Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 06 September 2014, At: 04:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Peasant StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjps20
Do Peasants Need GM Crops?Paul Richards a , Matteo Rizzo b , Meredith L. Weiss c , ClaudiaSteiner d & Sarah England ea Technology and Agrarian Development Group, WageningenUniversity & Research Centre , NLb African Studies Centre, University of Oxfordc Department of Political Science , University at Albany, SUNYd Department of Anthropology , Universidad de Los Andes , Bogotáe Department of Anthropology , Soka University of AmericaPublished online: 13 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Paul Richards , Matteo Rizzo , Meredith L. Weiss , Claudia Steiner & SarahEngland (2010) Do Peasants Need GM Crops?, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37:3, 559-574
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.494378
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
BOOK REVIEWS
Do Peasants Need GM Crops?
Starved for science: how biotechnology is being kept out of Africa, by Robert L.Paarlberg, Foreword by Norman E. Borlaug and Jimmy Carter, Cambridge, MAand London, Harvard University Press, 2009, xvþ 256 pp., US$16.95 (paperback),ISBN 0-674-03347-7
Transgenics and the poor: biotechnology in development studies, edited by Ronald J.Herring, Colchester, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2007, US$41.95 (paper-back), ISBN 978-0-415-46876-3
The mass of the world’s poorest people are agrarian. To what extent is stubbornagrarian poverty a result of technological failure? Has the world failed to invest inthe right kinds of research to meet the needs of the rural poor? Could gene-shiftingbiotechnology provide solutions? These two books argue for more attention to bepaid to the forces of production in regions of high agrarian poverty. In particular,they argue for more investment in publicly funded agricultural science.
Robert Paarlberg writes an ingenious tract. Apparently a polemic in defence ofgenetically modified seeds – and thus guaranteed to be widely noticed – his book has,in fact, a rather different purpose, namely to criticise the decline in donor aid forscience in support of African modernisation, and to castigate Africa’s governingelites for failing to make good this deficit. He is probably right to trace the rot to theReagan-Thatcher dislike of state-sponsored agricultural research. Donor funding,and funding by African governments, dropped in parallel with cuts to public-sectoragricultural research in Europe and North America (40 percent in the 1990s). Indiaand China meanwhile surged ahead in this field. This is one reason – Paarlbergsuggests – why 200 million Chinese peasants have been pulled out of extreme povertyin the last couple of decades, while an equivalent number of African peasants havecome ever closer to outright starvation.
Paarlberg makes a broadly convincing case for viewing the lack of investment innew agricultural technology as a factor in African agrarian underdevelopment. Whatthe reader really wants to know, however, is how significant a factor this under-investment has been. A few rather speculative studies (one is a simulation) on therate of return on agricultural research investment in African conditions are cited, butthe author passes rather quickly over the enlightening experience of SasakawaGlobal 2000’s support for the introduction of hybrid maize and fertiliser amongEthiopian peasants. Farmers adopted the techniques readily and the maize out-yielded local competition, but when the project was scaled-up the local market formaize collapsed, leaving unsold and rotting surplus. Clearly, then, technologicalsolutions alone do not work. What we need to know more about is how China andIndia overcame these kinds of local market failures.
The Journal of Peasant Studies
Vol. 37, No. 3, July 2010, 559–574
ISSN 0306-6150 print/ISSN 1743-9361 online
DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2010.494378
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Rather than pursue this point, Paarlberg makes a sidestep. What Africa needs, heasserts, is a new Green Revolution best adapted to local environmental challenges.In a drought-affected continent, with little irrigation, engineering drought tolerancein local crop types might be the answer. In fact, according to Paarlberg it is theanswer. Work on the ‘model’ plant Arabidopsis thaliana has isolated a single genecapable of reducing leaf transpiration for short periods. Work on engineering thisgene into commercial crops is already well advanced. Thus development agenciesshould support the acquisition of this research knowledge, and adapt it to the needsand circumstances of poor farmers in Africa. African rural poverty, he argues, is theproduct not of overall poor productivity, but of irregularity and uncertainty ofoutput. Drought-tolerant crops would be a basis for the in situ food-securityrevolution that even development populists claim to desire.
That the development agencies are lukewarm about such issues owes nothing torational objection, Paarlberg suggests, but to the influence exercised by environ-mental pressure groups, opposed to all forms of genetic engineering. He develops thetheme at length, and with some persuasiveness. There is very little evidence thatcrops developed by genetic manipulation (GM crops) are bad for health or theenvironment. He argues that it is illogical for the public to object to transgenicmanipulation of plants and then to accept transgenic manipulation of otherorganisms for medical purposes. It was bad timing that GM crops became associatedwith a genuine health scare in Europe over ‘mad cow disease’. African delegates tothe negotiations over the Cartagena biosafety protocols accepted a damaginglyrestrictive (European-inspired) global regulatory regime.
Paarlberg’s indignation somewhat obscures the point that needs to be made. Fewwould disagree that Africa needs science. The more pertinent question is how itshould be organised and directed. Paarlberg says nothing about the kind of sciencehe has in mind, other than to imply that the established institutions are the ones tosupport (notably, the international research stations of the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research [CGIAR]). Paarlberg’s preferred world ofscience is one in which breeders, bio-engineers, and economists call the shots. This isnot the only way that science for the poor could, or should, be directed. Repeatedly,Paarlberg dismisses those who would ground science for the agrarian poor onindigenous knowledge or agro-ecological assumptions. He implies (wrongly) thatthere are no science-based (i.e. peer-reviewed and replicable) findings of significancein these fields. In effect, he is not arguing for science in general, but for his preferredorganisational embodiment (the CGIAR institutes).
Nor does he undertake any sustained analysis of why Indian and Chineseagricultural science works so productively, while African agricultural science is(apparently) so dysfunctional, beyond alluding to miniscule research budgets andover-inflated payrolls in the African case. There is much more he might have usefullydebated, including whether international peer review induces ‘perverse’ behaviour byscientists, directed at satisfying reviewers not farmer-clients; whether poor peasantshave an unrecognised capacity to partner with scientists, both in devisingexperiments and guiding research demand; and whether a better incentive structuremight be devised to encourage the most productive scientists to sustain closerworking relationships with their farmer client groups.
Paarlberg ends by pointing the finger of blame at African political elites: ‘So inthe end it is not the citizens of Africa who are rejecting agricultural biotechnology.The technology is being kept out of Africa by a careless and distracted political
560 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
leadership . . . ’ (p. 195). But why are these elites so careless of the interests of a massof their own citizens? Paarlberg thinks that neo-colonial cultural ties are to blame(not to mention the superior purchasing power of donors). He also repeats an oldargument that political elites pay little attention to rural interests because peasantsare less likely to rebel. This betrays a disappointing lack of awareness of theliterature on recent armed insurgency in Africa and the role of agrarian factors in itscausation.
A better analysis might have been sought in understanding the historical aspectsof this (alleged) elite bias. Farming in many parts of Africa was work for slaves andhousehold dependants. Historically, land was abundant and labour in short supply.Tying the workforce to the land through coercion was a widespread fact of life.Today, the labour force is ‘free’, but elites seek to keep rural wage rates down inprotection of inherited social and economic privileges (including the privilege ofcollecting rents from state office). A principle aspect of this strategy of post-coercivepolitical management has been to sustain a neo-traditional order of land ownership,while rejecting pro-poor land reform.
Yes, better seeds might make a difference, though it should be noted thatPaarlberg fails to recognise the work that African farmers have done, and continueto do, to improve their own seeds. But perhaps an even bigger focus for reform is theneed to open up land to more intensive use by making it more readily accessible toyoung people, free from control by a local gerontocratic order. This need not involvetransfer of ownership, but will certainly involve more flexible and secure rentalagreements. If the donors and NGOs are guilty of starving Africa of science they areperhaps even more guilty of freezing in place the opportunistic land-grabbing thatpreceded colonialism in the name of ‘tradition’ and ‘community’.
If crops improved by biotechnology are somewhat incidental to Paarlberg’sargument concerning the neglect of agricultural science for development, they arecentral to the book of essays edited by Ronald Herring. Originally published as aspecial issue of the Journal of Development Studies, this collection focuses on whatHerring prefers to term rDNA [recombinant DNA] organisms (all crops, Herringrightly notes, are genetically modified). The editorial tone is balanced. Herringdismisses neither the science nor the objections of those who think that geneticmodification opens Pandora’s box. A wide range of topics is covered, from bio-fortification as a means to address micro nutrient deficiencies in the diets of the poorto the use of biotechnology to prevent ring spot virus in the Hawaiian papaya crop, asolution popular with farmers that then ran into a wall of Japanese import regulation.
Many readers will find the paper by Lipton on plant breeding and poverty one ofthe most useful items in the collection. Lipton takes his well known argumentsassessing the Green Revolution (GR) – high-yielding semi-dwarf crop typesproduced through conventional breeding – as the basis for asking what might staythe same and what might need to be different about any programme of povertyalleviation based on transgenic crops. The GR, he argues, achieved the right resultfor the poor largely by good fortune. The new seeds increased productivity andlowered the price of basic food, and thus increased consumption by the poor.Tracing the pathways through which the poor gained from the GR makes it possibleto specify a more targeted approach for any transgenic revolution.
The main instances of delivered genetically engineered seeds, Lipton notes, arecrops with pest resistance and crops engineered for herbicide tolerance. Pestresistance, he shows, could be useful to the poor, but over-reliance on single gene
The Journal of Peasant Studies 561
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
tolerances needs to be avoided (e.g. by gene stacking). Herbicide tolerance is lessrelevant. Poor farm labourers (women especially) benefit from paid work weedingcrops. He then points out that there are few commercial incentives to developtransgenic crop technologies adjusted to the needs of the poor. Any such crops willrequire (he suggests) major re-investment in public-funded science to cover thestaples of greatest benefit to the poor (e.g. the coarse grains, such as millet andsorghum, and roots and tubers, notably cassava).
The paper by Thies and Devare assessing the ecological impact of transgenic cropsis a similarly useful overview. Assessing an actual (mainly American) experience ofbiosafety assessment and regulation they find that some hazards (e.g. damage to non-target, and perhaps useful, insects from pest-resistant crops) are not as significant asonce feared. Reduction in exposure to pesticides is a definite plus, since handlinghazardous chemical sprays is often a risky job left to low-paid workers. Otherecological risks, however, remain inadequately assessed, especially in regard to geneflow. Risks of unwanted gene flow can be minimised but not eliminated. Breeding forthe poor might lead to a new generation of stress-tolerant plants, and widespreadadoption might ‘increase pressure on fragile, marginal lands’. The ‘answer to thesepressing questions are unknown’, they add (p. 114). Caution is advisable, but thisshould not be greater than for crops improved by conventional means, since thesepose many of the same concerns.
Most contributors to Herring’s collection accept the argument that with risingworld populations, persistent agrarian poverty, and lack of good land for expansion,better crop genotypes are essential for attacking agrarian poverty. Uphoff concludesthe volume by offering an important dissenting view. His argument is to assert thatexisting genetic potential remains underexploited, and a major need is better cropmanagement, based on more thorough agro-ecological research. The case he offers byway of support is intriguing. This is the system of rice intensification [SRI] firstdeveloped by a missionary priest in Madagascar, but now widely disseminated inIndia and Southeast Asia, mainly by civil society groups and grass-roots agrariandevelopment organisations. The science underpinning SRI is far from fully known, oragreed upon. The case only supports his more general argument if and when agenerally agreed scientific account of the mechanisms through which SRI works isprovided. Thus it might have been better to include other instances where there is lesscontroversy about the underlying processes. Farmer adaptive crop selection holds outa number of examples.
Some of the most significant arguments of the book are to be found in Herring’sdensely written but thought provoking introductory essay. Herring is Professor ofGovernment at Cornell, and it is on the topic of the governance of transgenicresearch that he offers some of his most probing remarks. Unlike Paarlberg, Herringdoes not dismiss the anti-GM protesters. They offer, he believes, a serious set ofsocietal concerns. He attempts to penetrate what it is (beneath the illogic of some oftheir arguments) they are trying to articulate. He notes that ‘fearing the unknown isnot only a first response but a rational response . . . real science is inevitably, oftenradically, incomplete’ (p. 20). Echoing Mauss and Hubert’s seminal essay on theorigins of science, technology, and religion in the dubious practices of sorcery headds that ‘high anxiety with low information is the condition most likely to generatethe powerful effects of symbolic politics’ (p. 21).
Science, he believes, is ‘a powerful cognitive filter that stands between structureand interest’, but even so its capacities are limited. Recognising this limitation, he
562 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
arrives at an honest conclusion that will satisfy none of the partisans of the GMdebate: ‘Whether or not transgenic technology for the poor is in the public interestdepends on how one conceptualises the public, how one couches the alternatives, thenormative position one takes on uncertainty and risk, and the projections one makesfrom an inevitably incomplete science’ (p. 24). In short, technology is an agrarianquestion, but how one chooses to answer it depends on political choices, in turnlinked to degrees of agrarian mobilisation. This brings us back to the concernsexpressed in Paarlberg’s book, some of which seem justified. Environmental activistsin rich countries should think very carefully before they divert or subvert the gaze ofthe world’s marginalised agrarian classes. Left to themselves, and able toaccess unbiased information, would these groups really vote against geneticengineering?
Paul RichardsTechnology and Agrarian Development Group
Wageningen University & Research Centre, NLEmail: [email protected]
� 2010 Paul Richards
La Vıa Campesina: globalization and the power of peasants, by Annette AurelieDesmarais, Foreword by Walden Bello, London, Pluto Press, 2007, xiþ 238 pp.,£14.99 (paperback), ISBN 978-1-55266-225-0
In the past 15 years Vıa Campesina has emerged as the most important transnationalrural social movement in the world and as an outspoken challenger to agrarian neo-liberalism. Today Vıa Campesina includes 149 organisations from 56 countries andindeed ‘succeeded in carving out a space in the international arena’ (p. 200). Withthis monograph Annette Aurelie Desmarais investigates where Vıa Campesina found‘the organisational capacity and strength to challenge transnational agribusinesscorporations and international institutions whose power and influence increasinglydictate national government policy’ (p. 9) and what made it ‘so successful againstseemingly impossible odds’ (p. 9). Interestingly, this is an ‘insider’s account’ of themovement, whereby ‘insider’ takes two connotations. First, direct quotations frompeasants, rural women, and farmers take centre stage in the book, reflecting theauthor’s intention to shift ‘the centre of power and voice’ in writings on peasants (p.9). Second, the author – a Canadian farmer active in the National Farmers Union ofCanada – has provided, in various capacities, technical support to the VıaCampesina since the movement’s founding. This has allowed Desmarais access toa number of internal documents of the movement and, most crucially, ‘the trust ofVıa Campesina leaders’. For this reviewer, it is the way in which Desmarais wearsthese ‘insider’ lenses that constitutes both the main asset and the main limitation ofthe book.
The best example of the intrinsic value of being an insider storyteller is the thirdand most incisive chapter of the book, in which the direct experience of events by theauthor allows for a very rich documentation of the origins of the movement, and fora revealing analysis of the tensions between patron NGOs and Vıa Campesina’smembers over the scope and the objectives of the movement. Desmarais sees la VıaCampesina as the outcome of a history of exchanges between farmers’ organisations
The Journal of Peasant Studies 563
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
from the North and the South that goes back to the 1970s. The globalisation ofagriculture intensified the significance of these exchanges as organisations from theNorth and the South ‘established even more common ground . . . as ‘‘people of theland’’, and developed a collective analysis that identified transnational corporationsas the enemy’ (p. 75). The formal constitution of Vıa Campesina took place in Mons(Belgium) in May of 1993. Paulo Freire Stichting (PFS), a Dutch NGO, funded ameeting between 46 farm leaders from around the world. The goal of the meetingwas to set up an international, and ‘farmer-driven’, research project on alternativeagricultural policies (p. 76). However, the agenda of the farm leaders was ‘broaderand more pressing’, and centred on founding an international peasant movement.This insider account of the tensions that developed between PFS and farm leaders,and that ended in farm leaders de facto ousting PFS from la Vıa Campesina, is ofgreat importance to anyone interested in the relationship between NGOs andmembership-based organisations, indeed allowing more than just ‘glimpses into theunequal distribution of power and resources within civil society and the powerstruggles therein’ (p. 21).
However, Desmarais’s insider lens also acts as a barrier to our understandingof la Vıa Campesina as the author’s sympathy and identification with the goals ofthe movement are not accompanied by – and rather crowd out – an analysis of itsinternal contradictions and their implications for the type and effectiveness ofresistance to agrarian neo-liberalism. This is not a shortcoming intrinsic to beingan insider per se. However, in this book, the author often uncritically endorsesstatements by the movement and fails to ask central questions about laVıa Campesina. Two such questions are, by way of example, who are ‘the peopleof the land’ and secondly, how clear are the alternative policies put forward bythem?
Throughout the book, Desmarais refers to the ‘people of the land’ as the memberbase of la Vıa Campesina. They are to be understood as ‘organisations of peasants,small and medium-scale farmers, rural women, farm workers, and indigenousagrarian communities in Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa. These groups arelinked together through their intimate connections to the land’ (p. 6). Desmarais’sdefinition demonstrates an awareness of the highly heterogeneous nature of the‘people of the land’, as they are differentiated geographically (from the developingand the developed world), by gender, and by class. However, this awareness does nottranslate into an analysis which is adequately informed by political economy and itsdistinctive focus on class differentiation. Such analysis would have exposed the wayin which different ‘people of the land’ are experiencing agrarian neo-liberalism indifferent ways, in different political and economic contexts, as well as point to theconstraints that this difference might have on their common ground for action. Ifanything, it appears that the author would argue the opposite line, that themovement turned diversity from an obstacle to international organisation into ‘oneof its key strengths’ (p. 27). This strength comes from how Vıa Campesina balances‘the diverse interests of its membership as it openly deals with issues such as gender,race, class, culture and North/South relations – matters that could potentially causedivisions’ (p. 33).
What then is the content of the alternatives proposed by the ‘people of the land’?The many quotes from Vıa Campesina leaders and the official positions put forwarddo not help clarify the key objectives of the anti-capitalist political project, i.e. thealternative to agrarian neo-liberalism. Food sovereignty – ‘the right of peoples to
564 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
define their agricultural and food policy’ (p. 34) – is of course at the centre of thisalternative vision, but its implications for different ‘people of the land’ are notdiscussed. This is significant because in a given country food producers and thelandless – all ‘people of the land’ – will have different, and at times conflicting,interests. On land redistribution, for example, Vıa Campesina should be credited forhaving put forward a rigorous critique of the Market-Led Land Reform modelpushed by the World Bank. At the same time, however, no convincing alternativewas proposed. For example, Vıa Campesina’s Third International Conferencereached a collective, and vague, position whereby agrarian reform was seen as ‘aninstrument to eliminate poverty and social differences and to promote . . .development of our communities’ (p. 36). Moreover, the potential conflicting goalsand actions among Vıa Campesina members are revealed by connecting differentparts of the book. For example, one reads first that ‘Vıa Campesina rejects the neo-liberal policies that push countries into cash crop export production at the expense ofdomestic food production’ (p. 107), and yet later one reads as an example ofstrategies to help people remain on the land that in Michoacan (Mexico), ‘the localUNORCA organisation has created a commercial business organisation that poolsfruit for export to the United States’ (p. 145).
Desmarais has written a truly insider story of la Vıa Campesina. The closeobservation and involvement by the author in the events that led to its birth and inthe first 15 years of its life make this book an unusually rich and a must-read sourcefor anyone interested in understanding the rise of the movement and its contributionto the much needed battle for resisting agrarian neo-liberalism. However, the authorlacks the distance required for a rigorous analysis of La Vıa Campesina and itscontradictions. An inconclusive and politically problematic reference to ‘people ofthe land’ as its power base and a systematic tendency to overstate the significanceof the alternatives formulated by the movement (so far) are illustrative of thisproblem.
Matteo RizzoAfrican Studies Centre, University of Oxford
Email: [email protected]� 2010 Matteo Rizzo
Agrarian angst and rural resistance in contemporary Southeast Asia, edited byDominique Caouette and Sarah Turner, London, Routledge, 2009, xxþ 289 pp.,US$130 (hardcover), ISBN 978-0-415-54838-0
It was the peasants, in large part, who brought Southeast Asia to academicprominence. The now-greats of Southeast Asian studies – Geertz, Scott, Popkin,Kerkvliet, et al. – pondered the politics of rural subsistence and resistance,developing the finely grained narratives that are all many a Western-trained socialscientist knows of the region. When Southeast Asia next caught the eye of non-specialists, it was developmentalism that stole the show: strong states and strongermarkets, segueing into new middle classes and the democracies they seeminglydemand. Peasants slipped from the dominant gaze, but not from the grips of the veryforces – globalisation, marketisation, repression, and liberalisation – to whichtheorists now turned. The present text seeks to reverse course: to explore how
The Journal of Peasant Studies 565
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
peasants as agents have dealt with these transformations, from the Green Revolutionto regime change, and their effects on agrarian worlds.
Dominique Caouette and Sarah Turner have an ambitious agenda in this richand insightful volume. Their contributors offer a series of perspectives on fourcases – Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand – linked by ‘agrariantransformations, market integration and globalisation processes that are impact-ing upon the rural countryside in Southeast Asia and the resistance measures thatlocal people engage in that they feel will best serve their cause for justice, equalityor just plain ‘‘being left alone’’’ (p. xiii). The chapters work across disciplines andscales (more across than within individual chapters), from anthropology toeconomics, and from the village level to that of transnational regimes andnetworks. Prefacing the volume are three core arguments: that scales of action arebecoming more complex and intertwined; that forms of resistance are numerous,rapidly diversifying, never static, and based on dimensions well beyond class; andthat a focus on resistance to agrarian change must recognise agency. Resistancehere is context-dependent and runs the gamut from covert ‘infrapolitics’ aroundthe most local of targets to global mass protest against multinational regimes.Focusing on these four states marked by socioeconomic transformation, thecontributors explore a range of drivers and trajectories of change and response,from selective involvement in new commercial markets to aggressive resistance tothese. The editors and contributing authors are careful to elaborate ways in whichagrarian transformation is a good thing for rural livelihoods, offering new optionsand a measure of stability, even as they document the bureaucratic rigidity,inequality, ecological depletion, and essentialisation that stymie mobility andprosperity.
This volume, which grew out of conversations and conference panels, coheresbetter than most. Caouette and Turner begin with two introductory chapters, whichtogether survey the scene to come and the literature on which the analyses all, to atleast some extent, draw. Antonio Gramsci, Karl Polanyi, and James Scott are thevolume’s most obvious muses, though Ben Kerkvliet, James Mittelman andChristine Chin (on resistance and globalisation), and others feature as well acrossmany chapters. Gramsci presents resistance as counter-hegemonic; Polanyi, ascountermovement against industrial capitalism; Scott, as low-level subversion in thecourse of everyday life. This volume aims to place all three on the same spectrum andsurvey the whole, recognising the scales, targets, and frames for resistance asinterwoven. Structure and agency are to be equal players.
Toward these ends, most authors invoke and engage the same foundationaltheorists (presumably on purpose) and situate themselves not just geographically,but also in terms of the forms of adaptation or resistance at stake (overt/covert,local/national/transnational, etc.). Several chapters, too, make a concerted effort tocross-reference not just the editors’ review of the literature, but other case studies inthe volume, drawing the volume more coherently together. (This interlinking couldyet be more consistent and substantive, given the parallels and complementaritiesacross chapters, to highlight common themes and reduce the impression of vignettesin parallel.) A few contributions – particularly those by Tran Thi Thu Trang and VuTuong – truly work across scales within a single chapter. And stylistically, too, theeditors are to be commended. The chapters are well-edited and pithy, allowinginclusion of a solid range of cases and perspectives. The inclusion of images andmaps adds to the sense of grounded context.
566 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
The chapters here range from village-level studies, to more structural national-level accounts, to explorations of transnational issues and organisations. The volumebegins at the grassroots, with Turner and Jean Michaud’s examination of the Hmongin northern Vietnam and Andrew Walker’s discussion of contract farming innorthern Thailand. Turner and Michaud note that the Hmong ethnic minorityexercise agency in deciding ‘when and how they accept to engage with the local andregional economy’ (p. 45), adopting a range of creative strategies: ‘weapons of theweek’, per their punny title. Hmong cultivators have chosen to participate selectivelyin markets for textiles and medicinal cardamom, but at a limited level, and not at theexpense of other priorities, for instance, rice cultivation and ‘cultural integrity’ (p.57). The authors’ explanation is plausible, though brevity works against them: wemust take them at their word that these strategies are ‘active, concerted resistance’(p. 56) and not just making the best of a limited range of choices or seeking fundswith which to acquire fields, animals, and other priorities; the interview and otherdata provided do not quite make the case. Walker, too, explores a process of ruralproletarianisation – in this case, the rapid expansion of contract farming, in which anagribusiness concern provides inputs and shoulders primary risk in exchange forgrowers’ land and time, among small-scale Thai farmers. Already linked intocommercial circuits through (dwindling) garlic crops, these farmers see anopportunity to experiment with higher returns and lower risks, at a time whentariff reductions (i.e. cheaper produce from China), soil depletion, and accumulatingdebt together mandate some sort of change. Whereas Turner and Michaud interpretselective immersion in the market as resistance among the Hmong, Walker adds thatlens almost as an afterthought; his primary argument is more about agency andcontext than agitation and complaint.
Wolfram Dressler starts the process of scaling up in his examination ofcommunity-based conservation programs in the Philippines’ Palawan Island.Though on the face of it these strategies seem less coercive than alternatives, theyrequire the state and its agents to define and reify categories: the indigenous,upland economy is assumed to be subsistence-based, while migrants need capitaland productive resources. The result has been ‘devolved management practices . . .built on stereotypes’ (p. 83), and ever-fewer livelihood choices among theincreasingly impoverished, and increasingly frustrated, indigenous Tagbanua. YetDressler seems to be stretching to find resistance, per se; the quotations he offerson Tagbanua people’s non-involvement in sponsored livelihood projects, forinstance, suggest more frustrated exclusion (or hurdles to participation) thanavoidance. His explanation, like Turner and Michaud’s, is plausible, but hishurried discussion of an emergent discourse of ‘innateness’ is not entirelyconvincing. Is this identity framing new? Is an identity defined in contradistinctionto outsiders necessarily ‘resistance’? And would the Tagbanua take their equalshare of the spoils if offered, or would doing so compromise these claims toempowering indigeneity?
Lesley Potter likewise studies the effects of changes in the agrarian landscape foran ethnic minority group, in this case the Dayak in Kalimatan, Indonesia. Here, theintrusion of oil palm plantations has changed patterns of land use, from moreswidden-based and communally oriented to fully sedentary and marketised.Resistance takes centre stage in Potter’s narrative: while the Dayak sometimesbecome smallholders, the new agricultural economy brings few options and newproblems. Resistance here is both covert and overt, and carefully tracked in the local
The Journal of Peasant Studies 567
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Kalimantan Review. Here, though, the story craves elaboration: do local Dayak drawinspiration from the Review – is it more chronicle or resource? What effect doesprotracted ethnographic observation have on protagonists’ negotiation between‘covert’ (but apparently watched) and overt strategies? Erik Kuhonta’s chapter onmobilisation against Thailand’s Pak Mun Dam shares this need for perspective.Kuhonta traces the efforts of the Assembly of the Poor (AOP) and other NGOs incontesting the Pak Mun Dam, a ‘classic example of Thailand’s developmentalpathology’ (p. 137). Here it would be helpful to scan scales within the chapter: whereare the Mun River villagers in this account? How do they perceive their NGOchampions, and who are the villagers (mentioned in passing) who side with stateofficials? Kuhonta (like Smeltzer later) effectively argues that petty resistance wouldhave been useless, but has yet to address the ways (noted especially by Forsyth) inwhich scaling up has narrowed frames and options.
The next three chapters focus specifically on changing structures of politicalopportunity. Tran Thi Thu Trang’s chapter examines causes, forms, and targets ofpeasant resistance in Hoa Binh province, Vietnam, in the period of collectivisation(1960s–1980s) and reform (late 1980s onwards). Covert, small-scale, individual-level resistance in the earlier period has given way to increasingly open, larger,confrontational protests, though given the nature of the state, targets remainlocalised. Vu Tuong’s chapter similarly surveys across periods, exploring anti-capitalist ideology across periods of Indonesian history; he finds the roots ofcontemporary resistance in the 1920s, spurred to current manifestations by changesin political openness, leadership, and organisation. This focus on ideologycontinues in Jennifer Franco and Saturnino Borras, Jr.’s chapter, albeit with amore structural spin: they detail a ‘paradigm shift’ among Communist Party of thePhilippines (CPP) agrarian reform activists amid broader political shifts in the late1980s. The ‘September Thesis’ launched a new focus on open, lowland, proactivecommunity organising rather than the CPP’s traditional focus on undergroundpreparation for armed revolutionary struggle. This chapter perhaps most clearlymakes the argument for structure and context: an ideological split in the CPP,Ramos’s election and choice of new leadership for the Department of AgrarianReform, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s ascension, and other factors were critical todevelopments.
Finally, Sandra Smeltzer and Dominique Caouette bring the analysis to thetransnational level. Smeltzer examines Malaysian NGO and party-led resistance tothe process and goals of free trade negotiations with the US, while Caouette profilesfour transnational advocacy organisations relevant to regional struggles overglobalisation and trade. In some ways, these last two chapters fit least well with theoverarching theme: Smeltzer argues effectively that rice is important, for instance,but not how that fact (or the broader efforts underway) stimulates agrarianresistance per se, and Caouette frankly critiques the fragility of ties betweentransnational organisations and ‘local struggles and dynamics’ (p. 254). And yet seenas part of the volume as a whole, these chapters do usefully fit, not least since thislofty level is part of the story of agrarian transformation. Reading Smeltzer’scontribution, one wonders whether local farmers, too, understand the risks of tariffreductions and the weight accorded rice specifically (calling to mind Walker’sinformants in northern Thailand), while Caouette’s chapter hints at possibleinfluences not just from local media (as in Potter’s chapter), but from news ofcognate developments and mobilisation across the global South. By the same token,
568 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
much as one wonders what the locals think of Thailand’s AOP, Caouette might tracemore closely how grassroots activists access or make use of transnational advocacyorganisations’ counter-hegemonic discourses.
Tim Forsyth’s excellent conclusion begins the process of tying these threadstogether, reinforcing or revealing critical issues and dimensions. Is negotiation ofcircumstances and selective adaptation ‘resistance’, or just opportunism? How do the‘hidden transcripts’ of the rural poor ‘grow legs’ to exert dynamic roles onhegemonic narratives? How can we understand the politics of movements andalliances, or the ways in which activists understand each other and their sharednormative ground? How much risk does scale shift present of disempowering ordisadvantaging rural groups? And how can we avoid falling into the ‘resistancementality’ of ‘assuming state–society relations are those organised by notions ofresistance’ (p. 271)? The present volume cannot hope to answer these weightyquestions, but in raising them and moving toward explanations, it provides a realservice for students of rural transformation, social protest, and the politics of‘glocalisation’, as well, no doubt, as for activists themselves.
Meredith L. WeissDepartment of Political Science, University at Albany, SUNY
Email: [email protected]� 2010 Meredith L. Weiss
Counting the dead: the culture and politics of human rights activism in Colombia, byWinifred Tate, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2007, 367 pp., US$24.95(paperback), ISBN 9780520252837
If any potential reader were to judge this book by its cover, she would know thatCounting the dead by Winifred Tate explores the most shameful part of recent historyin Colombia. The cover photo of 23 coffins carrying the bodies of peasantsmassacred by the paramilitaries in a procession through the streets of a small townsuggests why the work of human rights activists in Colombia has been seen as that of‘counting the dead’. Through well-documented research, Tate shows the complexityinvolved in establishing a human rights culture in Colombia. Undoubtedly this hasbeen a difficult task for those who have dedicated themselves to this project in acontext where such dissimilar actors as the state, leftist guerrillas, right-wingparamilitary groups, and drug traffickers converge. In a country where bothpolitical and moral limits seem to be extremely fluid and where lawlessness and fearappear to be part of daily life, where, then, can the discourse on human rights belocated?
The situation is even more complex when human rights discourse is fomented byactivists who distrust the capacity of the state to improve a situation that they oftensee as favoured by political and government institutions. At the same time, activistsmust deal with a state that looks suspiciously at their work and frequently questiontheir reports. In a country polarised by political conflict, such distrust can haveserious consequences for activists. What appears to be a dilemma with little chanceof resolution is analysed by Tate, who, in an admirable ethnography, explores thedifficult path that human rights activists have traversed to ensure that in Colombiathe rights of the victims of political violence will be respected and that the state will
The Journal of Peasant Studies 569
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
accept its responsibility towards them. Through interviews and a well-documentedhistorical background, the author provides an interesting academic space fordifferent actors, such as Church representatives, NGOs, human rights and politicalactivists, as well as the military, to express their views regarding armed conflict.Thanks to Tate’s insightful use of this material it is possible to understand the logicas well as the ambiguity in the perspectives of those who deal or work with victims ofpolitical conflict.
This book is not only also of interest for those who wish to know more aboutthe recent history of Colombia, but its discussion of the debate on human rights,which goes beyond the case of Colombia, makes it required reading. Moreover,the book makes creative and innovative use of anthropological literature, both interms of its discussion of ‘militant anthropology’ and conducting research inconflict zones.
There are two aspects of the book worth highlighting: first, the social locationof the researcher. As a foreigner who lived in Colombia for many years (first as astudent activist and later as an academic), Tate has a particular position as aninsider-outsider. This allowed her, as she herself recognises, access to privilegedinformation, specifically in the case of the military and militants linked to armedgroups. Additionally, her long relationship with the country enables her to recordthe processes of political change that occurred between her first visit to Colombiain the 1980s and her return as an academic in 2001. These dates are importantbecause it was precisely during these years that political violence escalated. Sincethe early 1980s, Colombia witnessed the emergence of economies related to drugtrafficking. The dimensions of political violence can be seen in a tragic example: inthe years between 1989 and 1990, three presidential candidates were killed: LuisCarlos Galan, Bernardo Jaramillo, and Carlos Pizarro. The war for territorialcontrol (linked to the control of illegal crops) between guerrilla and paramilitarygroups has driven hundreds of peasants from their lands. Many of thosedesplazados or ‘displaced’ by political violence have become active participants inhuman rights NGOs.
Second, Tate’s anthropological approach results in an excellent ethnography inwhich the author is always present, with her own emotions and ambiguitiesregarding processes that are often more complex and less transparent than theactivists (and probably Tate herself) would like. But how could it be otherwise? Boththe discourse on human rights and its militants are involved in complex relations ofpower and handle complicated political agendas. The book is careful to point thisout, although in places it seems to be somewhat tolerant of the political mistakesmade by the left, such as those related to its inability to look critically at the drugbusiness during the 1980s. Drug traffickers like Pablo Escobar were sometimesviewed with empathy by leftist militants who sympathised with their anti-oligarchicposition and admired the way they confronted the state.
Winifred Tate has written an important book on the history of human rightsactivism in Colombia. As she recalls, in such history, ‘the formative politicalexperience of the first generation of Colombia’s NGO human rights activists wasmilitancia, participation in the semi-clandestine leftist parties of the 1960s and1970s’ (p. 75). This explains, in part, why the history of human rights in thecountry is, in the final analysis, the history of the Colombian left. The book alsopoints out that the left was historically persecuted and deprived of anypossibility of participating in the country’s political arena. No one can forget
570 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
the killings against members of the Union Patriotica in the 1980s when theCommunist guerrillas made an effort to establish a legal political party. If thisbook can be read as a history of the Colombian left, it is possible to say thatmuch like the human rights activists of recent years, the left has also beencounting its dead.
Claudia SteinerAssociate Professor
Department of Anthropology Universidad de Los Andes, BogotaEmail: [email protected]
� 2010 Claudia Steiner
Working hard, drinking hard: on violence and survival in Honduras, by Adrienne Pine,Berkeley, University of California Press, 2008, 272 pp., $19.95 (paperback), ISBN978-0520255449
When I first received the flyer announcing the publication of Adrienne Pine’s bookWorking hard, drinking hard: on violence and survival in Honduras I was very excited.After 30 years of civil war and militarisation in Central America violence not onlycontinues to plague these countries but has actually been on the rise due to acombination of drug trafficking, transnational gangs, poverty, and a failing andinefficient judicial system. There have been excellent treatments of these issues onGuatemala and El Salvador but as usual scholarship on Honduras has been lacking.In this book Pine sets out to show how violence pervades the daily lives ofHondurans and how it has become a dominant way through which Hondurans havecome to see themselves as a society. Her main argument is that Honduransexperience structural violence on the part of the state in the form of economicpolicies reproducing high levels of poverty, ‘tough on crime’ policies like the manodura that justify police violence and social cleansing, and the ‘achievement ideology’of transnational consumer capitalism that make such policies and disciplining seemnecessary in a population that sees itself as an example of failed modernisation dueto its own inadequacy and propensity to be violent, poor drunks. Through threein-depth chapters on violence, alcohol, and maquiladoras (export assembly plants)she shows how these seemingly disconnected social issues and the institutions thatdeal with them are held together by a dominant discourse that blames Honduransfor their own poverty and violence, and that when internalised and naturalised,subjects Hondurans to a further symbolic violence that leads them to participate inand make possible their own subjugation.
While the book is theoretically sophisticated and deftly weaves between thesetopics to convincingly demonstrate how the discourses of Honduran inadequacy,failed modernisation, and individual responsibility dominate public representationsof the current crisis of pervasive violence, it is less convincing and systematic inshowing how these discourses are internalised and form the subjectivities of anyparticular group of Hondurans. At the end one is left with the impression that allHondurans are dupes of the system and buy into the discourse; it demonstrates littleof the nuance, contradictions, and examples of critical consciousness that thepopular resistance to the recent coup d’etat has shown to be alive and well among the
The Journal of Peasant Studies 571
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Honduran population. In spite of this weakness in the book as an ethnography ofHonduran consciousness, Pine’s arguments about the power and dissemination ofthe popular discourses are still very important to consider as Central America entersinto an era of what many human rights activists call the ‘neoliberal privatisation ofviolence’.
The first chapter, titled ‘Violence’, is not so much an explanation of the causes ofviolence as it is a discussion of public discourses about violence. In this chapter Pineargues that these public discourses emanating from the media, government officials,police officers, and religious leaders present violence as a natural tendency amongcertain sectors of the population, namely poor, young males, with very littleconsideration of the structural and historical forces that have led to the prevalence ofthis violence. She shows how the state violence of the 1980s, in the form of deathsquads and assassinations targeting ‘subversives’ and justified by the NationalSecurity Doctrine, has been transformed into the mano dura, justifying the targetingof ‘delinquents’ in the form of extrajudicial killings, mass arrests of suspected gangmembers, and social cleansing. She further argues that these actions, attitudes, andexplanations are largely accepted as legitimate by poor Hondurans in the name ofbringing safety and security to the country. Though this is an extremely importantargument, and resonates with recent scholarship on the same issue in post-civil warGuatemala (see for example Benson and Fisher 2009 and Snodgrass-Godoy 2006),what is lacking is in-depth evidence of the degree to which poor Hondurans actuallybuy into this idea. Her discussion and evidence of the public discourses are well-documented and convincing with ample quotes from media sources and publicfigures, but her characterisation of how this shapes the subjectivities of poorHondurans is dealt with mainly in anecdotes and paraphrasing of ‘so many of myHonduran informants and colleagues’ (p. 74). Unlike the work of Snodgrass-Godoyin Guatemala and Ellen Moodie in El Salvador, for example, she seems to haveconducted no systematic interviews with poor Hondurans on the topic. Again themassive resistance to the recent coup, the arbitrary arrests, and the social cleansingthat went along with it suggest there is more to Honduran consciousness on the issuethan she gives them credit for.
The second chapter, ‘Alcohol’, follows her line of argumentation about theconnection between structural violence and symbolic violence to show how alcohol,like violence, is seen as a natural propensity and weakness of the poor, again mainlymales, that serves to explain both their violence and their poverty. Like the publicdiscourses on violence, public discourses on alcohol ignore larger structural factors,such as high levels of male unemployment, the culture of masculinity that encouragesdrinking among cuates (pals), and the degree to which alcohol is promoted throughconsumer capitalism, and instead places the blame on individual weakness. In likemanner, the solutions to alcoholism tend to stress individual responsibility over thatof the state or the large companies that produce, distribute, and advertise alcohol.Focusing mainly on Alcoholics Anonymous (since there are very few state programsto address the problem), she shows that the program stresses the disease model ofalcoholism (it is a disease, it is not a choice) while simultaneously stressing theachievement model of neoliberal capitalism (that it is the individual’s responsibilityto overcome alcoholism and to discipline oneself to succeed in the culture ofcapitalism thereby distancing oneself from the culture of poverty). Again this is animportant argument and it resonates with scholarship on AA in other LatinAmerican countries (see for example Brandes 2003). As in the previous chapter Pine
572 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
is thorough in documenting the discourses around alcoholism through examplesfrom the media, interviews with AA leaders, and the speeches of public figures.Again what is largely missing is the voice of the alcoholics themselves. Despite thefact that she says that part of her methodology was to attend AA meetings there isno thick description of what transpires in them, and there is only one interview withan AA member. Pine’s argument revolves around the idea that if poor Honduransgive in to these dominant discourses around alcohol that ignore larger structuralissues then they participate in their own subjugation, and yet she offers very littleevidence of whether they do or not.
In the final ethnographic chapter entitled ‘Maquiladoras’, Pine makes theimportant argument that the maquiladoras are also spaces of violence despite theoverriding belief in Honduras that they are bringing jobs, modernity, and rationalityand are therefore both antidotes to violence and safe spaces physically separatedfrom the violence that goes on outside of their walls. Her argument hinges on theidea that the forms of corporeal discipline, poor working conditions, and thediscourses of Honduran inadequacy that justify them are forms of violence that onceagain Hondurans have come to internalise. Her overview of the history of themaquiladoras in Honduras and their connection to a long history of transnationalcapital is helpful and effectively demonstrates the contradictions of the export-ledmodel of development, including debates about the effectiveness of the maquiladorasin bringing economic improvement to the population, the reality of workingconditions, and the politics of unionisation. Aside from showing how this historyworks itself out in the particular context of Honduras her discussion adds little to theethnographic evidence for and theoretical debates around the way that workers’bodies are disciplined and the gendered organisation of labour. As with the previoustwo chapters her treatment of discourses about the maquiladoras coming frompropaganda, religious leaders, Korean maquiladora owners, activists, and academicsgives a convincing depiction of what maquiladoras mean in national debates aboutmodernity, gender, labour, progress, and even violence, however there is onlysporadic and anecdotal evidence for what all of this means for the workersthemselves. For example she mentions that according to a survey she conducted, themajority of maquiladora workers in Choloma are evangelical Christians – anothersource of the achievement ideology and corporate discipline (pp. 165–70). While sheclearly shows how this connection between evangelical Christianity and theachievement ideology is articulated by a prominent pastor, there is absolutely nomention of how the workers themselves feel about it. What does evangelicalChristianity mean to them? Do they see themselves as disciplined? Why do theychoose to work in the maquiladoras? How do they rationalise the gap between theachievement ideology and the structural barriers to upward mobility? All of thesequestions are left unanswered through ethnography and only touched upon throughanecdotes and speculation.
In sum I would say the despite its weaknesses as an ethnography, this book isdefinitely worth reading because the overall argument that maquiladoras, evangelicalChristianity, AA, consumer culture, mano dura, and so many other aspects of currentHonduran society are connected through discourses that blame Hondurans for theirown poverty and violence is extremely important to contemplate, especially in lightof the recent coup and the violence and human rights abuses carried out during it.Her complex and sophisticated set of arguments about these discourses should serveas an inspiration to those interested in Honduras to go out and investigate the degree
The Journal of Peasant Studies 573
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
to which these discourses have actually been internalised and what the social effectsof that are.
Sarah EnglandDepartment of Anthropology, Soka University of America
Email: [email protected]� 2010 Sarah England
References
Benson, P. and E. Fischer. 2009. Neoliberal violence: social suffering in Guatemala’s post-warera. In: W. Little and T. Smith, eds. Mayas in post-war Guatemala: harvest of violencerevisited. Tuscaloosa, Alabama; University of Alabama Press, pp. 151–65.
Brandes, S. 2003. Drink, abstinence, and male identity in Mexico City. In: M. Gutmann, ed.Changing men and masculinities in Latin America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,pp. 153–78.
Moodie, E. 2009. Wretched Bodies, White Marches, and the CuantroVision Public in ElSalvador. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 14(2): 382–404.
Snodgrass Godoy, A. 2006. Popular injustice: violence, community, and law in Latin America.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
574 Book reviews
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 04:
05 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
