People Before Profit blog

Ports of Profit: Dubai Does Brisk War Business

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:32:00 +0000

02-27-06,11:06am

Every morning, from dawn till about noon, cargo and passenger flights to Iraq and Afghanistan make Dubai airport’s Terminal Two possibly the busiest commercial terminal in the world for the 'global war of terrorism.' Conveniently located between the two countries, Dubai is the ideal hub for military contractors and a lucrative link in the commercial supply chain of goods and people between Afghanistan or Iraq and the rest of the world.

The trade from this relatively small air terminal is completely legal but some of the flight operators have been known to flout the law in order to keep the profitable business going. Tickets to either destination go for about $400 a seat round-trip, cargo travels for about $2 a kilogram.

The European and American travelers arriving at the much larger Terminal One never see this part of the world's second busiest sea/air hub. They are whisked away by banks of gleaming silver escalators to duty-free shopping, sunbathing at the seven star resorts and the famous gold markets.

But at Terminal Two, the most common destinations on the overhead list are Baghdad and Kabul, via airlines like African Express, Al Ishtar, and Jupiter. Most of the passengers on these flights are Afghan or Iraqi, but every morning a few Americans, Indians and Philippinos arrive, often accompanied by minders to make sure that they catch their flights. Some are from the United States embassy or military, others from Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), the biggest contractor in both countries.

Labor Supply

On Saturday, December 10, 2005, flight XU 106 of African Express airways, officially based in Nairobi, Kenya, was scheduled to take off from Terminal Two in Dubai for Mosul when immigration intercepted 88 Philippino workers. The men had just arrived in Dubai on tourist visas and were ticketed to leave on the early morning flight to northern Iraq.

Officially the Philippine government has banned its nationals from working in Iraq after truck driver Angelo de la Cruz was kidnapped in July 2004. In addition at least six Philippino workers have also been killed while working in Iraq over the last two years. In an attempt to prevent workers from going to Iraq, all new Philippino passports are now stamped with 'Not Valid for Travel to Iraq.'

Yet some 6,000 Philippinos are estimated to continue to work in Iraq. Some were lured by of the relatively high pay for unskilled jobs; others were forced to take the jobs, according to interviews with workers conducted by CorpWatch.

Some of those detained in December say that they paid a Manila labor recruitment agency, Tierra Mar, between 40,000 to 70,000 pesos each (US$760 to $1330) for the jobs. Arrested with the 88 workers was Jordanian national Mah'd Moh'd Ahmad Hamza who was issued a temporary visitor's visa to the Philippines by the country's consulate in Dubai on September 19, 2005.

The 88 workers were deported back to Manila the following week and Tierra Mar has been placed under investigation for breaking the ban. However, government officials say the incident may just be the tip of the iceberg.

'United Arab Emirates seems to be a favored jump-off point because of the facility in obtaining a visit visa to this country,' Philippine Labor Secretary Patricia Santo Tomas, told reporters. 'We received information that the modus operandi of those circumventing the government restriction seems to be the use of old passports without the travel ban stamp,' she added.

Prime Projects International

One of the key players in the supply of labor to Iraq is located a 20 minute ride from the airport in a skyscraper that overlooks Dubai Creek. Prime Projects International (PPI) is on the fifth floor of the office building of the Twin Towers, behind the dark blue glass windows that reflect the sun as it sets over the ocean in the evening.

PPI was created just months after September 11, 2001 when British businessman Neal Helliwell and his partner, Toby O'Connell, won a subcontract from Halliburton to help construct prisons in Guantanamo Bay for KBR. They kept costs down by using low-wage Philippino labor.

Since then Helliwell and O'Connell have supplied workers to build Camp Anaconda, a U.S. military base in Balad, northern Iraq. They are estimated to supply over 7,000 workers to their clients, many of whom are from the Indian sub-continent or the Philippines.

Indeed on November 10, 2005, Philippines President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, gave a special 'International Employer Awards' at Malacanang palace to Neil Helliwell, chief executive officer of PPI. The award was for 'displaying continuous preferences for Philippino workers and providing them with excellent career advancement and generous package of employment benefits.'

But their workers who have made it into Iraq complain that they have been treated badly. 'TCNs (Third Country Nationals) had a lot of problems with overtime and things,' recalls Sharon Reynolds of Kirbyville, Texas, who was employed as an administrator by Halliburton. 'I remember one time that they didn't get paid for four months.'

'They don't get sick pay and if PPI had insurance, they sure didn't talk about it much,' Reynolds recalls. 'TCNs had a lot of problems with overtime and things. ...I had to go to bat for them to get shoes and proper clothing.'

'(They) had to stand in line with plates and were served something like be curry and fish heads from big old pots,' Reynolds says incredulously. 'It looked like a concentration camp.'

(see Blood, Sweat & Tears: Asia's Poor Build U.S. Bases in Iraq)

PPI officials have refused to talk to the media at all but CorpWatch has learned that the company is being monitored by the State department for 'human trafficking' of workers into Iraq.

One thing is certain - Helliwell and O'Connell have made good money in this business. In May 2005 the two men bought a yacht named 'Pacific 50, Yo!' that they raced off the coast of Thailand on the island of Koh Samui.

Cargo Supply

This January, a month after the Philippino workers were deported from Terminal Two, business is still brisk. Most mornings liaison staff from two companies can be seen at the airport: SkyLink, a Canadian company provides flights for employees; Eagle Global Logistics, a Texas company, provides cargo handling services for the company into Iraq. The staff, armed with clipboards and pens, make sure that each passenger and each pallet of goods is safely on its way. And every evening, the liaison officers to greet returnees who touch down from Afghanistan and Iraq in the late afternoon and continue arriving until late into the night.

SkyLink and Eagle Global are the last link in the global supply chain of Iraq-bound goods and people that got to Dubai on better known commercial carriers. The United States military uses Federal Express; the German airline Lufthansa recently delivered a dozen armored vehicles to Dubai on one of its cargo planes. A United States military officer, working out of the FedEx office, checks cargo manifests every day at Terminal Two, bypassing the country's national customs staff for sensitive cargo.

Many of the goods also arrive into Dubai by ship into Port Rashid and Jebel Ali, the country's two main ports, which rank among the busiest in the world. Barwil, Inchcape and Maersk, shipping companies from Norway, Britain and Denmark respectively, have major import operations that allow cargo to arrive anonymously into the region.

By contrast, Afghanistan has no sea ports and Iraq has just two: Umm Qasr and Khor az Zubayr, both of which face major operational challenges from years of sanctions and neglect. Even after goods arrive at these ports to be transported by truck into the country, they face substantial security threats from attacks and road-side bombs, not to mention skyrocketing insurance rates.

Dubai's choice as the central hub for war traffic is not accidental. A sleepy Middle Eastern port for centuries, famed for its pearl trade and central location on the spice trade from India to the rest of the world, it became suddenly wealthy with the oil boom of the 1970s like the neighboring nations of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But the emirate wisely decided to invest its money in developing other businesses, such as tourism (which accounts for about a sixth of the national income) and the import-export business (which accounts for two-thirds).

In the last few years as Dubai has become quite expensive. many companies have moved their bases to Sharjah, the neighboring emirate just 30 kilometers away, where rents are half those of Dubai. Indeed many of the aircraft used at Terminal Two are owned by anonymous and shadowy companies in Sharjah. Some of these aircraft owners like Air Bas have been linked to notorious arms smugglers including Victor Bout. Instead of dealing directly with the U.S. government, these companies rent their planes to middle agencies like Chapman Freeborn and Coyne Air, which in turn provide them to Skylink and Eagle Global Logistics.

Phony War Surcharges

This profitable re-export business has recently come under scrutiny for overcharging. Under the sub-contract to KBR, Eagle Global Logistics (EGL), a company based in Houston, Texas, has been in charge of shipping military equipment ranging from 'armor-plated vehicles to trash bins' from Houston to Dubai en route to Iraq for the last two years. The company uses old Russian cargo workhorses: Antonov 12's that can carry 15 tons and Ilyushin 76's that can carry up to 40 tons

In December 2005, the company announced in a Securities & Exchange Commission filing that it was being investigated over these shipments. The focus of the probe was insurance surcharges added by Christopher Joseph Cahill, the regional vice president of EGL, soon after a rival company's plane was shot down in late 2003 while trying to land at Baghdad airport.

Federal investigators in Texas were informed by a whistleblower that the extra 50 cents per kilogram of cargo that was supposedly imposed by Aerospace Consortium (which supplied aircraft to EGL) were in fact, phony. The charges were added to 379 air cargo shipments costing a total of $13.2 million over several months

Mike Lockhart, an assistant U.S. attorney in Beaumont, Texas, told CorpWatch that the investigators subpoenaed EGL, seeking information about the surcharges, and were given a letter from Aerospace Consortium explaining the reason for the charges. The documents 'looked very suspicious, not what you would expect to see at all,' he said. The charter company was also unable to provide any evidence of the insurance increase.

EGL has since fired Cahill and has offered to pay back the military the $1.14 million in 'improper charges' that the auditors estimated had been added to the bill. But the Department of Justice wants the company to pay an additional $2.86 million fine.

Lockhart says that the company may have been aware of the charges all along and did nothing to stop it. 'They defend their actions and say they were confused, but is is likely that they knew,' he told CorpWatch.

'Cahill recognized an opportunity to unilaterally institute war risk surcharges and thereby increase profits to EGL,' court documents stated. Cahill also 'knew that he did not have to seek approvals from elsewhere within EGL to add such purported war risk surcharges.'

'U.S. taxpayers are asked to carry a significant burden during times of war. But they will not be asked to tolerate merchants of war who seek to profit unlawfully from legitimate wartime expenditures,' said Rodger Heaton, U.S. attorney for the Central District of Illinois.

An EGL spokeswoman said Cahill was dismissed when the company learned of the fraud. EGL 'feels he should be treated appropriately for those violations' under the law, she added.

But Cahill's attorney Edward Chernoff told the Houston Chronicle that his client wasn't collecting any money for himself from these surcharges. 'It was a business decision. He wasn't even getting bonuses from it,' Chernoff said.

Cahill, who pleaded guilty in mid-February, is to be sentenced May 26 where he faces up to 10 years in prison and a $5 million fine.

Business As Usual

Meanwhile business at the ports of Dubai remain strong and profitable. Indeed Dubai Ports World, the wealthy state-owned company that controls Jebel Ali, into which most military cargo arrives, has stirred tremendous controversey in the last few days by buying up P&O, a British company, giving it control over six major ports in the United States including New York.

Dubai Ports The port of Jebel Ali, the crown jewel of the state-owned company Dubai Ports World (DPW), is a frequent host to security sensitive US warships including USS John F Kennedy United States and is a vital part in the Iraq war.

Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, the chairman of DPWn headed up the Jebel Ali free trade zone when it was created in 1985. The son of a school teacher, he had just graduated with a business degree from Temple University in Philadelphia when he impressed the late Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed al Maktoum with a proposal for developing the port: If the port waived taxes and fees, foreign traders and manufacturers would set up shop.

He nearly cancelled his first trip back to the United States to promote the new free trade zone when the stock market crashed in 1987. Despite the bad timing, the business delegation visited New York and Philadelphia, never dreaming that less than 20 years later they own the ports in those key American cities.

Jebel Ali's expansion was slowed initially by the Iran-Iraq war which made investors nervous. The end of the war in 1988 helped the port take off, but it was the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq that brought unexpected good fortune.

Dozens of Kuwaiti-owned companies fleeing the conflict set up shop in Jebel Ali and other locations in Dubai. Once the 1991 Gulf War ended, port officials quickly promoted Jebel Ali as the ideal base for Kuwait reconstruction.

'We are talking with major companies that want to use our port as a staging area to repair refineries and other infrastructure,' Bin Sulayem told Aramco World magazine at the time. 'Jebel Ali is probably the only place that could play a role in the reconstruction of Kuwait, because it's vast, quick, and ready for equipment to be shipped as needed.'

Dubai Ports World signed an agreement with Kuwait Petroleum Company to rent 750,000 square meters of land for office and warehouse space. Soon large ships were loading and unloading consignments at Jebel Ali, while smaller vessels of up to 20,000 tons transferred goods to Shu'aybah Port, south of Kuwait City.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was even better for business as Jebel Ali become one of the world's biggest ports. During the first quarter of 2003, Dubai's business rose 25 percent, compared to the first quarter of 2002.

'Whenever there is an international crisis, we tend to benefit, since many trading houses bring their cargo to Dubai for greater security and ease of redistribution either during the war or when it ends,' Jamal Majid bin Thaniah, managing director of the Dubai Ports Authority, which oversees Jebel Ali, told Lloyd's List.

As the occupation of Iraq continues into 2006, Jebel Ali's importance and role continue to expand. DPW has just acquired British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), which has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to load military equipment at the Texas ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010, where almost two-thirds of the supplies for the U.S. military begin their passage to war.

Sailors arriving on the USS John F Kennedy and soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq count Dubai as their favorite stop for rest & recreation (R&R). Unlike other Middle Eastern cities, nightclubs abound, and alcohol and sex are easily available.

JFK's 'Morale, Welfare and Recreation' director Mary Abbott told the Mayport Mirror, a military publication, that Dubai was one of the most popular cities with sailors.

''We got a lot of positive feedback from our trips,'' she said. Added Harley Houston, an enthusiastic sailor from Georgia: ''Dubai is more modern than I expected it to be, and I had no idea that American culture had so much in common with other countries. It was very impressive.''

David Phinney and Lee Wang contributed reporting for this article.

Pratap Chatterjee is the Managing Editor/Project Director of CorpWatch -

Speak for Yourself -Cindy Sheehan

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:21:00 +0000

02-27-06,10:57am

While we were camping out in hot and humid Crawford, Texas last August, trying to meet with George Bush and trying to end the war, a right-wing organization called Move America Forward (to oblivion?) started a bus tour called: Cindy, You Don't Speak for Me.

Move America Forward does some nice things, like sending coffee to our troops. It is unfortunate for the families of the almost 2300 killed troops that the organization doesn't send non-defective ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7794557/bodyarmor), GPS devices, or IED jammers to save the lives of the troops that have been put in harm's way for the politicians' lies and cowardice and corporate greed. I think these things would be a little more useful than coffee.

Move America Forward has every right to exist and to express their views. However, the organization claims to be '...a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization committed to supporting America's efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.' When in all actuality MAF supports George Bush's war of terror against the world and against America. And if Move America Forward is non-partisan, then I am the darling of the White House.

I truly don't believe that sending coffee to our troops and putting yellow 'Support our Troops' magnets on cars is supporting the troops.

Coffee is good, I love coffee myself. I just don't understand how sending our young and brave people off to die in a war that has been proven over and over again to be based on lies is supporting the troops. I don't understand how cutting the VA budget and closing VA hospitals is supporting our veterans. I don't understand how exposing our brave young people to depleted uranium, white phosphorous and enhanced napalm is supporting them. I don't understand how forcing our troops to use WMD's (and also conventional weapons) against innocent fellow members of the human race is supporting our troops.

Deborah Johns is a member of Move America Forward and as a mom who has a son in the Marines, is a vocal critic of mine and has been telling everyone that I don't speak for her for months. She in fact is planning a new 'Cindy doesn't speak for me' event in San Diego where I will be speaking on February 27th at the Thomas Jefferson Law School.

I have news for Deborah and for the rest of America and the world: I never said I spoke for Deborah, or anyone else.

I speak for Cindy Sheehan. Only Cindy Sheehan.

I expect everyone else to speak for themselves. That is each and every one of our duties and responsibilities as Americans and human beings. I wish someone would show me anywhere that I said I ever spoke for anyone but myself.

Whether Deborah likes it or not, I don't want her son to die in this illegal and immoral war. With all my heart and soul, I do not want her to become a Gold Star Mom: Whether one supports the murder and mayhem (on both sides), or not, it is not a good thing. As a matter of fact, it is an indescribably awful and disordered thing to bury a child. I don't want anymore Gold Star Moms to be made by and for the chickenhawks who cower behind their desks and send other people's children off to fight their imaginary battles.

Deborah Johns blames 'al Qaeda' for our military deaths (including Casey Sheehan's) in Iraq! http://www.tjslGOP.org Please, trust me, if I did speak for Ms. Johns her opinions would be more informed.

Casey was killed on April 04, 2004 by Shi'ite militia loyal to Moqtada al Sadr in Sadr City, Baghdad . Even George Bush says that most of the killing in Iraq is done by 'Saddamists and rejectionists' and the terrorists are the 'smallest' group: (Speech given by George Bush in December, 2005 in Philadelphia). There was no al-Qaeda operating in Iraq before the 2003 invasion by American forces. Saddam had no ties to al-Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose somewhere.

However, Moqtada al-Sadr is another story. He fomented the rebellions in Fallujah and Baghdad in April of 2004 that killed many of our troops, including Casey and 11 others on the 4th. He is a Shi'a cleric who is an Iraqi by birth and citizenship. He is the leader of the Mahdi Army who killed Casey and so many other American soldiers. He is one of the 82% of Iraqi citizens who want the US out of Iraq and apparently one of the 49% who think that it is okay to kill Americans (Recent British Military poll). I don't think it is okay to kill Americans, for God's sake, Casey was killed. But I also don't think that it's okay to kill Iraqis, either. The killing is continuing because George Bush and his band of criminals invaded a country that was no threat to the United States of America. Now the war profiteering, warmongers are forcing our children to occupy a country that is now (thanks to BushCo) in the middle of a very bloody civil war. When is it going to stop?

I believe, along with thousands of members of such organizations as Military Families Speak Out ( www.mfso.org), Veterans for Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org), Iraq Veterans Against the War (www.ivaw.net), and Gold Star Families for Peace ( www.gsfp.org), that supporting the troops means bringing them out of this mess alive, whole and healthy.

We peace groups are struggling so hard and so tirelessly so that our brave young men and women walk off of the airplanes bringing them home to their families and not be unloaded from the cargo area in a cardboard box as Casey and so many others have been. Our brave troops that have been killed meaninglessly and senselessly were human beings who deserved to have wonderful, long, and productive lives: not baggage, or cannon fodder for our homicidal, out of control, misleaders.

Accusing the members of our peace organizations of not supporting the troops is patently manipulative and ridiculously false: we are the troops; we have children, spouses, and other relatives that are troops. We love the troops. We support them as we are calling for their immediate and safe withdrawal.

I encourage Deborah Johns and the others who have their own opinions and their own voices to speak for themselves…and not advertise who doesn't speak for them. I could list thousands…even millions of people who don't speak for me, and whom I don't speak for, but that is counter-productive.

Please speak for yourselves.

In these days of the stealing of our freedoms while telling us it keeps us safe, please speak for yourself. In this dark hour of the suppresion of our civil rights, please speak for yourself. In these inconceivable and horrifying times of our leaders committing crimes against humanity and inhumane torture, please speak for yourself.

If you speak for peace and justice, please speak louder and more often.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan who was killed in Iraq on April 04, 2004; Founder and President of Gold Star Families for Peace (www.GSFP.org) and author of Not One More Mother's Child. Cindy is also the very proud mother of Carly, Andy, and Janey Sheehan who hold down the fort in Vacaville, California.

EU Foreign Ministers Discuss Possibility of Further Supporting PNA

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:16:00 +0000

02-27-06,10:53am

GAZA, February 27, 2006 (IPC + Agencies) - - News reports mentioned that the foreign ministers of the European Union members will meet on Monday at Brussels to discuss the possibility of continuing their financial support of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), following the victory of Hamas movement in the latest legislative elections.

According to the sources, the EU is expected to give €40 million to the PNA for usage in energy and sanitation services. They will also approve another €50 million that will be released by the World Bank for the salaries of the government employees.

The sources further mentioned that the EU will give these funds for the interim government, without referring to its stance towards the next government Hamas will form.

Meanwhile, European media agencies reported that France is exerting pressure on EU countries to transfer €23 million (approx. $40 million) immediately to the PNA as a strategy of 'lending a hand to Hamas'.

Earlier, the US newspaper New York Times revealed that the EU is working on a suggestion to transfer the EU funding directly to President Mahmoud Abbas instead of Hamas government, pointing out that the idea was first introduced by the EU's Higher Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Javier Solana.

The ambassador of the EU to Israel explained that Hamas must fulfill three conditions to continue receiving financial aid from the Union - commitment to renouncing violence, recognizing Israel and accepting the previous agreements and understandings, including the Road Map plan.

The EU transfers an amount of $600 million annually to the PNA as part of its financial aid program.

Bridgestone-Firestone Workers Prevented from Helping Workers in Africa

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:06:00 +0000

02-27-06,10:43am

For as long as there have been factories, workers have stood outside plant gates asking for charitable donations. But not at the Bridgestone-Firestone plant in LaVergne, Tenn. On Feb. 22, the company stopped workers at the plant gate from collecting donations to help struggling rubber workers in Africa.

“We’ve stood for years at the same locations collecting for members who are ill or other locals on strike. Most recently, we collected to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina,” says Lewis Beck, president of United Steelworkers Local 1055.

But this time, Beck and his co-workers, were collecting to support rubber workers who toil on Bridgestone-Firestone’s giant rubber plantation in Liberia. The United Steelworkers’ website explains the Liberians’ plight:

A decade-long civil war has ravaged the country and workers there, including thousands employed at Bridgestone-Firestone’s one-million acre rubber plantation, are struggling to provide for their families.

Local 1055 is the first of eight USW-represented locals scheduled to participate in the gate collections for the Liberia workers. Over there, BFS workers labor from dawn to dusk and receive about $3 as a daily wage. Recently the workers went on strike to protest the company’s withholding of more than one-third of their pay for unexplained deductions.

The Inter Press Service Agency reports that Bridgestone-Firestone, Liberia’s largest foreign investor, is being sued by an international human rights group over its alleged use of child labor and toxic pesticides.

Here’s how InterPress describes the conditions at the plantation:

…workers begin their day at 4:30 in the morning in order to make their daily quota of tapping some 750 trees—a quota that can only be met if children join their fathers and in many cases, mothers by working from dawn to dusk.

Jason Flomo, who has been living with six others in one of Firestone’s housing quarters on the plantation, said there are no toilets, running water or electricity.

“Situations like this remind me why our contract negotiations are so difficult. I think the company sometimes forgets that its workers are people trying to take good care of their families,” Beck says.

Workers ‘Round the Nation Joining Unions

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:01:00 +0000

02-27-06,9:14am

Making the Union Connection at Cingular…Following the lead of more than 16,000 of their co-workers, 465 former AT&T Wireless workers at Cingular Wireless locations from Hawaii to Virginia chose to form a union with the Communications Workers of America (CWA) recently. The new union members, who worked for AT&T before the merger with Cingular, have been able to exercise their free choice to join a union under a pact in which Cingular agreed to honor the workers’ freedom to form a union when a majority signs authorization cards. Find out more about the new CWA members.

The right of workers to join a union through majority sign-up is the key provision to the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842) that is gaining steam in Congress with 210 co-sponsors in the House and 42 in the Senate. Take a look closer at the Employee Free Choice Act and download fact sheets and other materials. Joining forces in Utah…CWA also reports that the 600-member Utah Association of Government Employees voted to affiliate with the 700,000-member national union this month. Union rights in the cards…In another win for workers using majority sign-up, 250 employees at ShuttlePort in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., joined the Transport Workers (TWU). ShuttlePort provides passenger and employee transportation at Fort Lauderdale International Airport and Port Everglades ship terminal. The January issue of TWU Express provides a more detailed look at the workers’ victory. Bringing Work Home…In 2002, Carrier’s United Technologies electronics component plant in Huntington, Ind., began outsourcing work to Asian plants. But today a lot of that work is coming home after Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 983 officers and members worked together with plant managers in strategic planning sessions that led to several worker-inspired production improvements. So far 89 new IBEW jobs have been created and plans are under way to bring back more work. Click here for the full story on the labor-management actions.

It ain’t over till…The stage workers at the Austin (Texas) Lyric Opera unanimously voted to join the Theatrical Stagehands (IATSE) last year and just ratified and signed a new three-year agreement that boosts their pay—including overtime and holiday pay—and improves health benefits. The 19 workers are carpenters, prop artists, painters and customers. Check out IATSE’s website for more on the Austin Opera workers.

Equal rights achieved in Cuba is still a dream for millions

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:55:00 +0000

02-27-06,9:14am

The equal civil and political rights for which the founding fathers of Cuban independence fought are still a dream for millions of people around the world, said Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada, President of the Cuban Parliament on Friday.

Alarcon spoke at a rally in Havana on the 111th anniversary of the beginning of the War of Independence against Spanish colonial rule, organized by Cuban National Hero Jose Marti, who named the struggle “The Necessary War.”

Cuban President Fidel Castro attended the ceremony where 138 Cuban flags were hoisted at the Jose Marti Anti-Imperialist Plaza facing the US Interests Section. A 24-hour honor guard was begun as part of the tribute.

Alarcon underscored the historical importance of February 24, 1895, not only in the struggle against the Spanish, but also to achieve equality and social justice on the island.

The President of the Cuban Parliament noted that ever since that period the “main enemy was always the new empire.” He recalled that the Spanish colonialists had received logistical support from US governments that “always acted with the most cynical calculations and evil intentions.”

The democratic roots contained in the constitutions of the Republic at War, were also highlighted by Alarcon in his speech. He underscored the lessons of Jose Marti on the need for unity among all Cuban patriots, demonstrated by the creation of a single political party to guide the revolution, and in the clear understanding that for Cuba to be a free nation it would have to defeat a powerful enemy: US imperialism.

Alarcon pointed out that this February 24, Cuba also celebrates a half century since the founding of the Directorio Revolucionario, the armed branch of the Cuban Federation of University Students, and three decades since the founding of the People’s Power system on the island.

Alarcon emphasized the authentic and democratic spirit of the 1976 Cuban Constitution, which he said was subjected to popular debate among more than 6.2 million people, and voted on by 98 percent of the electorate, of which 97.7 gave it their backing.

The head of the Cuban legislature also noted that as in the other four previous constitutions of independence, the 1976 one was approved under enemy fire. He recalled how that same year a Cuban passenger plane was blown up off the coast of Barbados, and that the authors of that monstrous crime are currently protected by the Bush administration. He noted that at the same time, five Cuban heroes that fought against terrorism remain in US prisons.

Previously Hassan Perez, the deputy secretary of the Communist Youth League, criticized the shameful and interventionist attitude of the US Interests Section in Havana, to which he said Cuba will “be responding with an avalanche of ideas and arguments.”

“As long as there is a single Cuban alive, he will be standing up and fighting in defense of this flag,” the youth leader affirmed

Philippines: Martial Law Threatens Press Freedom

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:51:00 +0000

The Wal-Mart Health Care Crisis

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:39:00 +0000

2-26-06, 9:17 am

Why did a recent opinion poll show that a large majority believes that 'Wal-Mart is bad for America'?

Is it the ongoing lawsuits involving hundreds of current and former employees who charge that Wal-Mart practices gender discrimination?

Is it because Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott apparently threatened a store manager recently on an internal website after the employee raised the idea of retiree medical benefits.

Is it 'bad for America' the company had to be sued into selling 'morning after' birth control pill in its pharmacies?

Maybe it's because the millions in tax breaks the company gets from local governments when it builds stores in their communities would be better used to fund schools, parks, roads, or libraries.

Maybe small business owners are tired of being run out of town when Wal-Mart shows up.

Certainly, working families are tired of seeing labels on items sold at Wal-Mart from everywhere in the world except from the neighborhoods and communities that they live in, especially when the only jobs around are at Wal-Mart, stocking shelves or hauling shopping carts.

Working people are tired of exchanging good union jobs for low prices on toilet paper, socks and bath towels.

But the biggest reason for anti-Wal-Mart sentiments may be the most expensive and anxiety-causing issue today: health care.

With insurance premiums and prescription drug prices spiraling out of control, working people are often forced to choose between paying the rent or purchasing medicine, buying groceries, or making a doctor visit.

Why won't the world's most profitable company – $10 billion in pure profit in 2004 alone – provide adequate health insurance for its employees?

In 2003, Wal-Mart spent $3,100 on healthcare per covered employee, according to an analysis by the Center for a Changing Workforce, compared with a $5,600 in all US industries.

And an astonishing new report by titled 'America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves,' shows that the company is even cutting back. Between 2003 and 2004, according to public tax documents, Wal-Mart cut its health care spending per worker by 3.5 percent, a huge amount for an already meager health care budget.

The cut back came as health care spending by other US corporations increased 7.6 percent in 2004. Leaked internal documents also show that Wal-Mart admits that as many as 775,000 of its employees, or close to 60 percent of them, don't have the company's health insurance plan or other insurance.

According to a memo by Wal-Mart executive Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart understands that most of these folks simply can't afford the plan, admitting that critics of Wal-Mart's health care policies may have a point.

To compensate, many Wal-Mart employees and their children turn to public assistance for help. Wal-Mart documents uncovered in 2003 showed, in fact, that some Wal-Mart managers encouraged employees to apply for Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits, even providing documentation on how to do it.

Wal-Mart has admitted that as many as 5 percent of their workforce use public assistance. WakeUpWalMart.com's report, which brings together new data collected by 19 states that have investigated the number of Wal-Mart employees and family members on public assistance, shows that this figure is substantially higher, however.

As many as 13 percent of Wal-Mart's employees, the report notes, are on some form of public aid, mainly Medicaid or CHIP, about four times higher than the average for all other employers in the country.

The data was collected and disclosed by the states, but is still incomplete. For example, while Florida has said that 12,300 people connected to Wal-Mart receive Medicaid, it has refused to say how many are actual employees and how many are the children of employees. On the other hand, Georgia has admitted that 10,261 children of Wal-Mart employees receive health care benefits from the CHIP program, but it hasn't yet disclosed the number of Wal-Mart employees who receive public benefits.

Other notable states, according to the report, include Tennessee with 9,617 and Arkansas, where the corporate headquarters of the retail giant are located, with 3,971 Wal-Mart employees receiving Medicaid and/or other public aid such as food stamps.

More than 4,300 children in Texas, over 5,100 Massachusetts employees and their children, and in Arizona at least 2,700 Wal-Mart employee families and 450 children receive Medicaid. Thousands of other families and their children in the other 12 states reporting have also been forced to turn to public assistance for help.

According to the report, the total cost in 2005 to US taxpayers to provide health care coverage for the Wal-Mart employees who can't afford the company's benefits package is approximately $1.38 billion. The projected cost over the next five years is estimated at $9.1 billion.

Important programs like Medicaid, CHIP, and food stamps are crucial to prevent the worst effects of poverty, but should they help Wal-Mart fatten its bottom line?

WakeUpWalMart.com, the AFL-CIO, and many health care activists believe that Wal-Mart should be legally required to provide affordable and adequate health care benefits to all of its employees. They have launched a nationwide campaign called Fair Share for Health Care. The campaign lobbies state legislatures to adopt laws mandating that large companies provide health care benefits.

So far, Maryland has passed a Fair Share for Health Care law, and 32 state legislatures are considering such legislation.

Other groups, such as Healthcare-NOW, a coalition of labor unions, physicians, and community activists that support passage of a national Medicare-for-all health care program, opt for a more systemic solution to the health care crisis. Medicare-for-all legislation (H.R. 676) has been introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in Congress.

While legally requiring corporations to provide affordable benefits may help thousands of people in the short term, in the long run, it won't be able to control the runaway costs of premiums, medical procedures, and prescription drugs. Further, the Fair Share for Health Care laws can't cover all 46 million people currently without health insurance or the 100 million who lack adequate coverage.

Medicare-for-all would control costs without leaving anyone out. Read more about it here.

Interestingly, the passage of the Fair Share for Health Care law in Maryland may have spurred Lee Scott to remark on his website recently that perhaps a greater government role in providing health care is needed.

For now, big companies should be required to provide health care for their employees. A Medicare-for-all system would help everyone, and maybe Fair Share for Health Care laws can help provide the political will necessary to see that a system of universal health care is finally enacted in this country.

--Reach Joel Wendland at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

Raising Latino Voice of Opposition to the War in Iraq

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:31:00 +0000

2-26-06, 9:10 am

Objective: A 241 mile march that aims at ensuring that the Latino voice of opposition to the War is heard loud and clear across the Americas.

WHAT/ WHEN: Fernando Suarez del Solar, Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Aidan Delgado will lead a coalition of the willing across this 241 mile quest for peace starting in Tijuana, Mexico, going through Marine Corps Depot Camp Pendleton to the Cesar Chavez burial site in La Paz, CA, culminating in The Mission district of San Francisco with a memorial ceremony and blood drive. The March will begin on 12 March 2006. The coalition of the willing will arrive at La Paz, CA on 22 March 2006 and culminate in San Francisco from 26 March 2006 to 27 March 2006.

WHY: Latinos represent nearly 15% of the US population and 11% of the US military, with many serving in combat or hazardous duty occupations. In addition, an estimated 20% of the fallen service members in the early months of the invasion were Latino. With the continued growth of the Latino population and its vital importance to the future of this country, it is time for the Latino community to become an active and vocal part of the 60%+ of US citizens that oppose this War. It is also time to show the Latino community that they have a voice and a right to fight for peace and stability. Fernando Suarez Del Solar is committed to self-sacrifice. At 50 years of age he cares more about ending this war than even his own health. We make this call not only to the Latino population but to all those who agree with our message 'No more bloodshed in Iraq'. About the Route and Structure

Why 241 miles? Last Year was the 75th anniversary of Gandhi's Salt March, one of the most impactful non-violent acts of protest and civil disobedience in pursuit of social justice in history. Gandhi marched 241 miles to free India from British imperialism. This legacy has been vibrant in all Latino Social Justice movements. Cesar Chavez was a disciple of Gandhi. We wish to rekindle this tradition and one year after the 75th , we wish to put Gandhi's spirit into practice rather than wait for the next milestone to honor his memory.

About the march leaders: Fernando Suarez Del Solar Is the father of one of the first Latinos to die in Iraq. He was lied to about his son's death, but found the truth in Iraq with the help of a well know recent victim of the war, co-anchor of ABC's World News Tonight, Bob Woodruff. Fernando's son Jesus stepped on an illegal US cluster bomb. Since then Fernando is a tireless advocate for peace. Pablo Paredes Navy war resister who refused boarding an Iraq bound ship on Dec. 6th 2004. He was court martialed, sentenced and now speaks out for Peace. Camilo Mejia Served one tour in Iraq and then became a National Guard war resister. He was jailed for nine months for his opposition to the war and is now a prominent anti-war speaker and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). Aidan Delgado Is a Conscientious Objector of the Iraq war. He served at Abu Gharib and now tours the country with slide shows of the prison abuses. Jesus Suarez Del Solar Fernando's son Jesus was born in Tijuana, Mexico in November of 1982. He was educated at PS 44 and in 1995 came to the United States, with dreams of joining the Marines. He realized his dream in 2001 well before 911. Jesus deployed to Iraq from MCD Camp Pendleton in February of 2003, with dreams of liberating the children of Iraq. Seven days into the invasion of Iraq, on the 27th of March 2003, Jesus stepped on an illegal US cluster bomb. Jesus died shortly after. About the march route: Tijuana The march from Tijuana across the US-Mexico Border is a symbolic gesture of Peace without borders. As Jesus Suarez del Solar was born and educated in this beautiful city, our march will also be born in Tijuana, and we also wish that our gesture serves to educate around border issues and peace. Escondido Escondido is the city in which Jesus was recruited and today is buried. We wish to trace Jesus' steps and then continue his fight for the children of Iraq and America in the name of peace rather than war. Pendleton Marine Corps Depot Camp Pendleton is the place where Jesus and many of our youth are trained for war. Jesus deployed from Pendleton to Iraq. We wish to rewrite history with our march and deploy our soldiers from MCD Camp Pendleton to La Paz. La Paz La Paz translates to The Peace, and is the burial site of Cesar Chavez. We wish to evoke his legacy and lead our coalition to peace. San Francisco San Francisco's Mission district is predominantly Latino. We will hold a service in the mission to commemorate Jesus. We will also stage a blood drive. The blood donated will be equally distributed to cope with Iraqi as well as coalition needs.

The March will arrive in all the following cities: Tijuana, San Diego, Escondido, Camp Pendleton, Santa Ana, Los Angeles, San Fernando, Palmdale, Rosamond, Keene (La Paz), Fresno, San Jose, and San Francisco.

MARCHARAN 241 MILLAS POR LA PAZ

ACTIVISTAS CONTRA LA GUERRA CAMINARAN DESDE TIJUANA HASTA SAN FRANCISCO

Jorge Morales Almada20 de febrero de 2006

Para asegurar que la voz latina se escuche una vez mas en oposicion a la guerra en Irak, Fernando Suarez del Solar y tres jovenes ex militares de origen latino emprenderan una caminata de 241 millas. Sera una marcha por diversas ciudades que dara inicio el 12 de marzo en Tijuana, Mexico, y pretende concluir el 26 y 27 de marzo en San Francisco, California. Suarez del Solar, padre de uno de los primeros soldados latinos muertos en Irak, comento que la comunidad latina en Estados Unidos ha sido afectada profundamente por la guerra. 'Ahora deseamos tomar nuestro merecido lugar dentro del movimiento amplio por la paz', dijo. 'Tras tres anos de guerra, queremos alzar nuestras voces unidas con la mayoria del pais que cree que la guerra en Irak no vale la pena'. A sus 50 anos de edad, Suarez del Solar ha decidido tomar esta medida, a pesar de su estado de salud, para dar un paso mas en la protesta generalizada en contra de la guerra en Irak. La ruta incluye una manifestacion en la base militar de Camp Pendleton, y paradas en San Diego, Escondido, Santa Ana, Los Angeles, San Fernando, Palmdale, Rosamond, Keene (donde esta enterrado el lider campesino Cesar Chavez), Fresno, San Jose y Watsonville.

Junto con el esta programado que caminen Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes y Aiden Delgado. Mejia estuvo en el frente de batalla como miembro de la Guardia Nacional, pero luego de un corto receso en Estados Unidos, se nego a regresar a Irak, por lo que fue encarcelado durante nueve meses por oponerse a la guerra y ahora forma parte de Veteranos de Irak en contra de la Guerra (IVAW). Paredes era miembro de las fuerzas navales y se nego embarcar el buque de guerra que iba a Irak con mas de dos mil combatientes a bordo. Por esa desobediencia lo procesaron y sentenciaron militarmente. Actualmente se dedica a promover la paz en Irak. Delgado fue testigo de los abusos y torturas en la prision de Abu Ghraib, por lo cual se manifesto como objetor de conciencia. Hoy en dia ofrece presentaciones por toda la nacion sobre sus experiencias. Suarez del Solar se convirtio en uno de los opositores de la guerra mas activos en el pais despues de la muerte de su hijo Jesús Alberto,en Irak.

La caminata del proximo 12 de marzo dara inicio en Tijuana, donde nacio su hijo, y cruzara la linea internacional como un acto simbolico de la búsqueda de la paz sin fronteras. 'Nuestra marcha tambien va a nacer ahi para educar sobre cuestiones de migracion', indico Del Solar. 'Estamos invitando a colaborar a todos los que apoyan la paz, hacemos este llamado no solo a la poblacion hispana, sino a todos los que esten de acuerdo con nuestro mensaje de alto al derramamiento de sangre en Irak'. La fecha de inicio, dijo, es en remembranza de la Marcha de la Sal que en 1930 emprendio Mahatma Gandhi en la India como una forma de desobediencia civil en contra del gobierno britanico que colonizaba a ese pais. Esa caminata de hace 76 anos inicio el 12 de marzo y junto con Gandhi marcharon 78 personas una distancia de 241 millas. 'Ese legado ha estado vivo en los movimientos sociales de los latinos en Estados Unidos, como el del gran lider Cesar Chavez', comento. Actualmente los latinos representan casi el 15% de la poblacion en Estados Unidos y el 11% en las Fuerzas Armadas. 'Muchos de ellos ocupan los rangos mas bajos y los trabajos mas peligrosos, es mas, casi el 20% de los caidos durante los primeros dias de la invasion de Irak eran latinos', indico Suarez del Solar. La marcha es convocada por la organizacion Proyecto Guerrero Azteca que dirige Del Solar, la cual esta solicitando donaciones (a traves de su pagina de internet guerreroazteca.org ) para costear los gastos de la caravana, asi como voluntarios que deseen participar en la caminata, o conduciendo vehiculos, y expertos en primeros auxilios para ayudar a quienes pudieran necesitarlo durante el trayecto

See: Guerrero Azteca Project

Huge March Planned for Eve of Katrina Evictions

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:24:00 +0000

2-2606, 9:04 am

A march had been planned for February 28, the eve of the scheduled March 1 evictions of Hurricane Katrina victims. FEMA moved the evictions to March 15, so activists have moved the march to March 14. A press conference on Capitol Hill will be followed by a march through Washington, D.C., past FEMA, past the Department of Homeland Security, and to the White House, where a permit has been obtained to rally in Lafayette Square Park until midnight. If Bush does not meet the marchers' demands, however, many plan not to leave.

The demands are for a serious housing plan for those already evicted and those still in hotels, and an end to evictions. Another way of putting it is that the marchers will be demanding that the federal government cease violating the law by working to exclude people from a city on the basis of race and class.

Last night Reverend Lennox Yearwood, whom many saw on television being tossed out of a Congressional hearing for questioning Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and who has received death threats for his activism, convened an organizing meeting and formed committees to put together as large a march as possible.

Yearwood recounted for those present the history of FEMA's broken promises and shifting deadlines, the December 1 deadline, the December 14 deadline, etc., up through the latest moved deadline. But Yearwood also spoke of the suicides of those with nowhere left to go, the 80 percent increase in alcohol sales in effected neighborhoods, the absolute hopelessness of people whom this country has abandoned. 'We're not asking for another moved deadline,' Yearwood said, 'but for a moratorium on evictions and anything that looks like an eviction until they have a plan for housing.'
Joel Segal, Vice Chair of the advisory board of Progressive Democrats of America, spoke as well. 'FEMA is telling the media they have a housing plan,' he said. 'FEMA is lying.' There are 13,000 trailers sitting in Arkansas waiting to go to New Orleans, he said. There are 12,000 people evicted with no where to go. If they get a trailer, Segal said, it has no electricity.

The Gulf Coast Renewal Campaign released this statement:

Yesterday FEMA announced a two-week extension for all hotel/motel residents in Louisiana and Mississippi, which enables them to remain in their rooms until March 15, 2006. Once again, we witness the impact that a coalition of conscience and a unified commitment to action for Katrina survivors can have on the otherwise unfettered execution of the Bush administrations authority. For this reason, we are postponing our press conference, March and vigil until March 14, 2006.

However, the Gulf Coast Renewal Campaign is not demanding that FEMA move deadlines, but that FEMA move Katrina survivors into viable and affordable transitional and long-term housing. We demand that FEMA move the displaced into trailers so that they can work to rebuild their own homes. We protest the psychological cruelty of this agency in constantly holding the peril of homelessness over the heads of our brothers and sisters. We object to FEMA holding survivors in limbo, perpetually uncertain about what should be guaranteed for these victims of government neglect and ineptitude. Sending people long distances from their communities, to live in temporary shelters or trailers where they cannot keep their jobs is unacceptable. Offering limited rental assistance to a selective group, which cannot pay for real apartments in a city where price gouging has sent rents sky high, is unacceptable.

We are postponing our rally in Lafayette Park and press conference accordingly until March 14, but we are not postponing our call for justice: NO EVICTIONS UNTIL REAL TRANSITIONAL & PERMANENT HOUSING IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO RETURN HOME! TRAILERS IN NEW ORLEANS NOW! PASS H.R. 4197!

Over the next two weeks, we will continue to build our campaign on the ground and in Congress to pass 'The Hurricane Reclamation, Recovery, Reconstruction and Relief' Act for comprehensive assistance to enable all Katrina survivors to return and rebuild their communities.

Please join us on March 14 for this historic press conference, March and vigil in front of the house where George Bush serenely sleeps while thousands face the prospect of their families having no shelter.

Press Conference: 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. (Press Conference: Rayburn House Office Building - Room #2237)

Mardi Gras Style March for Justice: 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. (March will start from Capitol South Metro Stop at 2:00 p.m. to the White House)

Rally & Protest at the White House: 3:00 p.m. - 11:59 p.m. (Rally & Protest at the White House - Lafayette Park)

From

Philippines: Legal Group Demands Withdrawal of National Emergency Order

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:22:00 +0000

2-26-06, 9:01 am

STATEMENT ON NATIONAL EMERGENCY Friday, February 24, 2006

The FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP [FLAG] strongly condemns Proclamation 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. Proclamation 1017 is a license given to the military and police to use against whosoever they perceive to be enemies; it silences all forms of criticism, including media reporting.

Through Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has arrogated unto herself the power to promulgate decrees, orders and regulations (last paragraph), not different, in effect, from Amendment No. 6, which Marcos used to legislate: 'Whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, … he may, in order to meet the emergency, issue the necessary decrees, orders or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land.'

In Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo alleges a 'conspiracy' between 'elements in the political opposition,' 'extreme left,' and 'extreme right,' fueled by 'certain segments of the national media' to 'bring down the duly constituted Government elected in May 2004.' (1st and 3rd Whereas Clauses) All who are or may be identified as belonging to the political opposition, extreme left, extreme right and the national media are targets.

Proclamation 1017 is arbitrary; it contains no clear directives, standards or guidelines; it sets no time frame for the duration of the emergency. Even worse, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s public announcement categorically cedes to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police the power to do whatever needs to be done as a consequence of this Proclamation, without limit or accountability.

There is neither factual nor legal basis for the declaration of a national emergency. In her public statement announcing Proclamation 1017, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo herself over nationwide television annou! nced that she was 'in control' of the situation and that threats against her government had already been neutralized and quelled. There is, therefore, no real emergency to speak of. In addition, if all Gloria Macapagal Arroyo wants to do is to prosecute those who violate the law, there are adequate laws and processes to investigate and prosecute them.

Proclamation 1017 cites two constitutional provisions as its legal basis: the commander-in-chief provision (Art. VII, Sec. 18) and the emergency powers provision (Art. XII, Sec. 17).

Under Section 18, the only grounds to call out the Armed Forces are lawless violence, invasion or rebellion; while the only grounds to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or to declare martial law are invasion or rebellion. Not one of these grounds exists. A so-called 'conspiracy to bring down' Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is not—in and of itself—lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.

While Art. XII, Sec. 17 allows the President to declare a state of national emergency (which may include a 'military national emergency'), the only power granted the State under this provision is to 'temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.' This power may only be exercised during the emergency and under reasonable terms.

By 'saving democracy,' Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has just destroyed it. FLAG calls on Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to withdraw her Proclamation.

Quezon City, Philippines, 24 February 2006.

JOSE MANUEL I. DIOKNO Chairman

Philippines: Statement on GMA's Declaration of State of Emergency

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:18:00 +0000

2-26-06, 8:58 am

February 24, 2006

NEVER AGAIN TO MARTIAL LAW! RESIST GMA'S EMERGENCY POWERS WITH PEOPLE POWER! OUST GLORIA NOW!

Around 11:30 am today, Mrs Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared emergency powers effectively authorizing warrantless arrests, dispersal of people's assemblies and systematic suppression of the Filipino people's right to participate in collective actions that go against Arroyo's wish to stay in power. Ironically, GMA issued the proclamation on the very day that the nation commemorates the 20th year of victory of the people's collective action for the ouster of a dictator.

Moments after GMA's declaration, church people in front of the multi-sectoral rally along EDSA reported the picture of its immediate implementation: Priests, pastors, seminarians, religious sisters and lay members of Roman Catholic and Protestant congregations were water cannoned and aggressively pushed by police forces as they linked arms to maintain their peaceful assembly.

We condemn in strongest terms GMA's Proclamation 1017 which is short of formally declaring Martial rule. Let us not allow the nation to be thrown into the dark days when political activists and supporters of people's movements demanding regime change are arrested without warrant, brutally killed and forcibly disappeared; when freedom of the press is suppressed; and when all instruments of the state are directed to quell the dissent of people seeking urgent political and socio-economic reforms. In fact, even before such proclamation, GMA's record of political killings and violations of civil liberties, especially with her Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) scheme, is now the worst since the downfall of Marcos.

We call on the governments around the world to withdraw support to the Arroyo government which proved to be best in stealing, lying and cheating rather than governing the nation towards genuine progress and democracy.

GMA's Proclamation 1017 is grossly illegal, immoral and serves no one but the illegitimate president who refuses to heed the people's demand for her to step down. In her extreme desperation to hold on to power, GMA ordered the heads of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to implement the force of repression against all civilians, military forces and politicians perceived to be part of various movements demanding her ouster.

Contrary to GMA's speech today that the protesters are bringing down the economy and creating lawlessness, it is her corrupt administration that has aggravated the economic miseries of our people. GMA cheated her way to victory in the May 2004 elections, using public funds to secure votes in her favor and rig the election results. She has now committed another grave crime by robbing the people again of the least democratic space they could have enjoyed after the EDSA I and II uprisings.

To our friends and partners in the international community, we urge you to speak and act again in solidarity with the Filipino people in this challenging period of our life as a nation. To the members of the AFP and PNP, may you join the ranks of patriotic officers and elements who side with the people in the quest truth, justice and meaningful change.

*** EDSA Spirit Alive as Filipinos Unite in One Call to Oust Gloria No permit, no rally policy defied

Today, as the nation marks the 20th year of the people's victory against the Marcos dictatorship, the EDSA spirit is very much alive as thousands of Filipinos congregate at the People Power monument in Manila as well as various protest centers nationwide with a single call: Oust Gloria Now! From 8:00 am, church people from the Roman Catholic and Protestant congregations gathered towards the People Power Monument and joined other sectors in defying the government's no permit, no rally policy.

NIGERIA: Delta militants release hostage photos, Shell told to pay Nigeria US $1.5 bln

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:21:00 +0000

02-25-06,11:00am

WARRI, 24 Feb 2006 (IRIN) - Armed militants holding nine foreign oil workers hostage in Nigeria's troubled Niger Delta, on Friday released photos of the captives for the first time but denied entering into talks with the government over their release.

Photographs e-mailed to reporters showed the hostages, who have spent a week in captivity, sitting or standing around in the company of more than two dozen masked men clad in military fatigues and armed with automatic rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. Close-ups showed the hostages looking well but unshaved.

'There have been reports that negotiations are ongoing towards the release of these individuals. This is absolutely untrue,' the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) said in a statement sent with the pictures.

The group, whose attacks on oil installations in the past week have cut Nigeria's oil exports by more than 20 percent, threatened to launch more attacks 'without further warning'.

MEND claims to be fighting for the interests of ethnic Ijaws, the majority ethnic group in the oil-rich delta, whose impoverished inhabitants accuse joint ventures run by oil multinationals with the Nigerian state, of polluting their environment and cheating them out of oil wealth produced in their own backyard.

Apart from demanding the release of Ijaw militia leader Moujahid Dokubo-Asari, held on treason charges, and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, former governor of Bayelsa State held for corruption in exchange for the hostages, the group wants Shell to pay out US $1.5 billion in compensation for pollution to Ijaw communities, as ordered by the Nigerian Senate in 2004.

A legal challenge mounted by the oil giant to the Senate decision suffered a setback on Friday when a federal high court in the oil industry capital of Port Harcourt ruled that Shell was obliged to make the payment. Justice Okechukwu Okeke held that both Shell and the communities had agreed to be bound by the mediation of the lawmakers in their dispute.

MEND has claimed responsibility for seizing the nine foreigners during a raid on a barge last Saturday belonging to U.S. oil service company Willbros on the Forcados River in the delta. The group gave the names and nationalities of the hostages, three U.S. nationals, two Egyptians, two Thai nationals, a Briton and a Filipino.

MEND has also said it damaged Shell's Forcados oil export terminal, ruptured a major oil pipeline belonging to the oil giant near its Chanomi Creek oil pumping station, and another gas pipeline belonging to the state-owned Nigerian Gas Company. Shell said it has been forced by the attacks to close all its operations in the western Niger Delta, accounting for some 445,000 barrels daily or about 50 percent of its Nigerian output.

MEND said the latest attacks were in direct response to air attacks by the Nigerian military on ethnic Ijaw villages in the delta days earlier. The Nigerian military had said the attacks targeted barges used by criminal gangs to siphon crude oil from pipelines in the delta for sale to accomplice vessels waiting offshore.

Security agencies say the illegal trade in crude oil is the source of funds for armed groups flourishing in the oil region in recent years. Nigeria estimates losses to the illegal trade to amount at times to as much as 10 percent of its daily exports of 2.5 million barrels a da.

More than 15 years of restiveness in the oil-rich delta, where impoverished locals accuse successive Nigerian governments and oil companies of depriving them of the wealth produced on their land, has escalated in recent months into guerrilla warfare, with armed groups seeking to take control of the oil resources by force.

South Africans gear up for local elections

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:15:00 +0000

02-25-06,10:52am

South Africa is preparing for local elections March 1, the fourth set of elections since the demise of the country’s notoriously racist system of apartheid a little over a decade ago.

From about 1948 to 1994, South Africa was home to one of the most oppressive governments in the world. The system of apartheid, which means “separation” or “apartness” in the language of the white Afrikaner settlers, was the law of the land.

Under apartheid, all people were classified by race, with the white minority at the top of the pyramid. Blacks were systematically denied a wide range of civil and human rights, including the right to vote or to hold office. Segregation was brutally enforced in schools, public transportation, trade unions and social relations.

Apartheid laws also affected economic life. Blacks were the lowest paid. Black residential areas were the poorest, and Black homes rarely had plumbing or electricity. Hospitals and ambulances were segregated. In the 1970s, each Black child’s education cost the state only one-tenth of each white child’s.

In 1949, the African National Congress was founded and launched a series of mass campaigns against apartheid. These included resistance in the form of strikes, acts of public disobedience and protest marches, often resulting in violent clashes with the police. An international solidarity movement, including a boycott of South African goods, helped weaken the racist system.

The struggles led by the ANC, in alliance with the South African Communist Party, mushroomed in the 1980s and resulted in the eventual dismantlement of the apartheid laws in the early 1990s. The struggles culminated in the freeing of Nelson Mandela, a top ANC leader, after nearly 30 years of imprisonment, and his election as president in 1994.

Since that time the ANC has won every major election, typically with 50 percent to 70 percent of the vote. ANC-led governments have paved roads and provided streetlights for streets that were never paved or lighted before. Water and electricity have become more accessible to the Black majority. More homes and recreational facilities have been built, and services such as waste removal have improved. New education and training opportunities have been developed.

But serious problems remain. Four million South Africans are still without employment. Those who do work are oppressed by management and sometimes physically brutalized. Millions continue to live in poverty. Five million South Africans are living with HIV and of that number 500,000 have AIDS.

In the current campaign, the ANC is pledging to speed up the delivery of clean water and sanitation services, expand the number of households that have electricity, improve the housing stock, build the economic infrastructure through public works and create more job opportunities. It is also placing emphasis on strengthening ward committees and other forms of local self-government.

The ANC has worked with its partners, the South African Communist Party, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Civics Organization (SANCO), at every level of planning for this election.

Following its 2005 guidelines, 50 percent of the ANC’s candidates are women. Its candidates have been asked to take an oath and sign the “Code of Conduct of ANC Councillors,” which states that they will (1) serve the community; (2) not seek material advantage or personal gain; (3) fight corruption; (4) listen to the community and hold report-back meetings at least four times a year; and (5) live in the community that has elected them.

The ANC’s opponents include the Democratic Alliance, which is linked to white elements in the capitalist class with links to the apartheid past, and the Inkatha Freedom Party, led by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The IFP, among other things, has been linked to death squads that persecuted the ANC during the apartheid era.

In a disturbing development, Nsizwazethu (Sethu) Thusi, the ANC’s candidate for Ward 6 of the Umshwathi Municipality, was recently assassinated in his home.

The SACP, in a statement, called on “workers and poor, on professionals and progressives, on teachers and students” to “come out in our millions on March 1st — to Vote ANC!” It called for “a strong, unified, developmental state; mobilized people’s power — where we live and where we work.”

Human Dignity: Churches demand closure of Guantanamo

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:06:00 +0000

02-25-06,!0:43am

WASHINGTON — National Council of Churches General Secretary Bob Edgar has written an open letter, signed by 13,000 others, demanding that the Bush administration close the Guantanamo Bay torture prison where 500 detainees have been held for as long as four years without criminal charges.

Under a headline, “Who Would Jesus Torture?” the NCC web site urges people to sign the Edgar letter addressed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding closure of the prison.

“New photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and a blistering United Nations report calling on the U.S. to shut down the Guantanamo Prison in Cuba have once again reminded us that this chapter in our nation’s history is a moral disgrace and must end,” the NCC declares.

Edgar writes, “We emphatically support” the recommendations that the U.S. either expeditiously bring all detainees to trial or release them without further delay and that the U.S. government should promptly close the Guantanamo detention facility.

Edgar rebutted attempts to discredit the UN report on grounds that the five UN human rights investigators turned down the Pentagon’s prison tour offer. The Pentagon “ignores well established international practice that an investigation cannot be conducted without private access to detainees,” he writes.

In 2003 and 2004, the NCC was denied an opportunity to send a delegation to Guantanamo to monitor the physical, mental and spiritual condition of the detainees. The NCC renewed its request “not only for the benefit of the detainees but for the benefit of the reputation of our country.”

Vince Isner of the NCC’s Washington office told the World that the 13,000 signers is just the beginning. “We’ve appealed to online groups to help mobilize support,” he said.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan swiftly endorsed the UN report. France, Germany and other European nations joined in its call.

The UN report cited a Dec. 2, 2002 memo signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approving a long list of interrogation methods including “stress positions” and “hooding” of detainees, stripping them of all clothing while also exposing them to freezing cold or sweltering heat, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and interrogation for up to 20 hours. The memo also calls for exploiting detainees’ “phobias” such as fear of attack dogs.

Most recently, hunger strikers at Guantanamo have been strapped to chairs and had feeding tubes jammed up their nostrils, the report charges. Doctors and other medical personnel have participated in this “force-feeding” in violation of medical ethics, the report states. This “must be assessed as amounting to torture as defined in Article One of the Convention Against Torture.” The U.S. is a signatory to this law.

The report also singles out interrogation methods “specifically designed to offend the religious sensitivities of the detainees” such as trampling on the Koran.

“Extraordinary rendition,” the practice of transferring detainees to other countries where even more brutal methods of torture are used, is also condemned.

Our Indian Wars Are Not Over Yet

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 04:42:00 +0000

02-25-06,10:13am

(intro by TomEngelhardt, ) In the 1940s and 1950s, when the generation of men now ruling over us were growing up, boys could disappear into a form of war play -- barely noticed by adults and hardly recorded anywhere -- that was already perhaps a couple of hundred years old. In this kind of play, there was no need to enact the complicated present by recreating a junior version of an anxiety-ridden Cold War garrison state (though you could purchase your own H2O Missile, a water-powered toy 'ICBM' in imitation of the sort just then being prepared by adults to pulverize the planet). For children in those years, there was still a sacramental, triumphalist version of American history, a spectacle of slaughter in which they invariably fell before our guns. This spectacle could be experienced in any movie theater, and then played out in backyards and on floors with toy six guns (or sticks) or little toy bluecoats, Indians, and cowboys, or green, inch-high plastic sets of World War II soldiers. As play, for those who grew up in that time, it was sunshine itself, pure pleasure. The Western (as well as its modern successor, the war film) was on screen everywhere then.

When those children grew up (barely), some of them went off to Vietnam, dreaming of John Wayne-like feats as they entered what they came to call 'Indian country'; while others sallied off to demonstrate against the war dressed either in the cast-off World War II garb of their fathers or in the movie-inspired get-ups of the former enemy of another age -- headbands and moccasins, painted faces, love beads (those previously worthless baubles with which, everyone knew, Manhattan had so fraudulently been purchased), as well as peace (now drug) pipes. Sometimes, they even formed themselves into 'tribes.'

As it turns out, though, there was a third category of young men in those years -- those who essentially steered clear of the Vietnam experience, who, as our Vice President put it inelegantly but accurately, had 'other priorities in the '60s.' Critics have sometimes spoken of such Bush administration figures as 'chickenhawks' for their lack of war experience. But this is actually inaccurate. They were warriors of a sort -- screen warriors. They had an abundance of combat experience because, unlike their peers, they never left the confines of those movie theaters, where American war was always glorious, our military men always out on some frontier, and the Indians, or their modern equivalents, always falling by their scores before our might as the cavalry bugle sounded or the Marine Hymn welled up. By avoiding becoming either the warriors or the anti-warriors of the Vietnam era, they managed to remain quite deeply embedded in centuries of triumphalist frontier mythology. They were, in a sense, the Peter Pans of American war play.

So no one should have been surprised that, when George Bush declared his global war on terror, he also swore to get Osama bin Laden in this fashion: 'I want justice. And there's an old poster out West... I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'' Of course, that 'poster' came not from any real experience he had in the West, but directly from the thrilling cowboy films of his childhood. So did his John-Wayne-like urge to 'hunt' the terrorists down, or 'smoke ‘em out,' or (for Iraqi insurgents) 'bring ‘em on.' From that same childhood undoubtedly came the President's repeated urge to dress up in an assortment of 'commander-in-chief' military outfits, much in the style of a G.I. Joe 'action figure.' (Think: doll). It's visibly clear that our President has long found delight -- actual pleasure -- in his war-making role, as he did in his Top Gun, 'mission accomplished' landing on that aircraft carrier back in 2003.

It's not surprising either that a critic who spent real time up close and personal with top Bush administration figures, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Larry Wilkerson, would accuse the President of 'cowboyism.' Nor should it be strange that various neocon writers close to this administration and in thrall to the same spirit should lovingly quote American military men who also believe themselves out on some Western frontier. Robert Kaplan, for instance, cites one officer as saying, 'The red Indian metaphor is one with which a liberal policy nomenklatura may be uncomfortable, but Army and Marine field officers have embraced it because it captures perfectly the combat challenge of the early 21st century.'

Many things have changed in our world in recent decades. For one thing, hundreds of years of history have more or less disappeared into the entertainment/media maw. In films like Dances with Wolves, which came out at the time of the first American war in Iraq, the Indians have turned all warm and fuzzy and are now the veritable Ewoks of our planet. In the meantime children on their floors and in their video games still shoot down innumerable evil ones ready to ambush them, but so many of them are now off this planet: demons, supervillains, mutants, and aliens. They are surely the first generation in memory to pass a full childhood without fighting old-style Indian Wars on their floors or playing 'cowboys and Indians.' And yet the paradigm of the frontier and of the Indian Wars settled deep into the American soul. So again, it should not be surprising that the now officially grown up boys, who have the power to make war on the world, should still imagine themselves in their beloved movies of long ago and that the framework of the Indian Wars, however suppressed and transformed, remains in some fashion deeply with us.

Surprising, however, is how little attention this has gotten. Fortunately, John Brown, a former State Department official who resigned to protest the coming invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and who has previously written on Bush's Global War on Terror for Tomdispatch) now takes up this theme and ushers us provocatively into the secret frontier dreamland of our rulers. Tom

'Our Indian Wars Are Not Over Yet' Ten Ways to Interpret the War on Terror as a Frontier Conflict By John Brown

The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is, like all historical events, unique. But both its supporters and opponents compare it to past U.S. military conflicts. The Bush administration and the neocons have drawn parallels between GWOT and World War II as well as GWOT and the Cold War. Joshua E. London, writing in the National Review, sees the War on Terror as a modern form of the struggle against the Barbary pirates. Vietnam and the Spanish-American War have been preferred analogies for other commentators. A Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, Anne Applebaum, says that the war in Iraq might be like that in Korea, because of 'the ambivalence of their conclusions.' For others, the War on Terror, with its loose rhetoric, brings to mind the 'war on poverty' or the 'war on drugs.'

I'd like to suggest another way of looking at the War on Terror: as a twenty-first century continuation of, or replication of, the American Indian wars, on a global scale. This is by no means something that has occurred to me alone, but it has received relatively little attention. Here are ten reasons why I'm making this suggestion:

1. Key supporters of the War on Terror themselves see GWOT as an Indian war. Take, for example, the right-wing intellectuals Robert Kaplan and Max Boot who, although not members of the administration, also advocate a tough military stance against terrorists. In a Wall Street Journal article, 'Indian Country,' Kaplan notes that 'an overlooked truth about the war on terrorism' is that 'the American military is back to the days of fighting the Indians.' Iraq, he notes, 'is but a microcosm of the earth in this regard.' Kaplan has now put his thoughts into a book, Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground, which President Bush read over the holidays. Kaplan points out that ''Welcome to Injun Country' was the refrain I heard from troops from Colombia to the Philippines, including Afghanistan and Iraq.... The War on Terrorism was really about taming the frontier.'

As for Max Boot, he writes, '‘small wars' -- fought by a small number of professional U.S. soldiers -- are much more typical of American history than are the handful of ‘total' wars that receive most of the public attention. Between 1800 and 1934, U.S. Marines staged 180 landings abroad. And that's not even counting the Indian wars the army was fighting every year until 1890.' A key GWOT battlefield, Boot suggests, is Afghanistan, noting that '[i]f the past is any indication of the future, we have a lot more savage wars ahead.'

2. The essential paradigm of the War of Terror -- us (the attacked) against them (the attackers) -- was no less essential to the mindset of white settlers regarding the Indians, starting at least from the 1622 Indian massacre of 347 people at Jamestown, Virginia. With rare exceptions, newly arrived Europeans and their descendants, as well as their leaders, saw Indians as mortal enemies who started the initial fight against them, savages with whom they could not co-exist. The Declaration of Independence condemned 'the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.' When governor of Virginia (1780), Thomas Jefferson stated:

'If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us.'

President Andrew Jackson, whose 'unapologetic flexing of military might' has been compared to George W. Bush's modus operandi, noted in his 'Case for the Removal [of Indians] Act' (December 8, 1830):

'What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, . . . and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?'

Us vs. them is, of course, a feature of all wars, but the starkness of this dichotomy -- seen by GWOT supporters as a struggle between the civilized world and a global jihad -- is as strikingly apparent in the War on Terror as it was in the Indian Wars.

3. GWOT is based on the principle of preventive strike, meant to put off 'potential, future and, therefore, speculative attacks' -- just as U.S. Army conflicts against the Indians often were. We have to get them before they get us -- such is the assumption behind both sets of wars. As Professor Jack D. Forbes wrote in a 2003 piece, 'Old Indian Wars Dominate Bush Doctrines,' in the Bay Mills News:

'Bush has declared that the US will attack first before an ‘enemy' has the ability to act. This could, of course, be called ‘The Pearl Harbor strategy' since that is precisely what the Japanese Empire did. But it also has precedents against First American nations. For example, William Henry Harrison, under pressure from Thomas Jefferson to get the American Nations out of the Illinois-Indiana region, marched an invading army to the vicinity of a Native village at Tippecanoe precisely when he knew that [Shawnee war chief and pan-tribal political leader] Tecumseh was on a tour of the south and west.'

4. While U.S. mainstream thinking about GWOT enemies is that they are total aliens -- in religion, politics, economics, and social organization -- there are Americans who believe that individuals in these 'primitive' societies can eventually become assimilated and thus be rendered harmless through training, education, or democratization. This is similar to the view among American settlers that in savage Indian tribes hostile to civilization, there were some that could be evangelized and Christianized and brought over to the morally right, Godly side. Once 'Americanized,' former hostile groups, with the worst among them exterminated, can no longer pose any threat and indeed can assist in the prolongation of conflicts against remaining evil-doers.

5. GWOT is fought abroad, but it's also a war at home, as the creation after 9/11 of a Department of Homeland Security illustrates. The Indian wars were domestic as well, carried out by the U.S. military to protect American settlers against hostile non-U.S. citizens living on American soil. (It was not until June 2, 1924 that Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.) While engaged in the Indian wars, the U.S. fought on its own, without the help of foreign governments; such has essentially been the case with GWOT, despite the support of a few countries like Israel, the creation of a weak international 'coalition' in Iraq, and NATO participation in Afghanistan operations.

6. America's close partner Israel, which over the years has taken over Arab-populated lands and welcomes U.S. immigrants, can be considered as a kind of surrogate United States in this struggle. Expanding into the Middle East, the Israelis could be seen as following the example of the American pioneers who didn't let Indians stand in their way as they settled, with the support of the U.S. military, an entire continent, driven by the conviction that they were supported by God, the Bible, and Western civilization. 'I shall need,' wrote Thomas Jefferson, 'the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life.' Less eloquently, Ariel Sharon put it this way: 'Everything that's grabbed will be in our hands. Everything we don't grab will be in their hands.'

7. As for the current states that are major battlefields of GWOT, Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears that the model for their future, far from being functional democracies, is that of Indian reservations. It is not unlikely that the fragile political structures of these states will sooner or later collapse, and the resulting tribal/ethnic entities will be controlled -- assuming the U.S. proves willing to engage in the long-term garrisoning in each area -- by American forces in fortified bases, as was the case with the Indian territories in the Far West. Areas under American control will provide U.S. occupiers with natural resources (e.g., oil), and American business -- if the security situation becomes manageable -- will doubtless be lured there in search of economic opportunities. Interestingly, the area outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad (where Americans have fortified themselves) is now referred to as the Red Zone -- terrorist-infested territory as dangerous to non-natives as the lands inhabited by the Redskins were to whites during the Indian wars.

8. The methods employed by the U.S. in GWOT and the Indian wars are similar in many respects: using superior technology to overwhelm the 'primitive' enemy; adapting insurgency tactics, even the most brutal ones, used by the opposing side when necessary; and collaborating with 'the enemy of my enemy' in certain situations (that is, setting one tribe against another). What are considered normal rules of war have frequently been irrelevant for Americans in both conflicts, given their certainty that their enemies are evil and uncivilized. The use of torture is also a feature of these two conflicts.

9. As GWOT increasingly appears to be, the Indian wars were a very long conflict, stretching from the seventeenth century to the end of the nineteenth -- the longest war in American history, starting even before the U.S. existed as a nation. There were numerous battles of varying intensity in this conflagration with no central point of confrontation -- as is the case with the War on Terror, despite its current emphasis on Iraq. And GWOT is a war being fought, like the Indian wars in the Far West, over large geographical areas -- as the Heritage Foundation's Ariel Cohen puts it, almost lyrically, 'in the Greater Middle East, including the Mediterranean basin, through the Fertile Crescent, and into the remote valleys and gorges of the Caucasus and Pakistan, the deserts of Central Asia, the plateaus of Afghanistan.'

10. Perhaps because they are drawn-out wars with many fronts and changing commanders, the goals of GWOT and the Indian Wars can be subject to many interpretations (indeed, even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld at one point was eager to rename the War on Terror a 'Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism'). For many abroad, GWOT is a brutal expression of a mad, cowboy-led country's plans to take over the world and its resources. In the United States, a large number of Americans still interpret these two wars as God-favored initiatives to protect His chosen people and allow them to flourish. But just as attitudes in the U.S. toward Native Americans have changed in recent years (consider, for example, the saccharine 1990 film Dances with Wolves, which is sympathetic to an Indian tribe, in contrast to John Wayne shoot-the-Injuns movies), so suspicious views among the American public toward the still-seen-as-dangerous 'them' of GWOT might evolve in a different direction. Such a change in perception, however, is unlikely to occur in the near future, especially under the current bellicose Bush regime, which manipulates voters' fear of terrorists to maintain its declining domestic support.

John Brown, a former Foreign Service officer who resigned from the State Department over the war in Iraq, compiles a near-daily 'Public Diplomacy Press Review,' available free upon request. The title for this paper comes from a 1692 quotation by Puritan preacher and witch-hunter Cotton Mather.John Brown, USC Center for Public Diplomacy

Copyright 2006 John H. Brown

Human Rights First Releases First Comprehensive Report on Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 04:04:00 +0000

02-25-06,9:39am

A look at some of the numbers in “Command’s Responsibility:”

98 detainee deaths in U.S. custody.

45 suspected or confirmed homicides. Thirty-four deaths were homicides under the U.S. military’s definition; Human Rights First found 11 additional cases where the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention.

In 48 cases – close to half of all the cases – the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced.

Certainly 8, as many as 12, people were tortured to death.

Only 12 deaths have resulted in any kind of punishment.

The highest punishment for a torture-related death: 5 months confinement.

NEW YORK – FEB. 22 – Human Rights First’s new report, “Command's Responsibility: Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan,” provides the first comprehensive accounting of the U.S. government’s handling of the nearly 100 cases of detainees who have died in U.S. custody since 2002.

“Looking closely at these cases, we found time and again badly flawed investigations, and a lack of command responsibility for what’s gone wrong – especially in cases where victims were tortured to death. The result across the board has been to create a culture of impunity, where no one, especially not command, is held fully accountable for detainee deaths,” said Deborah Pearlstein, Director of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First. “If the United States is serious about preventing torture going forward, there must be accountability up and down the chain of command.”

Failure of Accountability

Despite the high number of homicides and unexplained deaths, only 12 detainee deaths to date have resulted in any kind of punishment for any U.S. official, military or civilian. The report finds that often the more serious the case – particularly those involving people tortured to death – the less severe the punishment; the highest sentence in a torture-related death is five months in prison. “Our report finds that there is a gap between policies leadership says it respects on paper, and behavior it actually tolerates in practice. That’s not a way to stop torture from occurring, and it’s not a winning strategy in the fight against terror,” said Pearlstein.

According to the report, too often “[c]ommanders have failed both to provide troops clear guidance, and to take crimes seriously by insisting on vigorous investigations. And command responsibility itself – the law that requires commanders to be held liable for the unlawful acts of their subordinates about which they knew or should have known – has been all but forgotten.”

Among the key findings of the report:

Commanders have failed to report deaths of detainees in the custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a period of days and sometimes weeks, or actively interfered in efforts to pursue investigations;

Investigators have failed to interview key witnesses, collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be used for any subsequent prosecution;

Record keeping has been inadequate, further undermining chances for effective investigation or appropriate prosecution;

Overlapping criminal and administrative investigations have compromised chances for accountability;

Overly broad classification of information and other investigation restrictions have left CIA and Special Forces essentially immune from accountability;

Agencies have failed to disclose critical information, including the cause or circumstance of death, in close to half the cases examined;

Effective punishment has often been too little and too late. Zero-Tolerance Policy for Command

The report urges the U.S. government to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for commanders who fail to take the issue of deaths in custody seriously. Specifically, Human Rights First recommends:

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, should move immediately to fully implement the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. Congress and signed into law on December 30, 2005;

The U.S. military should make good on the obligation of command responsibility by developing, in consultation with congressional, military justice, human rights, and other advisors, a public plan for holding all those who engage in wrongdoing accountable;

The President, the U.S. military, and relevant intelligence agencies should take immediate steps to make clear that all acts of torture and abuse are taken seriously – not from the moment a crime becomes public, but from the moment the United States sends troops and agents into the field;

Congress should at long last establish an independent, bipartisan commission to review the scope of U.S. detention and interrogation operations worldwide in the “war on terror.” The Cases

To illustrate both the failures in investigation and in accountability, “Command’s Responsibility” describes more than 20 cases in detail. Among the cases is that of Manadel al-Jamadi, whose death became public during the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal when photographs depicting prison guards giving the thumbs-up over his body were released; to date, no U.S. military or intelligence official has been punished criminally in connection with Jamadi’s death.

The cases also include that of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former Iraqi general beaten by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death. In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush’s death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church.

And they include cases like that of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, in which investigative failures have made accountability impossible. Hatab was killed while in U.S. custody at a camp close to Nasiriyah. Although a U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to secure accountability for his death – Hatab’s body – was rendered unusable in court. Hatab’s internal organs were left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours and the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that would have supported the Army medical examiner’s findings of strangulation was never found.

“Death is a given in wartime,” Pearlstein said. “But this isn’t about death in the heat of battle; this is about how we treat those already at the mercy of U.S. forces. It’s about who is responsible for the policy and practice of the United States.”

The report concludes: “As long as the accountability gap exists, there will be little incentive for military command to correct bad behavior, or for civilian leadership to adopt policies that follow the law. As long as that gap exists, the problem of torture and abuse will remain.”

The report is available at:

Movie Review: Good Night, And Good Luck

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:54:00 +0000

2-25-06, 9:34 am

Directed by George Clooney

GIVEN the current political climate of government-sponsored terrorism in support of the US war on the world, it's timely to tell of a time when communist witch-hunts were promoted as the paranoia of the day.

Although only his second feature film at the helm, George Clooney has proved that he's prepared to set up a soapbox to denounce policies that he considers inimical to the state of democracy in the US today.

His subject? McCarthyism. The philosophy of fear and terrorism in the 1950s that is now being so assiduously exhumed by George W Bush's supporters, not least the toadies bumming up to Blair.

For those who don't know, Senator Joe McCarthy followed in the wake of the nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels and promoted the notion of the 'big lie' on the basis that, if repeated often enough, it would ring true.

Filmed in different shades of black and white, Good Night and Good Luck relates the story of Ed Murrow, the man who is credited with initiating the fightback against the perversions of McCarthy.

The 'junior senator' - as Murrow addressed him - used his position on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to smear anybody who disagreed with US policy as a communist.

Never mind that they might not have had anything to do with communism, during the cold war, they would be branded as traitors, much like Bush is doing with those who oppose the Patriot Act.

Obviously, Murrow wasn't the first to fight the battle for democracy. He was simply the first in the mass media who thought it necessary to use his exalted position to speak out against enemies of the first amendment.

Naturally, there were many communists who had spoken out and suffered, not least New York city councillor Ben Davis who, along with 10 other communist leaders, was jailed for five years under the notorious Smith Act.

They were accused of 'advocating Marxism-Leninism' and were condemned for fomenting a violent insurrection when not even a shred of proof could be produced against them.

It mattered not. Having defined communism as a contemporary evil, guilt by association was used as a means to attack anybody that some opportunist identified as an enemy of the people. It was the same formula designed by Hitler and is again being conjured up in Europe today with the Council of Europe trying to criminalise communism as a prelude to outlawing socialism as an alternative to capitalism.

It opens as it continues - as a film of talking heads in a claustrophobic haze of cigarette smoke accompanied by jazz music, as the men in the newsroom begin to exhibit the paranoia engendered by McCarthy's hectoring campaign.

McCarthy is never presented in personal terms, the film using news clips of the man as he employed his inquisitorial techniques to bully witnesses to either damn themselves or damn others if they wished to avoid prosecution.

Everything is portrayed in a microcosm - the reign of fear in the rest of the country only being hinted at - and thus might not be readily understandable by those not in the know.

In fact, apart from not including any communists - they had to ensure that the editorial team had no leftist connections - the only example of the more cruel consequences of the purge is the suicide of a colleague.

Nevertheless, given the dearth of films on the matter - the best include The Front and Fellow Traveller - it would be mealy-mouthed of me to put it down for concentrating on Murrow's narrow brief.

Suffice to say, David Straithairn puts in an incredible performance as the man himself, more than ably supported by Clooney as his editor Fred Friendly and Frank Langella as the boss of CBS.

During these early days of television, everything was makeshift. They were only able to do live presentation by having Friendly under the desk poking Murrow's knees with a pen to give him his cue.

It emphasises the sort of Machiavellian intrigue necessary to defeat the underhanded machinations of the management, driven, as always, by the exigencies of their corporate sponsors.

Murrow and Friendly even offered to stump up the money when a sponsor withdrew - a factor underscored by collaging in adverts for cigarettes that promoted them as health-enhancing.

Importantly, Murrow points out that the role of a journalist cannot be even-handed - 'there's no such thing as impartiality' - especially if the media is controlled by commercial or political interests.

This is the rub that's upset the right-wing pundits, horrified at the idea of independent, investigative journalists being prepared to challenge corporate control of the media.

Even worse, there are those who consider themselves liberals pandering to the notion of some mythical editorial disinterestedness, describing political partisanship as inimical to a free press.

Campaigning against such nonsense is as relevant today as it was during McCarthyism, since the news is increasingly being filtered through embedded journalists before it becomes subject to the censors.

From Morning Star

2006 World Conference against A & H Bombs

Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:50:00 +0000

2-25-06, 9:28 am

For a Peaceful and Just Future Free of Nuclear Weapons and Wars: Call for Participation in and Support for the 2006 World Conference against A & H Bombs

In the earnest effort to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons and open a future that is full of hope, the task of abolishing nuclear weapons is called for more urgently than ever. Firmly committed to developing the cooperation of people around the world as well as in Japan for this shared goal, we will hold the 2006 World Conference against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs from August 2-9 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In order to make a success of this World Conference, we call on peace-loving people around the world to take part in and/or send their representatives to the 2006 World Conference.

With more than 20,000 nuclear warheads stockpiled or deployed on our planet, international peace and security continues to be at risk. The United States, the most powerful nuclear weapons state, is attempting to place the world under its control by using its military strength under the pretext of the danger of terrorism or nuclear proliferation, even though President Bush himself is unable to deny that the United States lied about the reasons for launching the war on Iraq and that the war has had disastrous consequences. What's more, the United States is promoting a war policy combining nuclear and conventional weapons and even preparing to put its nuclear war plan into practice. In 2005, the 60th year since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at the NPT Review Conference in May and at the U.N. Summit in September, the United States flagrantly reneged on the unanimous 'unequivocal undertaking' to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The international community will not condone these outrages. In December 2005, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for the implementation of the promise to abolish nuclear weapons by an overwhelming majority vote, 153 in favor and 5 against. In Germany and Belgium, which are NATO members, the movement calling for the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear warheads from Europe is growing among the public and local governments. The new signature campaign launched by the Japanese peace movement 'For the Swift Abolition of Nuclear Weapons' has started with strong support expressed from around the world.

The number of countries that keep troops in Iraq has decreased by half, and the majority of the U.S. public now opposes the war. In Japan, public criticism of the dangerous moves toward dragging Japan into U.S. preemptive wars is increasing. The movement to defend Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is gaining momentum, so are residents' and local governments' protests against the plan to realign and strengthen the functions of U.S. military bases in Japan at the cost of public safety and peaceful living conditions.

The World Conference against A & H Bombs together with the Hibakusha has contributed to heightening popular awareness of the task of abolishing nuclear weapons. It now has an even greater role to play. Our movement has made major achievements during the last half century, including the more than 60 million signatures collected from Japanese citizens in support of the 'Appeal from Hiroshima and Nagasaki' and the successful activities marking the 60th anniversary of the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let us build on these achievements to make further progress toward increasing public support and actions throughout the world, so we can block all dangerous attempts to use nuclear weapons and mark a sure step forward to a world without nuclear weapons. The 2006 World Conference against A & H Bombs will be a place where people from around the world, representatives of national/local governments, NGOs and organizations or individuals, will meet and discuss together, and further increase their cooperative efforts. It will be a conference to cement solidarity with the anti-war and peace movements across the world, movements in defense of a just world against the outrage of big powers, the Hibakusha and global nuclear victims, and with young people who are striving to create a future full of hope.

Let us make a great success of the 2006 World Conference against A & H Bombs by promoting internationally and in Japan the new international signature campaign and various other activities leading to the abolition of nuclear weapons and peace.

Provisional Schedule of the 2006 World Conference against A & H Bombs:

August 1: Information meeting for overseas delegates (evening) August 2-4: International Meeting (Hiroshima) August 4-6: World Conference against A & H Bombs - Hiroshima (Plenary sessions and Workshops) August 8: International Forum/ Workshops (Nagasaki) August 9: World Conference against A & H Bombs - Nagasaki

To find out more about the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons:

Gensuikyo Japan Abolition2000 USA

From Akahata

Immigrant Rights Action Packet: CPUSA Political Action Commission

Sat, 25 Feb 2006 04:37:00 +0000

02-24-06,10:12am

Below are important sample materials that can help move the struggle for immigrant rights forward. The Senate debate is expected in February. Many grass roots organizations are beginning to move. As mentioned in earlier memos we urge the Districts, clubs, activists to raise the issues with their Senators and especially any that are members of the Judiciary Committee. The materials can be adapted to your local situation by coalitions or grass roots groups and/or used by clubs as they are. (PDF versions of flyer and petition are attached.)

1. ENGLISH & SPANISH VERSIONS OF FLYER AND PETITION:

Defeat Anti-Immigrant HR 4437: A Statement by the Communist Party, USA

Last December, the House of Representatives passed anti-immigrant HR 4437, introduced by GOP Rep. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.).

• It would make all undocumented workers felons, as well as those who help or work with them including teachers, clergy, union leaders, social workers and family members. • Employers would have to check the Social Security numbers of all their employees. • An environmentally destructive wall would be built along the Mexican border. • Local and state police would be deputized to arrest anyone they think may be without documents. This would vastly increase racial profiling and scare immigrants away from reporting crimes. This is no solution! It is another way of diminishing the democratic rights of the people in our country. HR 4437 must be defeated in the Senate. Just and workable immigration reform should be passed instead.

What are the reasons for immigration? Increased immigration is the result of the declining living standards and job displacement caused by NAFTA and other pro-big-business policies pushed by our government. To provide a better future for their families, immigrants are pushed and pulled to come here, at great cost and risk, to live without papers and suffer great indignities. This puts immigrant workers in a vulnerable position and forces them into substandard wages and working conditions. Employers and others use the immigrants’ vulnerability as a lever to lower living standards and quality of life for all.

Don’t buy the big lie. Immigrants are accused of causing every social problem, and especially of taking jobs and services they are not entitled to. This is not true.

Working people as a whole, including immigrants, pay a larger share of the tax burden than the rich and receive fewer benefits. The profits made from the work of immigrants and all workers are being taxed less and less and sometimes not at all.

Immigrants don’t fire or hire people. They do not outsource jobs, downsize workplaces, raise prices or premiums. They are victims of big business too. For more jobs and services, we need to tax exploitative profits!

We need positive immigration reform. History shows that as long as extremes of inequality exist between countries, labor migration will continue. The pro-corporate policies of our government that impoverish other nations must be changed. Immigration law should protect the interests of both immigrant and non-immigrant workers.

Organized labor and community and religious groups urge the following constructive program for immigration reform:

• Legalization with a clear path to citizenship must be allowed for existing undocumented immigrants, and future immigrants, with a priority on family reunification. • Immigrants must be able to participate in labor, religious, civic and cultural activities without fear of deportation. • “Guest worker” programs have historically been prone to exploitation. Separate has never been equal. Instead, implement improved labor protections and stronger enforcement for immigrants and citizen workers.

Repressive policies like those proposed in HR 4437 must be rejected. They are unjust and counterproductive, and make immigrant workers more vulnerable to exploitation and other injustices.

Immigration policy is scheduled for debate in the Senate in February. Contact and urge your senators today to reject HR 4437 and all repressive anti-immigrant measures, and to vote for legalization of immigrants with a clear path to citizenship and full labor and civil rights for all people. Call the congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121. (to read full CPUSA Political Action Commission presentation please click link Immigrant Rights Action Packet)

Petition:

US Senators and Members of the House of Representatives of (insert State here)

We call on you to reject the anti-immigrant repressive measures in HR 4437 and other bills that criminalize immigrants and the citizens who help and work with them. We urge support for a comprehensive solution that continues our democratic traditions of welcoming immigrants that provides a path to citizenship, protects workers’ rights, reunites families, is applied with due process, and promotes civic education and participation with support to local communities.

(insert lines for signatures here)