CAPITULO 4. GASIFICACIÓN DE COMBUSTIBLES SÓLIDOS
4.3. Procesos termoquímicos para la generación de energía
American sister city relationships differ from town twinnings in that they
ostensibly seek a more global reach (Hafteck, 2003) and are discursively
gendered as feminine. As will be demonstrated in this study, the latter aspect
has important consequences for the kinds of expectations imposed on sister
cities in popular and political imaginaries. The present day American sister
cities movement has been coordinated since 1967 by a central administrative
body, Sister Cities International (SCI) – identified by Executive Director Tim
Honey (n/d) as “first and foremost a national membership organization” -
which is located in Washington, D.C. The antecedents of the American sister
city movement prior to the inception of SCI in 1967 can be traced to a
conglomeration of national and local initiatives. Smith (1990) explains that
(m)ost of the early SCPs [Sister City Projects] in the U.S. grew out of post World War 11 aid relations with Western European cities. But by 1956 president Eisenhower formally announced the establishment of the People-to- People movement, focusing more on personal relations and understanding than on aid. Of the more frequent later SCPs, perhaps a third were basically started as a result of external organizations or agencies. Some, for instance, were started by the initiation of the educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau, the U.S. Information agency or U.S. embassies of the State department of the U.S. government … Another important source of initiation was the national or state leagues of cities” (1990:180).
Smith (1990:180) goes on to locate the origins of the remaining two thirds
within less formal processes. These include
• pressure from immigrants, or more importantly, from U.S. citizens with a particular ethnic heritage,
• complementary economic interests in business or trade with the same city,
• tourist interest from within either or both partnered cities,
• the prestige for cities of an international status,
• humanitarian desires to provide assistance for international cities in need, or a desire to receive such assistance,
• a desire to build upon serendipitous friendships between travellers from international cities, and
• mutual recognition and celebration of similarities between international cities
As illustrated by this listing, American-based sister city relationships are driven
by motives that can be rational or expressive, altruistic or self-serving and local
or international in focus. However only one version of the origin and impetus
of the movement predominates in popular sister city discourses (see Cremer et
al, 2001), which I term ‘the Eisenhower story’. In calling it a ‘story’, I do not
suggest that it is untrue, but rather that it provides a partial, coherent yet
ambiguous narrative, in relation to which peace-seeking sister city officials and
volunteers are able to make sense of and articulate their own positions within
the movement. On the sister city web pages of cities around the world, the tale
is told of how Eisenhower developed the program in the early 1950s, as a way
to involve ordinary people in America’s quest to reduce the risk of another
world war. In his Remarks at the People-to-People Conference speech on
September 11th, 1956 (a date that wasto hold particular significance for
proponents of sister city peace relationships in the following century),
international others, who, despite their differences, were connected to
American citizens through their common humanity and desire for peace.
A particular part of the work that we expect to do is based upon the
assumption that no people, as such, want war--that all people want peace. We know this to be a true assumption, but we know also that in certain portions of the world it is not understood as such. Some people are taught--and they are captive audiences--that others, including ourselves, want war: that we are warlike, that we are materialistic, that we are, in fact, hoping for cataclysms of that kind so that a few may profit, they say, out of the misery of the world. If we are going to take advantage of the assumption that all people want peace, then the problem is for people to get together and to leap governments--if necessary to evade governments--to work out not one method but thousands of methods by which people can gradually learn a little bit more of each other (Eisenhower, 1956).
This speech sent an optimistic message to American non-elites they could
personally make a difference in warding off the threat posed to the American
people, and to the world as a whole, by dangerously misguided communist
ideologies and a possible nuclear war. As noted by Endy (2004) however,
Eisenhower was personally ambivalent regarding popular participation in
international affairs. Whilst favouring a volunteering ethos, he was concerned
about the possibility that ordinary Americans representing their country abroad
might do more harm than good to America’s reputation. “Divided between a
fear of the masses and a desire for civic participation” (2004:145), the
president distanced the initiative from the formal institutions of government.
“Minimizing its Washington origins, [he] praised how the People-to-People
Foundation was free from the taint of propaganda” (2004:146). In effect, what
strengthening foreign policy objectives, but which would be understood by
participants as essentially apolitical, and therefore free from partisan interests
and the taint of conflict. Embedded in his speech are suggestions that, fifty
years later, were to become particularly problematic for the sister cities
movement within the context of the U.S.-led ‘war on terror’. Together, they
form a message that:
(a) opposition to United States policies is due to misinformation and misunderstanding,
(b) which is about the kind of people that Americans are (not about what they do), and
(c) ordinary citizens are better at solving such problems than governments, because
(d) their activities are cultural and not political.
Subjectively empowered as global ambassadors, citizens were unlikely to
understand direct confrontation with the policies and practices of their own
governments to be either an effective or an appropriate dimension of people-to-
people relationships. As honorary chairman of Sister Cities International, each
successive President could then keep a distanced eye on the operations of
future sister city relationships, reassured by that organisation’s policy of
recognising only relationships formed within countries with which diplomatic
relations with the U.S. had been established. Thus normatively and logistically
contained, sister city proponents could understand themselves to be loyal
patriots who were, with their president’s blessing, ‘bypassing their respective
national and state governments” (Farazmand, 2004:89) in the pursuit of global
peace. Only when unwritten rules of conduct were breached, as in the case of
need to impose regulatory sanctions upon its own ‘citizen ambassadors’ (see,
for example, Valanti, 2001). Sister city relationships between American and
international cities are now a common feature of urban life in American cities.
In 2005 alone, “more than 64.5 million people read or saw something about a
sister city project in their local media” (SCI ‘Media Coverage’, 2006). By the
end of the twentieth century, 150,000 Americans were travelling each year to
their sistered cities, either individually or as part of joint cooperative projects
(Hobbs and Chernotsky, 2001:61). As of 2001, 1,200 American communities
had formed formal ties with 2,100 foreign cities through Sister Cities
International (Leroux, 2001).
Sister city relationships do not remain static over time (O’Toole, 2000,
2001). As socially constructed entities, they change and adapt to historical
circumstances. Lofland (1993), for example, identifies a ‘surge’ of what he
terms ‘consensus movement’ politics in the United States during the 1980s,
within which sister city relationships with politically contentious international
locations became a prominent feature of urban-based peace activism. These
included partnerships with Nicaraguan cities formed in opposition to the
Reagan administration’s funding of the Contras, who were seeking to throw
that country’s elected socialist government (Kline, 1999:19) as well as
relationships with cities in the Soviet Union. Beginning in the 1990s, sister city
relationships were also formed between American cities and cities in
communist Cuba (Schaefer, 2005).
Interviewed in 2000 by journalist Hélène Papper on the Radio program
city relationships as an enabling local resource for enacting global citizenship,
by addressing poverty and injustice on a planetary scale.
We see this network continuing to grow and expand, and to deepen in its impact upon promoting world peace and understanding, to alleviating some of the severest problems that we have as global citizens-problems of abject poverty, problems of aid, problems associated with global warming and climate change. And Sister Cities provides people at the community level who are concerned about these issues, but don't know how they can make an impact-well, through Sister Cities they can make an impact. So you don't have to sit on the sidelines. You don't have to be frustrated because you can't do anything about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. You can do something about it. You can get your community to have a sister city in Africa and have that focus be on AIDS. And you can take any issue like that and really make a difference on the ground at the community level, both in the cities overseas as well the impact upon the US communities.
In the same period, American sister city relationships were also taking a more
pragmatic turn, as urban governments responded to the imperatives of
economic globalisation. In a globalised economy, cities without the resources
and initiative to attract visitors and outside investment can find themselves
“bereft and impoverished” (van Vilet, 2002:37). Potter (n/d) notes that “(o)ne
of the ways to lower the risks of doing business internationally is to know
overseas business partners well. Sister city affiliations have created an ideal
market in which to build trust”. Ryan’s (1988) message is more succinct:
“Closed minds cannot open foreign markets”. Through listing sister city
activities on their websites, an international or global status can be claimed
even by smaller cities around the world (Paul, 2005:2015). City marketing can
also include the moral appeal of cities. On the thirty-fifth anniversary of its
that “(o)ur renewed sister city relationship with Haifa reinforces our position as
a compassionate city, respected world wide for our continued dedication to
equality and acceptance for all” (City of San Francisco, 2008). Despite their
best efforts, however, particular relationships may become casualties of urban
growth. When the Japanese town of Awano was annexed by its much larger
neighbour Kanuma, the U.S. city of Grand Forks automatically lost one of its
sister cities (Tran, 2006).
In a newsletter dated May, 2001, Sister Cities International emphasised
“the critical importance of creating new opportunities for their citizens and
institutions to be internationally engaged”. On August 29th of the same year, just days before the September 11th attacks, Tim Honey outlined SCI’s competitive “new vision for the future’ of U.S. based sister cities as follows.
As globalization sweeps our planet, we must find ways within our
communities to engage internationally in an effort to understand and create “globally competitive communities,” build bridges to foster world peace and human rights, and take tangible steps toward lessening the growing economic divide between the developed and the developing world. In the 21st century, local communities must foster a new international perspective and create innovative avenues for international engagement .. This new international engagement imperative is about the ability of our communities to adapt and change within our rapidly globalizing planet. It is also about (e)nabling our communities to be globally competitive – not only economically, but also in every other aspect of life.., providing a platform for our citizens to be engaged as “global citizens” in whatever aspect of life they choose, … (e)stablishing partnerships, linkages, and coalitions, and unleashing the incredible interests, passions and talents our citizens have for making a difference by “thinking globally and acting locally. The old bumper sticker of the 1960s has taken on a new legitimacy and a new urgency in the year 2000 (SCI: ‘New Visions for the Future’, 2001).
Shortly afterwards, however, international peace building was back on the
agenda as a number one priority for American sister cities. On September 12,
SCI President Chuck Stokke and Executive Director Tim Honey posted the
following message on the SCI website.
All of us involved with Sister Cities International must speak out against the horrific events of September 11, 2001. As a country and as ordinary citizens, we are now struggling to find appropriate ways to respond. We are all filled with questions and doubts. How do we ensure that such evil forces can never again strike at the heart of our cities? What can we do as ordinary citizens? How can we make a difference? In our hearts we must find ways to break down the barriers that divide us as human beings - barriers that become the breeding grounds for such hatred. We must find ways to communicate with those who speak a different language, have a different religion, or come from different political traditions. All of us are fortunate that through our involvement in Sister Cities we can find tangible ways to respond to this tragedy. Our collective commitment to the Sister City movement speaks to our personal commitment to foster a more peaceful world (SCI, 2006).
This impassioned response introduced two new elements into sister city
discourses; the overt identification of particular others as ‘evil’ and the
inclusion of national security and defence on sister city agendas. The
conceptual blending of security and peace discourses and the moral
condemnation of the malevolent ‘other’ contained in this seemingly
innocuous posting would lead to problematic outcomes in sister city
interactions with the Muslim world, as will be demonstrated in chapters
three to six of this thesis. The manifest function of the movement,
however, as conveyed by its representative and coordinating institution,
its 2002-2006 Strategic Plan, SCI reported that it sought “to achieve a
peaceful, orderly and just world by assuming leadership in bringing
together communities around the world to create a worldwide sister city
movement for peace (SCI Strategic Plan 2002-2006). In ‘charting its
future course’, the organization expressed a hope that the term ‘sister
cities’ would become synonymous with “building a more just and
peaceful world” and that SCI itself would one day receive the Nobel
Peace Prize (Honey, 2006).