THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE doesn’t actually have any money invested in World Bank bonds, and the members of BankBusters concede that people might therefore see the resolution as a mere hollow gesture. But that charge would miss the significance of the resolution, they insist, because it prevents the city from ever purchasing World Bank bonds and adds to the bank’s growing public-relations problems. "People jump to the conclusion when they hear [Cambridge holds no World Bank bonds], that therefore, the resolution is symbolic," says Sen. "It’s not. Just because [cities] don’t own any World Bank bonds right now, does not mean that they have an expressly stated policy never to buy them."
Councilor Decker sees another tangible result of the boycott — it elevates awareness about the World Bank. "It’s not a hollow gesture if it inspires other communities around the country to take up the same issue, or if it makes other people ask, ‘Why would the city council decide unanimously to take this issue up?’ Part of our role as policymakers is to also raise consciousness." It’s unlikely, however, that the Cambridge resolution will have an effect on the bank’s AAA Moody’s bond rating (the highest possible) anytime soon.
Nevertheless, Neil Watkins, the coordinator of the World Bank Bonds Boycott effort at the Center for Economic Justice, in Washington, DC, is impressed by the campaign waged by Sen and his colleagues. "Cambridge was a place where a lot of intense work and outreach pulled together a pretty significant cross section of folks," Watkins says, calling the group that pushed for the resolution "probably the broadest coalition pulled together so far." Watkins also says that World Bank officials are beginning to worry about the impact of the boycott movement on their public image. In fact, prior to the Boulder City Council vote, bank executives sent the councilors a 15-page report, urging them to vote against the boycott. Council members were also personally lobbied by bank officials. They nonetheless voted, unanimously, to join the boycott.
The "intense work" in Cambridge included gathering more than 900 signatures on a petition to the council, going to various community-based organizations and educating their members about the World Bank and its policies, and lobbying leaders of the Cambridge city government. According to the BankBusters, talking to people about neoliberal-economic policies (which stress the need for little or no regulation on international trade and investment) and their effects on developing countries was made easier by the fact that this was, after all, "The People’s Republic of Cambridge." Even so, it required developing a message that reduced a set of very complex issues to a more easily accessible one.
By all accounts, it was the World Bank’s policies with respect to organized labor and human rights that inspired the Cambridge City Council to act. "It was about making the assertion that when we do business outside of this country, we’ve set certain labor standards here that value employees and respect human rights," says Decker. "We must make a point of asserting those standards." The Bank’s reputation as an enemy of workers’ rights was the primary reason the bond boycott passed without opposition. "We did very much emphasize the fact that the World Bank drives down labor standards worldwide," Sen explains. "Ever since the passage of one of the strongest living-wage ordinances in the country, Cambridge has been very proud of its reputation as a city that stands up for workers’ rights." The Cambridge Carpenters Union, Local 40, was one of 25 area groups that supported the bond boycott, as was Massachusetts Jobs With Justice, a Boston-based nonprofit that focuses on issues of global economic inequality from the perspective of organized labor. By working with organized labor at the grassroots level, the BankBusters have done their part to revive the fabled "blue-green" alliance (blue-collar workers and environmentalists) that made the 2000 Seattle demonstration against the World Trade Organization (WTO), the global institution for trade regulation, such a success.
None of the activists who successfully steered the World Bank bond boycott through the Cambridge City Council is prepared to renounce organized protests, however. Despite their success in the legislative arena, they will keep the heat on policymakers by taking to the streets on occasion to make their point. All of them plan to take part in the anti-Wolfensohn activities at MIT, distributing flyers to students, parents, and alumni about the recent city-council decision. But they are realistic about the prospects for change that those tactics, by themselves, hold. "We can assert that street demonstrations are not enough," Sen says.
Councilor Decker agrees. "I think that [street protest] raises consciousness," she says. "After Seattle, people at least started hearing a vocabulary they weren’t familiar with." She explains that she believes in the need for what she calls the "inside/outside agitator" dynamic as a way of creating change. "As a policymaker and someone who is involved on the inside, I may not appreciate what the groups on the outside are doing, but I think it’s got to be done," she says. Rallies and protests, Decker observes, create the opportunity for elected officials to discuss topics, such as global-economic policy, that otherwise wouldn’t be on the public agenda. She bears no ill will, noting, "Ultimately, there’s a common goal for change, but there are different channels and different roles."
Patrick Keaney’s last article for the Boston Phoenix was "Colombia’s Dirty War," for the February 14 issue. He can be reached at pkeaney@netway.com
