WCC reaffirms liberation theology and decries U.S. sanctions against Cuba
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman Online, February 24, 2006
PORTO ALEGRE, BRAZIL – The 9th Assembly of the World Council of Churches issued a statement on Latin America on Thursday that reaffirms its commitment to “Liberation Theology,” decries US sanctions against Fidel Castro’s regime, calls for statist solutions to “economic injustice,” and criticizes development policies by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Having chosen Latin America as the site of its assembly, the WCC declared that it has seen “signs of transformation” in several countries, e.g., “the first Indigenous person to be elected as President of Bolivia and the first woman to be elected as president of Chile.” These political improvements are to be celebrated, said the WCC, but there is also much to lament in the “Latin American context,” it added.
A principal concern for the WCC is poverty, which the WCC believes is caused by “unjust distribution of wealth, natural resources and opportunities.” Continuing its endorsement of liberation Theology, an attempt several decades ago, primarily by Latin American voices, to express Marxist economic analysis in theological terms, the WCC statement gave special recognition to persons who encouraged revolution in their countries. “The blood of these martyrs has helped to fertilize the seeds of God’s kingdom, which have borne the fruits of solidarity, life and democracy,” said the WCC.
But the fact of the matter is that wherever the liberationist approach has been tried in Latin America, it has met with failure and the exacerbation of poverty. Thus, several countries are moving toward development models that, with the assistance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have encouraged free market economies and international trade, precisely the direction that the WCC opposes. Even in Brazil, the country chosen by the WCC for its assembly meeting, President Lula, who came into power with the backing of his workers’ party and the Communists, has made significant concessions to capitalism and international trade, with corresponding economic success.
These movements away from statist economies and toward the privatization of state companies have produced improvements that the WCC cannot ignore. Thus the WCC statement, somewhat begrudgingly, recognizes those improved conditions, but it suggests, without explanation, that they won’t last. “The privatization of state companies brought in short-term relief and economic welfare in a few cases. Even in those countries where poverty is relatively less, the gap between the rich and the poor is enormous and the distribution of wealth continues to be unjust.”
Statist vs free-market economies
The WCC statement provides a classic example of the difference between statist and economic development approaches to poverty. The statist emphasis is on wealth distribution, whereas in the development approach, the emphasis is wealth creation. Development economists argue that unless one’s policies result in growing the pie, those who merely wish to slice it will find a smaller pie to slice. This observation leads economist Amy L. Sherman to say that statist solutions “fail to recognize that the poor’s standard of living is inevitably related to economic growth.” [Amy L. Sherman, Preferential Option: A Christian and Neoliberal Strategy for Latin America’s Poor (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992) p. 31] Sherman cited a statement by the World Bank in 1990: “No country has achieved substantial reductions in poverty without economic growth.”
Sherman continues, “Macroeconomic growth is a prerequisite of poverty alleviation. It is not sufficient: the pattern of growth must be such that broad segments of the population benefit from increased opportunities. But wealth creation is essential if low-income families are to have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty .Certain types of income transfers or government interventions in the market system may be appropriate in assisting the poor during the transition period. But in general, an overemphasis on distribution through state controls at the expense of growth via the free market will neither help the poor nor produce a healthy economic environment for sustainable development, increased opportunities, and social mobility.” (Page 31)
Development economists do not discount the WCC’s concerns about the “gap between the rich and the poor,” but they view such concerns as relative rather than absolute.” A program that makes the rich richer is acceptable as long as it makes the poor richer too,” says Sherman. In fact, when countries move from the statist model to the development model, it often occurs that there is a short-term increase in the income gap, but this gap must be assessed in light of the fact that the whole economic pie is being enlarged. Economist Peter L. Berger refers to this phenomenon as “the Kuznet’s effect.” Berger describes the theory as follows: “as modern economic growth continues over time, there occurs first a sharp rise in inequality, and then later, a leveling effect.” [Peter L. Berger, The Capitalist Revolution: Fifty Propositions about Prosperity, Equality and Liberty (New York: Basic Books, 1986), p. 44] Economists like Sherman and Berger criticize the WCC for its narrow focus on the income gap alone, a focus that they say is typical of statist ideologies.
External debt relief
The WCC statement reaffirms its opposition to “external debt” and its call for the developed countries to write it off. These debts were often incurred by dictators and illegitimate regimes, says the WCC, and the poor who live in those countries should not be expected to repay them. During the WCC assembly in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1999, a British delegate, Mr. Timothy Royle, tried unsuccessfully to get the WCC to include in its debt relief resolution a condition that the receiving country would institute controls against corruption, which is a major problem in several African countries. Royal’s amendment was not approved by the Harare assembly, and it was not reintroduced in Porto Alegre.
Sins of the USA
The WCC statement singles out the United States for what the WCC believes is its continuing unhealthy influence in Latin America. High on the list of U.S. sins is “militarism.” The WCC says: “The new dynamics of militarism that have developed in the last years in the region threaten to become even more apparent with the establishment of new U.S. military bases in different countries, such as Ecuador and Paraguay. However, the influence of the United States in the region is not new. For decades the U.S. has influenced decision-making processes in politics, economics and culture, has supported dictatorships and authoritative regimes, and under the concern for hemispheric security the U.S. has trained the Latin American military.” The WCC also expresses its concern for Cuba, which it says is making progress in “health, education and culture” in spite of unjust U.S. economic sanctions.