Global Policy In Brief

Human Health Expert to Lead World Bank through Controversial Coal Projects

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:26:00 +0000

During the presidency of Robert Zoellick (2007-2012), the World Bank spent a record sum to finance fossil fuel power projects -- despite its commitment to address climate change. The Bank’s new president, Jim Yong Kim, must immediately decide whether to continue multi-billion dollar coal-fired electricity projects in the global south.

US citizens have always held the World Bank presidency. In 2012, for the first time since the Bank’s founding in 1944, non-US candidates campaigned notably for the position. Columbian Jose Antonio Ocampo and Nigerian Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala attracted considerable media attention, before ultimately yielding to the US nominee.

Yet many progressives see Kim as more radical than his opponents. Kim is an MD and an anthropologist by training, which makes him the first World Bank president without a background in economics or politics. Kim has worked with Paul Farmer in Haiti and has directed the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS program. He has a public image of near-celebrity status, as an engaged and caring advocate for the world’s most impoverished people.

Kim’s book, Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor (2002), gained attention after his nomination. He wrote, “The studies in this book present evidence that the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men.” The statement opposes, ideologically, much of the World Bank’s privatization and trade liberalization tactics of the past three decades.

Kim will be in charge of the World Bank’s $250 billion dollar budget and over 9,000 staff members. His decision on the future of coal-fired power plants will have serious implications for global health and the environment.

In 2009, the World Bank invested a record $4.7 billion in fossil fuel power projects. During 2010, the Bank continued the trend, investing $3.8 billion in a single coal-fired power station in South Africa. Michael Stulman of Africa Action called the project “one of those stereotypical development disaster stories.” Soon afterwards, the World Bank funded another multi-billion dollar coal-fired project in Kosovo.

In 2011, the Bank decided to direct its coal power outlays away from middle-income countries and to restrict such loans to the world’s poorest nations. Media sources like the New York Times criticized the Bank for the move, saying that it would slow economic growth in many developing nations, sacrificing the welfare of the poor to environmental concerns. This is a false narrative -- one that pits development against the environment, and one that perpetuates business as usual.

The Bank has said it will move ahead with funding of coal-fired power plants in the world’s poorest regions to help with their development. Fossil fuel companies benefit immensely from these projects under the new “restriction,” and the poorest of the poor suffer the resulting health effects.

The poorest countries often have the weakest governments and the least effective environmental regulations. Companies benefitting from World Bank projects take advantage, gaining easy access to resources and high profit margins. The local community cannot afford to buy the energy generated by these new coal plants. The vast majority of income and benefit goes far away and little returns to the affected community, in schools, in healthcare, or in aid.

The World Bank’s projects commit the local regions to coal for 50 years -- the average life-expectancy of such a plant. This commitment bars investments in alternative energy and holds the region back from adopting new energy technologies.

The Kosovo coal plant and South Africa’s Medupi plant have touched off mass protests in their local communities. Workers, citizens, and children suffer from tuberculosis and asthma as a direct result of the plants’ air pollution. The plants’ waste runs off into local water resources. The United States heavily restricts these technologies domestically, due to harmful health and environmental effects.

Studies show that in the US, coal plants have caused an estimated 13,000 premature deaths and have resulted in over $242 billion in health care costs. The US Environmental Protection Agency has worked with environmental organizations to limit coal power and to close half of existing coal-fired plants. So why aren’t similar concerns addressed in the global south?

The World Bank is not obligated under international law to consider environmental justice or human rights concerns when funding projects, a status that the Bank has used to defend itself from past criticism. Ironically, the Bank continues to push for more international funding of its own environmental programs, seeking to become the world’s foremost lender for environmental projects. It has already received billions of dollars earmarked for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Over 250 organizations from 50 nations have demanded that the World Bank hand over the climate change funds to the United Nations.

Jim Yong Kim’s presidency will challenge the status quo at the Bank and in the larger multilateral development community. Ocampo and Okonjo-Iweala’s campaigns have shown that the global south has an intense interest in the Bank and its lending programs. Like Zoellick, Kim will face harsh questioning over the coal plants’ effects on human health -- questions that he is expected to address. If Kim instead follows Zoellick’s path, the new president will have a much more difficult time than his predecessor in making excuses.

Photo Credit: ecopoliticology.org

Public Private Partnerships: How Corporations are Influencing the UN

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:22:00 +0000

In mid February 2012, 600 CEOs and senior business leaders came together at a meeting to prepare for the upcoming UN Environment Conference in Rio. KPMG, one of the four biggest accounting firms in the world, organized the meeting. Comfortably housed in New York’s five star Sheraton Hotel, the executives grandiosely claimed to solve “the fundamental challenges of our time.” The Summit, co-organized by the UN Global Compact, the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, proposed to “ramp up collaboration” between the private and the public sector. It was also to serve as a preparation for the “Corporate Sustainability Forum,” which will take place only days before the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. In his opening speech, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon encouraged the private sector’s involvement in the Conference, calling for businesses to “show leadership,” and expressing his enthusiastic support for Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). “Today we are together (…) looking for ways to serve the common good,” he stated .

PPPs have been booming since the ‘90s. Under constant pressure from the UNs most powerful member states, and in a precarious financial situation, the UN increasingly invited corporations from the private sector. At the same time, changes in the business environment encouraged Transnational Corporations (TNCs) to find ways to boost their company and brand reputation, with a particular emphasis on their social and environmental performance. The ‘90s saw high-profile world citizen campaigns, which highlighted the activities of TNCs and demanded socially and environmentally just behavior. Fearing consumer boycotts, corporations sought to project an image of social and environmental responsibility to the world. “A good public image is a key political resource and […] legitimacy and credibility is ‘capital’ in modern societies”. PPPs enable corporations to project such an image of public service while at the same time negatively influencing the polices of governments and other public institutions like the UN.

As former UNICEF Director Carol Bellamy pointed out, however, “it is dangerous to assume that the goals of the private sector are somehow synonymous with those of the United Nations, because they most emphatically are not.” While the UN’s raison d’être is to promote development and human rights, corporations’ efforts to “uphold ethical standards” are a means to improve their brand reputation so as to maximize profit. The implications of this difference are vast. Companies can pursue pro-environment and human right rhetoric, while engaging in deeply destructive practices.

KPMG International, the main organizer of last month’s Summit, clearly illustrates the extent to which corporations are able to deflect criticism and boost their image while not fundamentally changing their way of doing business. KPMG joined the Global Compact when former Secretary General Kofi Annan first established it in 2000. Its commitment to the Compacts’ ten principles, however, did not keep the company from setting up fake tax shelters for its wealthiest clients. In 2003, an investigation by US attorneys found that, by actively creating tax heavens, KPGM had deprived citizens from $2.5 billion in tax dollars . Clearly, signing the Compact’s 10th principle to “work against corruption in all its forms" did not prevent KPMG from being accused of accounting fraud and of obstruction of justice for hampering investigation. Adding to the irony, KPMG became part of the 10th principle’s working group, which “is to provide strategic input on anti-corruption and to define the needs of the business community in implementing the 10th principle.”

As the divide between KPMGs rhetoric and practices suggests, the UN urgently needs to move beyond the immensely naïve or intentionally deceitful position that PPPs are “win-win” relationships in which both, the UN and TNCs, work towards the fulfillment of the UN’s founding ethical principles. While for the former the rightful implementation of socio-environmental principles is an end in itself, for the latter it is a means at best.

Picture Credit: un.org

US Jurisdiction over Corporations under International Law

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:53:00 +0000

The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) was signed into law by President Washington in 1789. It states, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing this jurisdiction in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell), and the ruling will have serious implications on both the status of corporations and the reaches of US’ jurisdiction.

Lawyers have interpreted ATCA to give non-US citizens the right to sue non-US offenders of international law in a US federal court. ATCA was hardly acknowledged for 190 years, until human rights lawyer Peter Weiss used it to try a Paraguayan police official residing in Brooklyn for torturing the son of the dissident. Since then, lawyers have used ATCA to sue transnational corporations, such as Chevron and General Motors, for violations against international law in countries with weak judicial systems. Many human Rights lawyers have cited ATCA as an important civil law to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

The plaintiffs in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum are members of the Ogoni people in Nigeria’s Niger Delta. In the 1990s, Shell allegedly assisted the Nigerian government in executing Ogoni activists who threatened to disrupt Shell’s environmentally harmful drilling practices. A US appellate court initially ruled in favor of Shell, a decision that led to the Supreme Court’s review. The ruling stated that corporations were not accountable under international law, which binds only “nations and people.”

But the appellate court’s decision holds corporations to a serious double standard. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court recognized corporations’ political rights under the first amendment, letting corporations make unlimited political contributions as if they were people. Then, the appellate court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum gave corporations immunity from international law, a status that exceeds the rights of people.

On March 5, 2012, Justice Samuel A. Alito made another statement to weaken the case of the Ogoni victims. He asked, “What business does a case like this have in the courts of the United States?” Giving US Courts jurisdiction over such matters may encourage other nations to try breaches of international law by US companies, such as illegal US drone operations. That is, however, the point of international laws and doctrines, such as universal jurisdiction: to hold actors accountable for the gravest crimes against humanity. London, for example, has a history of exercising universal jurisdiction to try offenders, such as Nazi collaborator Anthony Sawoniuk, Afghan warlord Faryadi Sarwar Zardad, and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Amicus briefs filed in support of Ogoni victims were made by human rights activists, top law scholars and professors, economist Joseph Stiglitz, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the US government. Supporters of Shell include other large corporations, as well as British, Dutch, and German governments.

The US’ Alien Tort Claims Act is a rare legal tool to maintain TNC accountability across the world. Its examination under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum has made transparent unaddressed issues concerning both the nation-states role in maintaining international law, and the corporation’s status within that law.

If international law does not hold TNCs accountable, and if US courts refuse to monitor TNC violations, then TNCs will be free to exploit and profit off human rights violations in vulnerable nations.

--------------------------------

Picture Credit: unop.org

War and/or peace: How the private military and security industry is trying to rebrand itself as a humanitarian actor

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:45:00 +0000

As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are winding down, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) are looking to diversify and expand into new markets. They have identified NGOs and international organizations like the UN as a promising new area for their services. In recent years, both the UN and NGOs have increasingly used these companies for logistics and security services. Not only do PMSCs assist these traditional humanitarian organizations in the delivery of aid, they are even ready to entirely replace them, and perform work for a profit that used to be the domain of non-profit groups. For these companies, relief and development work can provide lucrative opportunities.

In a concerted public relations campaign, these companies are repositioning themselves as “humanitarian actors.” This rebranding process is part of a larger effort that includes the creation of “codes of conduct” and “ethical guidelines” for the industry, all aimed at improving these companies' public image.

The private military and security industry is keen to adopt humanitarian imagery and language to win over a skeptical public. The lobby group for PMSCs in the US is called “the International Stability Operations Association” (ISOA), and used to be named the “International Peace Operations Association.” Such feel-good description obscures the fact that many of the ISOA’s members produce military equipment and provide military services that include the operation of weapons systems, intelligence collection and analysis, special operations and interrogation of detainees. Regardless of this background, the ISOA asserts that its members provide “humanitarian aid” and “disaster relief.” This discourse signals a dangerous trend, where the military-security industry is in effect merging with a nascent humanitarian industry.

Take the example of International Relief and Development (IRD), one of the ISOA’s members. The company defines its mission goal in the following terms: “to reduce the suffering of the world’s most vulnerable groups and provide tools and resources needed to increase their self-sufficiency.” IRD is a major implementer of US foreign assistance, and claims that it has “provided over $1.75 billion in humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations around the world” since it was created in 1998. Despite these philanthropic claims, IRD is part of a group that also comprises BAE Systems and L-3 MPRI, two big providers of military equipment and services to the US and UK militaries.

Military and “humanitarian” activities are sometimes combined within the same firm. DynCorp International, a notorious military contractor, has also invested in the development field. DynCorp is one of the US military’s biggest military contractors and is well-known for its controversial role in many conflict areas. In Colombia, DynCorp is officially in charge of the US’ drug eradication program but has allegedly engaged in direct combat with rebel groups. DynCorp was also involved in a sex trafficking and rape scandal in Bosnia in the late 90s, a case that was recently brought to the screen in the movie “The Whistleblower.” In spite of this checkered record, in early 2010 DynCorp entered the aid market by acquiring Casals & Associates, a company which had supported US development programs for two decades. On its website, DynCorp describes the three pillars of its new activities as “justice and governance”, “stabilization and reconstruction” and “humanitarian assistance.” These words could be taken from a description of the UN’s mission. This is not an accident.

PMSCs’ claims to humanitarian ideals not only ring hollow, they also represent a dangerous trend. These companies’ growing interest in the humanitarian sector is adding to an already complicated situation on the ground. In many conflict zones, soldiers and relief workers are difficult to tell apart. In Afghanistan, NATO’s controversial “winning hearts and minds” campaign has made humanitarian action an appendix of military strategy. Some NGOs, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, have denounced this “militarization of humanitarian aid,” arguing that it puts aid workers at risk. As the lines between military aims and humanitarian work blur, employees of aid organizations have increasingly become the target of attacks by insurgents who see them as tools of Western militaries. The problem is particularly acute in Afghanistan, but also exists in other countries, including Somalia and Iraq.

The growing confusion between military action and humanitarian work is worsened when aid is delivered by for-profit organizations, especially if these companies also happen to offer military services to states involved in the conflict. Can a company operate the US’ drone program in Pakistan in the morning and distribute food in Afghanistan in the evening? The takeover of the humanitarian realm by PMSCs seriously threatens two key humanitarian principles, the concepts of independence and impartiality. By blurring the lines between military, political and humanitarian aims, these companies’ interest in the aid sector seriously threatens the reputation and security of traditional nonprofit aid groups.

The use of PMSCs by the UN and NGOs is also a worrying trend. By hiring PMSCs to support their activities, these organizations legitimize companies’ claims to humanitarianism and jeopardize their own legitimacy. Serious scrutiny is needed to hold these organizations to account and ensure that humanitarian aid does not become a for-profit activity used to further political and military goals.

--------------------------------------------------

GPF is currently working on a major report on the use of PMSCs by the UN

Picture credit: treehugger.com

How many UN Member States actually pay their budgets on time and in full?

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:03:00 +0000

Western states often paint a picture of the UN as a “bloated” bureaucracy with a huge, extravagant budget. The US is constantly calling for UN reform and politicians argue that the UN budget is too large and a drain on their countries’ resources, even though in 2010, the UN Regular Budget was less than the budget of Tokyo's Fire Department.

The chart above shows the number of countries that have fully paid their regular budget assessments to the UN by January 31^st, the end of the 30 day due period allowed under UN Financial Regulations. It also shows the total payment’s percentage of the regular budget from 1991-2012. In 2012, only 26 member states fully paid their regular budget assessments by the payment deadline, January 31^st. Altogether, the 26 states paid only 13.38 percent of the total. Among them are four or the five Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway. Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia is the only state to have fully paid its regular budget assessments on time.

The table below ranks the 26 prompt-paying countries in terms of their share of contributions to the UN Regular Budget. The countries highlighted in red are the “Top 10” prompt-paying UN member states for 2012.

Countries Paying Promptly and in Full, 1991 – 2012
Country	Net Assessment (in $US)	Share of Contribution to UN Regular Budget (in %)
Canada	75,786,708	3.207
Australia	45,679,983	1.933
Netherlands	43,836,714	1.855
Russia	37,857,906	1.602
Norway	20,583,169	0.871
Austria	20,110,536	0.851
Denmark	17,392,896	0.736
Finland	13,375,515	0.566
Ireland	11,768,562	0.498
Singapore	7,916,603	0.355
New Zealand	6,451,441	0.273
Kuwait	6,215,125	0.263
Luxembourg	2,126,849	0.090
Ukraine	2,055,954	0.087
Cyprus	1,087,056	0.046
Iceland	992,530	0.042
Bulgaria	898,003	0.038
Latvia	898,003	0.038
Tanzania	189,054	0.008
Georgia	141,790	0.006
Armenia	118,159	0.005
Burkina Faso	70,895	0.003
Monaco	70,895	0.003
Niger	47,264	0.002
Malawi	23,631	0.001
Guyana	23,631	0.001

To see a detailed list of countries who have paid on time and in full, and to see their total payment’s percentage of the regular budget, click here.

Source: United Nations Committee on Contributions

Intervention vs. non-interference in states' internal affairs: Is this really what’s at issue in the Security Council debate on Syria?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:41:00 +0000

The Western media have reacted predictably to the Syria crisis, separating Security Council adversaries as usual into two camps. The “good guys” are seen as champions of a new post-sovereign international order while the “bad guys” defend blood-thirsty dictators in a cynical use of the doctrines of non-interference and national sovereignty.

The media congratulate the US and its European allies for upholding the international community’s right and responsibility to intervene in states’ domestic affairs to “protect civilians” and to get rid of nasty regimes. Russia and China – among other offenders – are framed as backward obstructionists clinging to outdated notions of “sovereignty” while civilians are massacred by the thousands. “Emerging powers” like India and South Africa are chastised for falling prey to the Sino-Russian arguments, for recalling the Western interventions that shaped their own colonial past, and for not wholeheartedly embracing the West’s enthusiasm for its selective version of human rights and democracy.

The media analysis conveys little about the history and the current high stakes politics. The web of great power interests and rivalries largely disappears. We hear little about the control of oil, military bases, clandestine operations, and murky alliances – except, of course, when it comes to the bad guys.

At the UN, the “Permanent 3” (P3) - the US, the UK and France – have consistently framed the issue in these crude terms. In public and in private, the P3 ambassadors have expressed their dismay at Russia and China’s willingness to put ideology before the lives of innocent civilians. After Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution on Syria on February 4th, US Ambassador Susan Rice immediately announced that she was “disgusted” by their use of the veto and that "any further blood that flows will be on their hands."

The New York Times, along with most of the media, has echoed this line. Neil MacFarquhar, the NY Times’ bureau chief at the UN, sums up the issue in the following terms:

"Fundamentally, the argument over Syria reflects a deeper divide between those who would use the Security Council to confront nations over how their governments treat civilians, versus those who consider that it has no role whatsoever in settling domestic disputes. Syria is the latest example in an argument that stretches back through all recent conflicts."

Such clichés were abundantly on offer at the time of the Libya intervention too, and they are daily repeated by the press and, unfortunately, by many NGOs as well.

Great powers invoke “sovereignty,” “human rights” and other moral and legal terms to further their own interest and to generate public support. Rarely, if ever, do they take into account the real suffering of the victims of these crises – the ordinary people.

Indeed, the P3’s commitment to a post-sovereign world is blatantly inconsistent. The P3 had no problem in letting Saud Arabia exercise its sovereign right to violently repress demonstrations. Nor did they hesitate to protect the government of Bahrain when popular protests flared there. Throughout the years, they have been unconditionally supportive of Israel’s sovereign “right to defend itself,” irrespective of what this meant for Palestinians.

We should not forget that these advocates of a post-sovereign world are keen to hold on to their own sovereign powers. The United States, first and foremost, rejects inroads on its sovereignty. It refuses to put its troops into a UN peacekeeping mission under the command of a foreign national and it intensely opposes International Criminal Court jurisdiction over its leaders and military chiefs.

The record of Western intervention is not encouraging in terms of protection of civilians and promotion of democracy. Iraq provides one striking case in point. So do Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia and many others. Before we get enthusiastic about the interventionist approach and succumb to the tempting calls of “something has to be done,” it is well to consider the historical record and to examine the options.

We can well hope that Bashar al-Asad and his regime disappear as quickly as possible and that the Syrian people enjoy democracy in the nearest future. But it will be wise to avoid the cynical, emotion-laden arguments of the Western diplomats and their uncritical media note-takers. Serious thought, not simplistic reactions, will be needed if a durable and democratic future is to be won in Syria.

Scaling Up (Mal)Nutrition – Corporate Food Branding at the United Nations

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:09:00 +0000

The UN meeting room was filled to capacity on September 22 with political leaders, senior diplomats, UN officials, foundation staff and corporate executives. They had come to mark the first anniversary of “Scaling Up Nutrition” (SUN), a UN multi-stakeholder-partnership aiming at better health through targeted food programs. Host Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, expressed gratitude to private sector companies for their “leadership” in the SUN project, which operates in twenty-one developing countries including Nepal, Niger, Mozambique and Guatemala. But ironically the corporate partners - notably snack and soft drink giant PepsiCo – have remarkably poor records on consumer health.

Over the years, major food companies have engaged in misleading advertising and promotion of products that are downright unhealthy. They have targeted young consumers and promoted a “snack” culture that undermines regular, healthy meals. They have used unsustainable production methods and sometimes child labor. The industry wants to erase these unfavorable images and to create a positive and nutritious narrative.

Dr. Mehmood Khan, head of PepsiCo’s new “Global Nutrition” subsidiary, told the UN gathering that he wants to expand the sales of his fledgling unit to $30 billion annually, through a focus on nutrition. Khan and his “global team of experts” are working on “product innovation” and one such project ambitiously targets young “pre-pre-natal” women, supposedly in order to promote healthy babies later. However, nutrition scientists point out that PepsiCo’s products will replace traditional, locally grown foods that are healthier and cheaper. Pepsi currently sells $30 billion worldwide in sugary soft drinks like Pepsi Cola and Gatorade - and salty, fatty snacks such as Frito Lay potato chips. These products are meticulously engineered and branded to attract and hold consumers, promoting unhealthy eating habits and soaking up scarce food budgets among many of the world’s poorest people.

Dr. Khan, who is also PepsiCo’s Chief Scientific Officer, announced that his company has developed a pilot product for sale in India - a snack that is fortified with protein, iron, and other nutrients. Pepsi has been selling the snack for two rupees (about four US cents) and the company has found that forty percent of the target market purchased the snack and twenty percent made a repeat purchase. He did not offer information on improvement in hunger and nutrition among target Indian consumers. PepsiCo, he announced, is looking to partner further with governments, development agencies and the private sector to expand sales of the product. Dr. Khan, a former lead physician at the Mayo Clinic, acknowledged that most of PepsiCo’s current products are not nutritious. He affirmed, however, that the company is now committed to future markets in nutritious – or at least less mal-nutritious – products.

A representative of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also spoke at the event, emphasizing that the majority of the world eats foods produced by the private sector, hence Gates’ interest in partnership with private companies. In fact, small family farmers produce a large majority of the world’s food, a point that policy experts often make but that corporate gatherings studiously avoid.

Much of the remainder of the discussion was empty rhetoric and self-congratulation. A UK representative said that London is planning to increase its development aid funds for seventeen countries and “scale up” research. An official from Canada announced that a large portion of Ottawa’s food security plan is focused on getting “the right food to the right people in the right time.” A World Bank representative said that the Bank is seeking improved nutrition lending through a “multi-sector approach.” “There has been extraordinary progress,” said an enthusiastic UN official. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton called on the international community to “keep working together.” Everyone seemed to agree with the dubious notion that PepsiCo and its private sector partners would help solve the world’s crisis of malnutrition.

To view a UN News article highlighting the meeting, click here.

Picture Credit: wfp.org

The Palestinian Bid for Statehood

noreply@blogger.com (Suzanne Dershowitz) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:28:00 +0000

The Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood recognition at the UN this September has elicited a range of responses and opinions. The Arab Spring has opened the way for political change in the region, inspiring Palestinians in their struggle for statehood. However, opinion is divided as to the best path to advance Palestinian rights and national aspirations at this moment in history.

Skeptics argue that formal recognition at the UN will not in fact create a sovereign Palestinian state, nor will it effectively end the Israeli occupation. Israel will continue to control security within the occupied territories and manage the flow of people and resources across borders at an array of checkpoints. In 1988, the declaration of an independent state of Palestine at the UN failed to produce effective statehood, so some are doubtful about prospects for meaningful change following a similar route this September. But the struggle for statehood can be long and complex, and much has happened since 1988.

A key question concerns the PA’s legitimacy to act on behalf of the Palestinian people. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s PA government was not elected and faces accusations of authoritarian rule. According to the Palestinian National Initiative, the PA government lacks a constitutional or democratic basis. PLO and Fatah leaders have also been very critical of Fayyad. The split with Hamas in Gaza also presents a very serious problem for Palestinian unity. Without democratic arrangements in place, the Palestinian people cannot hold the PA accountable. Ultimately, the PLO, and not the PA, remains the legitimate representative of the Palestinians in their relations with other states, peace negotiations with Israel, and as an Observer at the UN.

Because international recognition of the Palestinian state may change little on the ground in the occupied territories, some Palestinians feel that the PA’s symbolic bid at the UN represents a surrender of hard-fought issues at the core of Palestinian political identity. Some critics oppose the UN bid on the grounds that a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders threatens to legitimate the terms of Palestinian dispossession in 1948, waiving Palestinians’ historic claim to refugee right of return.

Palestinians remain fundamentally divided over the eventual goal of a two-state solution. Some Palestinian youth believe that one unified state is the only viable option for equality and universal human rights for all Palestinians. Sari Nusseibeh argues that if a negotiated two-state solution is not possible, dissolving the PA and focusing on the one-state solution is preferable to “enclaves of Palestinians living under the hegemony—military and otherwise—of Israel.” Thus, it may be easier for Palestinians to fight for their civil rights, access to adequate social services, and the right of return within a bi-national Israel-Palestinian state.

According to Farid Abdel-Nour, although one Palestinian narrative of the two-state vision sees surrender and accommodation to overwhelming Israeli power, an alternative narrative embodies the verdict of a global moral consensus associated with justice, international law, and Palestinian pride and dignity. Through this alternative narrative, international recognition of a Palestinian state could help imbue the two-state solution with its original meaning for Palestinians, rooted in the first intifada in 1987 when the Palestinian people demanded it for themselves. International recognition may also reinvigorate Palestinians with a new sense of political agency. These events may put pressure on Israel to discontinue settlement activity and end the blockade of Gaza, creating new avenues for direct negotiations. Under Fayyad’s guidance, the PA has helped to keep this second narrative of the two-state solution alive.

Ultimately, international recognition of the state of Palestine is a step in the right direction for peace, security, and protection of human rights in the region. Although UN status does not determine statehood and international recognition at the UN is not a panacea, a Palestinian declaration of independence would situate Palestine on an equal plane with Israel. It would create new avenues for Palestinians to gain access to international justice and accountability for violations of international law (including the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory). International recognition may also spur a new round of peace talks aimed at realizing the two-state solution, ending the impasse and bringing political actors back to the negotiating table. Many hopes have been dashed since the first intifada in 1987, yet the two-state solution remains the best possible option for restoring Palestinian dignity and ending the conflict’s bloodshed.

To view more on Palestinian Statehood: The UN and Beyond, click here.

Picture Credit: huffingtonpost.com

From Public Good to Private Profit: The Shifting Discourse on Land Grabbing

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:29:00 +0000

The large-scale acquisition of land by foreign governments, hedge funds and private investors, commonly referred to as “land grabbing,” has accelerated exponentially in recent years. In a time of economic and environmental insecurity, investors view farmland as a tradable asset with the potential to deliver significant profits. Proponents of land grabs, including the World Bank and the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), claim land deals are “win-win” situations where investors gain financially and host countries develop their economies and infrastructure to increase food security. In reality, land investments displace rural populations, often without any notice, and diminish their access to land, jobs, and food.

Trends in Land Grabbing

Land grabbing practices have evolved in the last decade. Today, the practice is not just limited to governments buying up land as part of their national food security strategy. Private investors, including Heads of State Muammar Gaddafi and Malian President Amadou Toumari Toure, are buying up land in Africa for personal gain. Harvard and Vanderbilt, two well-known American universities, have also been suspected of buying and leasing vast tracts of African farmland.

Many developing countries welcome agribusiness investments and offer fertile land to foreign investors at very low costs. The World Bank promotes these policies and provides technical assistance to governments to spur direct investment in agriculture in developing countries. This effectively incentivizes a trend that threatens global food security and the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. As of February 2011, at least 115 million acres of land were leased to foreign investors worldwide. Even in the newly independent state of South Sudan, as much as 9% of the land is said to be owned by foreign firms.

Land grabbing is no longer restricted to the developing countries in the South and has started to occur in the Global North. In the US, there is a new class of “gentlemen farmers” who are “buying wheat fields in Kansas and acres of soybeans in Indiana.” Investors unhappy with current investment options, such as risky stocks and bonds, have found that land is cheap, reliable, and increasingly valuable. This trend is becoming increasingly common-place: 25% of buyers in Iowa are investors.

Shifting Discourse

In recent years, the discourse around land grabbing has shifted dramatically. At first, land grabbing was marketed as a “responsible agricultural investment”—good for both farmers and investors. Today, land grabbing no longer holds the pretense of being an accountable practice and instead is branded as a positive investment for land buyers only.

Land-buyers understand these benefits and are purposefully vague when discussing their land deals. For example, CalyxAgro, a World Bank backed firm, advertises its services as “identifying, acquiring, transforming and operating agricultural land in Latin America.”This leaves the nature of “transformation” hidden and conceals the real motive behind the land buyer’s interest in the investment.

Although firms deny claims that small-scale farmers and indigenous peoples are forcibly moved from their villages, studies have found that land grabbing deprives pastoralists and peasants access to their land. A 2008 joint report by the FAO and the International Institute for Environment and Development found that in the Kisarawe district of Tanzania, a British firm acquired 9,000 hectares of land and “cleared 11 villages, which, according to the 2002 population census, were home to 11, 277 people.”

Proponents of land grabs claim that acquiring foreign land prompts investment in local infrastructure and benefits farmers; however, foreign direct investments in agriculture do not contribute to rural development. Those supposedly “benefitting” from land deals have called for an end to land grabbing. On June 22, 2011, a group of more than 500 NGOs delivered a petition to G20 leaders asking for a halt to land grabs. With food prices skyrocketing and wheat trading at record prices, institutions such as the World Bank must stop molding international food policy and promoting land deals. If left unchallenged, the consequences of land grabbing will be devastating.

To view more on Land Ownership & Hunger, click here.

Picture Credit: farmlandgrab.org

Syria: the Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Power in the Security Council

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:10:00 +0000

Since early this year, Syria has been rocked by pro-democracy protests engendered by domestic problems and the toppling of autocratic leaders in Tunisia and Egypt. The Syrian government’s response to these protests has been violent. European countries and the US have advocated for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria’s human rights violations. However, Brazil, India and South Africa (3 of the 10 Elected Members) have threatened to vote against any such resolution. The UK, France and the US (3 of the Council’s 5 permanent members, often referred to as "the P3") have condemned the emergent powers for acting in their own self-interest. Such a claim, however, ignores the P3’s own biased use of international law as a framework to further geo-strategic interests.

The Situation in Syria

Syria has operated under Emergency Law since 1963, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens and resulting in sweeping powers of arrest and detention for the security forces. The current Syrian president Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1971 to 2000. Whilst citizens are entitled to vote for or against a presidential candidate, there is no open multi-party voting system.

Further, the imposition of neo-liberal policies has resulted in worsening conditions for the poor. The erosion of subsidies for basic goods and agriculture has negatively impacted local industry. At the same time wheat is trading at record prices. Unemployment, especially amongst the youth, has continued to rise. Such factors, together with examples from successful Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings, have brought people to the streets of numerous Syrian cities in predominantly peaceful protests.

The Syrian government has sought to cling to power by granting small concessions but primarily through the use of force. Syrian forces have fired upon protestors. It is estimated that 1,400 protestors have been killed. Numerous others have been detained. Youths have been arrested for writing pro-democracy graffiti. UNICEF has called upon Syria to investigate the reported killing of children. Amnesty International has received reports of Syrian forces firing on ambulances carrying the wounded and on trucks carrying families. Gross human rights violations have been, and continue to be, committed.

Syria in the Security Council and the Libyan Precedent

At the beginning of June, 2011, the UK, France, Germany and Portugal distributed, amongst the fifteen Council members, a draft resolution condemning the systematic human rights violations by Syrian authorities. Reuters reported that changes were made to the original draft resolution to make it look less like a prelude to military intervention. In the event that the draft resolution is put to a vote, Russia and China are likely to use their veto against it due to close historic and economic ties with Syria. Brazil, India and South Africa have expressed legitimate concerns with the draft resolution and have also threatened to vote against it. They have been chastised by the P3 and some NGOs for acting according to national interests and being obstructionist.

No one wants the human rights abuses to continue. However, there is a concern that if Syria does not comply with the resolution (and it is unlikely to), non-compliance will be used as a justification for an escalation of Western involvement in the country – whether permitted explicitly by the resolution or not.

Brazil, India and South Africa often cite UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (March 17, 2011) on Libya as justifying their concerns. Following attacks by the Libyan government on pro-democracy activists, this resolution called for the Gaddafi regime to undertake a ceasefire and end the violence and attacks against civilians. The resolution permitted “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and imposed a “no fly zone” in Libya.

Brazil and India abstained in the Council vote on resolution 1973 whilst South Africa voted for it. However, representatives from all three countries have now expressed concern that, rather than protect civilians, NATO forces in Libya are primarily concerned with regime change. Whilst there is no doubt that Gaddafi has been a violently repressive leader, regime change is not authorized under resolution 1973. Using the resolution on Libya as an example of NATO forces acting outside of a UN mandate, Brazil, South Africa and India have questioned whether, in the event that Syria does not comply with any future resolution, NATO forces will again act outside of the UN resolution to intervene militarily in Syria.

The P3 have vested interests in both Libya and Syria. The countries are strategically placed - the first in North Africa and the latter in the heart of the Middle East. The ultimate aim of a NATO led military intervention would probably be to instill a regime friendly to Western interests.

Double standards

The problem is also one of selectivity. Why are Western countries eager to take action in Libya, Sudan and Syria but not in Bahrain, Yemen or the occupied Palestinian territories where human rights abuses are also occurring? The answer usually given by the P3 is that each country is different and thus necessitates a different response. However, an examination of recent cases highlights that the P3 only act when their interests are at stake.

International law Professor Richard Falk has pointed to double standards in the use of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, which provides the basis of the Libyan resolution and which drives the current draft resolution on Syria. The principle is based on the idea that the international community has a responsibility to ensure that human rights are respected across the globe.

The P3 argue that they are acting with leadership and responsibility in calling for an end to human rights violations in Libya and Syria. At the same time, they portray Brazil, India and South Africa as irreverent “less-experienced” members –emerging powers that all want to become permanent members of the Council but who are refusing to take an important stand. But, surely, real leadership and responsibility would look to ensure the universal application of human rights norms in a manner that prevents all abuses.

Brazil, India and South Africa often act according to their own interests and should not be idealized as beacons of progressive resistance to Western imperialism. However, it is ridiculous to contend that the US, UK, France and others have not used the UN as a forum to further their own geo-strategic ends. The double standard is clear: Western countries promote the norms of international law when they correspond to geo-strategic interests, but otherwise neglect them.

Falk has said that the rule of law depends, for its legitimacy, on treating equals equally. If equals are treated unequally then what is called the rule of law is really just another version of the rule of power. Real responsibility would look to ensure that the human rights of all civilians were protected with the same enthusiasm – whether in Palestine, Bahrain or Syria. Responsible countries should not support any country engaging in policies that violate human rights.

The structure of the UN Security Council (with veto powers and permanent membership for the US, France, UK, China and Russia) is a form of constitutional recognition of double standards. Although the veto power constitutes an accommodation to geo-politics, it also inhibits the application of the rule of law on a global level.

Picture credit: Reuters

'The War You Don't See': Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:54:00 +0000

Seven months prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the UK government released a dossier asserting that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In February, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a speech at the United Nations where he emphatically outlined Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities and alleged support of Islamic fundamentalism. We now know that the dossier, speech and other similar official statements were based on unreliable, inaccurate and deliberately doctored evidence. "The War You Don't See” is a 2010 British documentary film written, produced and directed by, the award-winning journalist, John Pilger. The film asks why mainstream media outlets were not more critical - in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war - of claims that Iraq was developing WMDs, funding Islamic extremism and harboring terrorists.

Edward Bernays (who coined the phrase “public relations”) used fear to win US public support for the First World War. Bernays described public relations as “an invisible government” capable of acting as the ruling power through “the intelligent manipulation of the masses.” In the film, media historian Professor Stuart Ewen outlines how fear justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Iraq posed no real threat but came to symbolize the greatest threat - with the mainstream media adopting the symbolism. Facts no longer mattered. Steve Rendall gives the story of Associated Press journalist Charles Hanley. In January 2003, two months prior to the invasion of Iraq, Hanley reported that Iraq’s alleged nuclear sites (apparently responsible for developing WMDs) were inoperative. No mainstream media outlet published Hanley’s article. By failing to research, report or publish claims that were contrary to the official line, mainstream media outlets were complicit in generating public support for an unjust and arbitrary war.

Throughout the film, journalists “imbedded” within the US and UK militaries give personal accounts of how they were “taken-in” by effective propaganda machines. A UK Ministry of Defence cable released by Wikileaks reveals that independent journalists were considered “threats.” The bombing of Al-jazeera’s compound in Iraq is recounted and the lack of coverage given to civilian fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan considered. Photo-journalist Guy Smallman provides an emotive narration of the Granai airstrike in Afghanistan. Carried out by US forces on May 4, 2009 in the Farah Province, the airstrike killed a large number of civilians, mostly children and women.The mainstream media gave little attention to the airstrike. In accordance with Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model such victims are considered by the media as “unworthy” – highlighting their fate would threaten perceived US power interests in the region.

The Guardian film reviewer Peter Bradshaw said the film’s force was in its contention that civilian casualties are “to be ignored." However, the film also highlights the systemic bias within mainstream media outlets which, for a number of reasons, publish material that protects the interests of the powerful. Governments and oil companies continue to benefit from the Iraq war. At the same time, threats to US national security have increased as a direct result and while the people of Iraq no longer live under a brutal dictator, their lives remain insecure. Former British Foreign Office diplomat Carne Ross testifies to the unreported suffering inflicted on Iraqi civilians by the post-Gulf War economic sanctions and bombing, which went unquestioned by journalists reliant on official information channels. Journalists also failed to question why sanctions were being imposed long after Iraq ended its nuclear program. The film indicates that where great power interests are at stake the mainstream media will fail to ask the serious questions.

The film was due to have its US premier in the week of June 20, 2011 in Santa Fe at an event organized by the Lannan Foundation, a liberal organization advocating freedom of speech. Pilger was due to attend and discuss free speech, US foreign policy and censorship in the media. The film was, however, abruptly cancelled by the Lannan Foundation and Pilger’s visit cancelled. Pilger called it a “compelling symbol of our extraordinary times” where an “organization, espousing freedom of speech, has moved ruthlessly and unaccountably to crush it.”

The film is available for downloading here. The trailer and reviews are on Pilger's website www.johnpilger.com

Response to US State Department Statement on Israel and Palestine

noreply@blogger.com (sama) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:42:00 +0000

On June 15, 2011, the US State Department released a statement by Esther Brimmer (Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of International Organization Affairs) entitled “Multilateral Cooperation between the United States and Israel: Fighting Delegitimization, Moving Forward Together.” The statement had been delivered at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (NEP) and it illuminates Washington’s “unbreakable” and “ironclad” bond with Israel. With a second term election approaching, the Obama administration is courting the Israel lobby again.

Brimmer cites Washington’s “extensive military cooperation and assistance” to Israel as “one pillar” in an “unparalleled strategic partnership” with Israel. The administration, Brimmer says, will be “unshakeable” in its opposition to efforts that de-legitimize Israel. Apparently, the US will consider a Palestinian declaration of independent statehood at the UN, expected this September, as a de-legitimizing effort. “We reject” she said “counterproductive attempts to resolve permanent status issues at the UN.” Throughout the Arab Spring, civil society voices have called for a resolution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Nonetheless, Brimmer lists numerous ways in which Washington has worked “tirelessly” to ensure that Israel’s “legitimacy” is not in dispute.

According to Brimmer, examples of Israel's "positive global agenda" include: aid, an appointment to the Human Rights Council’s Special Working Group on discrimination against women, and the passing of annual resolutions on agricultural technology. Such actions cannot absolve Israel of its responsibilities under international law, however. From the US perspective, Israel’s excessive use of force against Palestinian people is legitimate, it seems. Attempts to hold Israel accountable are perceived as “unbalanced” and “one-sided.” Israel and the US perceive any criticisms of Israel and calls upon Israel to comply with international law as “de-legitimizing” efforts.

Brimmer portrays the UN as a venue in which US power interests can be promoted rather than a venue that upholds universal standards or the rule of law. In 1967, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from the territory it occupied during the Six Day War. In 2002, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders. International consensus on this has prevailed for more than twenty years. But negotiations have not implemented the 1967 resolution. Instead, over time, Israel has expanded its settlements in the territories and altered the demographic make-up of East Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the US continues to insist on a peaceful “negotiated settlement” rather than UN efforts.

UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has suggested that the Palestinians have been too patient and too willing to accept the role of Israel’s leading supporter as a mediating diplomatic force. The Palestinian National Authority is, therefore, looking towards the UN for a resolution. Indeed, if put to a vote, the UN General Assembly is likely to pass a resolution recognizing Palestine as an independent state. The US will veto any UN Security Council resolution on Palestinian membership in the UN. The threat of such a veto may convince the Palestinian National Authority to go back to the phantom negotiating table. More likely, though, the Palestinian National Authority will try to use a UN General Assembly resolution to gain wider recognition and press for real independence.

The Guantánamo Bay Files: Revealing the Mindset of the US Military

noreply@blogger.com (Alexandra) — Mon, 02 May 2011 14:03:00 +0000

The release of the “Guantánamo Bay files” has sent shockwaves throughout the global media, now busy pouring over the 759 detainee assessment dossiers. With files highlighting the reality that many Guantánamo inmates were either innocent or only low-level operatives in al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, further fingers are pointing at the suspected human rights abuses arising from the infamous Cuban prison. President Obama, who promised to oversee the closure of Guantánamo Bay within his first year of office, is set to face a challenging period ahead.

The “secret” classified documents which describe in detail particulars ranging from levels of threat indicators, to potentiality of prisoner release, range from 2002 to 2009. They list, amongst others Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks and Hambali (Ridouan Isomuddin), accused of organizing the 2002 Bali bombings, as well as Sami al-Hajj, an al-Jazeera cameraman inexplicably incarcerated for 6 years, and Naqib Ullah, aged just 14 when he was taken to Guantánamo. When reading through the dossiers, it becomes very clear just how many innocent victims were deported to the prison: approximately 150 Afghani and Pakistanis were captured post 9/11 in the hope of extracting minimal intelligence. Considering this gross mistreatment of innocent civilians, it is equally clear why the Pentagon has strongly condemned the leaks, claiming they could undermine its anti-terrorism efforts.

The Guantánamo Bay files offer a remarkable insight into the US military’s investigation and handling of suspected terrorist. However, Guantánamo remains a prison cloaked in secrecy and steeped in infamy. As revealing as the dossiers seem, many crucial issues such as torture, the role and existence of other prisons, and the compliance of client states are not tackled by the leaks. These official documents fail to address the inconvenient truths which would incriminate the practices of US military, as they provide detainee analysis as opposed to raw information. We witness the mindset of the interrogators, the piecing together of parts of the al-Qaeda puzzle and the fear-mongering assumptions made by the intelligence services. Only with the release of medical records, guard logs and CCTV footage, would the intimate details of the Guantánamo system ever become clear.

So what do the Guantánamo leaks reveal in these early days of release? Primarily, they send alarm bells ringing regarding the wide-scale incarceration of innocent victims, from an “incompetent” or knowingly unlawful US military. As Bernhard Docke, German lawyer informed Der Spiegel, "Guantanamo appears to be an autistic and Kafka-esque machine of suspicion in which vague conjecture, simply through the passage of time and constant repetition, becomes supposedly solid fact." The files consolidate suspicion that Guantánamo prisoners, innocent or not, are held in a state of perpetual limbo, apparently outside of any legal jurisdiction. Regardless of the lack of juicy details, the dossiers confirm that the US needs to drastically and speedily reform its anti-terror policy as the Wikileaks and whistle blowing phenomena sweep the globe.

The Tax that Would Never Happen

noreply@blogger.com (Katarina Wahlberg) — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:26:00 +0000

A few weeks ago the European Parliament voted in support of a Europe-wide financial transaction tax. The vote is non-binding, but it marks an important step towards restoring the balance between a European population hit by the financial crisis and a still very unregulated and under-taxed financial sector.

A tiny tax on currency trade and other financial transactions (equities, certificates, derivatives) could help to both regulate the market and raise revenue to help pay for the bailouts of the banking sector, finance global development and tackle climate change.

A tax of between 0.01 and 0.05 percent could raise nearly 200 billion Euros on the EU-level and US$650 billion on a global level. Compare this to the US$32 billion that the United Nations and all its organs and agencies spend annually, or the US$140 billion that constitutes world official development assistance.

The European Parliament is far from the only high-level body that supports a tax on financial transactions. In Europe, the governments of France, Germany, Austria and Spain are supporting the tax. Further prominent business people and economists including George Soros, Warren Buffet, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs are backing the proposal.

The idea of a tax on currency transactions is not new. Economy Professor James Tobin originally proposed such a tax in the early 1970s to decrease harmful currency speculation by throwing “some sand in the wheels” of the markets. Since then, the foreign exchange market turnover has expanded dramatically to over $4 trillion per day. In the meantime, the tax has made it back on the agenda at regular intervals.

For example, after the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998, economists, NGOs and progressive politicians called for a tax to prevent similar financial crises in the future. The idea remained controversial, however, with strong opposition from large banking centers like Wall Street and the City of London. Even supporters of the tax often expressed skepticism that it would ever gain sufficient political traction.

Then, after the turn of the millennium, global taxes were promoted again during high-level discussions at the UN on how to finance international development. In 2004-2005, French President Jacques Chirac and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, led a high-profile campaign supporting several kinds of international taxes to finance the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Partly to minimize opposition, the campaign emphasized the revenue-raising aspects of the taxes and downplayed the vital role taxes can play in steering policies. But, powerful interests like banks and institutional investors kept vigorously opposing taxes on financial transactions and by June 2005 the high-profile campaign of Chirac and Lula had boiled down to discussions on a much less ambitious airline ticket tax.

Perhaps this time will be different. The global financial crisis has turned things on its head. Banks and financial institutions no longer enjoy the same amount of trust or clout. Citizens are questioning the favors and benefits given to the banks and financial institutions that caused the global crisis and governments are having to respond to those concerns.

Where have all the fish gone? Have we reached the end of the line?

noreply@blogger.com (Melissa Martin) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:36:00 +0000

By 2048 we might have a world without seafood. Bluefin tuna, cod, salmon, snapper or halibut will not exist in our diets because they will have been fished out. Even clams, lobster and shrimp are at risk.

The End of the Line, the first major documentary film revealing the impact of overfishing, examines the impact of human fish consumption on the world’s oceans. Charles Clover, the investigative journalist who wrote the book on which the film is based, confronts politicians and restaurateurs who seem to care very little about the destruction of our oceans. Clover says that, "we must stop thinking of our oceans as a food factory and realize that they thrive as a huge and complex marine environment.”

Multiple reasons have caused the current crisis. Consumers demand more variety of fish and unknowingly eat unsustainably caught seafood. According to a recent report on the decline of predator fish, humans have caught and consumed over 65 per cent of all large fish species in the last 100 years. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Experts say that this ecological imbalance will forever change the oceans, with only small fish such as sardines and anchovies surviving in future decades.

Governments and politicians overlook the advice of scientists who set limits on the numbers of fish which should be caught to maintain and restore depleting fish species. The UN Environment Program says international organizations and governments should regulate the number of fishing boats and the days they fish in order to stabilize fish populations.

Furthermore, the global fishing industry reacts slowly to a fish crises on which their livelihoods depend. Fishermen discard more than 10 per cent of all the fish caught for human consumption. As much as two-thirds of the fish caught in some areas ends up back into the water, usually dead. EU rules specify that when a quota for one species is exceeded, fishermen must throw surplus catch back into the ocean. EU Ministers plan to make the most radical change to fisheries policy in 40 years: a common fisheries policy, aiming to reform fishing quotas. Fishermen do not need to throw away their by-catch. This is a small step in the right direction. However more people should be educated about eating sustainable seafood, and politicians should respect the science and support the creation of marine reserves.

To view the End of the Line trailer and website, click here.

The Economics of Happiness: Think Localization, Act Against Globalization

noreply@blogger.com (Melissa Martin) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:06:00 +0000

This new documentary film asks the viewer to think about the problems caused by globalization and to consider the benefits of localization. The film makers urge the audience to consider a different lifestyle, leading to greater happiness and wellbeing through interdependence at a community level. The films’ underlying thesis is that “going local” is a powerful strategy to help repair our fractured world – our ecosystems, our societies and our selves’. The imagery evokes a feel-good response from the viewer and inspires the audience to build collective civil society movements that support the growth of local food, local businesses and eventually local economies.

Directors Helena Norberg-Hodge, Steven Gorelick, and John Page blame globalization - an unsustainable global economic system - for many modern problems like climate change, poverty, hunger and the epidemic of depression. In addition, the film shows how globalization “breeds cultural self-rejection, competition, and divisiveness” as well as how it “structurally promotes growth of slums and urban sprawl”.
The Economics of Happiness then offers practical solutions to counter the negative effects of globalization. Activists can use messages from the film to grow local movements and increase support for wellbeing, the environment and community at a local level. The film makers anticipate that society as a whole will become happier if action is taken at a community level to localize.

Whilst globalization appears to be a phenomenon knowing no bounds and few alternatives, peoples’ movements, like the one this film is seeking to build, show that the effects are neither irreversible nor inevitable. We can all work together to shape an alternate future where local traditions, cultures and communities are preserved, ultimately safeguarding our happiness. We can build a globalization of cooperation, solidarity, and respect for the environment while simultaneously restoring our own sense of wellbeing and faith in humanity.

To find out more about the film, click here.

To find out more on GPFs position on globalization, click here.

“Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits” – Recently Released Documentary Offers Searing Indictment of UN Intervention in Haiti

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:41:00 +0000

While the world focuses on the one-year anniversary of the earthquake that devastated Haiti, a recently released documentary is a welcome reminder that Haiti’s history didn’t start in 2010. Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits offers an uncompromising perspective on the years 2004-2005, when Haiti went through a coup that ousted democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and a subsequent occupation by foreign troops under a UN Security Council mandate. The director, Kevin Pina, a Creole-speaking American journalist who has lived in Haiti on and off for 15 years, tells a story that has so far largely been outshone by the official narrative.

The title of Pina’s documentary is borrowed from General Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira, the military commander for the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti from 2004 to 2006. Pereira allegedly claimed that “we” – presumably the UN in conjunction with the Haitian police - had to “kill the bandits – but it will have to be only the bandits, not everybody.” He was referring to the armed gangs reportedly operating from the Cité Soleil slum in Port-au-Prince. The thought of an officer in charge of a UN peacekeeping mission describing his mission as “killing” is disturbing enough, but the term “bandit” also has a heavy historical background. During the 1915-1934 US occupation of Haiti, the Marines were already rounding up “bandits,” as all the young men who were fighting against the US military presence were called. “Bandits” became a popular term to label the resistance movement. That the UN should embrace it decades later is disturbing.

Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits follows what happened in Haiti after President Aristide was ousted by a coup in February 2004. While Aristide was forcibly flown to Africa, the Multinational Interim Force (MIF) – mainly US, Canadian and French troops - was sent to Haiti under a Security Council mandate, supposedly to offer “humanitarian” protection to the population. This intervention brought to power a government led by Gérard Latortue, a former UN official who lived in the US at the time of the coup.

In June 2004, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) took over from the MIF. The mission was headed by General Pereira from Brazil, and staffed mainly with Brazilian soldiers. A US cable from March 2004 released by Wikileaks reveals that Brazil first insisted that it would only participate in a peacekeeping mission sent under Chapter VI, but in the end conceded to a Chapter VII mission (see paragraph 4 of the cable). This is not trivial. While Chapter VI missions are “traditional” peacekeeping missions – they require the agreement of all parties concerned and impose heavy restraints on the use of force by peacekeepers – Chapter VII missions can be defined as “peace enforcement” rather than “peacekeeping.” For a Chapter VII mission to be deployed, the Security Council has to determine that the situation constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the mandate outlines circumstances in which peacekeepers are permitted to fire their arms, for instance to protect UN personnel or civilians.

The Chapter VII MINUSTAH was mandated, among other things, to “ensure a secure and stable environment” in “support of the Transitional Government” (the Latortue government) and “to assist with the restoration and maintenance of the rule of law, public safety and public order in Haiti through the provision inter alia of operational support to the Haitian National Police and the Haitian Coast Guard.” In other words, the Security Council was lending support to a de facto regime with a heavily-armed peacekeeping mission, contributing to the militarization of the situation in Haiti. After watching Pina’s documentary, one is left with the impression that MINUSTAH was sent less to “keep peace” than to perform riot control. “Without the UN, this government would fall in a week,” Pina rightly points out.

The UN peacekeeping force effectively assisted the Latortue government in its efforts to silence supporters of Aristide’s party Lavalas under the guise of fighting the “bandits.” Pina’s documentary presents compelling evidence that activists from Lavalas suffered harsh repression at the hands of both the Haitian police and MINUSTAH. Large Lavalas demonstrations starting from Cité Soleil, a bastion of Aristide supporters, were met with violence by the Haitian police. While the UN officially condemned the killing of demonstrators by the police, a shocking footage from the documentary shows that in one occasion General Pereira refused to intervene even as demonstrators were being shot a few meters away.

Worse still, in July 2005, MINUSTAH led an assault on Cité Soleil against the “bandits.” 22,000 rounds were shot in just seven hours. The footage from the raid’s aftermath is difficult to watch, even though Pina blurred some of the most graphic footage. We see a woman wailing as the body of her dead husband lies on the floor of their house, and a young priest showing the bullet impacts on the walls of his church. A blind man nursing several gunshot wounds sings a tune he composed after the raid to lament the death of his two children.The chorus goes “What have I done to you, MINUSTAH foreigners?”

The voice of these people is rarely heard in the establishment media. When it is mentioned, it is often to dismiss it as “propaganda.” As journalist Isabel MacDonald underlines in her review of the documentary, “Haiti: We Must Kill the Bandits provides a rare account from the other side of the vast racialized class divide that separates the international press from Lavalas’ base of support.” Kevin Pina may show only one side of the story – he acknowledges it at the beginning of the documentary - but it’s a side that remains badly underreported. His documentary is a must-see for anyone trying to go beyond the worn-down clichés the media use to describe the crisis in Haiti.

We Must Kill the Bandits can be seen here.

More info on the Haiti Information Project (HIP), the alternative media organization which produced the documentary, can be found here.

Ansel Herz, a freelance journalist based in Port-Au-Prince, published on his blog an interesting comparative review of Pina’s documentary and “The Battle for Haiti,” a PBS documentary which “lauds the United Nations peacekeeping mission and the Haitian police for waging a heroic but doomed battle against violent gangs.”

Picture credit: Reuters, 2007

So what is going on with Af-Pak? A review of a week's coverage of the Afghan war

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:27:00 +0000

Anyone reading the news about Afghanistan last week would be forgiven for being confused. In the course of a few days readers were submerged with a series of contradictory headlines. On December 14, we were told that “Intelligence Reports Offer Dim View of Afghan War.” The following day, another article reported that “For Red Cross, Aid Conditions Hit New Low in Afghanistan.” This left us ill-prepared for the December 16 announcement by Barack Obama that his strategy in Afghanistan is “on track.” So what exactly is going on there? Three conflicting narratives – from US intelligence agencies, NGOs on the ground and the US military, respectively - are competing for the public’s attention. Whose narrative should we trust?

Losing “hearts and minds”

The picture painted by NGOs on the ground is not pretty. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) gave a news conference this week to “express deep concern that Afghanistan security had deteriorated to its worst point since the overthrow of the Taliban nine years ago.” This is particularly significant given that the ICRC usually avoids the public eye and rarely voices its concerns so openly. But it chose to break its usual reserve to report that the number of Afghan civilians killed or forced to leave their home has steadily increased “against the backdrop of a proliferation of armed actors.” Reading between the lines, some might see a thinly veiled reference to the 30,000 troop surge ordered by Obama when he took office.

While civilian casualties have risen, relief workers have also been victims of worsening violence. At least 100 workers have been killed so far this year, the worst tally since the war started. This has prompted a sharp reexamination of the US strategy to win “hearts and minds,” which NGOs accuse of militarizing humanitarian aid. The US counterinsurgency strategy is based on associating development aid to the military push, which is illustrated by the “Provincial Reconstruction Teams” (PRTs) staffed by both troops and civilians. Most of the time, these civilians turn out to be contractors from profit-making private development companies. Not surprisingly, they have often been targeted by insurgents as being part of the conflict. Eighty aid contractors employed by USAID were killed this year. While NATO officials argue that the insurgents don’t distinguish between aid workers, NGOs such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) have managed to operate relatively safely by not becoming associated with any program strengthening the government. As one member of MSF points out, “the government is just one of many warring parties.”

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Pakistan

The US counterinsurgency strategy is failing and more civilians are being killed than ever. But for US intelligence agencies, the biggest problem in Afghanistan is not the US military presence, of course. It’s Pakistan. Two reports released this week – one on Afghanistan and one on Pakistan – argue that there can be no success in Afghanistan unless Pakistan agrees to hunt down insurgents operating from safe havens across the border. The reports lament Pakistan’s lack of cooperation with the US even when it’s accepting $2 billion in so-called “aid” money (most of it goes to the Pakistani military).

Pakistani citizens, whose opinion is rarely considered worth hearing, would beg to disagree with the assertion that the Pakistani government doesn’t take US interests to heart. Diplomatic cables recently published by Wikileaks reveal – or rather, confirm - the degree of corruption within the Pakistani government and the ease with which it acquiesces to US demands. In 2008, for example, Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani told American Ambassador Anne Paterson that he “didn’t care” if drone strikes were launched against his country as long as the “right people” were targeted. “We’ll protest in the National Assembly,” Gilani added cynically, “and then ignore it.” As Pakistani writer Tariq Ali puts it: “The WikiLeaks confirm what we already know about Af-Pak. Pakistan is a US satrapy: its military and political leaders constitute a venal elite happy to kill and maim its people at the behest of a foreign power.” Researchers at the New America Foundation estimate that between 1,283 and 1,971 people have been killed since drone strikes started 6 years ago.

Incidentally, more than 100 drone strikes were reported during this year alone, up from 53 last year. Apparently this is still not enough for the CIA, which has been running this not-so-covert war since the Bush era. No doubt these recent intelligence reports are aimed at pressuring the Obama administration to step up US war efforts in Pakistan.

The Al Qaeda red herring

Not that Obama needs any pressuring, really. Pakistan was right at the center of his speech on the Afghanistan review. While the review was more optimistic about the situation in Afghanistan than the intelligence reports, it also targeted Pakistan as being critical to achieving anything close to success. The Obama administration is planning to step up attacks against insurgents in the tribal areas, which means more strikes using Predator and Reaper drones. The old Al-Qaeda bogeyman has been brought out of the closet to justify what is slowly becoming a full-fledged war on Pakistan. "Today, al-Qaeda's senior leadership in the border region is under more pressure than at any point since they fled Afghanistan nine years ago” says Obama. This means, of course, that strikes have to be intensified to preserve the momentum.

Let me get this straight. About a year ago it was reported that Al Qaeda had a grand total of 300 members in the tribal areas of Pakistan. This year there has already been 100 drone strikes, which killed more than 1,200 people. Almost every time the establishment media, dutifully relaying official statements, identified the dead as “militants” or “suspected militants.” And still we are to believe that more strikes are needed to completely defeat Al Qaeda. Next we’ll learn that it has found a way to clone its members.

Who to believe?

So which of these 3 narratives sound more convincing? The difference between the US intelligence agencies’ position and that of their military counterpart shouldn’t be overstated. Although one is slightly more optimistic than the other, ultimately they both advocate for the same thing: intensification of the war on Pakistan. We are told that there’s a “dispute” between the military and intelligence agencies (see this NY Times article) and a debate within the Obama administration, but in reality they’re just two sides of the same coin.

The problem in Afghanistan is not Pakistan. The problem is that the US is following the path of every colonial power before it. The occupation and counterinsurgency are creating a major backlash among the population, who’s getting tired of being “liberated” after 9 years of war. This is something that neither the military nor the intelligence agencies can acknowledge, of course. Instead they’re hoping that pointing their fingers at Pakistan long enough and screaming “Al Qaeda! Al Qaeda!” at the top of their lungs will create enough distraction so that people forget to look at what’s really going on in Afghanistan. But are we seriously supposed to believe that the solution to Afghanistan’s woes is to increase strikes on Pakistan, a country that recently experienced a natural catastrophe worse than the Asian tsunami of 2004, the Pakistan earthquake of 2005, and the recent earthquake in Haiti combined, and that is already incredibly volatile?

A Goodies Basket of Diplomatic and Security Guarantees for Israel – In exchange For a Mere 90-Day Settlement Freeze

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:13:00 +0000

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel seems to have secured enough votes from his Security Cabinet to approve a US-backed settlement freeze which is suppose to break the current impasse in the peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The Washington Times reported that Mr. Netanyahu brought the proposal before the Cabinet with “great determination” to secure a positive vote. According to the New York Times, President Obama commends Mr. Netanyahu for taking such a constructive step – “it’s not easy for him to do.”

From these descriptions, one is led to think that Mr. Netanyahu is making quite a noble effort in the name of peace by accepting the harsh terms of the proposed freeze. Hardly. For a mere 90-day freeze on construction in the West Bank – Jerusalem is excluded from the freeze – Mr. Netanyahu is being handed a goodies basket of diplomatic and security guarantees from the US. The deal is incredibly lop-sided especially considering the widespread opinion internationally that Israel is violating international law by continuing settlement construction.

The proposed deal, negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, means Hanukkah has come early for Mr. Netanyahu. In exchange for a one-time-only 90-day settlement moratorium, Israel will receive 20 F35 Jets worth $3 billion, a promise that the US will veto any future Security Council resolution that recognizes Palestinian statehood in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza without Israeli agreement, as well as assurances that the Obama administration will not press for any further settlement freezes. Yet supposedly this was “not easy” for Mr. Netanyahu to accept.

The effect this deal will have on the peace process is questionable. The effect this deal will have on broader peace and security in the Middle East is unfortunately clear. The new F35 Joint Strike Fighters Jets that are part of the deal have not yet even been deployed to US forces. Funneling more highly advanced arms into the Middle East, while a welcome boon for US arms exporters, will only fuel the upward spiral of military spending and the Middle East regional arms race. Meanwhile, despite showering Israel with gifts, the Palestinian question will in all likelihood still remain unresolved once the 90-day freeze is over.

“We had to destroy them to make them safe”: Orwell in Afghanistan

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:41:00 +0000

The New York Times reported yesterday that NATO troops in Afghanistan have launched a widespread campaign to destroy abandoned homes and farms thought to be “booby-trapped.” As troops advance in newly won districts around the city of Kandahar, they are encountering buildings left heavily rigged with explosives by Taliban insurgents. In the name of safety, NATO has undertaken to systematically destroy almost every unoccupied home or unused farm building in areas where it is operating. Troops are using an impressive – and, some might say, disproportionate - array of tools including “armed bulldozers, high explosives, missiles and even airstrikes.”

According to the Times, the campaign has garnered widespread support from Afghan officials, and even part of the local population. The common wisdom is that there is no other way to get rid of the explosives and protect the population. In a twist that smacks of Newspeak, an Afghan official argues that “we had to destroy them to make them safe.” “Destroying to Save Lives” is the Orwellian title the Times has chosen for the slideshow illustrating the article. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is power, and destruction is protection.

These “house-borne improvised explosive devices,” as the troops have taken to call them, certainly represent a danger to both the US military and Afghan civilians. However, they are being used as an alibi to justify a wider campaign of destruction aimed at depriving the Taliban of hiding places and fighting positions. As the Times underlines, the US military is not only destroying homes, but also “tree lines where insurgents could hide” and “agricultural walls.”

This is eerily reminiscent of the strategy adopted by the US during the Vietnam war, when the military used massive quantities of Agent Orange to destroy forests and deprive the National Liberation Front guerilla of food and cover. The defoliation program was also aimed at driving the rural population away from the countryside to US-controlled cities, thus removing the guerilla’s support base.

The enemy has changed, but the strategy hasn’t. Nor have the justifications for it. Then as now destruction was presented as a necessary step for protection: if the communists take control of Vietnam / if Afghanistan becomes a safe haven for Al Qaeda, it will be the end of the civilized world as we know it. If what happened in Vietnam is any indication, apparently Afghanistan will only be deemed completely safe once it is totally destroyed.

Punish the whistleblowers, reward the passive onlookers: the staggering double standard around US war crimes

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:58:00 +0000

The US Justice Department has announced that it would not press charges over the destruction of CIA videotapes depicting the “enhanced interrogation” of terrorism suspects. In 2005, Jose Rodriguez Jr, a top CIA official, authorized the destruction of 92 tapes showing two detainees being repeatedly waterboarded. Although the CIA was instructed by a court law not to destroy evidence of torture, CIA officials argue that their motive was innocent: they were only trying to protect the identity of the interrogators.

This decision shocked many civil liberties and human rights groups. However, it is consistent with the stance adopted by the Obama administration, which has vowed to “look forward, not backwards,” and has made no serious efforts to investigate crimes committed during the so-called “war on terror.” Not surprisingly, the very people who attempted to cover up the widespread use of torture against terrorism suspects are walking free. According to one of Rodriguez’ attorneys, he “is an American hero, a true patriot who only wanted to protect his people and his country.” And his own back.

Conversely, attempts to “look back” are not welcome, and whistleblowers are being treated like criminals. The website Wikileaks angered many powerful people when it published classified documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These documents revealed how the US military was responsible for the widespread killing of civilians, and had passively condoned the torture of detainees at the hands of Iraqi security forces.

Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of leaking classified military documents on the Afghan war to Wikileaks, could face a 52 year sentence. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald reported this week that US citizens associated with Wikileaks had been detained at US airports and their electronic equipments seized, “all without a search warrant, without being charged with a crime, and without even being under investigation.” In July, Jacob Applebaum, a spokesman for Wikileaks, was detained at Newark airport while returning from a trip and interrogated at length. His electronic equipment was confiscated, and still has to be handed back to him to this day. Last week, David House, a 23-year-old researcher who created the Bradley Manning Support Network, was detained at O’Hare airport and interrogated by two FBI agents.

Accusing Wikileaks of having blood on its hands was not enough. Now the US government has seemingly launched a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Wikileaks and its supporters. Meanwhile, in the name of “looking forward,” charges are being dropped against the people responsible for covering up the systematic torture of detainees. How long will it be before looking backward becomes a crime?

The NYT and the art of selective reporting: Women suicides by fire in Afghanistan

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:58:00 +0000

Last August, Time Magazine used as its cover a shocking picture of Aisha, a young Afghan woman who was sentenced to have her nose and ears cut off by a Taliban commander. Next to the picture was the caption “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan” - no question mark. Time’s cover was seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to justify the war in Afghanistan by way of the long debunked argument that the US-led intervention is about protecting women. Although the situation of Afghan women has certainly not markedly improved since 2001, they still serve as a convenient alibi for US war efforts in the region.

This was illustrated again this morning by an article in the New York Times. “For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out” might be less obvious in its politics than Time’s cover, but its take on the plight of Afghan women is very similar. The article focuses on the high number of women who each year attempt to commit suicide by setting themselves on fire. Most women resort to this extreme act after years of abuse by their husband and their family. In some cases, the burns are actually inflicted by relatives, as a way to get rid of a woman who has “stained” the family’s honor.

No doubt the fate of these women is terrible. However, the Times’ coverage of the situation is severely lacking. Not once in the article does the author mention that the US has been occupying Afghanistan for almost 10 years now. There is absolutely no examination of how this might affect the situation of Afghan women. While the article states that women are attempting suicide to escape “from poverty, from forced marriages, from the abuse and despondency,” it is careful not to add “war” to the list of ills affecting women in Afghanistan. The fact that women are often the first victims of conflict – which robs them of their husbands, confines them to their home, forces them to move as troops advance, and often kills them – never seems to cross the author’s mind. The suffering of Afghan women is not worth reporting if it’s inflicted by anyone else than those backward Afghan men. “Violence in the lives of Afghanistan’s women comes from everywhere: from her father or brother, from her husband, from her father-in-law, from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law” – but certainly not at the hands of US soldiers.

Tellingly, when the article mentions that the number of burn cases is “up nearly 30 percent from last year,” it never links this increase to the escalating US war efforts in the region. The addition of 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan last year appears nowhere. It’s as if the lives of these women and the US military intervention were happening in two parallel universes.

This selective reporting allows the author to subtly reinforce the idea that Afghan women need protection. By pointing to the gruesome fate of these women, the article implies that they’re in need of a benevolent benefactor that will “liberate” them. But the US intervention so far has had the opposite effect. If anything, it has made life more difficult for these women. While the article mentions that poverty is one of the lead causes of suicide, it evades the question of how women’s livelihoods have been affected by the war. By omitting this fact and others, the Times seems to be suggesting that the solution to the plight of Afghan women is more war, not less.

Washington’s Huge New Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia: a reality check for the MDG conference at the United Nations

noreply@blogger.com (Helen Paine) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:47:00 +0000

When political leaders from around the world gather at the UN to consider the Millennium Development Goals, there will be plenty of rhetoric about commitments to reduce poverty, hunger and disease. But the real commitment of the powerful players is certainly not to “pro-poor” policies, as we are daily reminded.

Providing a reality-check on international priorities, the Wall Street Journal announced on September 15 that US aviation firms will be selling $60 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia for advanced fighter jets and military helicopters. The paper reported that there is also a $30 billion package for naval ships in the pipeline and another large contract for ballistic missile defense under discussion. The Saudis will obtain 84 new F-15 fighters, along with dozens of Apache, Black Hawk and Little Bird helicopters – one of the biggest arms deals of all time. Struck in the midst of an economic crisis, the deal has been hyped in Washington as a “major job creator,” a source of economic stimulus, and an important gesture to a friendly ally.

Oil for arms – that is the essence of the arrangement -- with hefty profits on both ends of the deal. At a time when governments are slashing their budgets and tens of millions are unemployed, this is one of the sickening “solutions” that are being offered, to promote economic recovery.

Such deals inevitably touch off local arms races and prestige purchases. The Israelis will be buying from the same companies an even more advanced and long-range fighter, the F-35. The oil-rich Emirates are on their own arms-buying spree. And we can imagine that the Iranians, fearful of this flood of new weapons in the neighborhood, will be desperately hustling for additional means of defense.

The arms trade is definitely about wealth promotion, not poverty alleviation. First and foremost, the great arms deals enrich the company shareholders. The deals also involve massive corruption that enriches political and military figures. Consider, the last great Saudi arms contract, the Al-Yamanah deal, worth £40 billion, struck with UK arms giant BAE. The company, keen to sell its advanced Tornado fighter aircraft, doled out millions to members of the Saudi royal family, notably Prince Turki Bin Nasser, Commander and senior procurement officer of the Royal Saudi Air Force. Using fake offshore accounts and secret Swiss bank arrangements, BAE showered Prince Turki and his family with luxurious travel and expensive playthings - even a gold-plated Rolls Royce.

Sir Dick Evans, BAE chief executive, had earlier assured the House of Commons that his firm was “in complete compliance” with strict anti-corruption rules. But the UK Serious Fraud Office smelled malfeasance and began an investigation. Suddenly, on orders from Downing Street, the whole enterprise of investigation was shut down in late 2006. Prime Minister Blair had determined that the investigation was contrary to the country’s “strategic interest!” The Saudi royals were relieved.

Of course, Washington will insist that it has more robust rules, that everything is on the up-and-up, that oversight is working well with the new arms deal. But no credible evidence leads to such a conclusion.

As for the world’s poor, they will have to wait their turn. After the arms bills and the slush funds have been paid, the banks bailed out and the wars waged, perhaps something will be left over for the Millennium Development Goals.

France's Plutocracy - the Bettencourt Scandal shakes the Republic

noreply@blogger.com (Helen Paine) — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:14:00 +0000

A scandal is shaking France, with all the ingredients of a mystery thriller: an aging heiress, her alleged gifts of manilla envelopes stuffed with money for illicit campaign contributions, an island in the Seychelles owned through secret accounts in Luxembourg, a butler who surreptitiously records his employer’s conversations, other offshore accounts and tax-avoiding schemes centered on Switzerland, and sordid political implications that reach high into the national leadership, including the president of the republic, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Known as L’Affaire Bettencourt, after the heiress, Lilliane Bettencourt, the scandal has been grabbing headlines in Europe for weeks, as police carry out searches and the internet hums with newly-disclosed treasures of information on the case. Bettencourt, worth $20 billion, is heiress to the L'Oreal cosmetics fortune.

Such a scandal reveals, in all its sordid detail, the inner workings of France's plutocratic system. Thanks to the butler’s recordings, comments by accountants, and other evidence dug up by the judicial police, we see how the super-rich pour money into political campaigns through secret contributions in defiance of strict limits in the law. The facts of the case are not yet proven and perhaps never will be, but there is strong evidence in the form of a cash withdrawal of fifty thousand euros just prior to an alleged meeting at which money was said to have been funneled secretively into Sarkozy’s campaign war chest.

Then there are the offshore bank accounts and properties that Madame Bettencourt owns, in spite of French laws banning such tax-evasion arrangements. Ironically, Eric Woerth, then Budget Minister, made public gestures to close down offshore abuses, while his wife was working at the time for the money managers of Mme. Bettencourt, who were actively maintaining large offshore holdings. As treasurer of Sarkozy’s party, Woerth was almost certainly involved in the illicit contribution scheme and he has now resigned from that post. But he continues as Minister of Labor, in charge of a major rollback of French public pensions. To curry favor with Woerth, Mme. Bettencourt’s key financial advisor gave a cushy job to Woerth’s wife, according to his own report in one of the tape recorded conversations.

Recently the scandal has taken another nasty turn. When Le Monde newspaper published leaked police documents revealing further evidence of Eric Woerth’s complicity, France’s domestic intelligence service opened a secret investigation to track down the leaker – in direct violation of national laws protecting journalists’ sources. Le Monde has accused President Sarkozy of himself ordering the investigation, in defiance of a press law he introduced into the National Assembly in January. Sarkozy is fighting for his political future, and no holds are barred to protect the plutocracy and their dear friends in government.

Diamonds are Forever?

noreply@blogger.com (Paulo da Rosa) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:11:00 +0000

“I’m used to seeing diamonds shiny and in a box.“ At least now we know why Naomi Campbell gave the “dirty looking stones” to the Nelson Mandela Children’s fund. They just weren’t shiny enough.

Yes, like many, I also watched Campbell testify before the Special Court for Sierra Leone Court last week. I had routinely switched on CNN and found myself in the middle of a live broadcast of Campbell’s account of what happened that midnight in September 1997, in the Cape Town home of the then South African President Nelson Mandela.

It was quite on surreal to watch Campbell – a British supermodel of Chinese Jamaican descent known for her unique look, but also her anger-management problems – testify before an international court in a case against former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who has been charged with murder, rape, mutilation and sexual slavery during wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone. The prosecutors had asked the UN-backed Court to subpoena the British supermodel in order to link the Liberian former president to ‘blood diamonds’ which he allegedly received from the Sierra Leone’s rebel group Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in exchange for arms and munitions.

In the end, Ms. Campbell, the defense counsel, the lead prosecutor, and the court’s presiding judge managed to put up quite a show. Campbell revealed that she received some “small, dirty looking stones” in her room from strange men, that she had “actually never heard of Liberia at that time”, and that her appearance before the Court had been “a big inconvenience to her.” Then there was the embarrassing dispute between the lead prosecutor and the judge on whether Campbell was actually the Court’s or the prosecutor’s witness. It almost seemed as if both realized that Campbell’s testimony had actually been a waste of time and that it had only served the huge media frenzy surrounding Campbell’s appearance before the Court.

Campbell’s testimony attracted an excess of mainstream media to the tiny Dutch city of Leidschendam – a city that no one outside the Netherlands had ever heard of – to cover the matter. In addition, CNN, among other networks, provided a live broadcast of Campbell’s testimony for over an hour and a half. After actress Mia Farrow – another big star – testified before the Court last Tuesday, CNN even decided to interview the US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes, Stephen J. Rapp, to clarify matters.

This attention on Campbell’s testimony has been extremely disproportionate compared to the scarce media coverage of the Charles Taylor case in the previous years. This “celebrity meets war crimes suspect incident” seems to be very unfortunate for the victims of the Sierra Leonean civil war or victims of any ongoing armed conflict in Africa. Guardian blogger, Marina Hyde, has characterized it perfectly by stating that we should “hope that Janjaweed militia are making a pitch for posterity by sending baskets of muffins to Lindsay Lohan, because if and when they are ever brought to justice, they sure as Shirley aren’t going to make the major bulletins without that kind of news peg.”

Soon after Campbell’s show performance, the Court resumed with the continuation of the evidence of Issa Hassan Sesay, the convicted former interim leader of the RUF, which Mr. Taylor is accused of receiving blood diamonds from. CNN, however, had already shifted its focus to other important news.