Molly Ivins May 17

AMARILLO, Texas — "You can't get Americans to pay attention to what is happening in other countries," said one of the smartest people in North Texas recently. But in the perverse way that life has of making even the obvious untrue, lo, there appeared over Texas an immense cloud of gray gunk, blotting out the sun, making children sick, grounding medical helicopters and otherwise making life unpleasant and shorter.

It does rather draw the attention to what is happening in Guatemala, Honduras and Southern Mexico.

It also has the happy side-effect of making David Landes, author of the new book "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," look like a genius. I warn you, this book is a whopper (500 pages, W.W. Norton & Co.) but well worth the wrist strain to hold it up. Read and take heed:

"The old division of the world into two power blocs, West and East, has subsided. Now, the big challenge and threat is the gap in wealth and health that separates rich and poor. ... Here is the greatest single problem and danger facing the world of the Third Millennium. The only other worry that comes close is environmental deterioration, and the two are intimately connected, indeed are one. They are because wealth entails not only consumption but also waste, not only production but also destruction. It is this waste and destruction, which has increased enormously with output and income, that threatens the space we live in and move in. ...

"Some countries are not only not gaining; they are growing poorer, relatively and sometimes absolutely. Others are barely holding their own. Others are catching up. Our task (the rich countries), in our own interest as well as theirs, is to help the poor become healthier and wealthier. If we do not, they will seek to take what they cannot make; and if they cannot earn by exporting commodities, they will export people. In short, wealth is an irresistible magnet; and poverty is a potentially raging contaminant; it cannot be segregated, and our peace and prosperity depend in the long run on the well-being of others."

Nothing like a vast cloud of gray gunk to make one notice that very truth.

Another encouraging nudge, as it were, in the same direction comes from India and almost certainly Pakistan, merrily testing nuclear weapons as though a nuclear war on the Indian subcontinent would have no effect on the rest of the world. Oops, time to pay attention to a few things more important than the last episode of "Seinfeld." As it says on the side mirror of my pickup, "Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear."

Landes, in his summary chapter, arrives at some tentative conclusions and recommendations with which no thoughtful person can argue (mostly because they are so broad and simple as to be cliches).

In response to the always timely question, "What is to be done?" I cannot rival Landes' depth of research or his sweep of knowledge, but I do have one modest suggestion.

As you probably know, the United States subsidizes the weapons industry, heavily.

Although in theory we do not promote or export nuclear weapons, in fact, we have been so careless and so greedy that we have effectively let nuclear technology, either ours or that of the hard-pressed Russians, get into all kinds of national hands.

In a truly colossal act of folly, we have even repealed our own ban on sending jet fighters to Latin America, a ban that has stood since Jimmy Carter's presidency. After unusually heavy lobbying by American arms manufacturers, the Clinton administration decided that modern jet fighters were just what Latin America needs. And, of course, we have generous loan programs in order to subsidize our Latin American allies' purchase of our jet fighters.

According to a new study by the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament and the Institute for Policy Studies, we are spending 12 times as much promoting U.S. arms exports as we do promoting our exports of environmental technology. Yet, there is a $400 billion-plus market for environmental technologies, double the size of the world market for all types of military hardware. The report "A Tale of Two Markets" notes that among other stupidities, this flies directly in the face of the first rule of market competition: Concentrate resources on growth opportunities.

The report (which has only been covered by NPR and Inter Press Service, the rest of the media being too busy with Monica Lewinsky) contains a detailed study of the decline in the arms market and the following ominous note: "Buyers are becoming bolder as the market shrinks. Third World customers now insist on co-production deals aimed at transferring military technology to them."

Now, what makes more sense: continuing to subsidize the export of arms and military technology, or promoting the export of environmental, pollution-reducing technologies? We have defense aid programs, export credits, loan write-offs and free leases for military hardware, amounting to almost $7 billion in 1995. Why not put that money into environmental exports? As Landes points out, our most valuable resources are the gains in the application of knowledge and science to technology.

After the gray gunk appeared, Texas Gov. Shrub Bush popped up and offered to send experts in fighting forest fires down to Chiapas (offer waiting on State Department protocol). Since the area was known to be especially vulnerable to forest fires this years, a little foresight would have been a lot more helpful than much hindsight. As who-knows-how-many thousands of acres of irreplaceable rain forest burn, and Texas breathes in the resulting gunk, you might consider taking pen in hand to write your elected representative on this matter.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1998 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.