF’s demand that governments allow foreign capital to enter a country freely, without any control.  The IMF says that it is good for a country to have greater capital, but uncontrolled capital flows do more harm than good.  With no controls, millions of dollars can exit the country in seconds, often producing huge economic problems, destabilising the nation’s finances.  When this happens, the government may be forced to devalue our currency leading to price increases for almost all goods.

In the face of so many disasters it’s worth asking, “who benefits, who loses, why can’t our government do anything to improve the welfare of our people?  Or is it that it doesn’t want to?

5)       And if our government ignored the recommendations of the International Financial Institutions?

For one thing the IFIs would stop lending money to our country.  But it doesn’t stop there.  They would also put our country on a “Renegade List” and no other banking institution would lend us money either.  The United States could take reprisals, as it has in the past.  For example, it could stop purchasing what we produce.  If we couldn’t export our products to the United States, our economy would be in a jam. 

Could we survive a situation like this?  It all depends on whether or not we confront the situation alone or with other nations.  If we unite with other countries to form a block of resistance, perhaps we could get through this and other difficulties.  But our governments haven’t really wanted to unite – they’ve lacked the guts to build greater Latin American unity, and thus resist the aggressions of the IFIs and stronger nations.

6)  Was the situation always like this?

Up until 25 years ago, governments made their own decisions regarding how best to “develop” the country.  Since the neoliberal phase started, governments, forced by the international financial institutions, have handed over the reins of the economy to the private sector and in particular, to foreign big business.  Previously one could say that in capitalist countries such as ours, private capital was constrained by governmental guidelines.  The government even told companies, especially foreign companies, where they could and could not invest their money, how much they could invest, how much profit they could repatriate to headquarters and how much they had to reinvested here.  

The companies and free-market neoliberals didn’t like any government, particularly the government of a poor nation like our own, telling them what to do, and so they began an offensive to change the situation.  The international financial institutions played an important role – they demanded that poor nations change their laws so as to let companies do as they please.

Today, governmental guidelines hardly exist and private investment does what it wants in pursuit of a single mantra–maximize profits.  It is not an exaggeration to say that things have run amuck.  Rather than harnessing private investment to work for long-term development goals, governments are now at the beck and call of large companies.  Countries offer their natural resources, raw materials and a cheap labour force, and companies repatriate profits to their headquarters.  Think about it for a minute … Isn’t this the situation in our country?

Those who most benefit from this new situation are, undoubtedly, large companies.  We the citizens, on the other hand, are the big losers.  This new situation has brought more poverty, more unemployment, less economic growth and has worsened income distribution.  It may sound like a cliché, but official statistics confirm that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. 

Many of the measures implemented by governments stem from obligations in agreements signed with the IMF and the World Bank, among others.  But it’s not that simple.  Today our elected officials are in total agreement with neoliberalism.  They sign agreements because they believe in them, because they also own large companies or because they know that some company is likely to compensate them with some cushy post when they leave government service.  Others allow themselves to be corrupted during their time in government, and in this country we have lots of examples of corrupt officials.  Our politicians are in cahoots with big business.  They have no strategic vision for the nation, only short-term entrepreneurial interests.  They are not nationalists, just free-market capitalists.  They don’t have the interests of the majority in mind, only their own personal and class interests – the interests of a small elite who control the economic and political life of the country. 

7)  Who controls the IFIs?

This is another aspect that unites the World Bank, the IMF and the IDB.  Formally, many governments are involved in these bodies.  They form part of the board of directors through monetary contributions.  And the country that contributes the most gets the most votes.

The United States contributes the most money and hence has more votes than any other country.  Not surprisingly many people say that the IFIs are appendages of the United States.  It is more complicated than that, but suffice it to say that the United States has enough votes to block any measure that it disagrees with. 

The important thing is that the people who make up the board of directors, that is, the governments’ representatives, as well as the officials named by the boards, all have the same mentality.  They don’t discuss the basic principles of neoliberalism.  Sometimes they discuss how far they can tighten the screws and torture the people of a country with their measures, but they do not debate whether neoliberalism is good or bad.  In spite of overwhelming evidence on the negative effects of the IFIs’ economic recepies on poor countries, IFIs continue swearing allegiance to free-market principles.

Recent Actions

8)       Are there examples of the damaging actions of the international financial institutions?

Here’s an example of how the neoliberal orientation of these international financial institutions is making poor people poorer.

In some countries where IFIs are unable to immediately impose the privatisation of some basic public services such as education and health care, they call for “user fees”.  In other words, in public education or health, the IFIs require the collection of user fees from students or patients.  If a moderate fee is already in place, they have the fee increased.  Suddenly the poor find themselves paying for a service previously offered for free, or virtually so, by the government.

It has been a disaster.  The poor stopped going to school or to clinics for medical check-ups.  The measure was particularly hard on women.  Girls stopped going to school more so than boys and women stopped using health services more than men.  Pregnant women in particular, who regularly went to the clinics for their prenatal check-ups, stopped going.  The result?  More infant mortality and deaths among pregnant women.

The result of “user fees” was so negative that the IFIs, in this case the World Bank, a particular champion of these fees, decided to cease demanding them -- but only with respect to schools.  In many countries, “user fees” still exist for other services, such as health care.

9)       What damage has been done in Latin America?

Plenty!  The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) loans out money for the mega-projects of the Plan Puebla Panama.  Who will these infrastructure projects benefit?  Those most affected by the resulting ecological damage?  Those displaced by dams?  Hardly.

In Guatemala, the World Bank and the IDB funded the construction of the Chixoy dam in Baja Verapaz department.  They financed the dam despite having information regarding environmental damages and social disruption that it would bring, including displacement of small-holder farmers that lived in the flood zone.  When the farmers protested and threatened to stop dam construction, the army arrived and massacred some 4,400 people, according to the Guatemalan Truth Commission.  The IFIs continued to finance works even after the massacre and, moreover, they kept an accomplice’s silence. 

In Peru, the IDB will facilitate loans of around US$75 million for the extraction of gas from the Camisea deposits and the construction of two oil pipelines through indigenous lands in one of the best preserved and most important Amazon jungle zones. Two of the companies involved in the project are Hunt Oil and Halliburton, both of which have close ties to the Bush administration.  The indigenous peoples most affected are the Nahua, the Nanti, the Kirineri and the Machiguenga, yet they have never participated in decisions regarding projects that will have a foreseeable devastating effect on their lives, lands and culture. 

In Bolivia, the IDB forced the government to privatise the water system of Cochabamba, the third largest city in the country.  An American company, Bechtel, bought the water system in Cochabamba and shortly thereafter raised rates by 300%.  The increase left many people without water and so users, residents and workers of the company initiated a struggle to expel Bechtel and regain control of the water system.  Bechtel ended up leaving Bolivia but only after hundreds of protestors were injured and a 17-year-old boy was shot dead. 

10)    And locally?

In Mexico the IDB granted a loan, the largest ever authorised, for US$1 billion, to finance the Fox administration’s “Opportunities” program, previously known as Progresa.  Although the Opportunities program helps families that live in extreme poverty, it is also true that the money has a political dimension, since it provokes dissension, for example in Chiapas, where it divides Zapatista and non-Zapatista families who live side by side.  The resources given to non-Zapatista families weaken resistance of Zapatista families, which is part of the government’s counterinsurgency strategy. 

Although the government denies it, those who participate in Opportunities, or other programs such as Procampo, receive money or other materials that increase the country’s foreign debt.  But that one billion dollars will have to be paid back to the IDB with interest.

For its part, the World Bank is promoting privatisation of municipal water systems in Mexico, making the familiar argument that a business functions better in private hands.  But time and again, once privatised, rate hikes set in, the poorest are left without water, rich neighbourhoods are favoured over poor, and overall service deteriorates. 

11)     Do the International Financial Institutions hold consultations with those most affected by their actions?

No way!  IFIs are notorious for their secret procedures.  They routinely hide information.  Some civil society watchdog organisations have for years waged a tenacious struggle for greater transparency in the IFIs’ decision-making procedures and to make information available to those most affected by their projects and decisions.  It is our opinion that these valiant efforts have made little progress.  The IFIs know that there can be no real transparency nor will they submit to democratic procedures, since neoliberal measures would be rejected by the majority of the people.  Transparency and democracy would hamper the way IFIs currently operate. 

Still, given the increasing pressure of civil society, the IFIs have had to implement some measures that give the appearance of greater accountability.  But they are more for public relations.  Things fundamentally remain the same as they have for years.  Research has revealed that these bodies are deliberately lying to the public.  They say one thing but then often act quite differently behind the backs of the people. 

The IFIs are, in essence, thoroughly anti-democratic.  They make decisions affecting entire countries but are accountable to no one. 

12)     Aren’t the international financial institutions reforming?  Isn’t there supposedly more transparency now than there has been for years?

The truth is that the institutions don’t want us to know how they function, what projects are being supported, with how much money, what environmental destruction is going to occur, how many thousands of people will be affected, displaced from their homes, etc.  Even today, in the best of the cases, information given out is too little too late.

An eternal problem is that the IFIs don’t release information about a potential project or loan until it is a done deal.  This prevents civil society from articulating opinion on time.  In spite of the thousands of persistent requests that necessary information be made public before decisions are made, the IFIs continue to keep civil society in the dark. 

Many of us believe that the IFIs can’t be reformed.  IFIs are incapable of dialoguing meaningfully with civil society.  Proposals made by civil society are often scorned and ultimately ignored.  The IFIs continue to do their own thing.

13)      But don’t the international financial institutions now have environmental and social statutes to limit the damage caused by their projects and loans?

This is where we say that the changes are more apparent than real.  Yes, in effect, some of the IFIs now have such statues and so they say they are responding to the protests and demands of civil society.  However, in our opinion, such statutes are a deception.  As an example, the Camisea project in Peru, mentioned in an earlier answer, has had widespread criticism as unsound both for environmental and social reasons but the IDB is pushing it forward as fast as it can.

14)     So, is it necessary to reform the international financial institutions or abolish them?

Those who have studied the IFIs say that they have a plan to counteract reforms. This plan is called “gradual reform”. In other words, the IFIs will change the least they can. This is of the worst kind of irresponsibility -- in face of the millions of people who suffer hunger or die due to flawed and irresponsible policies.

Another part of the plan is to co-opt opponents.  IFIs call for dialogue with opponents, inviting them to discussion forums and “civil-society consultations”, incorporating them into their circles.  Little by little, radical demands are weakened.  Unfortunately, some opponents let themselves be fooled.  They agree to go to IFI forums, talks and projects.  Then we see them travelling on IFI expense accounts, and even take on roles as “consultants” to the institutions and some even end up receiving a good salary.  But their opposition to the IFIs obviously disappears.  This is precisely the IFIs’ policy of co-optation.  It helps legitimise the IFIs’ supposed “outreach” to civil society.

Although many well-intentioned folks are working to reform the IFIs, we can’t help but conclude that they’re banging their head against the wall.  Why not start afresh?  More on this later.

Battles Against the IFIs

15)     What are people doing to resist the international financial institutions?

For decades the IFIs have promoted policies contrary to our interests.  But only recently have social and civil organisations made the decision to confront, uncover and oppose these organisations.  In 2003, at the IV Meso-American Forum in Honduras, an information and education campaign on IFIs was launched, with particular reference to the Inter-American Development Bank. 

The IDB was chosen because it is the institution that loans the most money to Latin America (almost 9 billion dollars in 2003).  Another reason is that the IDB promotes the same environmentally and socially unsound policies as the World Bank and the IMF, yet we know almost nothing about the IDB.  As we said earlier, the IDB is one of the most important financiers of Plan Puebla Panama (to the tune of over US$4 billion), which has met widespread grassroots resistance in Mexico and Central America.

16)    Are there noticeable effects of these struggles to date?

In Latin America, indigenous people have led the fight to detain projects backed by the IFI. The rollback of the privatisation of the drinking water system in Cochabamba, Bolivia in one of the examples that resonates most in Latin America. Another is the defeat of the proposed airport on communal lands outside Mexico City in 2002. Yet another example is the popular uprising in Arequipa, Peru in 2002 against the privatisation of power companies, a measure that was consequently suspended.  Yet another is the 2003 “Gas War” that Bolivians waged against turning over their energy resources to multinational corporations, and in passing they booted out an overtly pro-American president.

Still, there are thousands of projects and billions of dollars that have been paid out that have done a lot of damage.

More information about the IFIs has to get out and we need to better organise ourselves to defend our rights and our resources.  When people are determined, organise and resist, IFI-sponsored privatisations and projects can be stopped!

In the Future

17)     So, what needs to be done?

The first thing to do is to inform ourselves about the topic.  True, it is difficult to understand the international financial institutions. The topic seems unrelated to our daily worries.  But as we have seen, they have an impact on our lives and are behind efforts to separate us from land, resources and a sustainable future.

Once informed, we must organise.  It will take a united effort to verify what projects the IFIs are undertaking in our region and in our country.  The projects developed by the IFIs are large projects like the construction of dams that affect an immense region.  When a dam is built, thousands of people are displaced.  Sometimes millions of people are affected as in the case of the dams being built today in China, Mexico and Honduras. We should seek these people out.  We should demonstrate our solidarity and organise with them in order to resist the advance of IFI projects.  But we should also seek out people with similar concerns close to home, and find out what projects the IFIs are pushing in our community.  Were we informed?  Were we given a chance to voice our views?  Were our interests and concerns taken into account?

18)     Are there fronts or movements against the IFIs?

Of course.  As mentioned, a campaign was organised at the IV Meso-American Peoples Forum in July 2003, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, against the IDB, the World Bank and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration.  Since then, a boycott against these IFIs has taken hold in 45 countries and 600 organisations in Latin America, the Caribbean, North America, Asia, Africa and Europe.  In Mexico and Central America civil society organisations have held information exchanges on how best to respond to the threat IFIs pose.   In 2003 and 2004 there were protest actions against the IDB outside its offices in Mexico City.  Jubilee South has started a “Days of Resistance” campaign against the IFIs that will continue in the years ahead.

The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank need to be closed down for good.  Reform or transformation is not possible.  If we are attempting to build a better world with justice and dignity for all, then IFI policies work against such efforts.

With so many “inherent flaws” it is best to say “enough” and to close the IFIs once and for all.  It is best to put to rest institutions based on flawed foundations and staffed by neoliberal ideologues. By so doing, we would have freedom to think of something wholly different.

19)      Can’t we leave something positive for humanity in its place?

There will always be a need for international institutions that can help in the fight against poverty and that can direct funds from various countries to projects such as eradication of illiteracy, treating illnesses that affect millions of people, or finding remedies for the serious afflictions of our times such as AIDS, which is desolating Africa and other regions. 

New institutions must survey the world’s needs from a different perspective, far removed from current absurdities that call for making the wealthy wealthier in order, supposedly, to help the poorest.

It is not difficult to dream of alternatives.  It’s the first step towards building them.  An activist from civil society who has begun to dream wrote the following:

Why not replace the IMF [and] the World Bank [...with others that] work to achieve equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and ecological balance in international financial, trade and cultural exchange.  They would seek to direct the benefits of trade and investment disproportionately to weaker and poorer parties, not to richer and more powerful ones.  They would prioritise national aims, cultural identity, and equitable development above commercialism.  They would protect domestic laws, rules, and regulations designed to promote worker, consumer, environmental, health, safety, human rights, animal protection, or other non-profit centred interests by rewarding those who attain such aims most successfully.  They would advance democracy by enlarging the choices available to democratically controlled governments and subordinating the desires of multinationals and large economies to the survival, growth, and diversification of smaller units. (The author is Michael Albert and the citation is from his book, “Parecon:  Life After Capitalism”, Verso Books, London & New York, 2003, p.5).

It’s true, it’s easy to dream!  But it’s important that we all participate in creating expectations of a better world and unite with each other to build these dreams. 

This means nothing less than banning beliefs such as neoliberalism that have allowed the international financial institutions to operate with impunity. 

20)     So … the battle is actually against neoliberalism?

Well, yes!  Honestly, what’s the use of working to close the World Bank, the IMF and the IDB if, at a later date, the same beliefs will simply produce other monstrosities that are just as bad or worse?  And if we dig deeper, we will see that it is not only neoliberalism that we must banish.  Neoliberalism is only one part of capitalism.  The larger struggle that we face in the long run is capitalism.  But that is a whole other story!

For more information, contact the following centres in your country:

In CanadA

Kairos

129 St. Clair Ave. W.
Toronto, ON  M4V 1N5
% (416) 463-5312, ext. 225
rjeremic@kairoscanada.org
www.kairoscanada

Halifax Initiative

153 rue Chapel St., Suite 104,
Ottawa, ON K1N 1H5
(613) 789-4447
Fax: (613) 241-4170
pfoster@halifaxinitiative.org
info@halifaxinitiative.org
www.halifaxinitiative.org

In El Salvador:

Equipo Maíz

29 Avenida Norte, No. 1117
Apdo. Postal 27 26
San Salvador
(503) 225-3810, 225-0488, 225-0490
Fax: (503) 235-1200
equipomaiz@netcomsa.com)

IN THE UNITED STATES

CEJ (The Center for Economic Justice)

202 Harvard Dr, SE
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: (505) 232-3100
Fax: (505) 232-3101
info@econjustice
www.econjustice.net

InterAction, IDB-Civil Society Initiative

1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW, #701
Washington, D.C.  20036
% (202) 667-8227, ext. 156
Fax: (202) 667-8236
snickinson@interaction.org
www.interaction.org/development/idb

Bank Information Center

733 15th Street NW Suite 1126
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 737-7752
fax: (202) 737-1155
info@bicusa.org
www.bicusa.org

In Guatemala:

CEIBA (Asociación para la Promoción y Desarrollo de la Comunidad

Km. 56.5 Carretera interamericana, Aldea Buena Vista, Chimaltenango
% (502) 839-6033
magl@infovia.com.gt
www.ceibaguate.org

In Honduras:

COPINH (Consejo Cívico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras)

Barrio Lempira, ½ cuadra al oeste, Plaza Lempira, Intibucá
% (504) 783-0817, 783-0816
copinh@hondutel.hn
In Mexico:

CIEPAC (Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria)

Calle de la Primavera #6, Barrio de la Merced
29240 San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas
% (967) 674-5168
ciepac@laneta.apc.org
www.ciepac.org

In Nicaragua:

Centro de Estudios Internacionales

Apdo. Postal 1747s,
Managua
Tel: (505) 278-5413
Fax: (505 267-0517
cei@ibw.com.ni
www.ceinicaragua.org.ni

In PanamA

Cáritas Panamá

Corregimiento de Ancón, Avenida Frangipani, Casa 437-A
Apartado postal 1149, Zona 9A, Panamá
Teléfono (507) 262-3777 / Fax (507) 262-3648
caritas@caritaspanama.org / coordinador@caritaspanama.org
www.caritaspanama.org)

Out with the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank in Latin America!
let’s Protect our lands and our resources!
let us build brotherhoods and sisterhoods!

LET’S JOIN IN solidarity to fight against the international financial institutions, the IMF, the WB and the IDB!

Thank-you to the following solidarity organisations for their support in this pamphlet’s creation and publication:

Cafod (England)
Development and Peace (Canada)
Eusko Jaurlaritza-Gobierno Vasco (The Basque Country)
Global Human Rights (U.S.A.)
Kairos (Canada)
Public Welfare Foundation (U.S.A.)
Solidago Foundation (U.S.A.)
CIEPAC, A.C.
Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria

Text: Miguel Pickard; Design and illustrations: Francisco X. González Muñoz

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168