People Before Profit blog

Free Speech and the Corporate Media

Thu, 31 May 2007 01:35:00 +0000

5-30-07, 9:24 am

If a news station supports an anti-democratic coup against a democratically elected president, does that station have the right to broadcast ultra-right propaganda over public airwaves? If the government shuts that station down for its democratic violations, does that constitute an attack on freedom of speech? Do the people of a country have the right to decide what they allow broadcasted in their airspace? Or do the corporations have that right? And isn’t there something hypocritical about a corporation screaming about the violation of its democratic right to free speech, when it has a well documented history of grossly anti-democratic behavior?

In fact, RCTV’s actions, had they taken place in practically any major industrialized democracy around the world, would quite likely have resulted in a much quicker license revocation. The FCC has certainly barred media stations from broadcasting for actions far less significant than treason in the US.

So does this constitute a violation of free speech? Quite simply, no. The ultra-right media capitalists at RCTV still have the right to spread lies, incite people to violence, and support coups. The people of Venezuela have simply decided that RCTV can no longer use their airwaves to do so. They’ll now have to stand on soapboxes out in the streets like everyone else.

I write all of this not to say I completely agree with the particular course of action the Venezuelan government has taken. For starters, a media corporation with as much capital, and with as many friends in the worldwide corporate media (and particularly the US corporate media) should have no problem spinning the Venezuelan’s governments actions as “authoritarian” and anti-democratic. In fact, RCTV’s corporate media friends both in Venezuela (i.e., Globovision) and around the world (e.g., FOX News, CNN, Bloomberg Corporation, etc.) have already started a concerted and coordinated media saturation campaign against the Venezuelan government attempting to convince people that it is an “authoritarian” and “un-democratic” regime.

Yet even if RCTV weren’t part of a very powerful media conglomerate with even more powerful friends, I probably still wouldn’t have supported a license revocation. In my opinion, censorship is never the answer. It gives that which is censored a legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve. I would have instead advocated for a different tactic: lure away the station’s top talent with higher salaries and newer, better shows and launch a concerted campaign to generate much larger audiences, thereby eating into RCTV’s advertising revenue and viewing audience. Furthermore, I would have also advocated doubling or tripling taxes on the corporate media.

Canada: Takeovers and job losses pile up

Thu, 31 May 2007 01:25:00 +0000

5-30-07, 9:22 am

Buried in the business pages of your daily paper, you can find staggering figures on the explosive growth of profits and mergers.

Statistics Canada reports that Canadian corporate profits for the first quarter of 2007 broke all-time records, hitting $63.8 billion, up 2.9% over the previous three month period. By comparison, quarterly profits have averaged about $50 billion in recent years. StatsCan says that 'about half of the overall profit gain can be attributed to rising commodity prices.'

The same time period saw another economic record: 483 mergers and acquisitions involving Canadian firms worth $66 billion, the highest-ever such figure for a first quarter period.

Most mainstream economists dismiss fears that this trend is eroding Canadian sovereignty, arguing that Canadian capital is buying firms outside this country faster than takeovers by foreign corporations are happening here. At first glance, the numbers seem to support such an argument. There were 143 cases of Canadian-based companies buying foreign firms in the first quarter of 2007, with a value of $22 billion, compared to 46 foreign acquisitions of Canadian companies, totalling $15 billion.

But there are problems with this analysis. As a related story on this page shows, higher export prices for energy and other commodities mean bigger profits for some Canadian companies to invest overseas. But they also lead to a higher Canadian dollar, and growing job losses in the manufacturing sector. The historical tendency to transform Canada into a 'hewer of wood and drawer of water' in the service of U.S. imperialism continues, with the happy involvement of Canadian capitalists in search of a fast buck. For working people, higher-paid, unionized manufacturing jobs are increasingly being replaced by low-paid, non-union service sector employment.

Looking at the bigger picture, what we see is a global trend as capital moves from traditional domestic bases, gobbling up competitors and profitable targets with little regard for national boundaries. Canadian corporations are full participants in this process, such as Barrick Gold and GoldCorp, 'our' mining companies which exploit labour and resources in many Third World countries.

The net outcome is a loss of popular sovereignty and democracy everywhere, including Canada. Transnational corporations are increasing their penetration of the entire globe, with outstanding exceptions such as Venezuela and Bolivia, where public ownership of resources is expanding. But working people are losing their ability to control, regulate and tax these operations. Just because Canadian mining firms reap huge profits in Central America or Indonesia, that does not give Canadians more power over the U.S.-based energy giants active in our country, for example.

In reality, the 'hollowing out' of the Canadian economy is accelerating, without a word of protest from the federal government. For example, the recently announced $33 billion (U.S.) hostile takeover bid by New York-based Alcoa Inc. for Alcan Inc. of Montreal would mean that Canada's three largest mining companies, employing 91,000 Canadians, will be controlled by foreign interests.

Falconbridge and Inco, formerly the second- and third-largest Canadian mining firms, were sold last year. Switzerland-based Xstrata PLC bought Falconbridge, with its historic Sudbury nickel operation and the Noranda and Kidd Creek base-metals deposits. Inco, which pioneered nickel production at Sudbury and in Manitoba, was snapped up by Brazil's state-owned Companhia Vale do Rio Doce.

Alcan is the world's number two producer of aluminum, a strategic metal in the aerospace and military industries which are critical to U.S. imperialism's war machine. Alcan is Canada's eighth-largest company, and the fifth-largest Canadian-controlled firm, with 64,700 employees, annual revenues of $24 billion and assets of close to $30 billion.

Interestingly, there are a few voices of sanity in the corporate towers. 'It's a disaster for Canada,' Doug Davis, money manager at Davis-Rea Ltd. in Toronto told Bloomberg News, responding to the Alcoa announcement. 'Anything and everything is for sale. We'll run out of companies to invest in.'

There is also speculation that Quebec Premier Jean Charest will raise objections to the Alcoa takeover, which would be highly unpopular in Quebec.

However, Canada has the least restrictions on foreign takeovers among the G-7 nations. As some financial analysts have noted, this is a factor in the recent spate of takeovers. Since the beginning of 2006, there have been about 600 foreign takeovers of Canadian firms, worth more than $150 billion (U.S.), including Dofasco, Hudson's Bay, and Abitibi-Consolidated.

Dominic D'Alessandro, the CEO of Manulife Financial Corp., told shareholders at the company's annual meeting in May that 'I sometimes worry that we may all wake up one day and find that as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs.' He called for ownership restrictions for 'sensitive' sectors of the economy similar to those in financial services, media and telecommunications.

But the Harper Conservatives see no problem. Federal Public Works Minister Michael Fortier (who was appointed a Senator and placed in the Harper cabinet on the same day that Vancouver Kingsway Liberal MP David Emerson jumped ship to join the Tories) told the Canadian Press that Alcoa 'is proposing in its offer to maintain most of the jobs in Quebec and, actually, elsewhere in Canada. So, we'll have to see.'

Yes, just like the Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

From People's Voice

Are the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund Becoming Irrelevant?

Wed, 30 May 2007 01:32:00 +0000

5-29-07, 9:25 am

The Wolfowitz scandal has raised some questions about the relevance of the financial institutions set up to stabilize the world economy after W.W.II. It was in 1944, just before the end of the war, at Bretton Woods, N.H. that both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were set up.

Some critics maintain that in today’s world of Globalization these institutions, along with the World Trade Organization (the successor to 1947’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, G.A.T.T.), are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Last Wednesday a major article appeared in the “Business Day” section of The New York Times addressing just this issue. (“Cracks in the Financial Foundation: Roles of 3 Institutions Questioned in a Changing Global Economy,” by Steven R. Weisman, 5-23-2007).

For one thing, their roles don’t seem to be as important as they once were. World Bank loans, for example, to poor countries only account for about 7% of the aid they get from all sources. There are also questions being raised about the Bank’s policy of loaning money to midlevel developing countries.

Some eyebrows are being raised over $40 billion in loans to China (which has a trillion dollars as reserves). The Chinese, in fact have loaned out some $20 billion of their own to poor nations in Africa. The Bank likes these loans because it knows it will get paid back with interest and it uses this money to bankroll its staff and research projects. But is it really helping the poor?

Robert E. Rubin (a past Secretary of the Treasury) is quoted as saying, “The Bretton Woods system has become outmoded. It has served us [i.e., Western capitalists] very well for a long time, but these institutions haven’t changed with the times. They need to be rethought and restructured.”

The Wolfowitz scandal didn’t help. Eckhard Deutscher, one of the Bank’s directors, says, “The biggest challenge of the World Bank is to restore its credibility. But the international community also needs to look at the whole system. There are governance problems across the board.

It has been a tradition that the head of the Bank is nominated by the US President. But what happens, as with Wolfowitz, when an incompetent President nominates an incompetent political loyalist? Wolfowitz has resigned, but Bush will get to name his replacement. Many of the international directors would like to revisit the nomination process. Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard professor, maintains that, “The Wolfowitz situation exposed what an antediluvian system the bank has. But I’m worried that this crisis is going to set back the reform process.”

Many think the Bank has really fallen down on the job of helping the poor. These critics, looking at the China situation above, want the Bank to quit loaning money to middle income countries, and to begin just giving outright grants to the poor countries. At the present time about 93% of the aid that poor countries get from the governments in the more developed world is coming from some 230 different international agencies. The Bank’s role is rather modest in comparison. Everyone seems to agree that the Bank has become, in some sense, “marginal” but still important.

The same can be said about the International Monetary Fund. Former Secretary of State (and Secretary of the Treasury as well) George P. Shultz is quoted as saying, “In the past I have called for the abolition of the I.M.F. If it disappeared tomorrow, I don’t think people would miss it very much.”

The I.M.F. you may recall, gained notoriety for insisting that Asia and Latin American countries seeking aid sould cut back on all the programs they had for helping poor people-- so called “austerity measures” were insisted upon, leading to social unrest. The Fund is unpopular at the present time, basically because there is a booming global economy, at least for the capitalists. But this is capitalism, after all, and the good times won’t last forever.

Another Harvard professor admits as much. Richard N. Cooper maintains that, “We happen to be in a very quiet time at the moment. People are saying ‘Who Needs It [the I.M.F.]?’ I am morally certain that financial crises are not a thing of the past, and that we’ll see crises in the future. The I.M.F. is the obvious collaborative instrument to deal with them.” But what about the policy of “austerity?” That might just start off a revolutionary spark.

Finally, one last institution seems on the verge of a breakdown. This is the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.). The W.T.O. dates from 1995 when it replaced the G.A.T.T. But it has been bogged down in getting a new international trade regime in place for the last five years--- ever since it began talks in 2002 in Doha, Qatar.

These talks are on the verge of failure because the Third World nations are putting up stiff resistance to rules the U.S. and Europe are trying to push through which will significantly damage poor nations to the advantage of the rich.

“Many trade experts fear,” the article reports, “that if the talks fail, it could lead to a reversal of 60 years of opening the trading system to more goods and services.”

What is the issue? The U.S. and Europe want to protect their own domestic markets and at the same time are insisting that Third World countries open their domestic markets to them. This would lead to the destruction of small and midlevel producers throughout the Third World whose domestic markets would be taken over by First World producers who would simultaneously be blocking the entrance of Third World products into the markets of the First World.

As the Times reports, “The Doha talks are at an impasse because the United States and Europe are refusing to lower barriers on farm goods and both are demanding that India and other exporting countries lower barriers of their own.”

This is a typical capitalist squabble. One that the imperialist powers are used to winning. But they have not been able to advance their cause for the last five years. Third World bourgeoisies are turning out to have more staying power against the imperialist bourgeoisies than had been expected. This too is one of the major reasons that the international financial tools of the West, hammered out at Bretton Woods in 1944 are finding themselves to be increasingly irrelevant.

--Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at

Movie Review: Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End

Wed, 30 May 2007 01:28:00 +0000

Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End Directed by Gore Verbinski

The much-anticipated third installment in the swashbuckling extravaganza that is Pirates of the Caribbean is here. Just like the Walt Disney ride which it is based on, it's one hell of a rollercoaster - although it's a neverending one at that.

Director Gore Verbinski is back at the helm, along with Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom, Geoffrey Rush and, of course, the inimitable Johnny Depp carrying on from where they left off.

Will Turner (Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Knightley) have joined forces with Captain Barbossa (Rush) in a desperate quest to free Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) from his mind-bending trap in Davy Jones' locker.

Meanwhile, the ghost ship the Flying Dutchman and its vengeful captain Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), who is under the control of the East India Trading Company, is wreaking havoc across the seven seas.

Depp fans have to wait a good half hour before the great Jack Sparrow graces the screen, but then it's just plain sailing after that.

Sparrow is as camp and as over the top as ever, although you get scores of him for the price of one. While in Davy Jones' locker, his ship the Black Pearl is manned by dozens of versions of Jack. One thinks that he is a chicken laying an egg, while another takes a liking to a goat.

Depp gets the biggest laughs, but he has serious competition from a monkey which frankly acts his socks off.

Knightley finally comes into her own in this trilogy and there is a great cameo appearance by legendary Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards as a strumming pirate lord.

This is not an easy film to follow, with more storylines that you can shiver your timbers at.

At 168 minutes long, there were times when I got that sinking feeling that I too was at the world's end losing the plot. Less would definitely have been more.

But Verbinski keeps the action pumping and on course for the big climactic finale - the final titanic battle including the showdown between Davy Jones and Sparrow at the top of a mast. On the way, there is lots of double dealing followed by triple dealing and surreal moments such as Naomi Harris, as Calypso, exploding into crabs.

No doubt the film-makers are hoping that At World's End can surpass the success Dead Man's Chest, which became the third highest-grossing movie in box office history, raking in more than $1 billion.

If it does, they have left the way open for a fourth installment.

From Morning Star

Venezuela Announces New Programs and Progress in Health and in Education

Wed, 30 May 2007 01:24:00 +0000

5-29-07, 9:18 am

Caracas, May 27, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Unperturbed by increasing criticism about the non-renewal of the broadcast license of one of Venezuela’s main television channels, Venezuela’s President Chavez announced a major new higher education initiative and important progress in expanding the country’s health care system.

On Thursday, Chavez announced the creation of 28 new universities across the country and yesterday he officially inaugurated one of 19 new health clinics in the country, highlighting statistics about the advancement of his government’s health care program in general.

With the goal of advancing the new National Public Health System of the Venezuelan government, 19 new Integral Diagnostic Centers (CDI) were inaugurated across the country yesterday, bringing the total to 319 CDIs in the whole country. According to President Chavez at an inauguration of one CDI in Barquisimeto, the end goal is to construct 600 CDIs across the country, of which there remain 281 more to build.

Chavez presented statistics for the national health system Barrio Adentro (Inside the Barrio), showing significant advancement in the construction of new installations. The Barrio Adentro II program, which consists of Integral Diagnostic Centers (CDI), Integral Rehabilitation Centers (SRI), and High Technology Centers (CAT), now has a total of 1,235 installations in the whole country which give free medical treatment to all Venezuelans. Chavez said that the infrastructure of the health system has grown 62% this year alone.

Along with the 19 new CDIs inaugurated on Saturday, the government also inaugurated 27 new Integral Rehabilitation Centers (SRI) which brings the total in the country to 430. 'We still have to build 170 more meet our goal of 600 SRIs,' said Chavez.

In addition, there are now a total of 15 High Technology Centers (CAT) in the country, of which three were inaugurated on Saturday. The end goal for these centers is 35 in the whole country.

The Barrio Adentro program is made up of 4 different levels of treatment. Barrio Adentro I consists of the construction of basic health clinics built in communities around the country to provide basic family care. Barrio Adentro II consists of the CDI, SRI, and CAT, which can give more advanced care with modern technology and testing. Later, Barrio Adentro III is the remodeling and reconditioning of existing national hospitals, and Barrio Adentro IV consists of the construction of new hospitals around the country. The program has made significant progress since Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998.

'We will not rest in the construction and advancement of the national public health system because it is a very important element in the concept and practice of socialism,' said Chavez.

28 New Universities

On Thursday, at an event with university students from around the country, Chavez also announced the launch of the first phase of Mission Alma Mater, which is supposed to dramatically increase the country’s higher education system. Chavez explained that this phase of the new program will go from 2007 to 2012 and will have the objective of constructing 28 national universities in different parts of the country.

'There will be 11 new national universities, in addition to 13 regional ones, and 4 new technical institutes,' explained Chavez. He went on to explain that the new national universities will be organized into the following specializations: University of Health Sciences, University of Basic Sciences, University of Art, University of Hydrocarbons, University of Security, University of Languages, University of the South, University of Economy and Fiscal Sciences, University of Tourism, University of Communications, and a University of Agricultural Sciences.

Chavez also announced that the 29 existing technological institutes and technical schools in the country will be converted into technical universities.

In addition, Chavez made various announcements affecting the existing universities in the country. All university staff will receive salary raises for 2006-2007 and will be paid back pay that the state has accumulated over the past 15 years. All workers will receive between 28 percent to 34 percent pay raises, depending on their position in the public universities.

Chavez added that Bs. 1.4 billion has been approved to pay all retired upper education personnel up to December 31st, 2006. $12 million will be invested in university cafeterias and 1,800 computers will be given to high schools and universities. University scholarships will also be increased by 10,000 this year and all scholarships will be raised to $100 per month in all the universities in the country.

Also, all entrance examinations to public universities will be eliminated, so that students only need a high school diploma in order to enter the university system. The entrance examinations had constituted a major filter mechanism that skewed university entrance in favor of the upper and middle class, who could better afford entrance examination preparation courses.

From

The Importance of Being Called an Idiot

Wed, 30 May 2007 01:17:00 +0000

5-29-07, 9:11 am

A few days ago a gentleman recommended that I read a new book about idiocy. I believe it was called The Return of the Idiot, The Idiot Returns, or something like that. I told him that I had read a similar book ten years ago, titled Manual for the Perfect Latinamerican Idiot.

'What did you think?' the man asked me narrowing his eyes, kind of scrutinizing my reaction, kind of measuring the time it took me to respond. I always take a few seconds to respond. I also like to observe the things around me, take a healthy distance, control the temptation to exercise my freedom and, kindly, go after the guy.

'What did I think? Entertaining. A famous writer who uses his fists against his colleagues as his principal dialectical weapon when he has them within reach, said that it was a book with a lot of humor, edifying… I would not say so much. Entertaining is sufficient. Clearly there are better books.'

'Yes, that was the father of one of the authors, the Nobel Vargas Llosa.'

'Mario, he is still called Mario.'

'Fine, but what did you think about the book?' he insisted anxiously.

Perhaps he was not so interested in my opinion as he was in his own.

'Someone asked me the same question ten years ago', I recalled. 'I thought it deserved to be a best seller.'

'That's what I said. And it was, it was; in effect, it was a best seller. You realized that pretty quick, like me.

'It wasn't so difficult. In the first place, it was written by experts on the topic.'

'Undoubtedly', he interrupted, with contagious enthusiasm.

'Who better to write about idiocy, am I right? Second, the authors are staunch defenders of the market, above all else. I sell, I consume, therefore I am. What other merit could they have but to turn a book into a sales success? If it were an excellent book with limited sales it would be a contradiction. I suppose that for the publisher it's also not a contradiction that they have sold so many books on the Idiot Continent, right? In the intelligent and successful countries it did not have the same reception.'

For some reason the man in the red tie sensed some doubts on my part about the virtues of his favorite books. That meant, for him, a declaration of war or something of the kind. I made a friendly gesture to bid farewell, but he did not allow me to place my hand on his shoulder.

'You must be one of those who defend those idiotic ideas of which those books speak. It is incredible that a cultured and educated man like yourself could uphold those stupidities.'

'Could it be that too much studying and researching cause damage?' I asked.

'No, studying doesn't do damage, of course not. The problem is that you are separated from reality, you don't know what it is to live like a construction worker or business manager, like us.'

'Nonetheless, there are construction workers and business managers who think radically differently from you. Might there not be another factor? That is, for example, could it be that those who have ideas like yours are more intelligent?'

'Ah, yes, that must be…'

His euphoria had reached climax. I was going to leave him with that little vanity, but I couldn't contain myself. I thought out loud:

'It's quite strange. The most intelligent people don't need idiots like me to realize such obvious things, no?'

'Negative, sir. Negative.'

--Translated by Bruce Campbell.

Bush expects everything to be solved with a bang

Wed, 30 May 2007 01:14:00 +0000

5-29-07, 9:08 am

A word popped up in my mind. I looked it up in the dictionary and there it was; it’s an onomatopoeic word and its connotation is tragic: bang. I’ve probably never used it in my life.

Bush is an apocalyptic person. I observe his eyes, his face and his obsessive preoccupation with pretending that everything he sees on the 'invisible screens' are spontaneous thoughts. I heard his voice quaver when he answered criticism from his own father about his Iraq policy. He only expresses emotions and constantly feigns rationality. Of course he is aware of the impact of every phrase and every word on the public he addresses.

What’s dramatic is that what he expects to happen may cost the American people many lives.

One can never agree, in any kind of war, with events that take the lives of innocent civilians. Nobody could justify the attacks of the German Air Force on British cities during World War II, nor the thousands of bombers that systematically destroyed German cities in the decisive moments of the war, nor the two atomic bombs which the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an act of pure terrorism against old people, women and children.

Bush expressed his hatred of the poor world when he spoke on June 1, 2002 at West Point, of the pre-emptive attacks on '60 or more dark corners of the world'.

Whom are they going to convince now that the thousands of nuclear weapons in their possession, the missiles and the precise and exact delivery systems they have developed are just to combat terrorism? Could it be perhaps that the sophisticated submarines being constructed by their British allies, capable of circumnavigating the globe without surfacing and reprogramming their nuclear missiles in mid-flight, will be used for that as well? I would never have imagined that one day such justifications would be used. Imperialism intends to institutionalize world tyranny with these weapons. It aims them at other great nations which arise not as military adversaries capable of surpassing their technology with weapons of mass destruction, but as economic powers that would rival the United States whose chaotic and wasteful consumerist economic and social system is absolutely vulnerable.

What’s worse about the bang upon which Bush is hanging his hopes is the antecedent of his actions during the September 11th events, when, knowing full well that bloody attack on the American people was imminent, and having the capacity to foresee it and even to prevent it, he took off on a vacation with his entire administrative apparatus.

From the day of his appointment as President –thanks to the fraud orchestrated by his friends from the Miami mafia, in the manner of a 'banana republic' –and prior to his inauguration, W. Bush was informed in detail of the same facts and in the same way as the president of the United States, who directed that he be informed. At that moment, the tragic events symbolized by the fall of the Twin Towers were still more than 9 months away.

If something similar were to happen with any kind of explosives or nuclear material, given that enriched uranium flows like water throughout the world since the days of the Cold War, what would be the probable fate of humanity? I try to remember and analyze many moments of humanity’s march through the millennia, and I wonder: could my views be subjective?

Just yesterday Bush was bragging about having won the battle over his adversaries in Congress. He has a hundred billion dollars, all the money he needs to double, as he wishes, the number of American troops sent to Iraq, and to carry on with the slaughter. The problems in the region are increasingly aggravated.

Any opinion about the president of the United State's latest feats grows old in a matter of hours. Is it perhaps that the American people can’t take this little moral fighting bull by the horns?

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 25, 2007 From Granma International

Last Chance To Save The Planet!

Wed, 30 May 2007 01:10:00 +0000

5-29-07, 9:03 am

So this is it! No more excuses, no ifs and buts, this is definitive. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Report of its Third Working Group (WG3) on May 4 in Bangkok. The Report has been carefully vetted not only by scientists and climate experts but also went through the usual line-by-line nit-picking by governmental representatives from 105 nations who have thus put their seal of approval on the Report’s highly significant findings.

The bad news is that man-made climate change is very real and is on the verge of reaching irreversible levels at which all life on earth could perish. The good news is that the process can be halted mostly through available technologies, and at much lower economic and social cost than fear-mongers had earlier portrayed, IF (and this is a big if) necessary steps are taken immediately.

CERTAINTY OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The Report forms part of the latest fourth series of Assessment Reports (AR4) by the IPCC, the previous round being in 2001. Three Working Groups of the present AR4 series have submitted their reports. The first report in Paris in February 2007 asserted the harsh reality of anthropogenic climate change and elaborated the scientific basis for this understanding: perennial doubters and climate change deniers such as US conservatives and right-wing think-tanks, are now equivalent to those who believe the earth is flat! The second report in Brussels in April this year brought out the likely impact (such as increase of temperatures, rising sea levels and changing cropping patterns besides possible more frequent extreme weather phenomena such as storms, drought or floods), vulnerabilities (such as of coastal communities, small island nations, farmers especially poor peasants) and necessary adaptation strategies. The much-awaited WG3 Report was on the key issue of mitigation, that is, how climate change can be checked or controlled.

Science now shows that, from a baseline level of greenhouse gases (GHGs) of around 300 ppm (parts per million) of carbon-dioxide equivalent in the pre-industrial era, we have now reached levels of around 425 ppm which, if current rates of GHG emissions continue in a “business as usual” mode, will reach around 475 - 490 ppm by 2030 causing a catastrophic rise in global temperature by 2.0-2.8 degrees Celsius, reaching 550-600 ppm and a rise of 4-5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century spelling doom for all life on earth.

Growth rates of GHG emissions have been particularly high in recent times, levels having risen by 70 per cent during 1970-2004 and as much as 24 per cent during 1990-2004 despite the Kyoto Treaty which came into force only lately. It is well known that there is a time lag between changes in emission levels and their effects. The Report therefore states that, if major impact of climate change is to be avoided, total GHG emissions should reach peak levels then start declining within the next 10-20 years, stabilising at around 450 ppm for which drastic action is required at once.

MAJOR EMISSION SOURCES

In order to understand how GHG emissions may be reduced, it is important to identify the major sources of emissions globally and the potential for emission reductions in them. The report presents detailed findings and reduction scenarios in respect of the different sectors.

Energy consumption in buildings for heating, cooling and lighting is identified as one of the large contributors to GHG emissions. The report projects that 30 per cent reduction in emissions from this sector is possible by 2030. Experience has shown that re-designing of buildings to reduce heating requirements (such as reduction of energy consumption by as much as 10 per cent in Germany by passive solar architecture, mainly trapping solar heat through glass frontages), use of energy-saving devices and renewable energy sources can make major contributions to emission reductions. Unfortunately insufficient work has been done as regards cooling of buildings: in India, for example, rising incomes of some sections and a boom in some corporate sectors has resulted in enormous increase in use of air conditioners, but no effort has been made to evolve, leave alone enforce, building codes that would keep indoor temperatures naturally low.

The report highlights the need for substantial shifts in decision-making regarding energy infrastructure if GHG emissions are to be kept at present levels by the year 2030 despite the obviously enormous increase in energy demand by that time. It is estimated that about US$ 20 trillion (Rs 840 lakh crore) would be invested in new energy plants between now and 2030. Of these, the report projects that energy from renewable sources such as solar, wind etc could be increased from the present 18 per cent of electricity generation to about 30-35 per cent even after making allowances for the currently higher costs of renewables as against fossil fuel. Indeed, with expected rising prices of oil, renewable energy is expected to get more competitive. While the report includes nuclear energy among the options for reducing GHG emissions, it projects that globally nuclear electricity generation as a proportion of total global electricity production will increase only modestly from the present 16 per cent to 18 per cent by 2030.

The transport sector is of course another major contribution to GHG emissions. The report finds that, while there are many options for reducing emissions, their cumulative effect may be considerably offset by growth in this sector. The report calls for a structural shift in transport modes from road to rail or inland waterways, from low-occupancy to high-occupancy passenger transport and better urban planning to reduce transportation demand. The report also makes the point that leaving issues of vehicular fuel efficiency to market forces will not suffice, thus going against neo-liberal dogma and implicitly supporting calls for greater regulation.

The report also adds its voice to the growing international concern, recently endorsed by a UN study, about increased use of supposedly eco-friendly bio-fuels which, while growing in popularity and showing potential to increase from 3 per cent to 5-10 per cent of transport fuel depending on prices and improvements in technologies, also pose serious dangers such as diversion of forest land, competition for use of scarce land and water resources, and challenges to food security.

The report finds that as much as 50 per cent of required emission cuts can be achieved by preventing deforestation, an issue of contemporary significance, especially in tropical areas representing two-thirds of deforestation-linked GHG build-ups. It must be noted that due to capitalist globalisation, huge swathes of tropical forests such as in the Amazon and South-East Asia are being cleared each year for timber and in favour of pasture lands for the beef trade, or plantations of corn, sugar cane or palm oil seeking lucrative bio-fuels markets.

COSTS

Perhaps the most important aspect of the report is its major conclusion that the challenge of urgently reducing GHG emissions can be met at reasonable costs. Major industrialised nations, and even large developing economies basking in a globalisation-driven surge, have for long resisted calls to curb GHG emissions on the grounds that the costs would be too high, that growth and development would suffer.

In what is a remarkable running theme of low cost-implications, the report estimates that even significant changes such as advocated in energy above, are likely to require only 5-10 per cent additional investment contrary to popular notions, fuelled by status quoists, that major shifts in energy policies would be too expensive to bear.

The report stresses that bulk of the required GHG emission reductions can in fact be achieved through higher energy efficiencies: “It is often more cost-effective to invest in end-use energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply to satisfy demand for energy services. Efficiency improvement has a positive effect on energy security, local and regional air pollution abatement, and employment.” Indeed, energy efficiency will in fact save money and should therefore be a natural goal.

The IPCC Report endorsed by 105 governments including both developed and developing nations estimates that if all the above mitigation measures are taken so as to bring down GHG emissions to the target level of around 450 ppm by 2030, it would result in a decrease in global GDP of a mere 3 per cent over the next two decades i.e. a drop of about 0.1 per cent or one-tenth of a percentage point per year!

To emphasize the point, the report also states that some models even show an increase in global GDP due to lower energy costs, better market efficiencies and improvements in technology.

TOWARDS POST-KYOTO NEGOTIATIONS

These findings have huge significance for future international negotiations on climate change, notably the next Conference of Parties (COP) in Bali in December 2007, especially since the report has also been endorsed by governments. The Bali COP is to initiate discussions on what needs to be done after 2012 when the present phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends. It will be recalled that the Treaty at present requires advanced industrialised countries (so-called Annex-I states) to reduce emissions to 5 per cent below 1995 levels by 2012 while not imposing any binding targets on developing countries, this arrangement to be revised for the second phase after 2012.

The AR4 Reports acknowledge that measures under the Kyoto Treaty have resulted in only marginal impact on GHGs, indeed hence the urgency now in the recommendations of IPCC. The US with around 26 per cent of global Carbon-dioxide emissions obstinately stayed out of the Kyoto Treaty earning much international opprobrium and virtually rendering it a non-starter.

A cause of much heated debate in the Kyoto negotiations, and used by the US as a major excuse for staying out of the treaty, was the decision to exempt even large developing countries from any GHG emission reduction targets, on the grounds that their per capita emissions were far lower than those of advanced countries, which had clearly contributed most to GHG build-up in the atmosphere, and that poorer nations could not be expected to cut back on economic growth at this stage of their development.

In the lead up to the Bali COP, however, enormous pressure is expected to build on emerging giant economies such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico and other rapidly industrialising nations to somehow also contribute meaningfully to the global task of rescuing our planet from climate change, even within the Kyoto framework of “common but differentiated responsibility”. Part of the pressure is undoubtedly going to be political but a moral obligation will also be emphasised.

It is of potentially enormous significance that the AR4 Reports have been endorsed even by the US, and also by China, India, ASEAN states and other leading industrial powers in the developing world. Observers at the meeting in Bangkok have commented that the US has been “unusually cooperative” and even “constructive”, perhaps portending a change in the official US position given the huge domestic political shifts such as the transition from a Republican to a Democrat-controlled Congress and over a dozen states in the US including the largest emitter California having adopted emission reduction targets in line with the Kyoto Treaty. Will the US come on board after Bali? Will China, India and other major developing nations also make some moves as a price for bringing the US and actually make a difference to impending climate doom?

China is now the world’s second largest GHG emitter at around 10 per cent of global emissions, with galloping economic growth such that it is poised to overtake the US in GHG emissions by 2030! India is at fourth place at around 3 per cent and projected to soon overtake the entire African continent! The Bangkok Report shows that developing countries hitherto outside the Kyoto targets now account for 54 per cent of global GHGs! No doubt emissions from these nations are still less than a tenth of those from advanced economies on a per capita basis. But that may be little solace for the disastrous GHG build-up in the atmosphere responding to total emissions rather than to per-capita GHG molecules bearing country-of-origin stamps!

The Bangkok Report importantly brings out that economic growth need not be affected beyond a small fraction of 1 per cent of GDP for GHG emissions to be reduced. It is well-known, and even officially acknowledged in major developing countries, that benefits of rapid GDP growth through a globalisation-driven path of industrialisation are not equitably distributed, so does a marginal drop in GDP with highly doubtful trickle-down benefits need to be protected so ardently? Measures such as energy efficiency and demand modulation may indeed also promote greater equity.

In the months to come all nations will be put to test. Will they do what needs to be done? The message from the IPCC Reports is simple: climate change must be tackled immediately in order to save the planet. And it will not cost the earth to do so.

From People's Democracy

Preliminary Guide to the US Social Forum in Atlanta

Tue, 29 May 2007 04:01:00 +0000

5-28-07, 11:55 am

(APN) ATLANTA – After over a year of intensive organizing, Atlanta will host the first ever US Social Forum (USSF), from June 27, 2007, to July 1, 2007.

At least 10,000 delegates have registered and over 10,000 more are expected from all over the country and world are expected for the five-day event titled “Another World is Possible.”

“The USSF will provide space to build relationships, learn from each others’ experiences, share our analysis of the problems our communities face, and bring renewed insight and inspiration,” according to www.ussf2007.org, the official USSF website. “It will help develop leadership and develop consciousness, vision, and strategy needed to realize another world.”

The first day will showcase marches around Atlanta, opening ceremonies, issues tents, a concert, and more.

Each subsequent day “will be devoted to a principle of movement building and include two plenary sessions focused on major issues,” according to a press release obtained by Atlanta Progressive News.

The Atlanta Civic Center will serve as a kind of home base for those in attendance, the hundreds of volunteers, and media covering the event. The parking lot will be home to issues tents and other activities.

There will be several blocks of time during the event when delegates will have a chance to attend several of over 900 workshops.

Workshops will occur in several locations including the Westin Hotel, Marriot Hotel, Auburn Avenue Research Library, Atlanta Fulton Central Library, Seven Stages Theatre in Little Five Points, and the Little Five Points Community Center.

When delegates are not in workshops or attending plenary speeches, they will have the chance to enjoy a festival of cultures, dance, theatre, art exhibits, slams, musical concerts, and more activities the USSF’s Cultural Working Group is still preparing.

There will be a film festival at the Downtown library, with a list of films to be posted on the USSF website next week, Barry Weinstock, a volunteer working on technology concerns for the USSF, said.

Organizers are hoping to have a soccer tournament but setbacks such as securing the proper permits have put its chances in the air.

Jules Dykes, a Logistics Committee Chair who is working on the program of events, said the actual program is still being put together.

“There isn’t a whole lot of stuff to plan for until you have that program in your hand,” she said.

“Things are going to be incredible,” Alice Lovelace, USSF’s lead organizer, told APN. “Things are looking very good. Registration is looking solid... it’s an incredible thing to see.”

“We’re trying to find common themes and common grounds [in order to] gel a progressive movement in this country,” Dykes said, “[and] make it easier for us to have a united movement front.”

“People should continue the forum after the forum,” Weinstock said. “My hope is to have a compilation of all these ideas so we can see what all these groups on the left are doing.”

PLENARY THEMES

The USSF will focus on six key movement building moments during plenary discussions: (1) Gulf Coast Reconstruction in the Post-Katrina Era; (2) War, Militarism and the Prison Industrial Complex; (3) Indigenous Voices: From the Heart of Mother Earth; (4) Immigrant and Migrant Rights in a Global Society; (5) Liberating Gender and Sexuality: Integrating Gender and Sexual Justice Across Our Movements; and (6) Workers' Rights in the Global Economy.

These six “overarching issues... are all connected to each other,” Lovelace said.

“They are deeply interconnected and related to all the crises in our communities within today's reality of globalization and repressive neoliberal policies,” the USSF website says.

“These struggles, when connected strategically, form the basis of a powerful movement to challenge the legitimacy of US empire, and to help build a cooperative world of peace, justice, equality, solidarity, and self-determination,” the website says.

COPIOUS WORKSHOPS

When groups register, they are able to submit up to four proposals for workshops or cultural events. The deadline for submissions passed earlier this month.

There are 967 proposed workshops, all of which are listed on the USSF Web site, Dykes said.

“A majority of the workshops have been approved and the challenge now is getting enough sites to hold [them all],” Dykes said, adding some people may not show up and there may be a chance to partner people conducting very similar workshops.

The Program Working Group receives the proposals, reads through them, and decides to approve or deny them. Dykes said many proposals that have not been approved stand a good chance.

“The USSF will show the world our country has an active movement opposed to oppression here and abroad, including the actions and policies of our own government,” according to a press release.

WHAT IS THE US SOCIAL FORUM?

The USSF has its origins in the World Social Forum (WSF), an event “created to provide an open platform to discuss alternatives to the economic plans created by multi-national corporations and the governments at the World Economic Forum.”

The first WSF was held in Brazil in 2001 and has developed into an annual event drawing 100,000 people from all over the world.

The bottom-up organizing approach of the USSF allows everyone to participate and have a say in what goes on during the event. This is the opposite of the more top-down organizing approach of the World Economic Forum which often leaves many people out.

“I think the Social Forum is a self-organized event by the people who are directly experiencing the direct effects of big business in our society,” Dykes said. “We’re trying to create a safe environment for people to express opinions, where they can take control of the agenda.”

In June 2003, the WSF International Coordinating Council approached Grassroots Global Justice Alliance (GGJA) to develop a planning process for a USSF and see if such an event was plausible.

Planners ultimately chose Atlanta because of the “political significance of the US South as the area where the worst attacks against people and greatest struggles for justice have occurred,” according to the website.

While Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said the USSF would help continue Atlanta’s “proud history of promoting and celebrating human rights” in an endorsement statement last year, Lovelace said the City has done nothing to neither help nor hinder the event.

Throughout 2006, there were Regional Social Forums in places like Boston, Massachusetts; Houston, Texas; and Durham, North Carolina. These Forums served as guideposts as to how the organizational structure of the USSF should look, and how to raise money for the event.

“We’ve already made history in the planning phase,” William Cordery, Member of the Resources Mobilization Working Group, said. “People are working together that have never worked together [before].”

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The GGJA established a National Planning Committee (currently with 35 Member Organizations), charged with addressing logistics, funding, outreach, and program coordination.

The NPC began meeting in the second half of 2005, Dykes said. “The national committee meets weekly on conference calls,” she said. “[While] they are able to do tremendous work, [it’s] tough if you can’t be in the same room together.”

Geographical divides keep the Members from meeting face to face as often as they would like. The NPC is broken down into 10 Regional Committees and 8 Working Groups.

The Regional Committees “are responsible for setting up relevant working groups to implement a plan to get a diverse cross-section of community members to participate in the process and attend the Social Forum,” according to the USSF website.

The Working Groups are broken down this way: communication, program, culture, resource mobilization, outreach, youth, women, logistics, and language access.

During NPC meetings, Members discuss outreach efforts to ensure as many people from all around are involved. Members also share other news and ideas happening in the different regions.

The Local Committee began holding meetings at the end of every month at the end of 2006 in order to bring all the Working Groups together. Progress has been measured and ideas have been shared at these meetings.

Dykes said at the beginning of 2007, meetings began to restructure so that everyone had a hand in logistics because there were not enough people involved in logistics early on.

Now the Local Committee and Working Groups keep in touch weekly to continue monitoring progress and make sure everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

The Logistics Working Group and the Local Committee work together closely to secure venues and work with Atlanta officials to make sure the City is prepared to handle the large crowds.

“There seems to be, at both levels, a fairly collaborative process” when it comes to making decisions, Dykes said. “There is some chain of command at the national level” but there tends to be votes by consensus, she added.

FUNDING THE USSF

The Resource Mobilization Working Group developed a three-year plan to raise $1.5 million to address needs in three phases: planning in 2006, implementation in 2007, and follow-up in 2007 and 2008.

The fundraising apparatus started last year as just a “handful of people,” with some connected to foundations, Cordery told APN, adding, “It has since snowballed.” Cordery said.

“The most important benefit [of bottom-up organizing] is the entire USSF is owned by every individual and group represented at the forum,” Cordery said. “Every single person who comes to the Forum owns a piece of the Forum. The same can be said of the fundraising.”

The USSF has raised money mainly through registration fees and individual donations, although there have been some donations from organizations and foundations.

One major grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation recently awarded to Project South, a USSF anchor organization, provided $40,000 to help low-income people attend the USSF and for follow-up planning, according to a press release.

While the minimum registration fee for individuals is $15 and applicants are encouraged to give more, Dykes said there are different scholarships available to people who cannot afford the $15.

For example, The Third Wave Fund provides full scholarships for women and transgender activists aged 15-30. The Hill Snowdon Foundation awards $25,000 in Opportunity Fund grants to support recipients’ involvement in the USSF.

The USSF Solidarity Fund provides limited travel stipends for potential delegates to travel to the forum.

“It’s a completely open process,” Cordery said. “Folks do what they can do [and] no one is going to be denied.”

“People have organized to come here against incredible odds,” Weinstock said.

GETTING TO AND STAYING IN ATLANTA

While most conferees will pre-register, is not absolutely necessary to do so, Dykes said.

“There will be a lot of local folks [from Atlanta] who hear the buzz who want to show up and register,” she said. “Registration is going to be hectic.”

The USSF website outlines three budget types for accommodations (lowest-$410, medium-$715 to $1,090, highest-$1,615) so delegates can get an idea of how much it will cost to get to and stay in Atlanta.

Each budget offers options for shared van or airline travel, lodging, food, entertainment, and miscellaneous.

Delegates can stay several to a hotel room and split the cost, stay in a room alone, or can stay at one of the campgrounds or youth hostels around the metro area that may be more affordable.

There will be a youth camp for those aged 18-23 at the Lake Claire Community Trust that is very close to a MARTA train station. “It was very challenging to secure this space because of the City’s urban camping laws,” Dykes said.

She added, while delegates may choose to stay at campgrounds around the Metro area, they need to make sure to identify transportation to and from the Forum ahead of time.

For $13.50, delegates can purchase a 5-day MARTA pass that will offer unlimited access to trains and buses during that time. Delegates can purchase these in advance and pick them up at registration or simply buy them when they show up to register.

CHILDCARE

Children aged 3 to 12 can be cared for 8 am to 4 pm during the four main event days (June 27-30) on a first come, first serve basis.

Activities will be available for these children will include song, music, dance, storytelling, art, games, and popular education. Some activities will be prepared for age groups, while others will be for everyone. Children will receive lunch and healthy snacks during the day.

Parents pay $10 per day for one child, $15 per day for two children from the same family, and $20 per day for three children from the same family. Parents or guardians may volunteer for four hours per day in order to waive this fee.

MORE VOLUNTEERS NEEDED

While there are expected to be between 800 and 1000 volunteers at the USSF, more are still needed.

Potential volunteers can visit the USSF website to see where help is needed and contact USSF Volunteer Coordinator Mary Babington at

To learn much more about the USSF, visit

From Atlanta Progressive News

About the author: Jonathan Springston is a Senior Staff Writer for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at jonathan@atlantaprogressivenews.com.

Globalization and Democracy: Some Basics

Tue, 29 May 2007 03:55:00 +0000

The goal of the transnational corporation is to become truly transnational, poised above the sovereign power of any particular nation, while being served by the sovereign powers of all nations. Cyril Siewert, chief financial officer of Colgate Palmolive Company, could have been speaking for all transnationals when he remarked, 'The United States doesn't have an automatic call on our [corporation's] resources. There is no mindset that puts this country first.'

With international “free trade” agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, and FTAA, the giant transnationals have been elevated above the sovereign powers of nation states. These agreements endow anonymous international trade committees with the authority to prevent, overrule, or dilute any laws of any nation deemed to burden the investment and market prerogatives of transnational corporations. These trade committees—-of which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a prime example---set up panels composed of “trade specialists' who act as judges over economic issues, placing themselves above the rule and popular control of any nation, thereby insuring the supremacy of international finance capital. This process, called globalization, is treated as an inevitable natural “growth” development beneficial to all. It is in fact a global coup d’état by the giant business interests of the world.

Elected by no one and drawn from the corporate world, these panelists meet in secret and often have investment stakes in the very issues they adjudicate, being bound by no conflict-of-interest provisions. Not one of GATT's five hundred pages of rules and restrictions are directed against private corporations; all are against governments. Signatory governments must lower tariffs, end farm subsidies, treat foreign companies the same as domestic ones, honor all corporate patent claims, and obey the rulings of a permanent elite bureaucracy, the WTO. Should a country refuse to change its laws when a WTO panel so dictates, the WTO can impose fines or international trade sanctions, depriving the resistant country of needed markets and materials.

Acting as the supreme global adjudicator, the WTO has ruled against laws deemed “barriers to free trade.” It has forced Japan to accept greater pesticide residues in imported food. It has kept Guatemala from outlawing deceptive advertising of baby food. It has eliminated the ban in various countries on asbestos, and on fuel-economy and emission standards for motor vehicles. And it has ruled against marine-life protection laws and the ban on endangered-species products. The European Union’s prohibition on the importation of hormone-ridden U.S. beef had overwhelming popular support throughout Europe, but a three-member WTO panel decided the ban was an illegal restraint on trade. The decision on beef put in jeopardy a host of other food import regulations based on health concerns. The WTO overturned a portion of the U.S. Clean Air Act banning certain additives in gasoline because it interfered with imports from foreign refineries. And the WTO overturned that portion of the U.S. Endangered Species Act forbidding the import of shrimp caught with nets that failed to protect sea turtles.

Free trade is not fair trade; it benefits strong nations at the expense of weaker ones, and rich interests at the expense of the rest of us. Globalization means turning the clock back on many twentieth-century reforms: no freedom to boycott products, no prohibitions against child labor, no guaranteed living wage or benefits, no public services that might conceivably compete with private services, no health and safety protections that might cut into corporate profits.

GATT and subsequent free trade agreements allow multinationals to impose monopoly property rights on indigenous and communal agriculture. In this way agribusiness can better penetrate locally self-sufficient communities and monopolize their resources. Ralph Nader gives the example of the neem tree, whose extracts contain natural pesticidal and medicinal properties. Cultivated for centuries in India, the tree attracted the attention of various pharmaceutical companies, who filed monopoly patents, causing mass protests by Indian farmers. As dictated by the WTO, the pharmaceuticals now have exclusive control over the marketing of neem tree products, a ruling that is being reluctantly enforced in India. Tens of thousands of erstwhile independent farmers must now work for the powerful pharmaceuticals on profit-gorging terms set by the companies.

A trade agreement between India and the United States, the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA), backed by Monsanto and other transnational corporate giants, allows for the grab of India’s seed sector by Monsanto, its trade sector by Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, and its retail sector by Wal-Mart. (Wal-Mart announced plans to open 500 stores in India, starting in August 2007.) This amounts to a war against India’s independent farmers and small businesses, and a threat to India’s food security. Farmers are organizing to protect themselves against this economic invasion by maintaining traditional seed-banks and setting up systems of communal agrarian support. One farmer says, “We do not buy seeds from the market because we suspect they may be contaminated with genetically engineered or terminator seeds.”

In a similar vein, the WTO ruled that the U.S. corporation RiceTec has the patent rights to all the many varieties of basmati rice, grown for centuries by India’s farmers. It also ruled that a Japanese corporation had exclusive rights in the world to grow and produce curry powder. As these instances demonstrate, what is called “free trade” amounts to international corporate monopoly control. Such developments caused Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad to observe:

We now have a situation where theft of genetic resources by western biotech TNCs [transnational corporations] enables them to make huge profits by producing patented genetic mutations of these same materials. What depths have we sunk to in the global marketplace when nature’s gifts to the poor may not be protected but their modifications by the rich become exclusive property?

If the current behavior of the rich countries is anything to go by, globalization simply means the breaking down of the borders of countries so that those with the capital and the goods will be free to dominate the markets.

Under free-trade agreements like General Agreements on Trade and Services (GATS) and Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), all public services are put at risk. A public service can be charged with causing “lost market opportunities” for business, or creating an unfair subsidy. To offer one instance: the single-payer automobile insurance program proposed by the province of Ontario, Canada, was declared 'unfair competition.” Ontario could have its public auto insurance only if it paid U.S. insurance companies what they estimated would be their present and future losses in Ontario auto insurance sales, a prohibitive cost for the province. Thus the citizens of Ontario were not allowed to exercise their democratic sovereign right to institute an alternative not-for-profit auto insurance system. In another case, United Parcel Service charged the Canadian Post Office for “lost market opportunities,” which means that under free trade accords, the Canadian Post Office would have to compensate UPS for all the business that UPS thinks it would have had if there were no public postal service. The Canadian postal workers union has challenged the case in court, arguing that the agreement violates the Canadian Constitution.

Under NAFTA, the U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation sued the Canadian government for $250 million in “lost business opportunities” and “interference with trade” because Canada banned MMT, an Ethyl-produced gasoline additive considered carcinogenic by Canadian officials. Fearing they would lose the case, Canadian officials caved in, agreeing to lift the ban on MMT, pay Ethyl $10 million compensation, and issue a public statement calling MMT “safe,” even though they had scientific findings showing otherwise. California also banned the unhealthy additive; this time a Canadian based Ethyl company sued California under NAFTA for placing an unfair burden on free trade.

International free trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA have hastened the corporate acquisition of local markets, squeezing out smaller businesses and worker collectives. Under NAFTA better-paying U.S. jobs were lost as firms closed shop and contracted out to the cheaper Mexican labor market. At the same time thousands of Mexican small companies were forced out of business. Mexico was flooded with cheap, high-tech, mass produced corn and dairy products from giant U.S. agribusiness firms (themselves heavily subsidized by the U.S. government), driving small Mexican farmers and distributors into bankruptcy, displacing large numbers of poor peasants. The lately arrived U.S. companies in Mexico have offered extremely low-paying jobs, and unsafe work conditions. Generally free trade has brought a dramatic increase in poverty south of the border.

We North Americans are told that to remain competitive in the new era of globalization, we will have to increase our output while reducing our labor and production costs, in other words, work harder for less. This in fact is happening as the work-week has lengthened by as much as twenty percent (from forty hours to forty-six and even forty-eight hours) and real wages have flattened or declined during the reign of George W. Bush. Less is being spent on social services, and we are enduring more wage concessions, more restructuring, deregulation, and privatization. Only with such “adjustments,” one hears, can we hope to cope with the impersonal forces of globalization that are sweeping us along.

In fact, there is nothing impersonal about these forces. Free trade agreements, including new ones that have not yet been submitted to the U.S. Congress have been consciously planned by big business and its government minions over a period of years in pursuit of a deregulated world economy that undermines all democratic checks upon business practices. The people of any one province, state, or nation are now finding it increasingly difficult to get their governments to impose protective regulations or develop new forms of public sector production out of fear of being overruled by some self-appointed international free-trade panel.

Usually it is large nations demanding that poorer smaller ones relinquish the protections and subsidies they provide for their local producers. But occasionally things may take a different turn. Thus in late 2006 Canada launched a dispute at the World Trade Organization over the use of “trade-distorting” agricultural subsidies by the United States, specifically the enormous sums dished out by the federal government to U.S. agribusiness corn farmers. The case also challenged the entire multibillion-dollar structure of U.S. agricultural subsidies. It followed the landmark WTO ruling of 2005 which condemned ”trade-distorting” aid to U.S. cotton farmers. A report by Oxfam International revealed that at least thirty-eight developing countries were suffering severely as a result of trade distorting subsidies by both the United States and the European Union. Meanwhile, the U.S. government was maneuvering to insert a special clause into trade negotiations that would place its illegal use of farm subsidies above challenge by WTO member countries and make the subsidies immune from adjudication through the WTO dispute settlement process.

What is seldom remarked upon is that NAFTA and GATT are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the preamble of which makes clear that sovereign power rests with the people: “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Article I, Section 7 gives the president (not some trade council) the power to veto a law, subject to being overridden by a two-thirds vote in Congress. And Article III gives adjudication and review powers to a Supreme Court and other federal courts as ordained by Congress. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” There is nothing in the entire Constitution that allows an international trade panel to preside as final arbiter exercising supreme review powers undermining the constitutionally mandated decisions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

True, Article VII says that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the land,” but certainly this was not intended to include treaties that overrode the laws themselves and the sovereign democratic power of the people and their representatives.

To exclude the Senate from deliberations, NAFTA and GATT were called “agreements” instead of treaties, a semantic ploy that enabled President Clinton to bypass the two-third treaty ratification vote in the Senate and avoid any treaty amendment process. The World Trade Organization was approved by a lame-duck session of Congress held after the 1994 elections. No one running in that election uttered a word to voters about putting the U.S. government under a perpetual obligation to insure that national laws do not conflict with international free trade rulings.

What is being undermined is not only a lot of good laws dealing with environment, public services, labor standards, and consumer protection, but also the very right to legislate such laws. Our democratic sovereignty itself is being surrendered to a secretive plutocratic trade organization that presumes to exercise a power greater than that of the people and their courts and legislatures. What we have is an international coup d’état by big capital over the nations of the world.

Globalization is a logical extension of imperialism, a victory of empire over republic, international finance capital over local productivity and nation-state democracy (such as it is). In recent times however, given popular protests, several multilateral trade agreements have been stalled or voted down. In 1999, militant protests against free trade took place in forty-one nations from Britain and France to Thailand and India.11 In 2000-01, there were demonstrations in Seattle, Washington, Sydney, Prague, Genoa, and various other locales. In 2003-04 we saw the poorer nations catching wise to the free trade scams and refusing to sign away what shreds of sovereignty they still had. Along with the popular resistance, more national leaders are thinking twice before signing on to new trade agreements.

The discussion of globalization by some Marxists (but not all) has focused on the question of whether the new “internationalization” of capital will undermine national sovereignty and the nation state. They dwell on this question while leaving unmentioned such things as free trade agreements and the WTO. Invariably these observers (for instance Ellen Wood and William Taab in Monthly Review, Ian Jasper in Nature, Society and Thought, Erwin Marquit in Political Affairs) conclude that the nation state still plays a key role in capitalist imperialism, that capital—while global in its scope--is not international but bound to particular nations, and that globalization is little more than another name for overseas monopoly capital investment.

They repeatedly remind us that Marx had described globalization, this process of international financial expansion, as early as 1848, when he and Engels in the Communist Manifesto wrote about how capitalism moves into all corners of the world, reshaping all things into its own image. Therefore, there is no cause for the present uproar. Globalization, these writers conclude, is not a new development but a longstanding one that Marxist theory uncovered long ago.

he problem with this position is that it misses the whole central point of the current struggle. It is not only national sovereignty that is at stake, it is democratic sovereignty. Millions, of people all over the world have taken to the streets to protest free trade agreements. Among them are farmers, workers, students and intellectuals (including many Marxists who see things more clearly than the aforementioned ones), all of whom are keenly aware that something new is afoot and they want no part of it. As used today, the term globalization refers to a new stage of international expropriation, designed not to put an end to the nation-state but to undermine whatever democratic right exists to protect the social wage and restrain the power of transnational corporations.

The free trade agreements, in effect, make unlawful all statutes and regulations that restrict private capital in any way. Carried to full realization, this means the end of whatever imperfect democratic protections the populace has been able to muster after generations of struggle in the realm of public policy. Under the free trade agreements any and all public services can be ruled out of existence because they cause “lost market opportunities” for private capital. So too public hospitals can be charged with taking away markets from private hospitals; and public water supply systems, public schools, public libraries, public housing and public transportation are guilty of depriving their private counterparts of market opportunities, likewise public health insurance, public mail delivery, and public auto insurance systems. Laws that try to protect the environment or labor standards or consumer health already have been overthrown for “creating barriers” to free trade.

What also is overthrown is the right to have such laws. This is the most important point of all and the one most frequently overlooked by persons from across the political spectrum. Under the free trade accords, property rights have been elevated to international supremacy, able to take precedent over all other rights, including the right to a clean livable environment, the right to affordable public services, and the right to any morsel of economic democracy. Instead a new right has been accorded absolutist status, the right to corporate private profit. It has been used to stifle the voice of working people and their ability to develop a public sector that serves their interests. Free speech itself is undermined as when “product disparagement” is treated as an interference with free trade. And nature itself is being monopolized and privatized by transnational corporations.

So the fight against free trade is a fight for the right to politico-economic democracy, public services, and a social wage, the right not to be completely at the mercy of big capital. It is a new and drastic phase of the class struggle that some Marxists--so immersed in classical theory and so ill-informed about present-day public policy--seem to have missed. As embodied in the free trade accords, globalization has little to do with trade and is anything but free. It benefits the rich nations over poor ones, and the rich classes within all nations at the expense of ordinary citizens. It is the new specter that haunts the same old world.

© copyright Michael Parenti, 2007

Green Paper Choices for Magazines

Tue, 29 May 2007 03:51:00 +0000

5-28-07, 11:46 am

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: I heard a reference to “The Magazine Paper Project.” What are they trying to accomplish? -- Phil Z., Stamford, CT

A project of the nonprofit consumer group Co-Op America, the Printing Alternatives Promoting Environmental Responsibility (PAPER) Project educates magazine publishers about the benefits of recycled papers and helps them make the switch from less green paper choices. By participating in the project, publications can both reduce their industry’s impact on the environment and, by promoting their involvement in the organization, look good in the eyes of readers.

Thus far the project has helped more than 100 magazines find sources for recycled paper or increase the environmental friendliness of the paper stocks they choose. This includes papers that avoid the use of chlorine-based brighteners, which are now widely acknowledged to be introducing highly toxic and cancer-causing dioxins into the environment.

The PAPER project was launched in 2001 by Co-Op America in conjunction with two other nonprofits, the Independent Press Association, a consortium of primarily small, independent magazine publishers, and Conservatree, a former paper distributor that turned to advocacy and consulting in order to help stem the tide of deforestation by the paper industry.

According to the Worldwatch Institute, 42 percent of the global industrial wood harvest goes to making paper. Nearly half of all trees harvested in North America go to making some kind of paper product, and the pulp and paper industry is also the largest consumer of water used in industrial activities in developed countries, and the third largest contributor of industrial greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Some 12 billion magazines are printed each year, and only five percent contain recycled paper content. Further exacerbating the magazine industry’s impact on the environment is the fact that roughly half of all magazines placed for sale on newsstands and in bookstores do not get sold and are either discarded or recycled. (And, of course, even magazines that do sell are ultimately discarded or recycled.)

In 2004, the PAPER project conducted a workshop and produced a guide for publishers as part of an annual magazine industry conference hosted by Folio: magazine. Several magazines reportedly switched to recycled paper stock as a result. The following year, project coordinators worked in conjunction with Folio: and natural cosmetics company Aveda in pioneering the first environmental award recognizing magazine publishers for their environmental commitments. Nine different publications, including large circulation titles like Natural Health, Mother Jones, Shape and Mother Earth News have been recognized by the award since its inception two years ago.

Magazine consumers can do their part by asking the publishers of their favorite titles to consider switching over to recycled and/or chlorine-free paper stock and taking a look at the resources offered by the PAPER project to ease the transition if they haven’t already done so.

CONTACTS: Magazine PAPER Project, www.coopamerica.org/programs/woodwise/publishers; Conservatree, www.conservatree.com; Independent Press Association, www.indypress.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Michigan Budget Crisis Hits Schools

Tue, 29 May 2007 03:47:00 +0000

5-28-07, 11:41 am

Layoffs, program cuts, classroom consolidation, outsourcing, retirement buyouts, cutting health care and retirement benefits, and even bankruptcy are all on the table, said members of the School Board of Ypsilanti in a public meeting May 23 at Ypsilanti, Michigan's East Middle School.

Facing a deficit of more than $2 million, Ypsilanti Public Schools shares the growing crisis of about 1 in 6 school districts in all parts of the state of Michigan, rural and urban. The state's budget deficit is expected to be about $800 million this year, and the main target for cuts in order to balance the budget will be Michigan's public schools. Unless serious action is taken, next year looks even less promising.

Making cuts provokes fear, competition, and anxiety. Nobody likes to do it, was the message of Ypsilanti's School Board. But we have to make sacrifices and do it.

Some parents, worried about the quality of their children's educations being threatened by the looming cuts, sometimes blame hard-working teachers and their union contracts, which usually guarantee the enviable health care benefits and pension packages all working people deserve. There's the source of our financial troubles, the parents say.

Teachers point at the fat salaries and benefits of administrators and say that is where the cuts should come from.

Administrators are already salivating to get tough at the bargaining table to force deep cuts in teachers' pay and benefits.

But instead of pointing fingers at each other, let's look at the real source of the crisis.

After more than a decade of Republican-pushed tax cuts and a measure billed misleadingly as reform (Proposal A) in 1994 that revamped and undermined how revenue for public schools is collected and distributed, the current budget crisis is being solved on the backs of Michigan schools, children, and working families.

Republicans view the whole system of public education as a waste. Anti-public schools ideology (and personal investments in a corporation that provides services to private schools) drove Michigan Republican Party patron and billionaire Dick DeVos to personally finance a ballot initiative in 2000 to gut public school funding and force school closures. Fortunately, Michigan voters rejected his private agenda in 2000 and rejected him as a gubernatorial candidate in 2006.

On the issue of taxes, Republicans point to the economic crisis fueled by the decline of Michigan's manufacturing base and insist that higher taxes will prevent recovery.

But they refuse to comment on how more than a decade of the tax cuts they sponsored failed to stop the economic recession. They cannot explain how it is that, despite taxes that are lower than the national average and a flat tax that has billionaires and low-wage workers paying the same rate, people and businesses are leaving Michigan in droves. They also fail to respond adequately to those who point out that dismantling Michigan's public education system as well as other public services will block efforts to attract new people to the state.

State Democrats are ready to make compromises on how to solve this crisis in the short term. They are saying, we can't cut our way of the crisis, and the Republican majority in the state Senate won't let us find new sources of revenue. So both sides need to compromise and do a little bit of both.

For the short term, the governor and the state Democrats are proposing a $125 per pupil cut in what the state contributes to local school districts across the board. Additionally, they call for revenue raising measures including a 2 percent sales tax on services, an estate tax on Michigan's 350 wealthiest families, and higher liquor and tobacco taxes.

Voters should support the governor's plan and pressure their legislators to save our schools and make the hard decision to back her up.

The long-term solution is going to have to start with the voters firing Republicans in the state legislature who led the efforts to undermine the state's tax structure. If we want to save our schools, legislators who are driven by an irresponsible tax cutting ideology have to be sent home in 2008. If they refuse to stand up for a children and our schools, they don't deserve to keep their jobs.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs Magazine and can be reached at

Changing constitutional interpretations will lead Japan to wars

Tue, 29 May 2007 03:43:00 +0000

5-28-07, 11:37 am

The government on May 18 held the first meeting of an advisory panel led by former Ambassador to the United States Yanai Shunji to consider ways for Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense that the Constitution prohibits.

Prime Minister Abe Shinzo at the meeting stated, “It is important to enable the Japan-U.S. alliance to function more effectively,” and requested the panel to consider “what specifically Japan will do and what it will not.”

Abe appointed to the panel well-known advocates of a strengthened Japan-U.S. military alliance and constitutional revision. There is no doubt that Abe is attempting to loosen constitutional interpretations without restriction in advance of a constitutional revision.

The prime minister asked the panel to consider four specific scenarios that the Self-Defense Forces may be engaged in: fighting back when U.S. warships are attacked on high seas; intercepting missiles heading for the United States; use of force to rescue foreign troops with which the SDF is deployed; and providing logistic support to foreign forces that are fighting wars. The government has long maintained that the Constitution prohibits all these SDF activities.

Abe claims that under some circumstances, Japan may exercise the right of collective self-defense.

The call for Japan to be allowed to exercise the right of collective self-defense, however, is an argument that Japan can launch a preemptive attack against a third country in a war situation with the U.S. in order to defend the U.S. mainland and U.S. forces even though that country has not attacked Japan.

The use of force by Japan, which has renounced wars, to deal with international disputes that have nothing to do with “Japan’s self-defense” obviously goes against the first paragraph of Article 9.

The reason why Abe is rushing to change constitutional interpretations before the Constitution is actually revised is that he wants to immediately meet U.S. demands.

In 2000, Richard Armitage, who later became U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, in his first report on Japan-U.S. relations criticized Japan by stating, “Japan’s prohibition against collective self-defense is a constraint on alliance cooperation.” Since then, the U.S. government has put strong pressure on Japan for constitutional revision.

At a Japan-U.S. defense ministers meeting in May, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reportedly pressed Japan to enable its exercise of the right of collective self-defense.

It is shameful for the government, being subservient to the U.S., to trample on the Constitution as well as established government views in order to please the U.S. This amounts to throwing away Japan’s sovereignty.

Recent opinion polls show that public opposition to Abe’s plan to revise Article 9 is increasing. In a Kyodo News Agency survey, 62 percent of respondents expressed that they want to maintain the current constitutional interpretation on the prohibition of the right of collective self-defense.

Article 9 is a treasure for Asia as well as the rest of the world. Japan will lose the trust of the international community if Japan paves the way for waging wars by allowing it to exercise the right of collective self-defense.

There is an urgent need to increase movements to put an end to Japan’s extraordinary subservience to the U.S. and prevent the Constitution as well as the constitutional interpretations from being changed.

From Akahata

For the deaf who won't listen

Tue, 29 May 2007 03:37:00 +0000

A summary of the FAO declaration from its headquarters in Rome, on May 16, 2007.

World cereal production is on track to reach a record level in 2007. In spite of this, supplies will be barely adequate to meet increased demand, boosted by the development of the biofuels industry.

International prices for most cereals have risen significantly in 2006-07 and the current forecast shows that prices will stay high in 2007-08, according to the relevant report 'Crop Perspectives and Food Situation'. It is forecast that the cereal import bill of the low-income food deficit countries will increase by about 25 percent in the current season.

The rapid growth of the demand for maize-based ethanol is expected to increase by 9 percent the use of that grain in 2007-08.

Expectations for the world wheat harvest are down slightly since the April forecast.

In North Africa, a sharp decline is expected in 2007 cereal production, reflecting dry conditions in Morocco that are anticipated to halve the country’s wheat production this year.

In Southern Africa, a reduced cereal harvest is expected for the second consecutive year. In Zimbabwe, a huge rise in the price of maize, a basic staple for millions, is anticipated as a result of the drought.

In Malawi, an ample exportable surplus will be available following a bumper harvest.

Emergency assistance is required for large numbers of vulnerable farmers in Bolivia affected by serious crop and livestock losses following drought and floods during the 2007 main cropping season.

The flare up of conflict in southern Somalia has displaced hundreds of thousands of people and is likely to reduce the area planted.

A first provisional FAO forecast for world production of rice in 2007 points to a slightly improved harvest with some 422 million tons, thus matching the 2005 record.

Except for China and India –the main producers– the cereal harvest totals in the rest of the countries will drop slightly.

FAO recognizes the consequences of producing food-based fuels. That is something.

But it is also remarkable to see the news that the United States Congress decided to replace 23 thousand incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs throughout its offices. It is said that American families, on their own volition, have decided to replace 37 million incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent. In just a few months, the 37 million replaced light bulbs will save the equivalent cost of gasoline for 260,000 automobiles. Calculate the savings when billions of incandescent light bulbs are replaced.

I shall digress now to tackle a topic which deals with my person, and I ask for your indulgence.

The news dispatches talk of an operation. My compatriots were not too happy that I explained on more than one occasion that my recovery would not be without its risks. Generally speaking, there was talk about a date when I would make a public appearance, dressed in my olive green fatigues as usual. Well then, it was not just one operation but several. Initially, it was not successful and this implicated a prolonged recovery period.

For many months, I relied on intravenous procedures and catheters for the greater part of my nutrition, and I wanted to spare our people an unpleasant disappointment. Today I receive everything required by my recovery orally. There is no danger greater than that related to age and to a state of health which I abused during some of the hazardous times I lived through. Nowadays I do what I should be doing, especially reflecting and writing about issues which, to my mind, have some importance and transcendence. I have a lot pending. For the present, I do not have time for films and photos that require me to constantly trim my hair, beard and moustache, and to get dressed up every day. Moreover, such presentations multiply requests for interviews. Let me simply say to everyone that my health has been improving and my weight is stable at around 80 kilos.

I try to keep the reflections as brief as possible so as not to take much space from the press and television news programs. The rest of the time I am reading, receiving information, talking on the phone with many comrades and carrying out the rehabilitation exercises that are necessary for my recovery. I cannot say or criticize everything that I know, because if I did so, human and international relations would be impossible, and our country cannot do without them. But I shall be true to the motto of never writing a lie.

Fidel Castro Ruz May 23, 2007

From Granma International

Atlanta: AHA Whistleblower Fired over Millions in Apparent Underpayments to Families

Mon, 28 May 2007 02:05:00 +0000

5-27-07, 9:58 am

(APN) ATLANTA – Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) Whistleblower Anthony Bostic believes he was fired this Monday in retaliation for his documented investigation into millions of dollars total in apparent AHA underpayments to thousands of relocated families in public housing–and planned underpayments to possible future relocated families–Atlanta Progressive News (APN) has learned from Anthony’s sister Joy Bostic and documents obtained from an anonymous source.

These underpayments–some described as for relocation assistance but most for utility bill assistance for relocated families receiving private rental vouchers–may have led to homelessness of many families formerly living in Atlanta public housing.

Bostic–an AHA insider who even supported and enabled AHA’s mass evictions and demolition plans– learned recently from a US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) specialist, Mr. Philip Fortenberry, about the underpayments, two memos obtained by APN show.

Families who accepted relocation payments but not vouchers–who may have been unemployed, underemployed, or underpaid, and ran out of money within months, thus becoming homeless–may have been entitled to more money under HUD regulations, HUD told Bostic, APN has learned.

At the same time, families who accepted vouchers may have been entitled to greater utility bill reimbursements each month. AHA’s strict rules state if a family does not keep up with their utility bill payments, they can lose their vouchers. Indeed, AHA Director Renee Glover has admitted it in writing, and many advocates have asserted this is one of the riskiest features of the voucher program.

“If your utilities are cut off for 3 days or more, will you lose your voucher?” City Councilwoman Felicia Moore asked Glover in a recent letter obtained by APN.

“Possibly,” Glover replied. “If the tenant is responsible for payment of utilities, then the utilities must be paid to remain in compliance with the Voucher family obligations. When the utilities are off, health and safety issues arise for the family and the entire building. A utility allowance is part of the Section 8 Voucher Rental Assistance provided to the family to support utility costs,” Glover wrote in a May 18, 2007, response to Moore and resident leaders.

What we’re now learning is that AHA apparently shortchanged thousands of families from public housing communities which have been redeveloped in recent years–and this may have led to many additional homeless families.

What’s more, residents and advocates are asserting the reason AHA did not give the full entitled amounts–and did not plan to do so in the future–is because they did not have enough money. Moreover, they believe promises made by AHA in regards to the funding of the very vouchers themselves are based on unfounded hope, but not certainty, that these vouchers still will be federally funded and available after just a couple years.

APN has also learned that residents, advocates, and lawyers are working together on a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the apparently shortchanged families, in addition to other planned legal actions.

WHISTLEBLOWER SEES RETALIATION IN FIRING

“It is good to know others recognize the injustice and are so to shine a light [sic] on the issues at hand,” Anthony Bostic, reached at his personal email, told APN.

“At this time I am not comfortable speaking with the press about my wrongful termination issues until I receive legal counsel which should be soon. I will however follow-up in accordance wit [sic] counsel received,” Bostic wrote.

Bostic’s sister, on the other hand, was more free to discuss her understanding, and concerns, about the matter.

“My brother was not feeling very comfortable with some of the things going on. He did a little further investigation, talking with some of the folks from HUD and got information contradictory to what Cindi Herrera [his supervisor] was telling him to do,” Joy Bostic told Atlanta Progressive News in a phone interview.

“She's telling him to follow procedures a certain way but they're HUD procedures. When he talked with a person at HUD saying this was wrong, he felt uncomfortable so much so that he and I had a conversation about it. He started documenting conversations,” Joy Bostic said.

Bostic was a Director responsible for the relocation of the residents in Atlanta, his sister said.

“He started there last March or April, [and between then and] this April he was promoted twice. He had 2 position title changes to the point where he was the Director,” Joy Bostic said.

“There wasn't any mention of him having any issues with how he was carrying on,” she said, adding she believes this is evidence of retaliation.

“He was with the Housing Authority in Charleston [South Carolina] as well. He was also with a consulting company with Fulton County Housing Authority,” Joy Bostic said.

“According to him, there's nothing in his personnel file that he was poorly performing. He was never given an opportunity to improve [if there was a performance problem],” she said.

“Thousands of dollars were not awarded to these residents. The way it happened, HUD has approved thousands of dollars to go with them. Cindi Herrera said no we're going to make a cap. For some people, [the payments] may have been thousands more,” Joy Bostic said.

“It was brought to her [Herrera’s] attention and she totally ignored it. She said it's going to cost AHA a lot of money. She said no we're not gonna do it, rather than try to rectify,” Bostic said.

“If you make a mistake, once you realize you make a mistake, let's acknowledge the mistake, that you're gonna rectify it and this is how,” Bostic said.

“He's trying to wrap his head around what has happened and what his next move will be. Will there be hardship? Yeah probably,” Bostic said of her brother. “Ultimately he would like to be reinstated I believe. He loved working with the residents but I do not believe he'll go back if she's [Herrera’s] still there.”

UNDERPAYMENTS EXPOSED, IGNORED BY AHA

'I must admit I am uncomfortable,' Anthony Bostic, wrote in an April 26, 2007, memo, to his supervisor at AHA, Cindi Herrera.

'You have one interpretation that conflicts with Philip's [Fortenberry, HUD specialist] interpretation. A portion of my discomfort arises from Philip's official position as HUD's Regional Relocation Specialist regarding the Replacement Housing Payment.'

'If Phillip's professional opinion is correct and upheld, then we are not giving residents the full benefit,' Bostic wrote.

'He mentioned in calculating comparable housing expenses and determining any gaps, the actual projected utility cost must be used; that the utility allowance was not acceptable as it is based on bare minimum usage (his suggestion was to call the utility company to get the monthly average for utility cost for the past year for each unit use for relocation, even units leased under the voucher.),' Bostic wrote.

'Even units leased under the voucher,' is a key detail.

'In light of the current political and advocacy activity and the threat of a lawsuit/injunction I am further uncomfortable with the possibility of our relocation practices being scrutinized, thus making the agency liable,' Bostic wrote.

'To date we have issued 15 Replacement Housing Payments to Residents of McDaniel Glenn Annex, John O. Chiles, and University. I anticipate the issuance of 10-20 more this year,' Bostic wrote.

The RHP’s were for families who chose a one-time payment over the voucher program, resident advocate Diane Wright said. Meanwhile, thousands chose vouchers and still were eligible for utility assistance.

In a second memo dated April 27, 2007, Bostic continued 'Philip... went on to say that for both the 42 Month Rent Deferential [sp?] and the Section 8 Voucher we have to account for the best estimated cost for utilities.'

Bostic estimates in this memo that if a single family was shortchanged $60 per month for 42 months, that equals $2520 per family.

Wright tells APN she estimates at least 5000 Atlanta families have already been relocated under the HOPE VI program.

If 5000 families were shortchanged for the full 42 months, that would equal $12,600,000.

If 5500 additional future relocated families were to be shortchanged, that would equal $13,860,000.

Therefore, over $26 million appears to be at stake, and of course, this means money to pay for mandatory on-time utility bill payments for families with vouchers under the HOPE VI.

'If we adopted Philip's opinion, not sure how far back we would have to go to issue benefits that people previously relocated,' Bostic wrote. 'This is a significantly added expenses for AHA.”

'This will address residents' concern that the Utility portion of the HCV will lead to homelessness as residents will not be able to afford them,' Bostic wrote.

RESIDENT LEADERS LIVID

“I feel that it's good to come out. And the reason why, they first tried to say that we wanted to stay in public housing and everything they was doing was great but people didn't know what was going on behind AHA schemes,” Diane Wright of Hollywood Courts and the Jurisdiction-Wide Council, said.

“I was getting calls from residents that they couldn't come up with their utility money, they was getting evicted,” Wright said.

“What needs to happen is a full audit. A audit would find out about where that money is and how much money they have to cover the vouchers and the utilities people would need to be able to live. And also we need to hold HUD in Atlanta accountable, and AHA. But HUD is allowing it,” Wright said.

From Atlanta Progressive News

--About the author: Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.

More on White House Censorship of Global Warming Science

Mon, 28 May 2007 01:58:00 +0000

5-27-07, 9:55 am

EARTH TALK From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: How is it that the Bush Administration is said to have “censored” climate scientists? -- Anna Edelman, Seattle, WA

Word of the White House censoring federal climate scientists on global warming began leaking out to the press early in George W. Bush’s first term in office, but only in the last few years have a few federal employees themselves been willing to go on record with such accusations.

A report released last January by two leading nonprofits, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to “global warming” or “climate change” from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited.

“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,” says UCS’s Francesca Grifo. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”

The issue first bubbled to the surface when Rick Piltz, who worked for a decade coordinating federal research on global warming as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program—first under President Clinton and then Bush—quit in mid-2005 alleging that his superiors were misusing and abusing the scientific information he was providing.

Piltz told reporters that Phil Cooney, an official with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) who worked for an oil industry trade group before coming to the White House, had been editing and altering documents published by the program. “The changes created a greater sense of scientific uncertainty about observed climate change and potential climate change,” said Piltz. Soon after Piltz’s accusations became known, Cooney left CEQ to work for ExxonMobil, which has itself been accused of publicly misrepresenting the science of global warming.

Just when the brouhaha stirred up by Piltz appeared to be dying down, National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) climate scientist James Hansen, who has been sounding alarms about global warming since the 1980s, rekindled the debate by telling reporters that NASA public affairs staff, under pressure from the Bush administration, were trying to censor his lectures, papers and website postings and keep him away from journalists. In response, NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin vowed to support “scientific openness” on climate and other topics.

But openness is only a first step. Says Piltz: “Even if we succeed in lifting this heavy hand of censorship, there is still the problem of getting the political leadership to embrace the findings put forward by the scientists.”

CONTACTS: “Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research,” Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html; U.S. Climate Change Science Program, www.climatescience.gov.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

US Media: Distorting the Venezuelan media story

Mon, 28 May 2007 01:54:00 +0000

5-27-07, 9:48 am

Media Advisory Link to Original Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs Distorting the Venezuelan media story

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV 'is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it.' Dubbing RCTV 'a voice of free speech,' Holmes explained, 'Chavez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government.'

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as 'a network that has been critical of Chávez.'

In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more 'proof' that Chávez is a 'dictator.' Wrote Diehl, 'Chávez has made clear that his problem with [RCTV owner Marcel] Granier and RCTV is political.'

In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. 'I must thank Venevisión and RCTV,' one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks' participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup?hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): 'We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you.'

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), 'RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests,' resulting in the coup, 'and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal.' The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), '[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez.'

As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, 'Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it's doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela.'

When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs?in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):

What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles?. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.

The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.

When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists?all groups that have condemned Venezuela's action in denying RCTV's license renewal?he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV's actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups' arguments, 'Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?'

McElwee acknowledged the critics' point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: 'Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made.'

Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:

The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.

From FAIR

Would a Posada Trial be more relevant than Padilla's Trial?

Sat, 26 May 2007 11:31:00 +0000

5-25-07, 4:36 p.m.

Many of you are no-doubt aware of the current trial of Jose Padilla the American born Hispanic accused of terrorist activity in connection with al Qaeda. The simple fact of the matter is after three and a half years no charge has been filed until recently and dirt and bombs still have yet to be found on Padilla. On the other hand it is very evident that Padilla underwent lengthy torture while under US detention. Opening arguments began in Miami on Monday the 17th. Christian Science Monitor reporter Warren Richey writes that the absurd behavior of the Bush administration regarding Padilla extend well beyond his detention facilities, members of the media are not allowed to ask questions to defense lawyers or prosecutors at the trial or even in the lobby outside. Violating this rule means being asked to leave. This must be a litmus test of some sort. The President probably wishes he could do this to the press all the time. Why not actually? Bush has his great trophy, Padilla, he doesn't need Richey or anyone asking 'so what did he do? Really?' 'The secrecy is in accord with the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA)... media interviews conducted in the courtroom-even during recesses-are disruptive and distracting, they say. Interviews conducted in the lobby outside the courtroom might be overheard by jurors or witnesses and taint the trial,' said Richey. Yeah right, can't taint a trial of a suspect abused half to death while locked up for 3 years and 8 months, can't let that happen. Padilla and 2 codefendants are charged with forming and supporting a terror cell. So badly do they want Padilla that they accused him of attending the al Farooq camp-where Osama bin Laden has been known to visit, but can't locate anyone who was at the camp with him. I'm not an attorney but my own look into the CIPA (PL 96-456) finds it to be a very court-driven initiative; 'the court shall issue an order to protect against disclosure of classified information.' Richey cites court security as enforcing this without prior warning. This is not necessarily a rule specifically against journalist questions, but it evidently became such on that day and US District Judge Marcia Cooke had nothing to do with the ban but was said to support it nevertheless. Seems to me that all Padilla is guilty of is becoming a target of White Supremacist over-paranoia. While all of your tax dollars are being spent on the heavy security and manpower surrounding Padilla and his two codefendants a real terrorist roams free and guess what? President Bush knows about him, not only does he know about him, he's the one who cut the guy loose. Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles (AKA 'Bambi') is a Cuban-born Venezuelan and ant-Castro militant. This guy didn't just go to a camp or marry an Arab Muslim, or have a photo of himself and an al Qaeda associate lurking around somewhere, no this individual actually planned and plotted the successful taking of lives on at least one occasion. But because he has a beef with Fidel Castro, he's been allowed to skip. Websites show Posada was also a former CIA operative, having trained for the Bay of Pigs at the agency's School of the Americas in '61. Though he specialized in sabotage and explosives he did not participate in that failed invasion. Posada actually met Castro while a student of medicine and chemistry but reportedly didn't like his '59 revolution. In '76 he is credited with having planned and organized the bombing of Cuban airliner Cubana Flight 455, killing 73. Other terrorist schemes would become linked to him including one on 11/17/00 where he was strongly suspected of plotting an assassination of Castro after being found and arrested with 200 lbs of explosives in Panama City. Castro was visiting that city at the time. Amazingly enough he was pardoned in 8/04 by outgoing President Mireya Moscoso who was known to be close to the Bush Administration. If any terrorist classifies as a no-brainer in this era where anyone can be labeled as such, its Posada. But Bush doesn't want him, in fact he seems to be on pretty friendly terms with him. No detention in a cramped cell, no sensory deprivation or interrogation and this is a guy with at least 73 bodies. It's pretty much safe to say they are protecting him. Posada sought US Asylum on April of '05 and on 9/26/05 a US Immigration judge refused to deport Posada because he 'faced the treat of torture.' Strange but true, the US has come to the aid of this vile man every time someone tried to bring him to justice. He was arrested in Texas in '05 on the charge of 'illegal presence on national territory.' The charges were dismissed recently on 5/8/07 (he was previously released n bail on 4/19/07). Of course the Cuban and Venezuelan governments were angry over this, even the Justice Department urged the court to keep Posada in jail because he was an admitted terrorist. Perhaps his beef with Castro doesn't motivate Bush to classify him an 'enemy combatant.' Speculations as to Posada Carriles' untouchable status apparently go back far and deep. I have already made reference to his connections to the CIA back in the early '60's, he also is said to have ties to the Mafia and there are those who place him in Dallas TX on 11/22/63. A book by David Talbot titled 'Brother: The hidden history of the Kennedy years' goes into a secret investigation by Robert F. Kennedy into all the players involved in his brother’s murder including American intelligence, organized crime and Cuban exiles. Posada is said to be mentioned in a congressional report of the investigation of RFK's murder. Bush family drama (dare I mention W's father as a high ranking CIA official back then) it's fantastic. Meanwhile back in the jungle, while Posada is somewhere living it up, Padilla sat in a 9x7 cell for almost 2 years, no window, no clock, no mattress. I am only attempting to paraphrase a report by author Glen Greenwald called ' Unclaimed Territory' that lays out in sad grisly detail the treatment of one man barely suspected of terror. He slept on a steel bunk until the tail end of his captivity, thus inducing sleep deprivation. He was forced to endure shackles and manacles, cell temperature manipulation and noxious fumes would be funneled into his cell. Often he went through long interrogation sessions without adequate sleep, be was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions and given drugs against his will (LSD & PCP). All of this of course was meant to break him. On Friday the 18th the government carted out a surprise witness that they were really hoping to draw a comparison to what they are trying to frame Padilla as being; a man who went to a terrorist training school only to return to his hometown in the states and await orders from bin Laden to blow something up. Yahya Goba of the Buffalo (Lackawanna ) Six who was arrested on 9/14/02 and was there on a plea agreement (to reduce his ten-year-sentence). His testimony backfired for the prosecution however as he stated that al Farooq was essentially only a religious camp. It's all just an insult really, that one man should endure such inhumane treatment from those trained to fight our enemies, made worse by horrific accusations of terrorist intent from the same man who pardoned a proven monster, Posada; our dirty President, George W. Bush. But it's not all his fault, nor that of Cheney or Condi or then-Secretary Rumsfeld who Bush ordered to detain Jose Padilla. It's the fault of those who went back on their promise to impeach Bush after they won the mid-term elections. It's our fault for not really taking them to task for it.

--Chris Stevenson is a columnist for the Buffalo Criterion, Contact him at

More Papal Blundering in Brazil

Sat, 26 May 2007 01:44:00 +0000

5-25-07, 9:38 am

The Pope has created a new international flap that deserves careful notice, because it tells us something important about the mindset of the man who wields institutional power over hundreds of millions of the Roman Catholic faithful. On his trip to Brazil last week, Pope Benedict XVI (born Joseph Ratzinger in Bavaria, Germany), declared that the indigenous peoples of South America had silently yearned for the gospel of Jesus Christ prior to the onslaught of the European settlers. The Pope went on to say that the colonizers who brought with them the Gospel, along with a host of other things, had not alienated the indigenous people and had not imposed a foreign culture on them (I don't think the Holy Father here had in mind Marx's concept of alienation from control over the material means of production).

This outrageous statement quickly prompted criticism throughout Latin America. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez called for a formal apology. The Pope then issued a clarification in which he expressed sorrow for “the sufferings of the indigenous peoples,” the 'unjustifiable crimes committed by the colonizers against them,” and the “denial of their human rights.'

But Pope Benedict, himself a former Hitler Youth member (membership was “compulsory”) and later a WWII Wehrmacht soldier (also “compulsory”) had nothing to say about the most salient issue of all – genocide. In a statement quoted in the New York Times, a representative of the Federation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) addressed the issue very forthrightly, noting that 'representatives of the Catholic Church of those times, with honorable exceptions, were accomplices and deceivers, and the beneficiaries of one of the most horrific genocides in human history.' That is the truth the Pope must face if he wishes to be taken seriously as a moral leader.

If Benedict really wishes to honor the tens of millions of indigenous people who perished through forced labor, the epidemics of disease brought by the conquistadors, and the outright massacres carried out with the aid of European weaponry and gunpowder (not to mention the tens of millions of slaves imported from Africa), he might begin by rescinding the policy of purging priests and other Catholic activists committed to the doctrine of liberation theology, which stresses religion's role in advancing the struggle for social justice here on earth. Ratzinger's predecessor, Pope John Paul II, inaugurated the Church’s policy of repression against the followers of liberation theology, and it was Ratzinger who helped craft it. We would also do well to recall that it was one of their papal predecessors some five centuries ago who was instrumental in dividing up the Western Hemisphere between Spain and Portugal (as if any power, spiritual or temporal, had the right to do so).

It should be added, too, that the Protestant churches became as deeply involved as Roman Catholic in the crimes of slavery, global imperialism, and the destruction of indigenous peoples, as their missionaries followed after the gunboats to accumulate souls, while the capitalists accumulated raw material and cheap labor.

The Catholic Church remains the largest Christian denomination on earth, and Latin America remains its most important center because of the tens of millions of people who sincerely refer to Joseph Ratzinger as the Holy Father. It is considerably more than an apology that the people of the Southern Hemisphere are owed or any 'clarification' that the Pope presented.

It is also true that there is nothing in the actual gospel of Jesus that is negative for indigenous peoples or any people, including the Pope and all his bishops and cardinals. They would particularly profit from studying those aspects of the Gospel that inspired the opponents of the Roman slave empire. In actuality, the left and socialist trend in Latin America, in Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Chile, is squarely in the tradition of that gospel. It stands in direct opposition to the interpretation of Ratzinger and his predecessor of a Christianity that consists of religious dogma and passive faith. This new political and spiritual trend cannot be stopped by clerical purges or statements that ignore what the masses have experienced through centuries of exploitation and oppression.

--Norman Markowitz is a contributing editor of Political Affairs.

Cape of Good Hope: One Apartheid Regime Down; One More to Go

Sat, 26 May 2007 01:41:00 +0000

5-25-07, 9:34 am

I stand at the southernmost corner of Africa, the Cape of Good Hope. The grand mountains underneath and behind infuse a moment of spiritual reflection unmatched in its depth and meaning. Before me is an awe-inspiring view: here the Atlantic’s frigid waters gently meet the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. They meet but don’t collide. The harmony is seamless; the greatness of this view is humbling.

I was invited to South Africa to deliver a keynote speech at the ‘Al-Nakba’ conference, held in Cape Town. The journey led me to other cities. Many speeches, presentations, media interviews later, I sat with a borrowed computer and scattered thoughts: how can one reflect without the least sense of certainty, assuredness? I ought to try.

“Where are the Black Africans?” was the first question to come to mind as a friend’s car escorted me a distance from the Cape Town International Airport. I saw very few indications affirming that I was indeed in Africa as I gazed at the exaggeratedly beautiful surroundings of the airport. My friend needed not respond however, as the car soon hurriedly zoomed by a “squatters’ camp”; no slum can be compared to this, no refugee camp. Innumerable people are crammed in the tiniest and crudest looking ‘houses’ made of whatever those poor people could find laying around. It was not ‘temporary accommodations’, but permanent dwellings: here they live, marry, raise children and die.

It takes no brilliant mind to realize that Apartheid South Africa is still, in some ways, Apartheid South Africa. A lot has been done on the road to equal rights since the Africa National Congress (ANC) along with freedom fighters and civil society activists combined forces to defeat a legacy of 350 years of oppression, colonialism and – in 1948 – an officially sanctioned system of Apartheid, a system instilled by the white minority government to ethnically cleanse, confine and subdue the overwhelmingly black majority. True, the hundreds of Bantustans or ‘homelands’ in which the Blacks were locked, only to be allowed to leave or enter White areas – as servants – with a special pass, are no longer an officially recognized apparatus. The ‘presidents’ of those Bantustans – puppet rulers hand picked by White authorities – are long discredited. Now, South Africans, of all colors, ethnicities and religions select their own leaders, in democratic elections that are, more or less, reflective of the overall desires of the populace. But it takes much more than 13 years, and uncountable promises to reconcile the calculated inequality of centuries.

Despite a hectic schedule of two weeks, I made it a goal to visit as many squatters’ camps as I could. I followed the path of ethnic cleansing that took place in District Six in Cape Town; it was a Trail of Tears of sorts, a Palestinian Catastrophe. My grandparents, mother and father where dragged from their homes under similar circumstances in 1948 in Palestine. They too were not suitable to live within the same ‘geographic radius’ with those who had deemed themselves superior. Those who were forcibly removed from District Six have finally won their land back. Palestinians are still refugees. My grandparents are long dead, so is my mother. My father, a very ill and old man, is waiting in our old home in the refugee camp in Gaza. He refuses to yield, to capitulate.

I spoke at a technical college that was erected for Whites only on the exact same spot where thousands of Colored and Blacks were uprooted and thrown somewhere else, somewhere more discreet, more acceptable to the taste of Apartheid administrators. I paid a tribute to those resilient people who refused to embrace their inferior status, fought and died to regain their freedom and dignity. I saluted my people, who stood in solidarity with the fighters of South Africa. In our Gaza camps, we mourned for South Africa and we celebrated when Nelson Mandela was set free. My father handed out candy to the neighborhood kids. When Bishop Desmond Tutu visited Palestine, Israeli settlers greeted him with racist graffiti and chants across the West Bank. For Palestinians, this was a personal insult. Tutu is ours, just as Che Guevara, Martin Luther, Malcolm X, Mahatma Gandhi, Ahmad Yassin and Yasser Arafat were and still are.

On Robin Island, where Mandela and hundreds of his comrades were held for many years, I touched the decaying walls of the prison. Food in the prison was rationed on the basis of skin color. Blacks always received the least. But prisoners defied the prison system nonetheless; they created a collective in which all the food received would be shared equally amongst them. I tore a piece of my Palestinian scarf and left it in Mandela’s cell; its chipped, albeit fortified walls, its thin floor mattress still stand witness to the injustice perpetrated by some and the undying faith in one’s principles embraced by others. I visited every cell in Section A and B, touched every wall, read every name of every inmate: Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Bantus were all kept here, fought, died and finally won their freedom together. They referred to each other as comrades. Injustice is colorblind. So is true camaraderie.

I have never felt the sense of solidarity and acceptance that I felt in South Africa. There is an unparalleled lesson to be learned in this amazing place. There is a lot to be sorted out: a true equality to be realized, but a lot has also been done. A veteran ANC fighter thanked me for the arms and money supplied to his unit, and many other units, by the PLO in the 1970’s and 80’s; he said he still has his PLO uniform, tucked in somewhere in his little decrepit ‘house’ in one of the squatters’ camps dotting the city. It was a poignant reminder that the fight is not yet over.

Amongst the many names scribbled at the fenced wall at the helm of Cape of Good Hope, someone took the time to write “Palestine”. In the Apartheid Wall erected by Israel on Palestinian land in the West Bank, the South African parallel is expressed in more ways than one. The relationship cannot be any more obvious. The fight for justice is one, and shall always be.

--Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian author and journalist. His latest volume: The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press: London) is available at Amazon.com. He is the editor of PalestineChronicle.com and can be contacted at