People Before Profit blog

Ward Connerly’s Payback

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:38:00 +0000

2-26-05, 1:35 pm

Ward Connerly has tried to end affirmative action programs in California. His Proposition 209 was passed by voters in 1996. Prop. 209 ended state government preferences based on race and gender. On February 16, Connerly received a payback for that and his more recent work: $250,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

An African American, Connerly is a Sacramento businessman and University of California Regent who founded the American Civil Rights Institute. His second state ballot measure was called the Racial Privacy Initiative, or Proposition 54. It would have banned many California agencies from gathering ethnic and racial data. Connerly’s message to voters this time? The best way to achieve racial justice is to end government documentation of racism. Voters defeated Prop. 54 in October 2003, when they also elected Arnold Schwarzenegger over incumbent Gray Davis in a gubernatorial recall vote.

The Bradley Foundation, a $680 million philanthropy based in Milwaukee, also funds the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). A non-profit educational organization, the PNAC has been shaped by neo-conservatives. Two of these neo-cons are in the Bush administration: Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They are co-founders of the PNAC. Neo-cons paved the way for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Editor of the Weekly Standard, PNAC Chairman William Kristol began clucking for a U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1997.

As the U.S.-led war on terror continues in Afghanistan and Iraq, the racial class conflict surges at home. Consider this. Sour job opportunities for Blacks and Latinos connect with the poverty draft of the U.S. military. Wherever America’s armed forces are present, blacks and Latinos are over-represented. They are also the last hired and the first fired in the labor market. Jobless rates for Blacks are twice that of whites. Latino unemployment is nearly double the white jobless rate. Abroad, Blacks and Latinos, with working-class whites, are the foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism. Connerly’s lust for racial injustice feeds the empire.

He met Bradley’s criteria for 'achievements consistent with the mission statement of the foundation.' That mission? “The promotion of liberal democracy, democratic capitalism, and a vigorous defense of American institutions” said Michael W. Grebe, president and CEO of the Bradley Foundation.

Grebe uses the word liberal in the sense of free-market liberalism. That is, countries and peoples freely pursuing their self-interest in the world market. Thus freed, we are supposed to prosper. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the free market will make it so. Do not worry.

By contrast, New Deal liberalism spawned during the Great Depression of the 1930s saw government intervention on behalf of regular people. The Social Security system is one popular example. The GI Bill after World War II is another example. Connerly sidesteps that program of affirmative action. Why? “Theoretically available to all veterans, in practice women and Black veterans did not get anywhere near their share of GI benefits,' author Karen Brodkin Sacks writes.

Connerly got name recognition as California’s military bases closed and unionized jobs declined in the 1990s. That trend helped to spur Proposition 187, an anti-immigrant initiative aimed mainly at Latinos that state voters approved in 1994. Meanwhile, the state’s prison population boomed. Blacks and Latinos who were surplus workers got locked up at rates that far exceed their proportion of California’s population. Jail and prison building boomed. Construction for higher education stalled.

Connerly helped to pave the way for capital’s agenda of profit growth. Prop. 209 fit with commercial pacts like the NAFTA that began to urbanize some rural folks in Mexico. Consequently, some of them have been coming to California to find paid work.

This process has worsened employment opportunities for those on the lowest rungs of the state labor market, Blacks and Latinos. They have scant protection from such foreign job competition. Contrast their situation with that of medical doctors who practice in California. They earn high wages largely due to the federal government limiting the number of foreign physicians who can practice in the U.S.

For Connerly, choosing racial injustice is opting for political correctness. His stance turns the color line upside down. To that end, he has had some success making victims of the racial division of labor into victimizers of California’s general population. Thus Connerly’s payback from the Bradley Foundation.

--Seth Sandronsky is a member of Sacramento Area Peace Action and a co-editor of Because People Matter, Sacramento’s progressive paper. He can be reached at: ssandron@hotmail.com.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Bush Administration AIDS Policies Continue to Fall Short

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:32:00 +0000

In the president’s State of the Union address this year, he pledged again to fight the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic. Mr. Bush asked Congress to reauthorize the CARE Act “to encourage prevention and provide care and treatment” for those infected with the disease. He also stated that “we must focus our efforts on fellow citizens with the highest rates of new cases: African-American men and women.” But when his 2006 budget proposal was released two weeks later, a different picture emerged.

The Minority AIDS Initiative, a program targeting blacks and Hispanics for prevention and treatment, and the CARE Act, received no new funding. The budget cuts $14 million from the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS program, which provides housing subsidies for low-income people with HIV/AIDS. Experts have complained that the homeless and those in unstable home environments are often unable to obtain medical care and are the first to die from AIDS.

The Centers for Disease Control Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention was cut by $4 million. The budget also cuts $45 billion over ten years from Medicaid. Yet Medicaid is the single largest provider of medical care to those with HIV/AIDS. Annually, this federal program provides $5.6 billion in medical services to those with the disease. Mark Isaac, vice president of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, noted that as a result “programs can expect more patients and longer waiting lines. As we know, waiting just a few months for treatment…can literally mean the difference between life and death.”

This is simply a continuation of Bush administration AIDS policies that fall short. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush boldly stated, “I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.” Mr. Bush was strongly advised to funnel the new money into The Global Fund.

The Global Fund was established in 2001 to pool funds from international sources to fight AIDS more effectively. But much like his “go it alone” policy in foreign affairs, Mr. Bush has opted only to give $1 billion to the fund, and the rest is delivered to 15 nations separately, with little coordination. Additionally, a stipulation requires that the total U.S. contribution to the fund can never exceed 33 percent of the total. But contributions are calculated on the U.S. government’s fiscal year, which ends in September.

Most other governments operate on a calendar year basis. This has created significant problems. Last year, $547 million was allocated to the Global Fund. In October, since other governments still had three months to donate their portions, the U.S. contribution exceeded the 33 percent threshold. Consequently, the Bush administration withheld $88 million from the fund. This left many programs unfunded, which could have prevented 100,000 new cases of HIV and treated 25,000 AIDS patients.

The “go it alone” policy of the administration was also obvious during the last World AIDS Conference. Shortly before the international conference was convened, the administration announced it would send only one-quarter as many experts as had been sent the previous year, in an effort to save money. Dozens of scholarly presentations were withdrawn, and meetings to train Third World AIDS researchers and encourage international collaboration were cancelled. Workshops on sustainable HIV/AIDS treatments and a conference on using the Internet to promote HIV-prevention were cancelled.

The administration’s policy on international AIDS prevention also misses the mark. A requirement mandates that one-third of the funds spent on prevention programs, $130 million, can only promote abstinence and cannot support condom usage. Randall Tobias, U.S. Ambassador for AIDS Coordination, echoed this in a speech he gave before visiting Africa when he said, “Statistics show that condoms really have not been effective.” Given that 2.3 million Africans die annually as a result of AIDS, this was scientifically flawed and morally reprehensible. This policy has caused many African countries receiving U.S. funds to discontinue distributing condoms to the general public and only supplying certain demographic groups. U.S. contractors that previously distributed condoms are now only promoting abstinence programs. An AIDS education magazine popular with young Ugandans that previously advocated abstinence and condom usage, now does not even reference safe sex. However, a study just released by Texas A&M University concluded that teenagers who are only exposed to abstinence programs become more sexually active.

The Bush administration has requested $3.2 billion in the 2006 budget for domestic and international AIDS programs. This represents merely 0.14 percent of the total American budget, and equals only seven percent of the budget for the Defense Department. Speaking of those afflicted with AIDS, President Bush said, “There are no second-class citizens in the human race. I carry this commitment in my soul.”

It’s unfortunate that this is not evident in his policies.

Lenin on Anti-Semitism

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:11:00 +0000

'Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed tsarist monarchy was living its last days it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and the capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. In other countries, too, we often see the capitalists fomenting hatred against the Jews in order to blind the workers, to divert their attention from the real enemy of the working people, capital. Hatred towards the Jews persists only in those countries where slavery to the landowners and capitalists has created abysmal ignorance among the workers and peasants. Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate. This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.

'It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations. The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital. Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers.

'Shame on accursed tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

'Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital.'

--V.I. Lenin, Anti-Jewish Progroms, Speeches on Gramaphone Records #8, March 1919, CW, Vol. 29, p.252

More like Lincoln than Lenin

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:26:00 +0000

2-25-05, 11:28, am

Chavez’s Agrarian Land Reform: More like Lincoln than Lenin From COHA

• Land Reform is the traditional third rail of left-of-center governments and social reform movements.

• President Hugo Chavez’s plan is fundamentally different from other Latin American attempts at land reform. The proper historical parallel is President Lincoln’s Homestead Act.

• Chavez’s opponents, who see him as “another Castro,” wrongly view his agrarian reform program as a total assault on private property.

• Land Reform is one of the most progressive aspects of Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution” as it seeks to alter the fundamental power structure of the landed versus the landless, reduce Venezuela’s dependence on foodstuff imports, and redress the country’s disastrous experience with the “Dutch Disease.”

• The government should concentrate more on shoring up the agricultural base of the public lands it already has distributed to peasant cooperatives, rather than draw a premature bead on private lands.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is pushing full speed ahead with land reform, an issue that has been one of the most divisive and perennially debated topics in Latin America. Land reform poses perhaps the greatest challenge yet to Chavez’s stormy presidency, as it historically has been the Achilles’ heel of left-of-center regimes. Chavez’s daunting task is twofold: first, he will have to overcome problems that doomed past attempts at land reform throughout the region by other reformist governments, notably Jacobo Arbenz’s 1954 attempts in Guatemala and Salvador Allende’s 1970 – 1973 attempts in Chile. Second, he must grapple with the middle class’s opposition to agrarian reform, which it will predictably continue to oppose more tenaciously than any other aspect of his “Bolivarian revolution.” So far, he appears to have learned from his predecessors’ mistakes by implementing a host of cautionary institutional measures in order to avoid them. Although the rightwing wrongly considers land reform to be a carte blanche attack on private property, the opposition and business interests, such as the Vestey cattle ranch, do have some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.

The Facts Regarding Chavez’s Land Reform

The Venezuelan leader first articulated his land reform plan, or what he calls “Vuelta al Campo,” (Return to the Countryside) under the Law on Land and Agricultural Development in November 2001. The goals of this legislation were as follows: to set limits on the size of landholdings, tax unused property as an incentive to spur agricultural growth, redistribute unused, primarily government-owned land to peasant families and cooperatives and, lastly, expropriate uncultivated and fallow land from large, private estates for the purpose of redistribution. On the last and most controversial goal, the landowners would be compensated for their land at market value. The National Land Institute (INTI) was set up to facilitate achieving these goals by establishing criteria to determine what land could be redistributed and the eligibility of those applying for new land deeds. Under Plan Zamora of 2003, both the INTI and its sister organizations, the National Rural Development Institute and the Venezuelan Agricultural Organization, have been tasked to administer agricultural expertise to the new peasant landowners and to provide markets for their goods. After a slow start, the Chavez government has redistributed about 2.2 million hectares of state owned land to more than 130,000 peasant families and cooperatives (1 hectare = 2.47 acres). So far, although not one acre of private property has been expropriated by the government, tensions are beginning to mount as Chavez extends his reform program from government-owned land to the latifundios (large, privately owned estates of more than 5,000 hectares, roughly 12,350 acres).

Chavez Emulates Lincoln

In the history of land reform, the most accurate analogy to illustrate what is transpiring in Venezuela is not Zimbabwe or Cuba – Chavez officials have repeatedly emphasized that they are not emulating the Cuban model of land reform – but the U.S.’ own Homestead Act. Signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862, the measure declared that any U.S. or intended citizen of at least 21 years of age could claim up to 160 acres of government land. Like Chavez’s Vuelta al Campo, there were many restrictions in the Act which benefited the recipients by ensuring that the new reform could not be manipulated by entrenched, moneyed interests. Under Lincoln’s legislation, the land could not be sold to speculators or used as debt collateral, and only after five years of “actual settlement and cultivation,” according to Section 2, could the homesteader submit an application for a land patent. Similarly, in Chavez’s plan, only after three years may the peasants obtain legal ownership of the land, and only then after they have rendered it productive. The Homestead Act was one of the most progressive and far-reaching government initiatives in U.S. history insofar as it helped to develop and secure an agrarian-based middle class, which had an epic impact on the future democratization of the nation. That Chavez is trying to emulate it in his own country, as part of his plan to extirpate Venezuela’s entrenched inequality, is an effort that all right-minded people should applaud.

Upping the Ante

Last month, the president of INTI, Eliecer Otaiza, said that “We hope to issue 100,000 land grants within the next six months.” This announcement followed a series of new decrees issued by the government intended to speed up the reform. However, since where the land will come from for the proposed grants is not clear, hostility has already been ignited between ranch owners and campesinos as the government begins inspecting which private estates it might appropriate. According to Juan Forero of the New York Times, even before these latest decrees were passed, “as Mr. Chavez’s government trains its sights on 6.6 million acres of private holdings, farmers are increasingly worried that it will recklessly seize private property.” The government has recently set up an “Intervention Commission” to determine what lands are productive and were obtained legally. Last January, this commission began exercising its mandate under the INTI by inspecting the British-owned Vestey cattle ranch of El Charcote in Cojedes. In two months, the commission is due to announce its findings pertaining to the ranch’s proprietorship and productivity.

The Right Throws a Fit

The prospect of Chavez’s “revolutionary” government supporting hundreds of thousands of machete-wielding campesinos as they shout “fuera los ingleses” (out with the English) has provoked a spate of somewhat hysterical editorials by conservative Caracas and U.S. commentators. Frequently, much of what is written in the U.S. press on the subject is simply inaccurate or egregious hyperbole, which eventually gets passed off as gospel. For example, though the New York Times got it right, the Christian Science Monitor wrote in an editorial that “The plan supposedly applies to both private and governmental agricultural holdings, but so far only private lands are being targeted.” While that statement is demonstrably false, the Washington Post – ominously reminding its readers that Chavez is a “disciple of Castro” – noted that the “assault on private property is merely the latest step in what has been a rapidly escalating ‘revolution’ by Venezuela's president that is undermining the foundations of democracy and free enterprise.” Carlos Ball of the CATO Institute flatly declares in his piece, “Chavez’s Land Grab,” that in the Bolivarian Republic, “Private property is history.” Although, as of today, no privately owned land has been redistributed to the landless poor by the government, the rightwing and its media lapdogs seem mighty nervous over any possible change in the status quo of Venezuela’s landed elite. But before dismissing Chavez as another Castro, it would behoove one to analyze the Venezuelan land barons and the history of agriculture in the country since the oil boom began in order to determine just how radical the president’s land reform plan really is.

A Brief History of Venezuela’s Spectacular Iniquities

In Venezuela roughly 75 to 80% of the country’s private land is owned by 5% of all landowners. Regarding agricultural holdings, that figure drops to a mere 2% of the population owning 60% of the country’s farmland, much of which is fallow. Because these stark statistics do not help one understand the extraordinary levels of both rural and urban inequality in Venezuela, perhaps the following analogy will. Imagine if in this country a handful of families owned the entire state of California. There is no California Coastal Commission, no limits on the amount of land that may be purchased, no zoning laws, no government oversight of any kind, nothing of the sort. But none of this really matters to the average citizen because California, as a conglomeration of large, privately owned estates, will never be seen by most US residents (excepting itinerant laborers). In other words, try to think of one of the most beautiful state in the union as one giant gated community. Meanwhile, the country’s landed oligarchy owns the vast majority of the land, most of which lies fallow because they prefer to sit on it for the purpose of land speculation rather than use it for agricultural production. With most of its arable land unused, your country is the only net importer of food on the continent and is forced to purchase more than two-thirds of its foodstuffs abroad. Though this analogy may help one to empathize with the land situation in Venezuela, it is still woefully inadequate for conveying an adequate grasp on the levels of inequality in that country, as California only makes up 4% of the U.S. land mass.

Venezuela and the “Dutch Disease”

Today, about 90% of Venezuela’s 25 million people live in urban areas. This gross imbalance between urban and rural populations is largely a result of the 1970s oil boom. Before that, about two-thirds of Venezuelans lived in rural areas. However, once the country became flush with petrodollars, a succession of middle-of-the-road governments began to neglect the countryside and focus its resources in the petro industry. This concentration led to a demographic surge from rural to urban areas as peasants left their traditional vocation for the lure of urban jobs. The dire consequence of this internal migration was to turn the country into a net food importer, the only one in South America. With campesinos fleeing from the country to the cities, Venezuela’s planners failed to provide for the labor required to build or even sustain its pre-1970s agricultural base. The oil revenues were allocated largely towards urban infrastructural projects, almost all of which went towards middle class neighborhoods and white collar pursuits, at the expense of shoring up the country’s agricultural sector and domestic manufacturing. The result was a convulsed economy and a shrinking agricultural base. Accordingly, it was no wonder that the Venezuelan co-founder of OPEC, Juan Pablo Alfonso, said in 1975: “I call petroleum the devil’s excrement. It brings trouble. . .Look at this locura—waste, corruption, consumption, our public services falling apart. And debt, debt we shall have for years.” This problem of the “Dutch Disease” – the phenomenon of an economy slumping as a direct result of a rapid spike in one of its sectors while the others remain constant – has plagued Venezuela for decades. According to some analysts, even the country’s culture suffered as a result of the boom. Gregory Wilpert, a freelance journalist and political scientist based in Caracas, has written that the problem with “Venezuela’s reliance on oil is that it has fostered a rentier and clientelistic mentality among Venezuelans. The consequence was that rather than engaging in creative entrepreneurial activity, Venezuelans were encouraged to ally themselves with the state, seeking either employment or contracts from the state, which had a monopoly on Venezuela’s oil income.”

In short, since the Punto Fijo pact of 1958, the successive governments under the two dominant middle-class parties, the Christian Democrats (COPEI) and Democratic Action (AD), made the same mistake as many Middle East regimes: they poured oil revenues into a privileged elite when they should have been spread out to most Venezuelans. This mismanagement of resources thereby created a nation divided between those who benefited from the oil revenues squarely pitted against those who ultimately suffered from them. By facilitating what the government hopes will be a long-term demographic movement back to rural areas, Chavez hopes to begin strengthening precisely those sectors of the economy and culture that suffered the most from the oil boom. His land reform program should thus be viewed in the broader context of his “Bolivarian Revolution,” which can be described as an attempt to reverse much of the damage the country suffered by the problems of its mismanaged oil wealth, coupled with the clientelism, profligacy and corruption of the leprous series of COPEI/AD governments.

Why Chavez’s Land Reform just Might Work

Chavez has been criticized for returning to a dead end social program, characterized more by socialist babble than by clear thinking and sound planning. Critics point out that land reform already has been tried in Venezuela and failed. Some argue that Chavez’s plan could make for the same kind of agricultural disaster wrought by President Robert Mugabe’s land reform policy in Zimbabwe. Regarding this context of botched agrarian reform attempts, the Christian Science Monitor notes that, “In the 1960s and ‘70s, much of Latin America (including Venezuela) tried such land reform and failed. . . Government control of agriculture is on the way out globally.”

While it is true that during the 1960s land was distributed to 150,000 peasant families, there are fundamental differences between Chavez’s current plan and those that have failed in the past – differences that indicate the “Fifth Republic” under Chavez has learned from past mistakes. In a paper prepared for the 2002 World Bank Latin American Land Policy Workshop in Pachuca, Mexico, one key reason identified for the botched attempts of previous agrarian reform campaigns was the state’s failure to implement “programs to promote efficient use of land by beneficiaries.” According to the report, reform efforts fail “where access to land is not accompanied by a set of institutional reforms able to secure the competitiveness of beneficiaries.” In other words, the approach of most governments towards agrarian reform was, “here’s a plot of land. Good luck.” Chavez has already taken steps to ensure this mistake is not repeated.

First, his government is taking a much more activist roll in the reform process than previous attempts at land reform. Under Vuelta al Campo, the government does not just distribute land and then walk away. Unlike past attempts, the government maintains a legal and market-oriented purview over the land reform process. This includes de facto government ownership of the distributed land, dissemination of knowledge about proper farming techniques to the new peasant cooperatives and, most importantly, the creation of internal and external markets required to absorb the new products. The intention behind de facto government ownership, in which public authorities basically holdthe deeds to the distributed land in an escrow account, is to ensure that the new peasant families will not sell their farms back to the big landowners. That is precisely what happened in the 60s when many of the peasants re-sold their newly distributed land to the latifundistas due to a lack of government assistance and a sufficiently clarified market for their produce, which promptly resulted in a reversion to the status quo.

Furthermore, the previous land reform in Venezuela never got to the core of the problem, which was the retention of large, unused but arable tracts of land by the latifundistas. Under that system, land was left idle for the purpose of “engordar el toreno,” (to fatten the cow), defined as not using the land for any agricultural purposes but keeping it fallow while engaging in land speculation. In an interview with COHA, Professor and Venezuelan expert Miguel Tinker-Salas of Pomona College said this is the bankrupt agricultural system that Chavez is seeking to reform: “The attempt at land reform under the COPEI/AD government was never an effort to break up the large, landed estates. It was basically a patronage system. It left the fundamental power structure in tact, which is what Chavez is trying to change.” He argues that unlike the “superficial efforts at land reform in the past, in which the government provided little support,” Chavez is earnest about changing the status quo, and that we “should view his land reform program in the broader context of the overall social transformation taking place in Venezuelan society.”

The Right does have a Point

In fairness, it certainly looks like the government is on the cusp of expropriating some private lands, though it would only do so if the INTI determines such land to be fallow or unlawfully gained. The government’s intervention in the 32,000 acre El Charcote cattle ranch, owned by the Vestey Group of Britain, raises legitimate questions regarding how far Chavez’s land reform will go and whether it is prepared to risk scaring away foreign investors. That prospect poses a serious problem to the regime since a precipitous flight of foreign capital over fears of “another Castro” is the last thing Chavez’s social movement needs. As Jose de Cordoba of the Wall Street Journal reported, “Fear of confiscations is drying up agricultural investment and financing, and a continuation of this trend almost certainly would erode production in the not-too-distant future.” In the wake of Chavez’s repeated calls for a war against the latifundios, squatters have appropriated much of the Vestey ranch’s land. While they undoubtedly have suffered historical wrongs, the sight of campesinos pouring over the vested estates is almost guaranteed to send investors scurrying.

Just imagine the CEO of a firm specializing in agricultural exports reading in the New York Times that, according to Anthony Richards, the manager of the El Charcote ranch, “the presence of the squatters has forced the farm to cut the size of its herd to a little more than 6,000 from 13,500 in 1999. Instead of producing 3.3 million pounds of meat a year, the farm now produces about a third of that amount.” If Chavez gives into all the squatters’ demands, many of whom may in fact be occupying land that is both lawfully owned and productive, his Vuelta al Campo could become another sad example of the revolution eating its children. Why he is eyeing some estates which, like the Vestey ranch, appear productive and beneficial to Venezuelans (the combined Vestey cattle ranches produce around 5% of the country’s beef), rather than focusing all attention on shoring up the productivity of government land that has already been distributed – at least as a first stage – is a perfectly legitimate question to pose to Chavistas.

Nice Job so far – but be Careful

Chavez is right to enact sweeping land reform, both as a means of reducing Venezuela’s feudal levels of inequality and as a way of boosting agricultural output, which now accounts for a pathetic 6% of the country’s GDP. And the right is certainly wrong to offer up only its usual, knee-jerk reaction to anything Chavez promotes. That noted, Chavez would be well advised to consolidate the gains already made by the newly landed peasants on public lands. By making certain that those who have been deeded public land live up to their end of the bargain – as was the main obligation of Lincoln’s Homesteaders – Chavez can establish his program as a rare success story in a region littered with failed attempts at agrarian reform.

--Seth DeLong, Ph.D., is a COHA Senior Research Fellow.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Iraq: A Dangerous Place for Trade Unionists

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:48:00 +0000

2-25-05, 9:48 am

Iraq – murder of oil trade unionist and wave of kidnappings mark surge in worker intimidation

Brussels, 25 February 2005 (ICFTU Online): Iraq is an increasingly dangerous place for trade unionists, said the ICFTU today as it condemned the latest murder of the Iraqi labour leader Ali Hassan Abd (Abu Fahad). The unionist, a prominent and outspoken member of the Oil and Gas union, was murdered on his way home, close to the Al Dorah Oil Refinery in Baghdad. Ali Hassan Abd was one of the first activists to organise trade unions in the oil industry, encouraging union voice in a post-Saddam Iraq as early as April 2003.

Following the assassination of Hadi Saleh, International Secretary of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) , the torture and murder of labour leaders in Iraq has become a troubling trend in a country where trade unionists still operate under anti-union legislation which dates back to the Saddam-era.

The ICFTU is deeply concerned by the wave of kidnappings of Iraqi trade union leaders. Moaid Hamed, General Secretary of the Mosul branch of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), is the most recent labour leader to be kidnapped, abducted on 11 February 2004. This followed the kidnap and subsequent release of other senior trade unionists from the same organisation. The international trade union movement fears that the climate will worsen – according to the Federation of Workers’ Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI), an extremist group has been planning to abduct several labour activists in Basra.

Estimates from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) indicate that 72 journalists and media staff have been killed in Iraq since the conflict began - at least half of them Iraqi. 2004 also saw fatal attacks on rail workers in Basra and Mosul. Furthermore, the uncovering of the bodies of 18 workers in Northern Iraq on 5 January 2005 drew strong condemnation from the international trade union movement. The workers, residents of Baghdad, had travelled to Mosul on the promise of securing jobs in the city. All 18 victims had been shot in the head.

Iraqi workers continue to be exposed to unparalleled levels of insecurity and a serious lack of personal safety. These incidents, increasingly affecting the oil and gas sector, are testament to the dangers facing Iraqi trade unionists and workers in the country, under attack from those opposed to workers’ rights. Iraqi workers play a crucial role in the reconstruction of the country and the authorities must ensure that they are able to work without fear of harassment or physical violence, stressed the ICFTU.

Following its 6-10 February meetings in Jordan which brought together representatives from all of Iraq’s trade union organisations, the ICFTU again pledged its commitment to closely monitoring the situation in Iraq and will report on the status of worker security and workers’ rights in the Middle Eastern country in this year’s Annual Survey of Trade Union Rights. The ICFTU represents 145 million workers in 233 affiliated organisations in 154 countries and territories. ICFTU is also a partner in Global Unions: http://www.global-unions.org.

Also, see IFTU for more information.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Rafiq Hariri's Assassination: Who Benefits?

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:51:00 +0000

2-25-05, 8:50

Who benefits from assassination in Lebanon?

From The Guardian

Rafiq Hariri, Lebanon's five-times prime minister and billionaire tycoon was assassinated in a huge bomb blast in Beirut last Monday, February 14. A number of others were killed or wounded in the blast that left a trail of carnage and devastation.

Mr Hariri resigned as prime minister four months ago and was expected to run as a candidate in the Lebanese elections due in May.

The assassination plunged Lebanon into turmoil and raised fears for the country's stability.

Those responsible for the assassination have not been identified but this has not stopped the United States from blaming Syria without citing any evidence.

The US has a clear agenda in Lebanon. It would like to force the withdrawal of Syrian troops which have been there since 1976, when civil war was brought to an end. It would also like to replace the present pro-Syrian government with one that is favourably disposed towards Israel and the US.

Attempting to build a case against Syria, White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed, 'Mr Hariri was a fervent supporter of Lebanese independence, and worked tirelessly to rebuild a free, independent and prosperous Lebanon following its brutal civil war and despite its continued foreign occupation.'

Scott McClellan failed to mention the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the occupation of the southern strip of Lebanese territory by pro-Israeli forces for many years.

While harping on about foreign occupation, the White House also omits mention of the occupation of Iraq and a number of other countries by the USA. Syria has only 14,000 troops in Lebanon while the US has about 150,000 occupation forces in Iraq.

Who benefits?

Short of concrete evidence, the assassination can only be analysed by considering who stands to gain from this bloody event.

When this question is asked, Syria can surely be ruled out as its leaders would know that in a climate where the US was already threatening Syria with sanctions and possible invasion, any incident which could be pinned on Syria's government would provide a ready excuse for the US to step up the pressure. This is exactly what has happened.

Facing the same threats and pressure the governments of Iran and Syria have drawn closer together and agreed on mutual solidarity. Whether this means mutual military support in the event of a military or air attack on either of their countries by the US or Israel or both is not clear.

Iran's former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking after meeting Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Otari, said strengthening relations between Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and other Islamic states in the region was of great importance.

Rafsanjani said that the United States and Israel were trying to create divisions among the region's countries, which must 'stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the US and Israeli plots in this regard.' Al-Otari said Israel was 'the source of instability' in the Middle East.

Bogged down

Bogged down in Iraq, the US regards Syria as an easy target by which to expand its control over the Middle East. These plans are well coordinated with those of Israel. The objectives of both countries need a continuous state of instability in the region.

From within the ranks of the US administration there is strong pressure on Bush from the Christian Right and others with strong links to the right-wing Likud bloc in Israel, for the US to move into Lebanon. The killing of Hariri sets the scene for such a move.

These forces include David Wurmser, Vice President Dick Cheney's adviser on the Middle East. Wurmser played a leading role in the creation of a Pentagon intelligence unit that sought to fabricate a case for linking the Iraqi regime with al Qaida in the months leading up to the US invasion.

In 1996, Wurmser co-authored a report for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Called A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm it advocated the repudiation of the 'land for peace' formula which was the basis for peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine and the 'rolling back' of Israel's regional adversaries. The plan advocated the overthrow of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and recommended Israeli strikes against 'Syrian targets in Lebanon' and within Syria itself.

Douglas Feith, the current undersecretary for policy at the US Defense Department and Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board were co-authors of the report.

In 2000, Wurmser helped draft a document entitled Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role? It called for a confrontation with Syria accusing it of developing 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Does this sound familiar? Among those who signed the document were Feith and Perle, as well as Elliot Abrams, Bush's chief adviser on the Middle East, who was recently appointed deputy national security adviser.

Israel's interests in attacking Syria are easily seen. The Israeli rulers have not given up their intentions of thieving more and more Palestinian land and thwarting all moves towards the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. This would lead to the explusion of many Jewish settlers who have occupied Palestinian land. It would create the possibility for the return of many of the Palestinian diaspora to their homeland.

The long range Israeli plans require a continual state of instability not only in their relations with the Palestinians but with neighbouring Arab states as well.

Syria has provided sanctuary to Palestinian groups that have opposed Israel, including Hamas. Israel hopes that by removing Syrian troops from Lebanon and installing a more pro-Israeli government it would be possible to force Lebanon to grant citizenship to the estimated 400,000 Palestinian refugees inside that country. Thus, one of the Palestinian demands — the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland now under Israeli occupation — will be dealt with to Israel's advantage.

So the motives leading to the assassination are clear. It should not be forgotten that Israel's intelligence agency Mossad has a long history of state-sponsored political assassinations in the region.

Since 2002, Mossad has been headed by Meir Dagan, who formerly commanded the Israeli occupation zone in Lebanon. Sharon reportedly gave Dagan a mandate to revive the traditional methods of Mossad, including assassinations abroad.

The murder of Rafiq Hariri is a brutal warning that the US war in Iraq is only the beginning of a wider campaign for US and Israeli dominance in the region.

Mustafa al-Naser a former consultant of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri said: 'The assassination of Hariri is Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad's job, aimed at creating political tension in Lebanon.

'Beyond doubt, the peace, stability, and high level security prevailing in Lebanon in recent years, in creation of which all Lebanese groups play a harmonious role, is in direct contrast with Israel's political intentions for the region...', he said.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Movie Review: Hotel Rwanda, A political and personal tragedy

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:46:00 +0000

2-25-05, 8:45 am

Hotel Rwanda Directed by Terry George From Morning Star Some facts first.

In 1994, after the assassination in a plane crash of the country's leader major general Juvenal Habyarimana, the long-simmering hostility of the Hutus for their fellow Rwandans the Tutsi boiled over into a bloody genocide.

For the next three months, the Western powers ignored the horrors as another 'Third World incident.'

Killings spread throughout the country, the Western nations withdrew and the UN rendered itself impotent by reducing its 'peacekeeping' force from 2,500 to 250 soldiers and, in the course of 100 days, almost a million people were slaughtered.

Keir Pearson's co-writer Terry George's lashing indictment focuses its justifiable anger on the character of real-life hero Paul Rusesabagina, who is powerfully played by deservedly Oscar-nominated Don Cheadle.

He is the manager of a four-star hotel in Kigali who saved the lives of over 1,000 refugees from certain death by sheltering them in the hotel by using native cunning and calculated venality —bribery was a constant fact of life in Africa - to keep them alive.

Hotel Rwanda, shot in South Africa - which explains the unlikely English-language signs in the establishing shots of what's meant to be Kigali - is a commanding, often gruelling but absolutely essential movie.

It has a hero who emerges as an African version of Oscar Schindler and hits you with the same forcefully horrific impact of Spielberg's genocide drama but without that film's inevitable Hollywood bloat.

George doesn't spare the viewer. Among many unforgettable sequences, Rusesabagina's discovery that the 'bumps' in the road he has been experiencing are actually corpses that he has been driving over in the mist is nightmarishly vivid.

But he doesn't indulge in gratuitous unpleasantness either. While the violence and terror that his images create are all too horrifyingly believable, he succeeds splendidly in making key characters.

As well as Rusesabagina, there is his Tutsi wife Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo) and Nick Nolte's impotent UN commander, who tells Rusesabagina: 'All the whites are leaving - we are being abandoned.'

Cynically, one could argue that, had bomber Bush and photo-opportunity Blair been in power in 1994, they might have staged an Iraq-style invasion of Rwanda.

Or, in reality, probably not, since no oil supplies were involved and, this time, instead of remaining on the sidelines and adopting a highly unconvincing high moral tone, the French had already taken the doubtless highly profitable responsibility of supplying arms to the murderous Hutu.

George maintains a fine balance between potent polemic and personal drama, staging compelling drama with impressive straightforwardness while allowing his actors space and material with which to emerge as flesh and blood people and not mere political ciphers.

Okonedo has rightly earned a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination and Nolte is better than he has been in years. Hotel Rwanda is both timely and timeless in the brutal points that it makes and has been rewarded with an Oscar nomination as best motion picture.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Strengthening Social Security: Latinos and the Union Movement

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:41:00 +0000

Strengthening Social Security—Key Goal of Latinos and Union Movement

From ILCA

Good jobs, affordable health care coverage and secure retirements are the top priorities among Latino workers, Latino leaders said. Key among those mutual goals is strengthening Social Security. Speaking at an AFL-CIO roundtable meeting with Latino union leaders and Spanish-language media, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson said President George W. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security would be a “disaster” for nearly all Latinos. “Are we going to go back to those terrible times when many of our seniors had to live on dog food and go without heat in the winter? That’s what is at stake.” Strengthening Social Security is vital for Latino families, Chavez-Thompson said, because nearly half of older Latinos depend on the benefit for at least 90 percent of their total income. Among Latinos ages 65 and older, more than 75 percent now receive income from Social Security, but only 28 percent have income from assets and even fewer—15 percent—have income from pensions or annuities. “The Latino community and the union movement belong together as allies,” said Chavez-Thompson “We share the same values. We share many of the same heroes, such as César Chávez, and we share the same vision of making our land more equal and fair.”

Wal-Mart-Type Jobs ‘Drive Down Wages and Destroy Benefits’

Another fundamental issue for working Latinos is obtaining good jobs that provide affordable health insurance and secure retirement benefits, not the Wal-Mart-type jobs that drive down wages and destroy benefits, said Chavez-Thompson. Wal-Mart is the biggest private-sector employer of people of color in America, with more than 128,000 Latino employees, “and the terrible truth is that most of these jobs pay so little that there’s no way these workers can support themselves, let alone their families,” she said. “That’s why we in the AFL-CIO are doing everything we can to shine a light on Wal-Mart’s true record—the jobs with little pay, few benefits, little dignity and no future—and how that actually drives down wages all through the economy.” The best way for Latino workers to gain good jobs is by joining a union, Chavez-Thomspon said. Latinos comprise 10.1 percent of union membership, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Union workers on average are paid 25 percent more than nonunion workers—and for Latinos, the advantage of belonging to a union is 45 percent, the BLS reports. But employers have chopped away at workers’ freedom to form a union until there are now three times as many working people who would like to join unions as there are members, said Chavez-Thompson.

Union Movement Working with Latino Leaders on Immigration Reform

Ensuring immigrant workers are respected in the workplace is part of a larger union movement initiative to gain immigration reform that will provide a certain path to legalization for workers from around the world who already are living and working in the United States, said Ana Avendaño, director of the AFL-CIO Immigrant Worker Program, and Soñia Ramirez, an AFL-CIO legislative representative. The AFL-CIO also is fighting to repeal and replace employer sanctions with stiffer penalties for employers who take advantage of workers’ immigration status to exploit them and undermine labor protections for all workers. The union movement seeks to reform, not expand, temporary worker programs and reform the permanent immigration system so those who want to reunite with their families are not penalized. Discussing the economic conditions in the countries from which many immigrant workers flee, Patricia Campos, legislative director for UNITE HERE, said much of the staggering poverty and economic injustice in Mexico and Central and South America could be alleviated if the United States and its trading partners included workers’ rights and other environmental protections in trade agreements. That’s why unions are fighting to stop the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), she said. If approved, CAFTA would eliminate tariffs from the United States and five Central American countries. But the agreement does not include protections for workers to form a union or provide environmental safeguards. The Bush administration and congressional Republican leaders are expected to try to bring CAFTA to a vote this spring. Other Latino union leaders who participated in the roundtable include Jose La Luz, AFL-CIO assistant organizing director, Irasema Garza, AFSCME Women’s Rights director, Hugo Carballo, Laborers Local 11 business manager, and Irene Orozco, United Food and Commercial Workers assistant to the director of Civil Rights & Community Relations.

China’s Burgeoning Role in Latin America—a Threat to the U.S.?

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:26:00 +0000

2-24-05, 10:27 am

• Until recently, Washington has all but ignored that China is making important inroads in the region—China and a number of western hemispheric countries have deepened their cooperation, especially in the areas of trade and development.

• As the world’s second largest and fastest growing major economy, China possesses an insatiable appetite for Latin American natural resources and agricultural products, and is now beginning to realize its full potential as a world power, challenging and, perhaps overshadowing, the United States in a number of economic sectors—China’s quest could rival the U.S.’ need for the same products.

• With $50 billion worth of trade and investments in Latin America, China is promoting its “peaceful rise” policy, while pledging to help Latin American developing countries achieve their own potential.

• U.S. risks losing trade revenue as well as sought-after products to Sino-Latin American cooperation

At its own economic and political peril, Washington can no longer deny that its present chaotic Latin American policy and its strategy of malign neglect toward the region are doing great damage to its hemispheric policy. At the same time, China is making great strides in bolstering its position as a world power. Specifically, Beijing aims to expand trade ties with Latin America in order to sate its growing energy demands. However, China’s ventures into the region may inadvertently signal an assault on Washington’s long term political and economic interests in the hemisphere. The U.S. has far too often treated Latin America as its own “backyard” and will soon feel the repercussions of its policies of abandonment and rhetorical thunder if it does not pay closer attention to the region, which now seems very anxious to look elsewhere for economic benefits and sustainability. With the Free Trade of the Americas agreement on the point of collapse, the Bush administration would do well to sweep clean its present stable of misguided and ill-prepared Latin American policy makers, particularly if it hopes to blunt Beijing’s economic and political offensive.

China Wants Oil, Oil, and More Oil

As China becomes economically more powerful and consumes increasingly larger amounts of energy that befits a burgeoning consumer society, the country’s limited oil reserves will force it to look outside the border for the additional petroleum supplies necessary to run its many industries. Officials estimate that by 2007, China will need to import 50 percent of the oil it will consume.

According to some sources, within one year China will become one of the largest importers of petroleum in the world, second only to the United States. Venezuela, which possesses the largest proven oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, already is beginning to accommodate China’s access to these holdings. President Hugo Chávez announced during his December 2004 visit to China that his hosts would invest heavily in Venezuela’s oil sector, a move that could ultimately affect the U.S., which is currently the biggest consumer of Venezuelan oil, importing 15 percent of its annual crude oil supplies. Chávez also added that bilateral trade with China is expected to reach $3 billion in 2005, more than double the 2004 figure. In addition, one of the most important deals between China and its socialist ally, Cuba, involves oil. SINOPEC, a Chinese oil company—one of the largest in the world—has announced it will begin searching for potential oil fields off the Cuban coast.

Analysts have estimated that the demand and availability of the world’s petroleum supply will remain tight in 2006 and that fluctuations in crude oil prices will depend to a large extent on the robustness of the Chinese economy and the stability of global geopolitics, particularly in the Middle East. As a result, the rivalry between the U.S. and China for primacy in gaining access to the Western Hemisphere’s energy supplies will prove to be a major challenge for President Bush.

Chinese Investments: The “Peaceful Rise”

As of 2003, China was the world’s second largest economy—only surpassed by the U.S.—and had the highest growth rate of any major country. However, per capita economic indicators also register the country’s extensive poverty. With its entrance into the World Trade Organization that same year, China has since asserted itself as a major power in the international economic arena, in spite of its disabilities at home.

Following recent diplomatic exchanges and in accordance with Chinese President Hu Jintao’s “peaceful rise” policy, good neighborliness and global responsibility with enhanced investment and trade, China committed itself to new investments in Latin America and the Caribbean, totaling more than $50 billion. In the region, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina and Panama are China’s top five trading partners, while China stands as Brazil’s third-largest overall trading customer and Argentina’s fourth-largest. To Brazil, South America’s most populous country as well as its economic and political powerhouse, Hu offered a deal worth approximately $7 billion in port and railway investments. The Chinese president also pledged wider access for Brazilian goods to China’s market and expressed his hope that trade between the two nations would increase two-fold within three years. In Argentina, still recovering from the massive debt default crisis of 2001, Hu signed deals worth nearly $20 billion over the next decade on investments in railways, oil and gas exploration and construction projects. During his visit to Chile, Hu and President Ricardo Lagos negotiated a deal to send large quantities of Chilean copper to China and secured Chinese financing for new copper mining ventures in his country. Also in December 2004, President Chávez announced a series of oil agreements between China and Venezuela.

In addition to state visits, Sino-Latin American political and economic cooperation has improved contact among regional organizations, such as the China-Latin America forum, China-South American Common Market dialogue, and China-Andean Community consultation. With increasingly close ties and soaring trade worth billions of U.S. dollars, some experts believe that China-Latin American ties have entered their “best period in history.” In 1975, total trade between China and the region was a mere $200 million, slowly reaching $2.8 billion by 1988. From 1993 to 2003, China-Latin American trade expanded by 600% and doubled from 2000 to 2003 when total trade between the two reached $26.8 million, of which $14.92 billion were Latin American exports to China. From January to November of 2004, trade soared to $36.4 billion.

Despite the fact that some analysts are still dubious about what will happen with the course to be taken in the Latin American-Chinese relationship, one cannot ignore important investments and negotiations that are currently taking place. Washington would be wise to view Chinese engagement with this hemisphere as a matter of importance and worthy of attention. The White House must consider the implications that these actions could have upon future U.S.-Latin American relations. As a commodity-hungry nation anxious to assert its prominence across the globe, China must prove to its new partners in this hemisphere—a continent itself in search of new friends and allies—that its interests in the region will be mutually beneficial, legitimate and long-term in nature.

Mutual Admiration

Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping’s consolidation of power in 1977-1978 marked a significant turning point in Sino-Latin American relations. After nearly 30 years of Maoist rule, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) embarked on a more pragmatic and outward-looking program of economic development that focused primarily on exports, foreign investment, technology and closer ties with the West. Starting in the same decade, Latin America commenced a shift away from its semi-autarchic economic model towards more open trade policies, which included diversifying and strengthening its international ties. In the 21st century, China and Latin America continue striving to realize their collective economic potential, with interaction among the nations involved increasing markedly in recent years. Both sides have taken bold steps to deepen their political, cultural, and most importantly, economic cooperation.

High-Level Exchanges

In November 2004, President Hu made his first trip to Latin America, visiting Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Cuba in an effort to improve their ties with his country. On this trip, 39 accords were signed outlining agreements on trade, investment, space exploration, tourism and education. Moreover, the PRC agreed to establish new partnerships and deepen existing relations with these countries. Emphasizing China’s traditional friendship and ideological alliance with Cuba as a foundation of Beijing’s policy toward the region, Hu proclaimed enhanced cooperation with all Latin America as a hallmark of the new relationship. During his 16 day trip to the region, the Chinese president also attended the 12th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Santiago, Chile. In his proposals for regional collaboration and development, Hu emphasized increased investment and technological advancements as his country’s main priorities in this hemisphere and as the necessary precursors for achieving mutually beneficial economic growth. During the two-day APEC summit, Hu also held separate bilateral talks with leaders of the 13 APEC members, including Mexican President Vicente Fox and Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo Manrique.

Continuing its cooperative efforts in 2005, Beijing sent another high-powered team of diplomats to Latin America and the Caribbean. From late January to early February, Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong traveled to Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago to negotiate trade and investment agreements. The collaborative tone of Hu’s and Zeng’s trips had first been initiated by former PRC President Jiang Zemin’s during his visit to Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil in 2001.

Almost all Latin American leaders now have led high-level missions to China to express their interest in broadening cultural and economic ties with Beijing. In December 2004, Chávez became the third Latin American head of state to visit China that year. Preceding Chávez, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner and Brazilian President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva traveled to Beijing, each attended by a group of business leaders.

Third World Solidarity

Chinese leaders have often claimed that all developing countries share common ground and that China “would forever stay on the side of developing countries,” because of their “Third World entities.” The Chinese leadership clearly realizes that domestic development and sound trade expansion rely on stable international economic conditions and some analysts contend that the country’s recent trade offensive signals a stepped-up effort to penetrate South America seeking economic benefits and new trade opportunities. Recognizing this fact, the Chicago Tribune’s Gary Marx wrote on December 20, 2004, that China is “nurturing alliances with many developing countries to solidify its position in the World Trade Organization, flex its muscles on the world stage and act as a counterbalance to U.S. power.” On the same note, David Jessop, director of the Caribbean Council, expressed in the February 6 issue of the Week In Europe that “the range of issues covered and the policy and economic understandings reached by China with Brazil suggest the emergence of a global order in which the countries of the South begin to forge new alliances based on a very different perception of the world.” As China deliberately engages in Latin America, this North-South tension involving the U.S. is becoming palpable.

Jiang Shixue, deputy director of the Institute of Latin American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences commented that “China’s robust economic growth has contributed to the economic recovery in Latin America.” Latin American leaders understand that China may help the area to emerge from a regional recession and to finance costly infrastructure improvements, such as those arising from the shortage of potable water. Inviting such a relationship, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Venezuela have recognized China’s uniquely appealing market. For its part, China has categorized many of these nations as “tourist destinations,” a status which allows Chinese tour groups to travel to these countries without travel restrictions, thus promoting further bilateral interaction.

A Threat to America’s Backyard?

China is intent on advancing its goal of becoming the strongest economy in the world. Many diplomatic analysts suggest that the blossoming trans-Pacific partnership between China and Latin America, with 400 agreements and business deals already signed in the last several years, could be the most direct challenge to the now multilateralized Monroe Doctrine, issued with the brazen statement that Mezzo and South America lie within Washington’s sphere of influence. While the Bush administration has given priority to The War on Terrorism, stability in Iraq, reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and improved relations with its former allies in Europe, China systematically is tapping into resources in Latin America, a region often with weak economies and open to diversifying its present ties to the United States. Dr. Riordan Roett, director of the Western Hemisphere Studies program at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, was quoted in Marx’s article articulating a similar sentiment: “There are a lot of things happening in the region that the U.S. is not involved in and doesn’t really seem to care. China is a marvelous fit.”

Latin America offers China many highly valued resources such as a spectrum of raw materials, marketing and investment opportunities and diplomatic alliances, all of which may greatly assist China’s economic development. Some experts believe that Beijing’s oil deals with Venezuela could end up dipping into the country’s crude exports to the U.S., especially after oil prices in the U.S. began to increase in late 2002 and early 2003 due to a politically-motivated oil strike in Venezuela. One such important figure worried about this possibility is Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who called for a full report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office about the potential impact of Venezuela’s actions regarding China. Lugar also would like to see various contingency plans drawn so that the U.S. can be adequately prepared in the event that Venezuela will not send “one more drop” to U.S. markets, as Chávez has warned if Washington ever tries to oust him by any non-legal means.

In addition to a potential threat on Chávez’s part, China’s “brotherly” relationship with Cuba is likely to upset the lethally anti-Castro Bush administration. China already has promised to invest in a Cuban nickel operation, which will bring millions of dollars into the country in taxes and royalties. This will boost production in one of Cuba’s most important industries, thereby pumping badly needed funds into a very stressed economy. Along with Cuba’s recent reconciliation with the European Union, enhanced relations with China will go a long way to undermine U.S. efforts to ostracize the Castro government.

The recent developments in the Sino-Latin American relationship illustrate the extent to which Beijing can take advantage of the now skidding links between the U.S. and Latin America, as well as establish major economic and diplomatic footprints in what was normally considered as Washington’s “backyard.” However, not all experts agree with this interpretation of Chinese intentions. In a phone interview with COHA, Dr. Roett responded that it is not necessary for the U.S. to be particularly concerned with China’s ever-increasing role in the region. According to him, the U.S. should do “nothing at all” in regards to improving relations with Latin America in the short term because we are in a “wait and see” process. More importantly, Roett believes that Chávez’s actions are more “anti-American” and “anti-imperialist” in nature, rather than reflecting a particular desire to form an alliance with China. According to him, Beijing’s response stems from a sophisticated group of fourth generation Chinese leaders who are looking to expand their nation’s international presence.

While Dr. Roett believes in the Bush administration’s wait-and-see policy, Washington’s negligence could lead to a serious depletion in its trade revenues and access to vital natural resources from their “backyard” neighbors. As a result, U.S. policy makers would be wise to anticipate the impact of China’s aspirations in this hemisphere and prepare to adjust to a new reality before it is too late.

--From the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. This analysis was prepared by Xuan-Trang Ho, a COHA Research Associate.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Japanese Communists Condemn Nuclear Proliferation

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:58:00 +0000

HATE, the terrorist we can stop

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:42:00 +0000

2-24-05, 8:42 am

AIDS is a disease we can manage, control and prevent. But we have not mostly because of people who hate.

These haters impose their beliefs using violence on people that do not agree with them – people who live here and around the world.

They are terrorists and they are the reason AIDS is a worldwide crisis.

Terrorism is not just a suicide bomber. It is public policy, political agendas, religious repression and homophobia

In some sections of India, people are being beaten for trying to teach people about condoms.

Around the world, sex workers are stigmatized by fanatical religious groups. Governments, intimidated by the churches, are not implementing programs that would stop HIV. Such programs would test sex workers for HIV, give out condoms and try out new methods of protection like antivirals and microbicides.

Worldwide, many women are at the receiving end of violence from men who get HIV from prostitutes and drug use and then give it to their wives who have no power to force them to get tested or use condoms.

Countries are pressured into not implementing safer sex by US right-wing fanatics.

Countries feel unable to push the use of condoms because they rely on US sales of their exports. Our fanatical President will not fund prevention programs unless they are based on teaching abstinence.

Religion substitutes for science, as study after study has shown teaching abstinence is a complete failure.

The hatred of gays and lesbians is another key hate, another target of terror slowing down the fight against AIDS.

This has been a huge problem around the world, especially in countries with large numbers of religious fanatics. Take this news from Nepal for example (excerpted & edited by Search For A Cure from the news outlet Agence France Presse - July 26, 2004): KATHMANDU, July 26 - the Blue Diamond Society (BDS), a group championing the rights of homosexuals in conservative Nepal is frantically seeking international support to help it..... Nepal's Supreme Court might shut it down.

Nepal's civil code punishes any kind of 'unnatural sex' with up to one year in prison. This has led to arrests of homosexual men and the transgendered.

1,000 gays and lesbians have joined BDS, which is trying to educate people across Nepal about HIV/AIDS. This is just one example of the institutionalized terrorist acts going on around the world.

Hundreds of gays have been arrested and killed in Saudi Arabia.

In Thailand there have been reports of many drug users being taken by police and murdered to lower the HIV rates.

Initially, Haiti insisted there are no homosexuals and therefore no AIDS in the country.

The former dictator of Malawi made it illegal to talk about AIDS in that country until it was too late to stop the disease from creating hundreds of thousands of AIDS orphans. All of these actions are acts of terrorism whether committed by a government, a church, a husband or a paramilitary group.

What connects them all together is the belief that freedom comes to an end when a person does not obey some religious or cultural norm.

That violence is OK if someone is 'different.'

This terrorism is killing millions around the world.

This terrorism makes people afraid to get tested for HIV. It makes it impossible for many groups to teach safer sex. It is the biggest reason AIDS continues to kill.

This terrorism makes countries slow to pitch in and help end the epidemic, which can be stopped.

Some terrorists are angry fanatics that fly airplanes into buildings.

Others are parents or churches or governments who would rather see their children die of AIDS than admit they are gay or need to use a condom.

If you want to help, you can find your local Nepalese Embassy at this site (http://www.welcomenepal.com/info_diplomatic.asp). Write a letter to protest the possible banning of Sunil Pant’s Blue Diamond Society.

And tell others about this type of terrorism that has already killed 25 million people.

We don’t have to scour caves in Afghanistan to stop these terrorists.

We just need to vote out the haters.

--David Scondras is the founder and chairman of Search For A Cure. Scondras developed the nationally-recognized HIV treatment series, Reasons for Hope. All articles in the series are reviewed by expert HIV doctors and scientists and an HIV positive and negative focus group to ensure both accuracy and understandability. If you have any questions or would like to receive the Reasons For Hope series contact Search For A Cure at 34 Edgerly Road #1, Boston, MA 02115 or call Search For A Cure at 617-536-2474 or fax 617-266-0051, or e-mail at hope@sfac.org.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Korean Women's Voices for Peace

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:39:00 +0000

2-24-05, 8:39 am

Mutual Trust between North Korea and the U.S is the Way to Achieve Nuclear Disarmament in North Korea

Korean women’s voice for peace on the Korean peninsula

1. Korean women, who have been hoping to see Korea become a land of peace, without war and weapons, and who have long worked for the peaceful reunification of Korea, are very concerned about the declaration that North Korea has nuclear weapons. 2005 is the 60th year since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the screams of the victims still ring in our memory. We cannot accept the existence of nuclear weapons, which are fundamentally against life and peace.

2. It has been our strong position that the nuclear weapons states including the U.S. should dismantle all their nuclear weapons, and we do not believe a North Korean nuclear weapon can help in resolving the Korean nuclear problem. North Korean nuclear weapons could bring about a nuclear domino situation in neighboring countries, strengthen Japanese remilitarization, cause an arms race and aggravate tensions in Northeast Asia. If North Korea, according to its statement, does possess nuclear weapons, it must dismantle them for the “denuclearization of the Korea Peninsula.”

3. At the same time, however, for actual resolution of North Korea’s nuclear issue, we should pay attention to the background of its declaration of nuclear weapons possession. North Korea considers the Bush administration's policy as designed “to antagonize, isolate and stifle the DPRK,” and is very worried about “regime change.” We understand that North Korea considers nuclear weapons a means of self--defense, and views its possession of nuclear weapons as a self-defense measure—a position stemming from its security anxiety over the US’s hard-line policy. We should also pay attention to the parts of the DPRK statement that affirm the principles of dialogue and negotiation as the way to solve the issue, and that clarify the ultimate goal to be denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

4. We therefore oppose any economic sanctions or military attack against North Korea in retaliation for its declaration of possession of nuclear weapons. Such methods will strengthen tensions and insecurity and elevate the risk of war. The North Korean nuclear issue absolutely must be resolved through peaceful and cooperative methods. The key to resolving the nuclear problem is to create an environment of mutual trust in which there is no longer a need for nuclear weapons. The most important element is “trust”; if there is no trust, complete verification will be impossible and it will take a long time to solve the problem. It is also important to have a new environment in which nuclear weapons are irrelevant and unneeded.

5. The US needs to talk with North Korea directly, as soon as possible, to solve the DPRK’s anxieties over its security. The US pressure on North Korea--through such actions as its labeling of the North as an “outpost of tyranny,” the US Congress’ passage of the “North Korean Human Rights Act,” and the ''Proliferation Security Initiative”--should be stopped. To build trust between North Korea and the US, both countries need to agree upon a comprehensive package deal for simultaneous dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program and US compensation to North Korea.

6. As representative of the southern part of the peninsula’s “community of destiny,” the South Korean government should play a more independent and active role. From the long-term view of peace building and reunification of the Korean peninsula, the South needs to fulfill its duty of comprehensive and substantive economic assistance to the North, and to create the circumstances that will assure the security of North Korea.

7. We women of South Korea, in this “60th year of liberation” and “60th year of division” of Korea, will work to advance inter-Korean cooperation and exchanges, and to build support among the people of Korea and the international community for peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue.

We believe that our determined efforts for peace are the way to overcome the pain of division and war, to put an end to the cold war legacy, and to realize a Korean peninsula where peace and reconciliation prevail. We ask the support of the international community to make this hope come true.

--Gyung-Lan Jung is the director of the Center for Peaceful Future of Korea, Women Making Peace.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

No German Flowers for Bush

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:35:00 +0000

2-24-05, 8:35 am

This time George Bush is not visiting Berlin. His last visit here in 2002 resulted in an unfriendly demonstration of close to 100,000 people from all over Germany. Although he was carefully kept away from the crowds (on Berlin’s famous Unter den Linden boulevard) he certainly heard about it.

That is why he chose Mainz this time. Mainz, a small city on the Rhine river with about 300,000 people, has a big advantage: it is across the river from Wiesbaden, right in the middle of a concentration of US troops. They can provide as friendly and safe a backdrop for Bush as they did yesterday for Laura Bush, who carefully chose the US Army high school as a venue.

But Bush and his backers, American and German, want to play it very safe, and this has become a nightmare for the people of Mainz. All air traffic to the nearby Frankfurt airport is being suspended for part of the day (today, Wednesday). Boat traffic on the Rhine will be suspended despite all economic losses involved. The autobahns surrounding the city and connecting it with the airport will all be closed to traffic.

That is still just not safe enough for this popular statesman and his giant entourage. Every manhole lid along the route has been soldered down tight. No terrorist rats will be tolerated this time. All mail boxes along the route have been carted away. Cars must not only be removed from along the route but also from garages of people living along the route. Windows must be shut and no one is allowed to stand on the balcony to wave. There won’t be much waving anyway, it seems, and the police have issued severe warnings: Anti-Bush banners or slogans must not be visible anywhere along the route, and no 'insulting' banners will be allowed anywhere. There’s a law to take care of that matter. All traffic, vehicles or pedestrians, will be restricted in the areas George Bush is planning to visit. And if anyone crosses this stretch he better not forget to have his full ID ready at hand, although even that may not help him. Mainz is to be kept free of terror and terrorists! It looks like a jolly time ahead.

But a fair number of demonstrators had already gathered the day before to protest Bush policies and oppose the present or any future wars – and the first arrests have been made. Much larger crowds are expected to go to Mainz today – or to try to go there. Meanwhile, despite the cold and snowy weather, anti-Bush demonstrations have been planned – or have already taken place – in a hundred German towns and cities from Berlin in the east to Aachen in the west. But don’t expect any crowds throwing welcoming flowers. No, not in Mainz either.

--Victor Grossman is an American who fled to the East German GDR during the McCarthy years and have been living in Berlin as free-lance journalist and writer for over 40 years. wechsler_grossman@yahoo.de.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription

Indentured Servants: Bush's New Cabinet

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:40:00 +0000

2-23-05, 3:03 pm

President Bush pre-set the tone for his supposed mandate with his selection of Porter Goss to the non-cabinet position of CIA Director. Goss has politicized the CIA, purging anyone not of Bush’s like-mindedness. With his recent cabinet moves, Bush the corporate wannabe has surrounded himself with sycophants. An alcoholic by nature, Bush has found a choir of enablers to live his lies for him.
The sins of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld include constantly lying about Iraq WMDs and advocating the use of torture. He sent under-equipped soldiers into battle, and rubber stamps their death letters. He wants to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on unneeded nuclear weapons and militarize outer space. Most ridiculous remains his 9/11 fantasy of personally inspecting the Pentagon 'plane' wreckage minutes after the attack, putting him wandering outside the Pentagon in 1100-degree heat. Anthony Lewis called Rumsfeld’s 'the most dramatically incompetent performance by a public official in recent American history.' Rumsfeld’s job: imperialism.

The sins of Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice parallel Rumsfeld’s, especially her Iraq WMD and 'mushroom cloud' propaganda, and her mendacious 9/11 Commission testimony. Troubling remains her violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits federal employees from political campaigning – Rice stumped for Bush in seven states – leaving Zbigniew Brzezinski to call it 'excessive politicization of an office [National Security Adviser] which is unusually sensitive.' Rice will likely politicize the State Department, and conduct a Goss-like purge. Her job: gunboat diplomacy, especially with issues regarding Caspian Basin oil and the Trans-Afghan Pipeline.

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton returns to rape America’s environment. She has overseen over 200 major rollbacks of environmental laws – all which benefit corporations – causing the National Academy of Sciences to state the rollbacks will cause at least 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year. Underway include attacks on the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and a plan to privatize 70 percent of National Park Service environmental-science jobs to corporate consultants. This would give America third-world environmental protection. Norton has stated, 'We might even go so far as to recognize a homesteading right to pollute.'

In the first Attorney General nomination of international importance, Bush tapped long-time minion Alberto Gonzales. His anti-Constitutional legal memos laid the groundwork for (1) torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib (2) holding prisoners indefinitely without due process, including Americans inside the US (3) 'extraordinary rendition' – transporting detainees to be tortured in countries lax on human rights. Gonzales has called the Geneva Convention 'quaint' and 'obsolete,' and thinks Bush above the law. If Gonzales is confirmed, Osama bin Laden’s suspicions about Americans will be proved correct.

Like Rice, Treasury Secretary John Snow violated the Hatch Act by campaigning for Bush. A world-class tax evader at CSX – who paid Snow $3.3 million to take a government position for access to corporate welfare – Snow now supervises America’s corporate taxes. He has helped turn a $5.6 trillion budget surplus into a $2.9 trillion budget deficit. He promised the creation of 300,000 jobs per month, delivered few, then said outsourcing jobs is good for the American economy. Now he gets to privatize Social Security. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao returns to assault working America. Chao opposes affirmative action, federal standards on ergonomics, and any increase in minimum wage. She ended the Equal Pay Initiative, and has refused assistance to bilked pensioners. Despite the Republican family values mantra, Chao repealed the rule giving employees paid leave for birth/adoption of a child. She not only attacked paid overtime, but also compiled a manual for employers on ways to best underpay employees.

Michael Leavitt switches from head of the Environmental Protection Agency to Secretary of Health and Human Services. At the EPA he opposed the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and promoted what he called 'enlibra' principles, which forfeit federal environmental protection, leaving oversight to corporate polluters. Leavitt will likely repeat at Health and Human Services what he did as governor of Utah – attack Medicaid – leaving higher co-pays and HMO-style refusal of services.

In his perhaps most destructive selection, Bush nominated long-time toady Margaret Spellings to Secretary of Education, despite her frequently being overwhelmed as head of the Domestic Policy Council. Spellings co-authored No Child Left Behind, the deliberate attempt to bankrupt school districts and states to create a call for public education’s privatization. Her nomination, based on loyalty over competency, illustrates what Ron Suskind has called 'anti-meritocracy.'

Norman Mineta retired from a long stint in Congress for a political promotion, vice president of Lockheed Martin, who now receive a lion’s share of government contracts with Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Mineta has also strangled Amtrak in the hopes of its privatization, despite the fact England’s railway privatization has been a $20 billion disaster.

Secretary of Agriculture nominee and Nebraska governor Mike Johanns opposes USDA policies for mad cow disease screening. He remains an advocate for free-trade initiatives, although outsourcing of food production has slashed America’s traditional advantage in agricultural trade by 61.6 percent. Johanns championed the 2002 farm bill, which directs billions of dollars in corporate welfare to agribusiness conglomerates at the expense of taxpayers and family farms.

Secretary nominees Samuel Bodman (Energy), Carlos Gutierrez (Commerce), Jim Nicholson (Veterans), and returnee Alphonzo Jackson (HUD) are too boring to discuss at length. Their jobs: Bodman – secure drilling in Alaska arctic reserves; Gutierrez (known for his role in downsizing at Kellogg’s) – corporatism over capitalism; Nicholson – expect God to help veterans; Jackson – do as little as possible. Do not be fooled by the cabinet’s politically correct make-up; it only mirrors the Kennebunkport domestic staff.

After the Director of Homeland Security nomination disaster that was Rudolph Giuliani’s pimp Bernard Kerik, Bush finally selected Mike Chertoff, who once raised an untold amount of money for Bush as the vice-chair of Bush’s 2000 New Jersey campaign. Chertoff co-wrote the civil liberties-destroying Patriot Act, which continued the punishment of the American people that began with 9/11. He also wrote the Feeney Amendment that created a blacklist of liberal federal judges, and a brief in Chavez v. Martinez which argued that people possess no Constitutional right to be free of coercive police interrogation.

Twilight of the Coup Plotters

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:35:00 +0000

2-23-05, 3:01 pm

As the continent of Africa endures ongoing issues of enormous humanitarian needs and a pandemic health crisis, the flickering light of hope can be seen at the far end of the tunnel. The African masses, long discouraged by the slow pace of real economic advancement and the unpredictability of frequent extra constitutional changes of government, namely, the 'coup d’etat,' are beginning to recognize the potential of monitored elections.
The legacy of colonialism and the imposed arbitrary boundaries of African countries wreaked havoc over the vast geographic landscape comprised of diverse ethnic groups speaking a multitude of languages.

Although nearly 50 years have passed since Ghana gained its independence from the British (March 6, 1957), the frequent changes of government have been bewildering to the casual observer of post-independence history. The overthrow of the first legitimate president, Kwame Nkrumah preceded a series of coups d’etats that amounted to political uncertainty and despair. Nkrumah described his Pan-African vision simply: 'The independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked to the total liberation of the African continent.'

Thirty-seven years later, despite US diplomatic opposition, his dream became reality.

The eradication of all colonial bastions on African soil was fulfilled when progressive forces, led by the African National Congress, kicked South African apartheid to the dustbin of history in 1994. Upon his release from 27 years of confinement at Robbins Island, Nelson Mandela reminded the people, 'It is our task as leaders to place our views before our organization and to allow the democratic structures to decide. On the question of democratic practice, I feel duty bound to make the point that a leader of the movement is a person who has been democratically elected at a national conference. This is a principle which must be upheld without any exceptions.'

When Mandela languished in jail he was vilified and labeled a 'terrorist' by the racist apartheid regime. The US State Department looked the other way. The South African military was strengthened by collaboration with US military policy makers who created a larger-than-life-boogeyman-diversion of the so-called 'communist threat.' The actual threat was the potential of democratic rule by the majority. US foreign policy in this part of the world had little to do with human rights and dignity.

As the African political landscape evolved and direct colonial rule was no longer feasible or practical, the emergence of new forms of dominance by foreign monopolies resulted. Neocolonialism became a reality that put a stranglehold on the limited economies of politically independent African states. Simply put, African surrogates in formal colonial territories operated for the benefit of foreign companies with the inducements of personal enrichment and status.

Ten years following the ascent of the African National Congress to political power in South Africa, progressive leadership is playing a pivotal role in moving history forward. The national alliance of the ANC, SACP ( South African Communist Party) and COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) has been an agent for change among democratic forces. The April 2004 election of President Thabo Mbeki to a second five-year term followed the overwhelming mandate of support for the ANC, resulting in the winning of 270 national assembly seats out of 400.

The mindset of Mbeki is reflected in the online edition of ANC Today. In a column titled, 'Taking a Stand for Democracy' he shares his perspective on history:

The countries of Africa, including our own, owe their liberation and independence from colonial and racist rule to the struggles of the African masses. As these masses engaged the foreign and racist masters, as did those who fought against fascism, they were asserting their right to determine their destiny…Unfortunately, soon after liberation from foreign domination was achieved, many of our countries fell victim to military dictatorships. When the soldiers used their guns to seize political power, they took away the right of the masses to determine their destiny. They put in place 'Jim Crow' decrees of a special type, also intended to keep the people in subservience.

As elections in Africa become transparent and open, international monitoring groups have become more efficient. The African Union, the UN, the EU and other international organizations have major watchdog roles to play, ensuring that ruling parties don’t manipulate election results. An election observer mission from South Africa recently was on hand for the Palestinian elections.

Up and coming electoral activity in Southern Africa in 2005 will include the nations of The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritius, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

The transformation of reality through democratic participation of people was not possible during colonial times. The same can be said during the heroic Vietnamese people’s struggle against foreign occupation by the French and subsequently, the US military. The lost lives resulting from imperialist aggression in Southeast Asia could have been prevented had the State Department respected the international principle of self-determination for former colonial subjects. The coalition of opposition groups that rejected foreign domination of their country was too similar to the historic occupation of early America by the British.

War and bloodshed is not the way. President Mbeki has hope that African political developments will lead to the harnessing of 'creative energies' of the people, 'expanding their possibility to become their own liberators from war, dictatorship, instability and poverty, in the same way that they were their own liberators from colonialism and apartheid. Indeed, Africa’s time has come! Ke nako!'

--Ron Bunyon is a contributing editor of Political Affairs.

Why Social Security Privatization Would Hurt Women More than Men

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:25:00 +0000

2-23-05, 2:59 pm

The Social Security Act of 1935 is arguably the most significant piece of social legislation passed by the US Congress. Largely the work of Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, Social Security has, more than any other program, kept older and widowed or disabled Americans out of poverty.
Today, Social Security faces a serious crisis. George W. Bush has launched a program to cut benefits soon, and to dismantle Social Security entirely in the future. The plan would work two ways. First, it would divert huge amounts of money from the current program to private investment companies. Second, it would change the way social security benefits are calculated. Instead of calculating benefits according to wages, it would tie the calculation of benefits to an inflation index. This would be disastrous for all Americans, especially women. This plan must be stopped.

The decision to link Social Security benefits to wages was a compromise accepted by Perkins and other supporters of the original Social Security Act in 1935. Perkins and others viewed benefits as an entitlement to all citizens. However, congressional opposition forced a compromise. To save the plan, Perkins and her supporters in Congress suggested that Social Security benefits be linked to payroll taxes paid by employers and employees. The strategy worked, and Congress passed the Social Security Act. However, the plan had built-in race and gender biases.

African American, Latino and workers who were either seasonally or marginally employed were not covered at all. Women, viewed as dependents and not permanent members of the labor force, suffered also. Historian Alice Kessler-Harris points out that this evidenced a bias against all marginally employed segments of the population. Why does Bush want to alter Social Security? According to Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, Bush has 'a big debt to pay to his friends on Wall Street, and he wants to do it fast so the next group can belly up to the taxpayer trough.' The math is staggering. The transition money – estimated at 2 trillion dollars – would produce a huge boom for mutual funds fat cats. The financial industry would gain approximately $75 billion per year. And the money would come from American workers.

Gandy points out that women are less likely than men to have pensions, and more likely to rely solely on Social Security during their retirement years. Since women live longer than men, their savings, if they have them, run out sooner. And, the administrative costs of small private accounts consume a huge portion (as much as half) of the total contributions to the plan.

To accomplish his goal, Bush will soon launch a huge advertising campaign to publicize his program. This $40 million dollar TV ad blitz will tell Americans that our grandchildren will have no Social Security unless it is privatized.

Conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute are working together to support the campaign. Lobbying groups with progressive-sounding names are telling women that the social security system is broken, and that privatization will ensure their futures. An example is the right-wing 'Women for Social Security Choice,' a group led by Republican Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn (Washington). Dunn and her ilk push the idea that women are smart enough to make their own choices about their Social Security contributions. African American women and Latinas in low paying jobs might counter that their low incomes yield fewer choices for them and a smaller payoff when they retire. This is hardly progressive.

The National Council of Women’s Organizations has a much clearer picture of the impact of privatization. Attacking the Cato Institute’s claims that privatization would help women workers, the NCWO points out that women would pay more for their annuities because they live longer, that private inflation-adjusted annuities, if available at all, would be cost prohibitive to low-income women workers, and that 'earnings sharing,' a tenet of the Bush plan, eliminates spousal benefits entirely.

Call to Action

All working women must fight the Bush administration’s efforts to rob them of their Social Security retirement benefits. Education is one key to defeating privatization. Organizations such as the Democratic National Committee, the National Women’s Law Center, the National Organization for Women, and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research all have excellent websites with information about why the Bush plan is all wrong for women. Women should write to Congress and insist that Social Security not be raided to benefit the wealthy private sector at their expense. There is still time to fight – and fight we must. For ourselves, and for the legacy of women like Frances Perkins, who fought so hard to keep America’s working women out of poverty.

--Anna Bates is a contributing editor of Political Affairs.

The Bricklayer (conclusion)

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:50:00 +0000

2-23-05, 2:58

'This is beautiful!' the girls laughed, running in the empty house. Sharah, overjoyed, hollered and screamed. Her voice echoed in the empty rooms. Mr. Parvin’s son-in-law walked him from one room to another, showing him the house. A very old house with fresh paint. A better neighborhood than theirs. A yard, an oak tree, green grass, and a bench facing two identical crepe myrtles, now dry, but promising to bloom in the spring. Mrs. Parvin opened all the kitchen cabinets; she pulled all the drawers out.

The Parvins moved a few days later. Not much to bring with them. They took some of Abi’s furniture intending to buy some in the future. Bibi moved in with them and started the restaurant job. Mrs. Parvin and her son-in-law took Mr. Parvin to another doctor, a psychiatrist. He wrote a prescription for Mr. Parvin’s depression and occasional hallucinations. Then his son-in-law took him to a barbershop to cut his now very long hair. Having so many chores in their new house, Mrs. Parvin didn’t have time to wash and comb her husband’s hair. On the barber’s raised chair, Mr. Parvin sat staring at himself with both eyes open. The barber talked and clipped his silky hair. Now feeling the old man’s bump under his fingers, he asked what that little walnut was? Mr. Parvin’s son-in-law explained that when his father-in-law was a little naughty boy, he fell off a tree and that’s how the bump grew there. Mr. Parvin either didn’t understand the conversation or paid no attention to it. He was immersed in a scene he was watching in the barber’s mirror. Through the open door of the shop he sa a half-built structure across the street. A worker stood on a scaffold laying bricks on top of bricks. Mr. Parvin watched him and waited patiently until the end of his haircut. When they left the shop, he turned toward the building, raised his head and looked up. The worker turned to see him. The strong sun was in his eyes. He held his broad hand over his brow and gazed at Mr. Parvin for a long second. As if finally recognizing the old man, he smiled. The creases of his sunburnt forehead opened, and his white teeth gleamed in the noon light. Mr. Parvin smiled back and winked at the worker, feeling a tickling joy he hadn’t felt for a long time. Knowing now that the bricklayer would always be around, he let his son-in-law take him home.

Farnoosh Moshiri is the author of At the Wall of the Almighty and The Bathhouse (Beacon Press). Thsi story is taken form her collection The Crazy Dervish and the Pomegranate Tree (Black Heron Press).

The Bricklayer

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:35:00 +0000

March 2005

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:54:00 +0000

The Digital Watch Effect and the Loss of American Democracy

Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:29:00 +0000

2-23-05, 11:29 am

How long does it take to lose a democracy? One generation, it seems.

Last week, Time magazine reported that 36% of American High School students believe that newspapers (and presumably the television news) should have government approval before publishing stories.

That over a third of American High School students – students presumably familiar with the basic rights and freedoms of being an American – would even consider such limits on the freedom of speech is deeply troubling. Particularly, when we remember that only a generation before, free speech was the primary tool of the politically active young. In their hands, freedom of speech ended the war in Vietnam. Freedom of speech forced the resignation of President Nixon. Indeed, freedom of speech ensured the future of a democratic America.

So why have the young people of America people turned away from a fundamental democratic freedom? Is it ignorance? Do our schools no longer teach the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States? Or teach the long struggle to protect it? Is it misplaced patriotism? Do our young people, in this so-called “time of war,” somehow see freedom of speech as dangerous to the future of America?

The real answer, I suspect, is this: we are witnessing a generational shift in the context and meaning of America. That is, for Americans under the age of 35, the understanding of “freedom of speech” and “human rights” is fundamentally different than for those over the age of 35.

I call it the Digital Watch Effect.

Consider: about ten years ago, a friend of mine – an elementary school teacher – told me that many of her students could not tell time on an analog clock (with the sweeping big hand, little hand, and second hand). As a consequence, these children did not understand what a ten-minute period was or what an hour meant. That is, their “time context” was digital watch time – a precise number without analog meaning.

Of course, for those of us who do understand the analog clock, a digital watch offers precise information in a familiar context – analog time. That is, we live, work, and think in a set context of expectations – a conscious and unconscious understanding of how the world works relative to analog time.

But for the child, the digital watch gives information in a wholly different context, a context with new rules and new expectations. Ironically then, this “precise” technology breeds a form of deep ignorance of past context.

When we apply the Digital Watch Effect to culture and politics, we see the same deep shifts of context and meaning, and the same breeding of deep ignorance. This is what has happened to the young of America. The evidence of this was made clear for me while watching a recent CNN Crossfire program. The hosts of Crossfire reported on a poll that asked Americans the following question: who was the greatest American president? Typically, in similar past polls, Lincoln, F.D.R., Jefferson, and Washington found their way to the top. However, for the first time, another president gathered the most votes: Ronald Reagan.

When this was announced, the audience – largely a crowd of twenty and thirty somethings – wildly applauded and cheered.

I was surprised. Many of the young people in the audience were not old enough to remember the “Reagan Revolution.” Nor would they remember what came before Reagan. How could they possibly understand it, let along cheer it? Reagan was no Lincoln, F.D.R., Washington, or Jefferson, right?

Or was he? Did Ronald Reagan, in fact, create the conditions for a new understanding of America?

To have experienced the Reagan Revolution, within the context of the 1960s and 1970s experience, is a wholly different experience than to experience the Reagan Revolution as the context from which all things that follow are to be judged.

And that is the political and cultural Digital Watch Effect.

After 1980, the definition of “freedom of speech” and “human rights” came under increasingly hostile fire. The Reagan Revolution signaled a new way of thinking about the American ideal. Some called it a “culture war,” a term I once laughed at when I first heard it.

I’m not laughing any more.

While those over 35 fought the “culture war” with the ideals of freedom and democracy informed by their experience of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, they neglected to note that their children were growing up in a profoundly different context.

The Reagan Revolution, presently being fought and finished by George W. Bush, pursues an America where the preservation of the “State” is more important than the preservation of its citizens’ “Freedoms.”

The Digital Watch Effect means that the future of freedom, human rights, and social responsibility will be understood in the context of the Reagan/Bush vision of America. And from what we have seen thus far, we know that this ideal does not endorse the freedoms promised in the Constitution of the United States of America.

How long does it take to lose a democracy? Once generation, it seems.

--Steven Laffoley is a writer living in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. You may e-mail him at stevenlaffoley@yahoo.ca.

» Go to more articles from PA's online edition.

» Go to sample articles from this month's print edition

» Support PA with your subscription