I AM amazed how a straightforward analysis of the adverse consequences of the decline of the US dollar (”Dollar’s reign coming to an end?”, July 2) could prompt Vejai (July 7) to say that “Chandra dislikes the dollar because he dislikes the Americans”.

When one criticises the currency of a country because of its negative impact upon the global economy, it does not mean that one dislikes the people of that country. A lot of American economists like the Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, have exposed the underside of the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency and yet no one has accused them of “disliking Americans”. Incidentally, some of my closest friends are Americans.

In reference to K. Bob (July 10), there is no reason for me to explain in detail why the price of oil is increasing when my article’s primary focus was the decline of the dollar. The escalating price of oil is linked to the dollar’s decline insofar as the latter is one of the principal causes of the former.

Bob is also critical of my suggestion that countries that are heavily dependent upon the dollar should switch to other currencies. Whether Bob likes it or not, countries are already turning to other currencies in their own self-interest. In fact, it is one of the additional factors that explains the decline of the dollar in recent times.

Bob also challenges my contention that the US has “stymied the growth of global democracy and international law”. He argues that “many countries under repressive and autocratic communist regimes were also liberated in the last couple of decades, thanks to the US commitment to democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law”.

While Washington’s push for democracy may have played a minor role, the fundamental factor that led to the political transformation that we witnessed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union from the late 80s was linked to their domestic scenario. Simply put, the communist elites failed to satisfy the people’s demand for more consumer goods and more space for freer political expression. Control and repression in such a situation often triggers off protest and revolt. Even in our country, the opening up of democratic space since the end of 2003 which Bob alludes to is the direct result of a leadership responding to some of the rakyat’s expectations. It is not the consequence of some diktat from Washington!

In any case, by “global democracy” and “international law” I am not referring to what has been happening within nation-states. At the global level, it is Washington’s dominance of the UN Security Council, and of other international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, that has prevented global democracy from developing.

A cursory look at the General Assembly’s voting pattern over the last four decades will reveal how on many critical global issues, the US (and Israel) have gone against the popular consensus. Similarly, by opposing international agreements such as the Kyoto Accord on global warming, the Ottawa Treaty on the ban of landmines and the Rome Statute on an international Criminal Court, the US has thwarted the progress of international law.

Bob also asked why I had not named the “commentators” who had suggested that Saddam Hussein’s switch from the dollar to the euro was perhaps one of the reasons for the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

When one writes for a newspaper, one does not clutter one’s article with quotes and sources. But if Bob is interested in exploring the issue further, he should look at the writings of David Spiro, Emmanuel Dodd, Noam Chomsky, Noami Klein, and Paul Craig Roberts, among others.

Finally, Bob advises me “to always wear twin lenses in assessing and interpreting global events …” If in the context of my article on the US dollar wearing twin lenses implies giving equal credence to the motives behind the dollar’s dominance, I would rather continue to wear the lens that I have always worn: the lens that gives me a clear view of the injustices generated by global hegemony.

Chandra Muzaffar
Petaling Jaya

Source: The Sun – July 22, 2008