Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:13 PM Mar 2016

Hillary Clinton's State department pushed Water Privatization despite its horrible track record

https://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/press-statement/clinton%E2%80%99s-corporate-water-initiative-contrary-development-aims


Clinton’s corporate water initiative contrary to development aims
March 23, 2012
Public Water Works!



To mark World Water Day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the creation of the U.S. Water Partnership (USWP) to share knowledge and solutions with other countries to improve drinking water delivery and sanitation globally. An important aim of the USWP is to address the obstacles to reversing today’s water crisis as laid out in a National Intelligence Council (NIC) report this week. Yet, the USWP, at its core, ignores the most valuable findings of the report, as well as the most obvious lessons of the American experience with water – public water works.

This is to say, from 1801 to date, public, democratically-accountable water systems funded by the public have been the backbone of economic development and public health. More than 80 percent of Americans receive water from public water systems today. And, in a poll conducted by Lake Research for Corporate Accountability International this week, more than 70 percent of people in the U.S. said they trust local governments to provide water over private corporations.

Why? The experience with water privatization has largely been a negative one, with costly, high-profile failures like those of New Orleans and Atlanta still fresh for so many Americans. On the flipside of the coin, the experience with public water systems has generally been a positive one so much so that it has become easy to take for granted the reliable flow of tap water into almost every home in the country.

The NIC report similarly critiques privatization, cautioning against “transferring ownership of water resources to private companies without proper local governance structures.” The report also highlights that government water utilities “can provide excellent services and generate sufficient revenue to sustain their water infrastructure.”

Yet despite the report’s findings, a wealth of information on the past failings of privatization, and the success of public water systems in the U.S., Secretary Clinton has chosen to focus the State Department’s resources on a so-called “public-private partnership” (PPP). Make no mistake, PPPs are just water privatization by another name. The term was, in fact, coined by the water industry to avoid the stigma attached to the term “water privatization.”

The USWP, like similar initiatives at the World Bank, puts the private water industry in the driver’s seat in global water governance. Corporations like Coca-Cola are core partners in the USWP, giving them undeserved access to government officials, and undue influence in informing the advice and the solutions proposed to other nations under the auspices of the U.S. government.

And, rest assured, Coke and other corporate partners will not hesitate to act in their self-interest – an interest that should not be confused with what’s best for U.S. taxpayers or other countries in expanding water services. The first public health and corporate accountability treaty – the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – offers an important precedent here that the State Department should heed: governance is not a partnership between democratically-elected leaders and special interests, but a means of governing the behaviors of special interests in service of the public good.

After all, Coke’s track record, for one, paints an all-too-clear picture of what private sector involvement in water delivery results in. According to its own internal audit, Coke has been responsible for running groundwater levels dangerously low in some of India’s most drought prone regions, prioritizing its plant’s operations over community need. It’s also spent the last two decades bottling tap water for profit – continuing even to bottle in its hometown of Atlanta while residents were asked to ration. Is this the type of entity we want representing the U.S. to the world? The type of entity we will allow to use the people’s State Department as tool for its own promotion?

In choosing to give private corporations a prominent role influencing and creating solutions to the global water crisis Clinton is sending a mixed message to the global community. On the one hand: “our country effectively relies on public solutions to provide water to the public.” On the other: “ corporate involvement in setting water policy and managing water systems, despite its manifold failings, is right for you.” What countries will take from this is: “the U.S. is really more interested in promoting the commercial interests of U.S.-based corporate water interests than reversing the water crisis.” True or not, the conflicts of interest inherent in the USWP undermine its aims.

Corporate Accountability International believes Secretary Clinton is right to identify the urgency of the water crisis and the role it plays in security both nationally and globally. But the USWP, as currently constructed, is the wrong approach in this time of great need. We are calling on Secretary Clinton to demonstrate true leadership in tackling the global water crisis by reexamining the composition of the USWP and, ultimately, quitting the promotion of PPPs altogether. Similarly, Secretary Clinton should urge the World Bank to stop its promotion and direct investment in water privatization by whatever name.
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton's State department pushed Water Privatization despite its horrible track record (Original Post) Baobab Mar 2016 OP
Ok got a security warning for that site. Any reason for that? hedda_foil Mar 2016 #1
Why believe a site that is obviously biased? radical noodle Mar 2016 #2
Wouldn't the USWP website be equally biased? arcane1 Mar 2016 #3
This is not really about privatization radical noodle Mar 2016 #4
Their goal is to privatize. Just like prisons and schools. whereisjustice Mar 2016 #8
Neoliberalism has at its core the objective of completely eliminating common ownership FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #5
Corporations would love... Silver_Witch Mar 2016 #6
K&R. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #7
Sell-Out billhicks76 Mar 2016 #9

radical noodle

(7,990 posts)
2. Why believe a site that is obviously biased?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:41 PM
Mar 2016

Read for yourself what it is:

The U.S. Water Partnership's (USWP) mission is to unite and mobilize best of U.S. expertise, resources and ingenuity to address global water challenges, with a special focus on developing countries where needs are greatest. The Partnership operates under a vision of working together for a water secure world.

The USWP serves as the single entry point to access the best of U.S. expertise, resources and ingenuity to address global water security challenges. Due to the breadth of its membership and large-scale participation from the U.S. government, the Partnership constitutes an unmatched catalytic platform that facilitates public-private sector collaboration.

Our Goals
Improving the quantity, quality and accessibility of water, sanitation and hygiene to promote better health
Advancing integrated water resources management to conserve and restore watersheds, to curb pollution, to adapt to climate change and to reduce risk from floods and droughts
Increasing efficiency and productivity of water use to boost agricultural, energy and industrial output and conserve water
Improving governance for economic, environmental and social sustainability through stronger public and private institutions, policies and processes


More at:
http://www.uswaterpartnership.org

There is a great deal there about it. Yes, they have corporate partners but that isn't exactly the same as privatization. Corporations, like it or not, often have products that can make drinking water safer and others will be a sponsor because it's the right thing to do. It seems this is primarily for foreign countries where water availability is limited and seeks to fix the problems to develop a water secure world.

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
8. Their goal is to privatize. Just like prisons and schools.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:30 AM
Mar 2016

Dress it up but you can't hide goal of what they want. Private takeover of necessary public resources. The verbiage is just like typical third way bullshit.

Clinton sees cash flowing like a river of dirty water into her bank account.

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
5. Neoliberalism has at its core the objective of completely eliminating common ownership
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:45 PM
Mar 2016

and elimination of local, people's control over essential utilities. What Hillary Clinton offers is the absolute worst medicine for this country.

 

Silver_Witch

(1,820 posts)
6. Corporations would love...
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:17 AM
Mar 2016

to not only own all the water and sell it to us for more than gasoline per gallon, but ahhh could they only bottle the air we breath then we could truly be wage slaves.

Corporations are the goal of people like Republicans and Right Leaning Democrats. These things affect the people of Flint - they are being billed for water they can neither consume or bath in and yet we think that Corporations owning everything is the solution to the worlds problems.

I think not....no more fake Democrats. No more Citizens United. No more...no more...

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»Hillary Clinton's State d...