As mentioned in part I of this talk, Washington’s
"crusade for democracy" was waged with particular fervor during the Reagan
years, with Latin America the chosen terrain. The results are commonly offered
as a prime illustration of how the U.S. became "the inspiration for the
triumph of democracy in our time." The most recent scholarly study of
democracy describes "the revival of democracy in Latin America" as
"impressive" but not unproblematic; the "barriers to implementation" remain
"formidable," but can perhaps be overcome through closer integration with the
United States. The author, Sanford Lakoff, singles out the "historic North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)" as a potential instrument of
democratization, alongside of other examples of the kind already discussed.
A closer look at NAFTA is informative. The NAFTA
agreement was rammed through Congress over strenuous popular opposition but
with overwhelming support from the business world and the media, which were
full of joyous promises of benefits for all concerned, also confidently
predicted by the U.S. International Trade Commission and leading economists
equipped with the most up-to-date models (which had just failed miserably to
predict the deleterious consequences of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement,
but were somehow going to work in this case). Completely suppressed was the
careful analysis by the Office of Technology Assessment (the research bureau
of Congress), which concluded that the planned version of NAFTA would harm
most of the population of North America, proposing modifications that could
render the agreement beneficial beyond small circles of investment and
finance. Still more instructive was the suppression of the official position
of the U.S. labor movement, presented in a similar analysis. Meanwhile labor
was bitterly condemned for its "backward, unenlightened" perspective and
"crude threatening tactics," motivated by "fear of change and fear of
foreigners"; I am again sampling only from the far left of the spectrum, in
this case, Anthony Lewis. The charges were demonstrably false, but they were
the only word that reached the public in this inspiring exercise of democracy.
Further details are most illuminating, and reviewed in the dissident
literature at the time and since, but kept from the public eye. By now the
tales about the wonders of NAFTA have quietly been shelved, as the facts have
been coming in. One hears no more about the hundreds of thousands of new jobs
and other great benefits in store for the people of the three countries. These
good tidings have been replaced by the "distinctly benign economic
viewpoint"—the "expert's view"—that NAFTA had no significant effects. The
Wall Street Journal reports that "Administration officials feel frustrated
by their inability to convince voters that the threat doesn’t hurt them" and
that job loss is "much less than predicted by Ross Perot," who was allowed
into mainstream discussion (unlike the OTA, the Labor movement, economists who
didn’t echo the Party Line, and dissident analysts) because his claims were
sometimes extreme and easily ridiculed. "‘It’s hard to fight the critics’ by
telling the truth—that the trade pact ‘hasn’t really done anything’," an
Administration official observes sadly. Forgotten is what "the truth" was
going to be when the impressive exercise in democracy was roaring full steam
ahead.
While the experts have downgraded NAFTA to "no
significant effects," dispatching the earlier "experts’ view" to the memory
hole, a less than "distinctly benign economic viewpoint" comes into focus if
the "national interest" is widened in scope to include the general population.
Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee in February 1997, Federal
Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan was highly optimistic about "sustainable
economic expansion" thanks to "atypical restraint on compensation increases
[which] appears to be mainly the consequence of greater worker insecurity" —
an obvious desideratum for a just society. The February 1997 Economic Report
of the President, taking pride in the Administration’s achievements, refers
more obliquely to "changes in labor market institutions and practices" as a
factor in the "significant wage restraint" that bolsters the health of the
economy.
One reason for these benign changes is spelled out in a
study commissioned by the NAFTA Labor Secretariat "on the effects of the
sudden closing of the plant on the principle of freedom of association and the
right of workers to organize in the three countries." The study was carried
out under NAFTA rules in response to a complaint by telecommunications workers
on illegal labor practices by Sprint. The complaint was upheld by the U.S.
National Labor Relations Board, which ordered trivial penalties after years of
delay, the standard procedure. The NAFTA study, by Cornell University Labor
economist Kate Bronfenbrenner, was authorized for release by Canada and
Mexico, but delayed by the Clinton administration. It reveals a significant
impact of NAFTA on strike-breaking. About half of union organizing efforts are
disrupted by employer threats to transfer production abroad; for example, by
placing signs reading "Mexico Transfer Job" in front of a plant where there is
an organizing drive. The threats are not idle: when such organizing drives
nevertheless succeed, employers close the plant in whole or in part at triple
the pre-NAFTA rate (about 15 percent of the time). Plant-closing threats are
almost twice as high in more mobile industries (e.g., manufacturing vs.
construction).
These and other practices reported in the study are
illegal, but that is a technicality, on a par with violations of international
law and trade agreements when outcomes are unacceptable. The Reagan
administration had made it clear to the business world that their illegal
anti-union activities would not be hampered by the criminal state, and
successors have kept to this stand. There has been a substantial effect on
destruction of unions — or in more polite words, "changes in labor market
institutions and practices" that contribute to "significant wage restraint"
within an economic model offered with great pride to a backward world that has
not yet grasped the victorious principles that are to lead the way to freedom
and justice.
What was reported all along outside the mainstream about
the goals of NAFTA is also now quietly conceded: the real goal was to "lock
Mexico in" to the "reforms" that had made it an "economic miracle," in the
technical sense of this term: a "miracle" for U.S. investors and the Mexican
rich, while the population sank into misery. The Clinton administration
"forgot that the underlying purpose of NAFTA was not to promote trade but to
cement Mexico’s economic reforms," Newsweek correspondent Marc Levinson
loftily declares, failing only to add that the contrary was loudly proclaimed
to ensure the passage of NAFTA while critics who pointed out this "underlying
purpose" were efficiently excluded from the free market of ideas by its
owners. Perhaps some day the reasons will be conceded too. "Locking Mexico in"
to these reforms, it was hoped, would deflect the danger detected by a Latin
America Strategy Development Workshop in Washington in September 1990. It
concluded that relations with the brutal Mexican dictatorship were fine,
though there was a potential problem: "a ‘democracy opening’ in Mexico could
test the special relationship by bringing into office a government more
interested in challenging the U.S. on economic and nationalist grounds"— no
longer a serious problem now that Mexico is "locked into the reforms" by
treaty.
The threat is democracy, at home and abroad, as the
chosen example again illustrates. Democracy is permissible, even welcome, but
again, as judged by outcome, not process. NAFTA was considered to be an
effective device to diminish the threat of democracy. It was implemented at
home by effective subversion of the democratic process, and in Mexico by
force, again over vain public protest. The results are now presented as a
hopeful instrument to bring American-style democracy to benighted Mexicans. A
cynical observer aware of the facts might agree.
Once again, the chosen illustrations of the triumph of
democracy are natural ones, and are interesting and revealing as well, though
not quite in the intended manner.
Markets are always a social construction, and in the
specific form being crafted by current social policy they should serve to
restrict functioning democracy, as in the case of NAFTA, the WTO agreements,
and other instruments that may lie ahead. One case that merits close attention
is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) that is now being forged by
the OECD, the rich men’s club, and the WTO (where it is the MIA). The apparent
hope is that the agreement will be adopted without public awareness, as was
the initial intention for NAFTA, not quite achieved, though the "information
system" managed to keep the basic story under wraps. If the plans outlined in
draft texts are implemented, the whole world may be "locked into" treaty
arrangements that provide transnational corporations with still more powerful
weapons to restrict the arena of democratic politics, leaving policy largely
in the hands of huge private tyrannies that have ample means of market
interference as well. The efforts may be blocked at the WTO because of the
strong protests of the "developing countries," notably India and Malaysia,
which are not eager to become wholly-owned subsidiaries of great foreign
enterprises. But the OECD version may fare better, to be presented to the rest
of the world as a fait accompli, with the obvious consequences. All of this
proceeds in impressive secrecy, so far.
@PAR SUB = The announcement of the Clinton Doctrine was
accompanied by a prize example to illustrate the victorious principles: What
the Administration had achieved in Haiti. Since this is again offered as the
strongest case, it would be appropriate to look at it.
True, Haiti’s elected president was allowed to return,
but only after the popular organizations had been subjected to three years of
terror by forces that retained close connections to Washington throughout; the
Clinton administration still refuses to turn over to Haiti 160,000 pages of
documents on state terror seized by U.S. military forces — "to avoid
embarrassing revelations" about U.S. government involvement with the coup
regime, according to Human Rights Watch. It was also necessary to put
President Aristide through "a crash course in democracy and capitalism," as
his leading supporter in Washington described the process of civilizing the
troublesome priest.
As a condition on his return, Aristide was compelled to
accept an economic program that directs the policies of the Haitian government
to the needs of "Civil Society, especially the private sector, both national
and foreign": U.S. investors are designated to be the core of Haitian civil
society, along with wealthy Haitians who backed the military coup, but not the
Haitian peasants and slum-dwellers who organized a civil society so lively and
vibrant that they were even able to elect their own president against
overwhelming odds, eliciting instant U.S. hostility and efforts to subvert
Haiti’s first democratic regime.
The unacceptable acts of the "ignorant and meddlesome
outsiders" in Haiti were reversed by violence, with direct U.S. complicity,
not only through contacts with the state terrorists in charge. The
Organization of American States declared an embargo. The Bush and Clinton
administrations undermined it from the start by exempting U.S. firms, and also
by secretly authorizing the Texaco Oil Company to supply the coup regime and
its wealthy supporters in violation of the official sanctions, a crucial fact
that was prominently revealed the day before U.S. troops landed to "restore
democracy," but has yet to reach the public, and is an unlikely candidate for
the historical record.
Now democracy has been restored. The new government has
been forced to abandon the democratic and reformist programs that scandalized
Washington, and to follow the policies of Washington’s candidate in the 1990
election, in which he received 14 percent of the vote.
Haitians seem to understand the lessons, even if
doctrinal managers in the West prefer a different picture. Parliamentary
elections in April 1997 brought forth "a dismal 5 percent" of voters, the
press reported, thus raising the question "Did Haiti Fail U.S. Hope?" We have
sacrificed so much to bring them democracy, but they are ungrateful and
unworthy. One can see why "realists" urge that we stay aloof from crusades of
"global meliorism."
Similar attitudes hold throughout the hemisphere. Polls
show that in Central America, politics elicits "boredom," "distrust" and
"indifference" in proportions far outdistancing "interest" or "enthusiasm"
among "an apathetic public...which feels itself a spectator in its democratic
system" and has "general pessimism about the future." The first Latin America
survey, sponsored by the European Union, found much the same: "the survey’s
most alarming message," the Brazilian coordinator commented, was "the popular
perception that only the elite had benefited from the transition to
democracy." Latin American scholars observe that the recent wave of
democratization coincided with neoliberal economic reforms, which have been
very harmful for most people, leading to a cynical appraisal of formal
democratic procedures. The introduction of similar programs in the richest
country in the world has had similar effects. By the early 1990s, after 15
years of a domestic version of structural adjustment, over 80 percent of the
U.S. population had come to regard the democratic system as a sham, with
business far too powerful, and the economy as "inherently unfair." These are
natural consequences of the specific design of "market democracy" under
business rule.
Let us return to the prevailing doctrine that "America’s
victory in the Cold War" was a victory for democracy and the free market. With
regard to democracy, the doctrine is partially true, though we have to
understand what is meant by "democracy": top-down control "to protect the
minority of the opulent against the majority." What about the free market?
Here too, we find that doctrine is far removed from reality, as several
examples have already illustrated.
Consider again the case of NAFTA, an agreement intended
to lock Mexico into an an economic discipline that protects investors from the
danger of a "democracy opening." Its provisions tell us more about the
economic principles that have emerged victorious. It is not a "free trade
agreement." Rather, it is highly protectionist, designed to impede East Asian
and European competitors. Furthermore, it shares with the global agreements
such anti-market principles as "intellectual property rights" restrictions of
a sort rich societies never accepted during their period of development, but
now intend to use to protect home-based corporations: to destroy the
pharmaceutical industry in poorer countries, for example—and, incidentally, to
block technological innovations, such as improved production processes for
patented products; progress is no more a desideratum than markets, unless it
yields benefits for those who count.
There are also questions about the nature of "trade."
Over half of U.S. trade with Mexico is reported to consist of intrafirm
transactions, up about 15 percent since NAFTA. For example, already a decade
ago, mostly U.S.-owned plants in Northern Mexico employing few workers and
with virtually no linkages to the Mexican economy produced more than one-third
of engine blocks used in U.S. cars and three-fourths of other essential
components. The post-NAFTA collapse of the Mexican economy in 1994, exempting
only the very rich and U.S. investors (protected by U.S. government bailouts),
led to an increase of U.S.-Mexico trade as the new crisis, driving the
population to still deeper misery, "transformed Mexico into a cheap [i.e.,
even cheaper] source of manufactured goods, with industrial wages one-tenth of
those in the U.S.," the business press reports. Ten years ago, according to
some specialists, half of U.S. trade worldwide consists of such
centrally-managed transactions and much the same is true of other industrial
powers, though one must treat with caution conclusions about institutions with
limited public accountability. Some economists have plausibly described the
world system as one of "corporate mercantilism," remote from the ideal of free
trade. The OECD concludes that "Oligopolistic competition and strategic
interaction among firms and governments rather than the invisible hand of
market forces condition today’s competitive advantage and international
division of labor in high-technology industries," implicitly adopting a
similar view.
Even the basic structure of the domestic economy
violates the neoliberal principles that are hailed. The main theme of Alfred
Chandler’s standard work on U.S. business history is that "modern business
enterprise took the place of market mechanisms in coordinating the activities
of the economy and allocating its resources," handling many transactions
internally, another large departure from market principles. There are many
others. Consider, for example, the fate of Adam Smith’s principle that free
movement of people is an essential component of free trade—across borders, for
example. When we move on to the world of transnational corporations, with
strategic alliances and critical support from powerful states, the gap between
doctrine and reality becomes substantial.
Free market theory comes in two varieties: the official
doctrine, and what we might call "really existing free market doctrine":
Market discipline is good for you, but I need the protection of the nanny
state. The official doctrine is imposed on the defenseless, but it is "really
existing doctrine" that has been adopted by the powerful since the days when
Britain emerged as Europe’s most advanced fiscal-military and developmental
state, with sharp increases in taxation and efficient public administration as
the state became "the largest single actor in the economy (historian John
Brewer)" and its global expansion, establishing a model that has been followed
to the present in the industrial world, surely by the United States, from its
origins.
Britain did finally turn to liberal internationalism—in
1846, after 150 years of protectionism, violence, and state power had placed
it far ahead of any competitor. But the turn to the market had significant
reservations. Forty percent of British textiles continued to go to colonized
India, and much the same was true of British exports generally. British steel
was kept from U.S. markets by very high tariffs that enabled the United States
to develop its own steel industry. But India and other colonies were still
available, and remained so when British steel was priced out of international
markets. India is an instructive case; it produced as much iron as all of
Europe in the late 18th century, and British engineers were studying more
advanced Indian steel manufacturing techniques in 1820 to try to close "the
technological gap." Bombay was producing locomotives at competitive levels
when the railway boom began. But "really existing free market doctrine"
destroyed these sectors of Indian industry just as it had destroyed textiles,
ship-building, and other industries that were advanced by the standards of the
day. The U.S. and Japan, in contrast, had escaped European control and could
adopt Britain’s model of market interference.
When Japanese competition proved to be too much to
handle, England called off the game: the empire was effectively closed to
Japanese exports, part of the background of World War II. Indian manufacturers
asked for protection at the same time — but against England, not Japan. No
such luck, under really existing free market doctrine.
With the abandonment of its restricted version of
laissez-faire in the 1930s, the British government turned to more direct
intervention into the domestic economy as well. Within a few years, machine
tool output increased five times, along with a boom in chemicals, steel,
aerospace, and a host of new industries, "an unsung new wave of industrial
revolution," Will Hutton writes. State-controlled industry enabled Britain to
outproduce Germany during the war, even to narrow the gap with the U.S., which
was then undergoing its own dramatic economic expansion as corporate managers
took over the state-coordinated wartime economy.
A century after England turned to a form of liberal
internationalism, the U.S. followed the same course. After 150 years of
protectionism and violence, the U.S. had become by far the richest and most
powerful country in the world, and like England before it, came to perceive
the merits of a "level playing field" on which it could expect to crush any
competitor. But like England, with crucial reservations.
One was that Washington used its power to bar
independent development elsewhere, as England had done. In Latin America,
Egypt, South Asia, and elsewhere, development was to be "complementary," not
"competitive." There was also large-scale interference with trade. For
example, Marshall Plan aid was tied to purchase of U.S. agricultural products,
part of the reason why the U.S. share in world trade in grains increased from
less than 10 percent before the war to more than half by 1950, while Argentine
exports reduced by two-thirds. U.S. Food for Peace aid was also used both to
subsidize U.S. agribusiness and shipping and to undercut foreign producers,
among other measures to prevent independent development. The virtual
destruction of Colombia’s wheat growing by such means is one of the factors in
the growth of the drug industry, which has been further accelerated throughout
the Andean region by the neoliberal policies of the past few years. Kenya’s
textile industry collapsed in 1994 when the Clinton administration imposed a
quota, barring the path to development that has been followed by every
industrial country, while "African reformers" are warned that they "must make
more progress" in improving the conditions for business operations and
"sealing in free-market reforms" with "trade and investment policies" that
meet the requirements of Western investors. In December 1996 Washington barred
exports of tomatoes from Mexico in violation of NAFTA and WTO rules (though
not technically, because it was a sheer power play and did not require an
official tariff), at a cost to Mexican producers of close to $1 billion
annually. The official reason for this gift to Florida growers is that prices
were "artificially suppressed by Mexican competition" and Mexican tomatoes
were preferred by U.S. consumers. In other words, free market principles were
working, but with the wrong outcome. These are only scattered illustrations.
High tech industry has always functioned by the same
rules. A few weeks ago (September 29, 1997), an honest headline in the Wall
Street Journal read: "In Effect, ITC’s Steep Tariffs on Japan Protect US
Makers of Supercomputers." The story reports the decision of the U.S.
International Trade Commission to impose "steep antidumping duties on
Japanese supercomputers," sending "a clear message abroad: Foreign
supercomputers, keep out." The ITC ruled that a proposed sale by Japan’s NEC
Corporation "could damage U.S. industry," in particular Cray Research, the
main U.S. manufacturer of supercomputers. Cray is called "private enterprise";
its technology has relied heavily on public subsidy and its market has been
the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, but profits and management are
private. Japanese firms have yet to sell a single supercomputer to agencies
funded by the U.S. government, while Japan is regularly bashed — accurately —
for its efforts to protect its own industry and services. The whole farce is
standard and natural under the rules of really existing free market
capitalism. The biggest thug on the block basically does what he likes.
One revealing example is Haiti, along with Bengal, the
world’s richest colonial prize and the source of a good part of France’s
wealth, largely under U.S. control since Woodrow Wilson’s Marines invaded 80
years ago, and by now such a catastrophe that it may scarcely be habitable in
the not-too-distant future. In 1981, a USAID-World Bank development strategy
was initiated, based on assembly plants and agroexport, shifting land from
food for local consumption. USAID forecast "a historic change toward deeper
market interdependence with the United States" in what would become "the
Taiwan of the Caribbean." The World Bank concurred, offering the usual
prescriptions for "expansion of private enterprises" and minimization of
"social objectives," thus increasing inequality and poverty and reducing
health and educational levels; it may be noted, for what it is worth, that
these standard prescriptions are offered side-by-side with sermons on the need
to reduce inequality and poverty and improve health and educational levels,
while World Bank technical studies recognize that relative equality and high
health and educational standards are crucial factors in economic growth. In
the Haitian case, the consequences were the usual ones: profits for U.S.
manufacturers and the Haitian superrich, and a decline of 56 percent in
Haitian wages through the 1980s — in short, an "economic miracle." Haiti
remained Haiti, not Taiwan, which had followed a radically different course,
as advisers must surely know.
It was the effort of Haiti’s first democratic government
to alleviate the growing disaster that called forth Washington’s hostility and
the military coup and terror that followed. With "democracy restored," USAID
is withholding aid to ensure that cement and flour mills are privatized for
the benefit of wealthy Haitians and foreign investors (Haitian "civil
society," according to the orders that accompanied the restoration of
democracy), while barring expenditures for health and education. Agribusiness
receives ample funding, but no resources are made available for peasant
agriculture and handicrafts, which provide the income of the overwhelming
majority of the population. Foreign-owned assembly plants that employ workers
(mostly women) at well below subsistence pay under horrendous working
conditions benefit from cheap electricity, subsidized by the generous
supervisor. But for the Haitian poor — the general population — there can be
no subsidies for electricity, fuel, water, or food; these are prohibited by
IMF rules on the principled grounds that they constitute "price control."
Before the "reforms" were instituted, local rice production supplied virtually
all domestic needs, with important linkages to the domestic economy. Thanks to
one-sided "liberalization," it now provides only 50 percent, with the
predictable effects on the economy. The liberalization is, crucially,
one-sided. Haiti must "reform," eliminating tariffs in accord with the stern
principles of economic science — which, by some miracle of logic, exempts U.S.
agribusiness; it continues to receive huge public subsidies, increased by the
Reagan administration to the point where they provided 40 percent of growers’
gross incomes by 1987. The natural consequences are understood, and intended:
a 1995 USAID report observes that the "export-driven trade and investment
policy" that Washington mandates will "relentlessly squeeze the domestic rice
farmer," who will be forced to turn to the more rational pursuit of agroexport
for the benefit of U.S. investors, in accord with the principles of rational
expectations theory.
By such methods, the most impoverished country in the
hemisphere has been turned into a leading purchaser of U.S.-produced rice,
enriching publicly-subsidized U.S. enterprises. Those lucky enough to have
received a good Western education can doubtless explain that the benefits will
trickle down to Haitian peasants and slumdwellers — ultimately. Africans may
choose to follow a similar path, as currently advised by the leaders of
"global meliorism" and local elites, and perhaps may see no choice under
existing circumstances — a questionable judgment, I suspect. But if they do,
it should be with eyes open.
The last example illustrates the most important
departures from official free trade doctrine, more significant in the modern
era than protectionism, which was far from the most radical interference with
the doctrine in earlier periods, either, though it is the one usually studied
under the conventional breakdown of disciplines, which makes its own useful
contribution to disguising social and political realities. To mention one
obvious example, the industrial revolution depended on cheap cotton, just as
the "golden age" of contemporary capitalism has depended on cheap energy, but
the methods for keeping the crucial commodities cheap and available, which
hardly conform to market principles, do not fall within the professional
discipline of economics.
After World War II, the U.S. broke from its
protectionist tradition and called for liberalization of the international
economy, recognizing that "the playing field" was appropriately tilted —
sharply in favor of U.S. firms. But business leaders intended to take no
chances, as noted, and insisted on crucial reservations. One had to do with
public subsidy. It is a fundamental component of free trade theory that public
subsidies are not allowed. It was, however, widely understood that high tech
industry "cannot satisfactorily exist in a pure, competitive, unsubsidized,
‘free enterprise’ economy" and that "the government is their only possible
savior," as the business press put the matter 50 years ago. The Pentagon
system was quickly selected as the most efficient means to transfer public
funds to private pockets. It is easy to "sell" to the public under the guise
of security, and does not have the unwelcome side effects of social spending,
which tends to be redistributive and democratizing, and is not a direct
subsidy to corporate power.
So the system has functioned to the present, with
variations as needed. The peak of market interference was reached by the
Reaganites, who preached the gospel of market discipline to the poor at home
and abroad ("Reaganite rugged individualism") while raising protection for
U.S. manufacturers to postwar heights and conducting a "defense buildup [that]
actually pushed military R&D spending (in constant dollars) past the record
levels of the mid-1960s," Stuart Leslie notes. The public was terrified with
foreign threats, but the message to the business world was plain and clear.
As soon as the Cold War ended, with the fall of the
Berlin Wall in 1989, Washington informed Congress (and the business world)
that military spending must continue with little change, in part to protect
the "defense industrial base" — virtually all of high tech industry — offering
dual-use technology to its beneficiaries to enable them to dominate commercial
markets and enrich themselves at public expense.
All understand very well that free enterprise means that
the public pays the costs and bears the risks if things go wrong; for example
bank and corporate bailouts that have cost the public hundreds of billions of
dollars in recent years. Profit is to be privatized, but cost and risk
socialized, in really existing market systems. The centuries-old tale proceeds
today without notable change, not only in the United States, of course.
Another equally venerable tale is the refusal of the
public to accept such outcomes. Despite setbacks, popular struggles have made
the world a far better place. There is no reason to doubt that the cycle can
continue its generally upward course. Right now, popular movements are
resilient and growing throughout the world, and can realistically aim for
higher goals than seemed attainable not long ago. Skeptics who dismiss such
thoughts as utopian and naive have only to cast their eyes on what has
happened right here in South Africa in the last few years, an inspiring
tribute to what the human spirit can achieve, and its limitless prospects —
lessons that the world desperately needs to learn, and that should guide the
next steps in the continuing struggle for justice and freedom here too, as the
people of South Africa, fresh from one great victory, turn to the still more
difficult tasks that lie ahead.