Change we need, change we may not get

BARACK Obama’s election as the American president is perceived as a victory on many fronts. Not to mention that he is the first African-American president, Obama almost embodies the American dream. Born of a Kenyan immigrant father and a white American mother, Obama has grown up poor. His resounding victory leaves little doubt that the American people have indeed voted for change. This change is not merely limited to choosing Democrats over Liberals or a younger candidate over an older one. Obama’s victory heralds a new chapter; it breaks away from long-held traditions which had been considered almost impossible.
The president-elect has on several times stated that he wants to spread the wealth around, and asserted his belief that the state should play a larger role in education and health. His campaign pledges indicate that he would raise taxes of corporations and big businesses, and use the revenue for rebates to middle-income families and public services that would largely benefit the middle classes.
His economic plan includes expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the US economy and protection of one million jobs. Obama has also pledged to introduce a windfall profit tax on oil company revenues to pay for rebates for the working families. Given the rising costs, he intends to provide up to a $1,000 in rebates for every American family. Obama also proposes disincentives for companies that outsource jobs and incentives for those that create employment in the United States.
Obama proposes an expenditure of $150 billion over ten years for a greener economy by encouraging production of hybrid cars that will run on electricity to save fossil fuel consumption and overcome American dependence on West Asia or Venezuela for energy security. As part of his plan to ensure energy security, Obama will continue to pursue promotion of biofuel production, which is already heavily subsidised.
Obama has pledged to ‘review’ the North American Free Trade Agreement and amend it such manner that it helps American workers. On the trade front, the president-elect ‘will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs.’ Obama intends to use trade agreements to spread good labour and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. They will also pressure the World Trade Organisation to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and non-tariff barriers on US exports.
The American middle class and the working people can indeed expect positive changes in their lives and livelihoods. Obama’s plan to increase state spending in education and health will presumably also help reduce poverty and, more importantly, the rising disparity and hunger in the US. He has pledged to protect American jobs and industries with state spending and subsidies. That is all very good for the American people.
For the rest of the world, however, this change of American presidency would bring about few noticeable changes in terms of foreign policy. As far as trade is concerned, which is perhaps one of the major concerns for Bangladesh, Obama has already indicated his protectionist attitude. It would mean that Bangladeshi apparel manufacturers would continue to face high, if not even higher, tariffs if it helps protect the industries and jobs in the US.
When it comes to trade agreements, Obama will aggressively pursue such policies that generate employment in the US. He ‘will use these agreements to open up markets abroad and reduce subsidies in other countries and do away with non-tariff barriers applied to American goods.’ It means that, while he would adopt more protectionism for the US economy, his government would be aggressively looking towards liberalising the trade regime of other countries.
It also means that, while the US applies tariffs to the Bangladeshi apparels and firmly rejects the possibility of reducing them, the Obama administration would seek to tear down protectionist barriers in Bangladesh, or any other country, that prevent entry of American goods and services to protect jobs and industries. His position regarding trade agreements also hints at moving away from the accepted ‘less than full reciprocity’ between poor countries and developed countries in trade negotiations to reciprocal concessions.
Bangladeshi manufacturers as well as the establishment have pinned their hopes on the New Partnership for Development Act that includes provisions for the much-sought duty-free market access to the US market. There was already strong opposition within the US, as well as the African lobby, against Bangladesh receiving such concessions. Under Obama, those concessions would become even more difficult to secure.
In fact, in response to a questionnaire of National Council of Textile Organisations, dated October 24, the president-elect pledged to support almost all the points that the textile council advocated. This same council has thus far, even as recently as on September 25, opposed the idea of duty-free access for Bangladeshi products to the US market. They point out that the textile industry is among the largest sectors in the US employing some 700,000 people.
There is little indication that America’s agricultural policies or the targets set out by its energy bill will be altered by the Obama administration. Obama’s energy plan clearly states that his administration would continue to encourage biofuel production and, given his protectionist attitude about creating more jobs in the US, it is unlikely that it would shift from corn-based ethanol, no matter how inefficient it is in terms carbon emission. The US under Obama would remain firmly on course to meet its target of producing 10 per cent automobile fuel from ethanol.
It has been argued repeatedly by most of the international research organisations and institutions that biofuel production has had significant impact on food crisis. Obama’s administration, together with a similar European target, would contribute to further aggravate the global food crisis. His policies would still pit empty fuel tanks against empty stomachs and American subsidies for biofuel production—about $7 billion in 2007—would make that even more unequal and unjust.
Obama’s presidency is unlikely to bring about changes in its institutions or other international agencies and their policies. If anything, these institutions and agencies would become even more active in imposing conditions on poor countries to liberalise their economies and reduce their subsidies since they do not make economic sense and encourage inefficiency. The same conditions, however, would not apply for the US where billions would be spent to shore up manufacturing sectors. Subsidies and incentives will be handed out to ensure that companies do not outsource their jobs and continue to employ Americans, no matter how inefficient or how much more costly they may be. It is unlikely that other developing countries would be allowed to do the same though.
Thus, aid agencies of the American establishment will continue to pursue projects that eventually end up ensuring increased business and opportunity for American consultants and companies. The multinational corporations that control American policies will continue to dominate and exert influence fulfilling their own interest through US role across the world. For instance, the top contributors to Obama’s campaign include Microsoft Corporation, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and UBS, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a research group tracking money in US politics. Microsoft has driven the US agenda to implement intellectual property rights, while UBS, a leading financial firm in the world has interests in Asia Energy, which proposes to set up an open-pit coalmine in Phulbari.
In all likelihood, the Obama administration government will succeed in making the life of an average American better. But outside its borders, US policies will hardly change. Except that in Obama, quite like George W Bush’s immediate predecessor, and very much unlike Bush himself, there will be a good orator who successfully created a façade but furthered American imperialist interests all the same.