People Before Profit blog

Iran’s Presidential Elections: The Hard-Liners in a Panic

Sun, 31 May 2009 02:39:00 +0000

5-30-09, 10:25 am

Original source: Tehran Bureau

[TEHRAN BUREAU] Only two weeks remain to Iran’s 10th presidential election and the campaigns of the four candidates are in high gear. To kick things off, we’ll turn to who’s supporting who.

Mir Hossein Mousavi

As described in Parts III and IV, with few exceptions, Mr. Mousavi has secured the support of just about all the major reformist/democratic groups in Iran. But, as a further sign of the strength of his candidacy, the Society of Teachers and Researchers of Qom’s Seminaries (STRQS), known in Iran as the Majma’ Modarresin va Mohagheghin-e Hozeh Elmiyeh Qom, which consists of left-leaning clerics who teach in Qom’s seminaries, declared its support for Mr. Mousavi. Note that STRQS did not support any candidate in the 2004 election.

In addition, 2500 university professors have also endorsed Mr. Mousavi. At the same time, some major figures in the conservative/principlist camp, led by Mr. Emad Afrough, the Tehran deputy to the 7th Majles (the parliament), announced the formation of a committee in support of Mr. Mousavi. The reformist minority caucus in the Majles, which refers to itself as the Imam’s Line Faction, also threw its support behind Mr. Mousavi.

Sedaa-ye Edaalat (Voice of Justice), a reformist newspaper, also announced its support for Mr. Mousavi, as did Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Islamic Republic), a principlist daily (originally founded by Ayatollah Khamenei).

In a subtle but unmistakable sign that, if elected, he would work with Mr. Mousavi, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei paid a visit to Mr. Mousavi’s ailing father on May 16.

Another sign of Mr. Mousavi’s increasing strength were two huge rallies, one held in Tehran and another in Tabriz in the Azerbaijan province. May 23 was the 12th anniversary of the election of Mr. Mohammad Khatami to the presidency in 1997, which the reformists celebrate as the birthday of the reform movement in Iran. A huge rally marked this event in Tehran. Thousands of youth flocked to this event donning a piece of green cloth, which is the color of Mr. Mousavi’s campaign logo. While Mr. Mousavi was not present at the rally, campaigning in another city, his wife Dr. Zahra Rahnavard, Mr. Khatami, and many other notable figures participated in the rally and harshly criticized Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr. Khatami declared that, “A magnificent country like Iran cannot be run only by the judiciary and security and military officials,” a reference to the quasi-military government of Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose brutal crackdown of critics is supported by the judiciary. Another speaker, the movie director Kambouzia Partovi, declared, “Over the past four years a [political] dwarf [Mr. Ahmadinejad] has humiliated us.”

The Ahmadinejad camp retaliated by accusing Mr. Mousavi’s supporters of acting like supporters of Adolf Hitler (who used to wear brown outfits), propagating lies, and creating divisions among the people. Mr. Ahmadinejad himself went so far as saying that it was illegal for his competitors to criticize his government!

About 50,000 people gathered for Mr. Mousavi’s rally in Tabriz, which is the provincial capital of East Azerbaijan, home to Iran’s Turkish population. Mr. Mousavi, a Turk himself, spoke in part in Azeri, the language of the Turkish population there, which provoked huge roars of approval.

A major strength in Mr. Mousavi’s campaign has been his wife, an artist and university professor, who has tirelessly campaigned for him. She has been present at all the major rallies, delivering tough speeches criticizing the government, and promising a much more open government if her husband is elected. This has generated considerable support for Mr. Mousavi among the women.

Mahdi Karroubi

The Office for Consolidation of Unity (OCU), an umbrella group representing the vast majority of university student organizations, announced its support for Mr. Karroubi. It issued a long statement in which it analyzed Iran’s present political situation, and referred to Mr. Karroubi as belonging to the “moderate wing of the political establishment,” not as “a leader for fundamental changes.” It stated that its representatives met with those of Mr. Karroubi and presented them with a list of questions and demands. After it received satisfactory responses to its demands, the OCU declared, it decided to support Mr. Karroubi, since Mr. Mousavi’s campaign was unresponsive to their request for a meeting. The OCU also criticized those who have called for the boycott of the election on the ground that they are not democratic.

In addition, Mr. Karroubi has attracted the attention of many Iranians in the Diaspora, because he has spoken courageously and with much clarity about the problems that Iran is facing. He has attacked the military/security establishment, accusing them of interfering in the electoral process. He has also spoken clearly about the need for respecting human rights, particularly women’s rights, and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.

In a bid for attracting more support, Mr. Karroubi announced that, if elected, he will appoint Mr. Gholamhossein Karbaschi, his campaign manager and former popular mayor of Tehran, and who is a member of the Executives of Reconstruction Party (a reformist group; see Part II), as his First Vice President. (There are eight vice presidents in Iran.) The ERP is, however, supporting Mr. Mousavi.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani, one of the most influential conservative clerics, and Secretary General of the Association of Militant Clergy (of Tehran Province), the most important conservative clerical group, announced his support for Mr. Ahmadinejad. This was much less than what Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters had hoped for (they wanted the support of the AMC itself). As described in Part IV, the central committee of the AMC could not agree on supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad. There were widespread rumors that heated discussions took place among the members of the central committee of the AMC. According to these rumors, most senior members of the AMC were opposed to supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The principlist faction in the Majles could not agree on supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad either. Only about 57 of the deputies supported Mr. Ahmadinejad. Most tellingly, the Speaker, Dr. Ali Larijani, and at least 50 other principlist deputies refused to support Mr. Ahmadinejad. Supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to retaliate by preventing Dr. Larijani from getting elected as the Speaker for the 3rd year, but did not succeed.

Mohsen Rezaee

As discussed in Parts III and IV, Mr. Rezaee does not have an independent social base of support. Thus, no major group has supported him. However, a surprise announcement was made by Dr. Larijani, the Majles Speaker, in which he declared his support for Mr. Rezaee. More than anything else, the announcement (which some websites close to Mr. Ahmadinejad denied) indicates the deep fissures within the ranks of the conservatives.

Scandal and Rift in the Military

A major scandal broke out regarding the support of the high command of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) for Mr. Ahmadinejad. Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, commander of IRGC ground forces, wrote a letter to Mr. Ali Saeedi (a mid-ranking cleric), the political representative of the Supreme Leader to the IRGC high command (whose job is to convey the Leader’s views to the armed forces), saying,

As I told you in our [recent] meeting, the issue of the presidential election has created fissures among the commanders of the ground forces of the Sepaah [the IRG]. Please advice us on how to address the problem,

hence indirectly soliciting the Supreme Leader’s view on the election. In response, Mr. Saeedi wrote, Dear brother General Pakpour, commander of the ground forces of the Sepaah, the explicit view of the Supreme Leader is the re-election of Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is mandatory for the commanders of the Sepaah to follow the Leader’s view and also convey it to their personnel. The exchange was published in Yaa Lesaaraat-e Hossein, the mouthpiece of Iran’s Hezbollah (which has not supported Mr. Ahmadinejad), and was apparently distributed widely within the IRGC and the Basij militia. The exchange created a huge uproar. It forced the public relations department of the IRGC to issue a denial, which no one believed since Yaa Lesaaraat had printed copies of the original letters. The exchange also took place right on the heels of an interview in which Mr. Saeedi, who is also a member of the AMC, said: I am asked whether we should obey the explicit orders of the Supreme Leader [that he has only one vote to cast, and the rest is up to the people], or consider and interpret what he has said implicitly [that people should vote for someone who would stand up to the West, i.e., Mr. Ahmadinejad]. I say that we should follow the direction that the Leader has identified for us, which is as clear as the sun, although some people do not see it, hence implying that Ayatollah Khamenei supports Mr. Ahmadinejad. The uproar over Mr. Saeedi’s position was so strong that the websites and newspapers close to Mr. Ahmadinejad accused the reformists of being behind such a plot to discredit him.

Nationally-Broadcast Speeches

Under huge public pressure and after scathing criticism from the reformist camp, the National Iranian Radio and Television (NIRTV) network allocated airtime to all the candidates on its major channels. The candidates used this platform to speak directly to the nation in a live broadcast.

Mr. Mousavi’s speech was particularly impressive. In addition to harshly criticizing Mr. Ahmadinejad for his domestic and international misdeeds and the woeful state of the economy, Mr. Mousavi spoke like a true nationalist, bolstering his patriotic credentials and reinforcing what the late Mahdi Bazargan, the first Prime Minister after the 1979 Revolution and himself a major nationalist figure who had also served in the government of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, had once said about Mr. Mousavi, “He [Mr. Mousavi] is a devout Mosaddeghist,” an ultimate compliment to a former revolutionary. The main criticism about Mr. Mousavi’s nationally-broadcast speech was that he put too much emphasis on the significance of the first few years of the 1979 Revolution. But, then again, those were Mr. Mousavi’s formative years as a national politician.

Likewise, Mr. Karroubi strongly criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad, declaring that, “no one — professors, students, workers, teachers, anybody — has been secure over the last four years.” He criticized the claim by some of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters that they are in contact with Mahdi, the Shiites’ 12th Imam who is supposedly hidden and will come back one day. Mr. Karroubi spoke in defense of the rights of citizens and minorities, and other aspects of civil society. He declared his willingness for improving relations with the United States.

Mr. Rezaee played up his military experience and declared that, “If the government falls into our [able] hands, Israel and the U.S. will not dare to attack Iran, because Israel knows that I can destroy it with a single counterattack.” He also declared that Mr. Ahmadinejad had taken Iran to the edge of a terrifying abyss.

Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to counter the attacks and criticism by presenting a softer image of himself, talking about all the progress that Iran has made during his presidency (which is disputed by most experts), particularly in the area of uranium enrichment and the confrontation with the West over the issue.

Several Iranian websites reported that support for Mr. Mousavi has sharply increased after his nationally-broadcast speech. It remains to be seen whether this translates into a larger turn-out on voting day, the key to the outcome of the election.

NIRTV has scheduled six one-on-debates between the candidates, starting June 3.

The Revolutionary Guards are Worried

Despite the obvious fissures, even among the IRGC commanders (see the above), the ideological propaganda division of the IRGC has tried to present a united front against the reformists, and has harshly criticized their two candidates. This has led to rumors and speculation about what the IRGC might do if a reformist is elected president.

In its May 25 issue, News and Analyses, an internal daily bulletin published by the ideological department of the IRGC and distributed among its commanders, strongly criticized Mr. Karroubi and accused him of presenting a bleak picture of Iran, and threatened to take him to court over his criticism of the Government during his nationally-broadcast TV speech.

In its latest issue, published on May 25, the weekly Sobh-e Saadegh (True Dawn), published by the political department of the IRGC and distributed among the armed forces and the Basij Militia, accused Mr. Mousavi and his supporters of “violating the Supreme Leader’s order not to harshly criticize the Government,” and, “presenting a bleak image of Iran, similar to that in the last years of the imperial rules [in the 1970s].” It then described some of Iran’s progress under Mr. Ahmadinejad and concluded that, “These claims [the reformists’] are baseless.”

In particular, in a strongly-worded article, Mr. Yadollah Javani, a hard-liner who writes regularly for Sobh-e Saadegh, criticized Mr. Mousavi, and claimed that Mr. Khatami has major differences with him, only two days after the huge rally in Tehran in which Mr. Khatami declared his full support for Mr. Mousavi. The website Basirat, which is run by the political department of the IRGC, called Mr. Mousavi “A man from the past that has been thrown into the present times.”

Uranium Enrichment as a Campaign Issue

Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters consider Iran’s uranium enrichment program their own major achievement. Never mind that the program had actually started much earlier, in the late 1980s. But, boasting about the program is not the only thing that Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters do. They also attack the administrations of Messrs Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani for incompetence on the issue and making too many concessions to the West, hence attempting to discredit the reformists.

Last week, in the latest round of accusations and counter-accusations and in a campaign speech in Semnan, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared that the Sa’dabad Agreement was “one-sided and was imposed on Iran by the Western powers.” He came very close to declaring its signing by the Khatami administration treason. Recall that the Sa’dabad Agreement (named after Iran’s presidential palace in Tehran) was signed by Iran, Britain, France, and Germany in October 2003, according to which Iran suspended voluntarily its uranium enrichment program, and began carrying out the provision of the Additional Protocol of its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, even though the signing of the Additional Protocol had not yet been ratified by the Majles (it still has not been ratified). Mr. Hassan Abbasi, a leading supporter of Mr. Ahmadinejad and who is considered an ideologue of the conservatives, also accused the Khatami administration of “promising a ten-year suspension of the enrichment program.”

In response, the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS) of the Expediency Council (a constitutional body headed by Mr. Rafsanjani that arbitrates the differences between the Majles and the Guardian Council), headed by Dr. Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator during the administration of Mr. Khatami, declared that, “ We warn the government for the last time that if it does not stop such propaganda, and use this important issue that the nation is facing as a tool for its goals, we will have to publish a lot of documents that would demonstrate the heavy price that the nation has paid for the incompetence of the government.”

The CSS also declared that, “Everyone knows that the European countries wanted to pressure Iran into a long-term suspension of its uranium enrichment program, but Dr. Hassan Rouhani, the then Secretary General of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, did not accept it. Indeed, the statement issued after the signing stated explicitly that the suspension was for a limited time and on a voluntary basis.” It then called the claims by Messrs Ahmadinejad and Abbasi “a sheer big lie.”

Given that Dr. Rouhani is a conservative who does not belong to the reformist camp, such accusations and counter-accusation only show the deep fissures in the ranks of the conservatives.

Cold Hard Cash

Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters have been trying to literally buy votes. The government has been distributing cash and gold coins among various social groups, including teachers, nurses, university students, retirees, social workers, and peasants. But, last week, the government took the buying spree a notch higher. Etemaad (Trust), a leading reformist daily, reported that the government has sent letters to the Majles deputies, giving them checks for 20 million toumans (about $2000) and telling them that they can spend it any way they deem necessary in their districts. The government has also promised to compensate businesses that have suffered as a result of the worldwide recession. It is rumored that the government has spent up to $5 billion so far in this vain.

This has provoked widespread condemnation and protest, even among the conservatives. Dr. Rouhani demanded that the judiciary investigate “such unlawful payments.” The Hezbollah issued a strong statement accusing the government of breeding a “culture of money worshiping.” The National Inspection Organization, an arm of the judiciary that investigates corruption, has threatened to investigate the issue.

Will such tactics and generosity be effective? No one knows. But, as Mr. Akbar Ne’mat Zadeh, a former deputy oil minister and an aid to Mr. Mousavi said, “The people are shrewd. They take the money, but will not vote for him [Mr. Ahmadinejad].” After all, it is clear that the Government has suddenly become so generous — so close to the election!

With only two weeks left, election fever has spread throughout the country. All indications, ranging from the scathing criticism of the reformists by the Revolutionary Guards, to fissures among the conservatives, and distribution of cash among people, are indicators that the conservatives are terrified by prospects of a reformist victory.

The key remains the turn-out. Copyright © 2009 Tehran Bureau

Venezuela and Brazil Increase Cooperation

Sun, 31 May 2009 02:36:00 +0000

5-30-09, 10:22 am

Original source:

Mérida, May 28th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – On Tuesday the governments of Brazil and Venezuela advanced on a series of joint projects including infrastructure, hydrocarbon and hydroelectric energy production, chemical fertilizer production, literacy training, public finance, and a joint oil refinery. They also discussed Venezuela's nationalization of several Argentine-owned steel companies, and set timeline for Venezuela's entry into the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR).

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez met in the Brazilian city of Salvador da Bahia, and reiterated their commitment to mutually beneficial integration.

'We have advanced in an extraordinary manner in our relations with Venezuela,' said Lula. Chávez spoke of the significance of these relations in the midst of the world economic crisis. 'This crisis is slamming the world, and this crisis should impel us and obligate us... there is nothing more we can do except pick up the pace, more united each day.'

Venezuela's National Electric Corporation CORPOELEC signed an accord with the Brazilian construction firm Queiroz Galvao to build the second dam in a large hydroelectric complex in southwestern Venezuela. Also, Venezuela will contract the Brazilian engineering firm Odrebrecht to expand the metro system in Caracas.

To strengthen Venezuela's agricultural sector, which greatly declined in the second half of the twentieth century as oil production grew to dominate the economy, Venezuela's state petrochemical company PEQUIVEN and Brazil's Brasquem laid out plans to build factories for the production of ammonia and urea-based fertilizers in Venezuela. The two governments also signed agreements to help promote the production of citrus fruits, yucca, and coffee on family farms in Venezuela.

The science and technology ministries of Brazil and Venezuela discussed the connection of fiber optic lines between the two countries, and developed plans to introduce Brazilian digital television technology in Venezuela and as a tool for Latin American integration. The two governments also discussed the possible creation of a bi-national zone for the development of medium industry along their common border in southeastern Venezuela.

To improve literacy in Brazil, Venezuelan educators will travel to Brazil's Bahia state to supervise literacy educational programs based on the model of Venezuela's national literacy program, Mission Robinson, which taught approximately 3.5 million people to read between 2003 and 2007, earning special recognition from the United Nations. Venezuelans are expected to help train half of Bahia's two million illiterate citizens to read, said Adeum Sauer, the education secretary of Bahia, on Tuesday.

Brazil's large public banks, Caixa Economica Federal and Social Development Bank (BNDES), signed accords with the Venezuelan Finance Ministry to finance a series of bi-national projects, including the restoration of Venezuelan slums and the construction of public housing. BNDES President Luciano Coutinho said his institution will provide $4.3 billion to bi-national projects.

Abreu e Lima Refinery

During Tuesday's meeting, Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA and Brazil's Petrobras agreed spend 90 more days negotiating PDVSA's participation in the construction of the Abreu e Lima oil refinery in Northern Brazil. Chávez and Lula had ceremoniously initiated joint construction of the project last year, but PDVSA and Petrobras were unable to agree on whether PDVSA would supply oil to the refinery at subsidized prices, among other matters, so Petrobras moved ahead on the project alone.

President Chávez said he had hoped to come to an agreement on the refinery during Tuesday's meeting. 'I confess that I am frustrated. It is shameful. We were not able to close the deal,' he said.

MERCOSUR and Nationalizations

On Tuesday, Lula publicly reiterated his administration's support for Venezuela to become a full member of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), a free trade bloc that includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Also, Lula and Chávez worked out a timeline for Venezuela's integration into the bloc. Venezuela's membership must still be approved by the Brazilian and Paraguayan legislatures.

Meanwhile, Argentina's largest private industrial federation, the Argentine Industrial Union (UIA), is putting pressure on the Argentine government to reverse its decision to admit Venezuela to the market, in retaliation against Venezuela's nationalization of steel companies that were partially owned by the Argentine Techint Group over the past year. The nationalizations 'represent a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the Argentine Congress approved Venezuela's admittance to MERCOSUR,' the UIA stated.

On Wednesday, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner asked Chávez to explain his position on the nationalizations, after news reports that Chávez had told Lula during Tuesday's meeting that Venezuela is in 'a phase of nationalizations of companies in the country... except the Brazilian ones.'

'An affirmation of this type, if it existed, would imply a grade of discrimination and discretion that exceeds the sphere of sovereignty of each independent state,' Fernández said on Wednesday.

The Venezuelan Foreign Relations Ministry replied that Chávez's comments to Lula were taken out of context and that the media had used them in 'a fierce defamation campaign.'

Chávez had commented to Lula that while the Brazilian firms were willing to abide by Venezuela's national development plan, the Techint Group had been exporting Venezuelan steel to be manufactured into tubes in Mexico, then selling these tubes to PDVSA at inflated prices.

Venezuela 'reiterates its willingness to continue deepening all types of ties that today unite us for our mutual benefit, and manifests its profound appreciation and reiterates its confidence in all Argentine businesses that wish to accompany us in our mutual process of growth and consolidation within a framework of equity and justice,' the Ministry stated.

On Wednesday, Fernández defended Venezuela's nationalizations as a 'sovereign' decision of the Chávez administration.

All Nations Part of Climate Change Solution

Sun, 31 May 2009 02:34:00 +0000

5-30-09, 10:19 am

Original source: Global Times (China)

The US Congress needs to know that every country is part of a global solution for environmental protection in order to engage itself in the Copenhagen summit for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, US Senator John Kerry said at a press conference in Beijing yesterday (May 26th).

“With Kyoto, we were unable to agree. We couldn’t get the votes in the Senate. Why? Because China and the rest of the developing world were not part of the solution,” Kerry said.

“And our people looked at the treaty and said, ‘Wait a minute, you mean even though we are the biggest emitter … we are going to reduce and our companies have to put out money and it may cost our products more and the rest of the world is not going to do anything? They can negate every single thing we do in a matter of months’,” he added.

“Our common language is ‘common but differentiated responsibility’; everybody has to reduce emissions and the difference is that people will do it at different levels and at a different rate … so it is important for China to help us understand what they are doing, what their targets will be and how we can measure that. If we can do that, then we will have the ability to go back to the US and show how everybody is part of the solution,” Kerry said.

Kerry, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was speaking after a China-US Clean Energy Forum in Beijing.

He praised the achievements China has made in recent years on environmental protection.

“China set a goal of a 20 percent energy reduction by 2010 and is found in many sectors to have been moving faster than expected.”

Regarding the global goals in Copenhagen, Kerry said, “Science tells us what we need to do. It’s important that we have a global goal and the marketplace sees the goal. If that happens you are going to see money pour in behind those technologies and there will be a rapid transformation, just like there was in computer technology or the Internet.”

Also a speaker at the forum, Jiang Kejun, an expert with the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission, told the Global Times that he felt strongly about the need for the two countries to cooperate in energy conservation.

He said that China will probably put more focus on nuclear and wind energy more than other forms of energy in the coming years, and technology in cutting carbon dioxide is expected to reach developed-world level in three to five years.

Climate Change Information Overload?

Sun, 31 May 2009 02:32:00 +0000

5-30-09, 10:18 am

Original source: IRIN News

JOHANNESBURG, 29 May 2009 (IRIN) – Millions, possibly even billions of people will be affected by the impact of climate change, some reports say; gloomy ones tell you it is already happening, more optimistic ones say it will happen by the end of the century.

'The numbers are scary but what does it mean to an ordinary person who is more concerned about the price of a loaf of bread?' asked Mike Shanahan, press officer for the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), who warned there was a 'danger of all us drowning in the amount of information being produced.'

As the next big UN climate change meeting, to be held in Copenhagen in December, draws closer, reports on the impact of climate change have been proliferating.

The media are supposed to turn these numbers, reports, predictions and projections into 'meaningful information' for the people who will be affected by the unfolding impact of climate change.

The Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum in its climate change report, The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis, released on 29 May, attempts to do this: 'The impact of climate change today affects 13 times the number injured in traffic accidents globally every year, and more people than the number of people who contract malaria annually.'

The more reports produced on climate change, the better for creating awareness, argued Michael Rubinstein, head of media relations at the US-based think-tank, International Food Policy Research Institute. 'Each report reinforces the message that there is a progressive drumbeat on the issue; that there is now a global consensus on the extent of the impact of climate change.'

He said this was particularly important because until recently there had been 'false equivalency': reports tended to produce views from both sides of the climate change debate, from people who believed in it and those who did not.

The steady flow of numbers on those likely to be affected, or the amount of money needed, reinforced the message that climate change was a reality, Rubinstein said. Several hundred reports and briefing papers have already been produced since the beginning of 2009.

Howard Cambridge, research associate at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), a Swedish research institute that produced more than 100 reports in the run-up to the UN climate change meeting in Poznan, Poland, in December 2008, said the ability to sift through reports to identify those based on original research – 'the definitive texts' – had to be learned.

IIED and SEI have run workshops and courses to help those in the media disseminate scientific data. But is the message getting to the people out there, Shanahan asked. 'I think most people tend to glaze over – how would they know what US$50 million or $50 billion is?'

He said there was a need for governments to run massive public awareness campaigns, similar to the ones about HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. 'If that does not happen, I think people are going to think this will happen to people somewhere far away.'

Human Rights Groups Support Universal Jurisdiction

Sun, 31 May 2009 02:31:00 +0000

5-30-09, 10:16 am

The social organizations, solidarity groups, development NGOs and human rights associations, as well as persons of the academic and legal sphere, listed below:

WE EXPRESS our opposition to the approval by the Spanish Congress of Deputies of the Resolution that limits the exercise of the universal penal jurisdiction by the Spanish courts and restricts their jurisdiction to the cases in which those presumed responsible are found in Spain or to the fact that there are victims of Spanish nationality.

WE RECALL, once again, that as a signatory of the Geneva Agreements of 1949 on Humanitarian International Law and the Additional Protocol I to these Agreements, related to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, Spain is obliged to maintain the universal jurisdiction principle within its legislation in order to judge those responsible for war crimes. Because of this, we consider this resolution a clear disregard of the conventional obligations assumed by the Spanish State. In relation to other international crimes as crimes against humanity or genocide, defined by International Law, on the extent that it prevents them from being prosecuted, its approval also implies an act of concealment. Consequently, the decision will also evidently limit the rights of the victims.

WE REQUEST that the Government not continue with the reform of Article 23.4 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Power which could prejudice ongoing causes. We believe that the Spanish Government is obliged to prefer the fulfilment of its international commitments and the defence of human rights over contingent national interests and economic or political pressures.

Signatories to this resolution:

ACSUR - Las Segovias, Adriana Ortiz Martínez, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Al Quds Málaga, Alberto Arce, director de documentales y activista por Palestina, Alliance for Freedom and Dignity de España, Angeles Diez Rodríguez, Profesora Contratada Doctor, Facultad de CC. Políticas y Sociología de la UCM, Antonio Segura, abogado, Asociación Cultura, Paz y Solidaridad Haydée Santamaría, Asociación de Solidaridad de los trabajadores y trabajadoras de los países empobrecidos, Sotermun, Asociación Elcàlam - Comité de defensa de los derechos humanos en el Magreb, Asociación Hispano Palestina Jerusalén, Asociación Paz Ahora, Asociación Paz con Dignidad, Associacio Cultura, Pau i Solidaritat Haydée Santamaría de Catalunya, Bárbara Azaola Piazza, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Carla Canal Rosich, Barcelona, Carmen Pérez González, Profesora de Derecho Internacional Público, Univ. Carlos III Madrid, CIEMEN, Barcelona, Comisión Española de Ayuda al refugiado - CEAR, Comité de Solidaridad con la Causa Árabe - CSCA, Ester Jiménez de Cisneros Puig, FEDERACIÓN DE ASOCIACIONES DE DEFENSA Y PROMOCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS-ESPAÑA: Asociación para las Naciones Unidas en España (ANUE), Asociación para la Defensa de la Libertad Religiosa (ADLR), Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR), Institut de Drets Humans de Catalunya (IDHC), Instituto de Estudios Políticos para América Latina y África (IEPALA), Justicia y Paz, Liga Española Pro Derechos Humanos, Movimiento por la Paz - (MPDL), Paz y Cooperación, Mundubat, UNESCO Etxea, Plataforma de Mujeres Artistas contra la Violencia de Género, Coordinadora Estatal de Asociaciones Solidarias con el Sáhara (CEAS-Sáhara), Asociacion Española para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos (AEDIDH). Ferran Izquierdo Brichs, Profesor de Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, François Houtart. Profesor Emérito Universidad de Lovaina, Bélgica, Fundación CEAR, Fundación IEPALA, Fundación Mundubat, Gemma Casal Fité, CCDR - Universitat de Lleida, Grupo de ONG por Palestina, Ignacio Álvarez Ossorio, Profesor del Área de Estudios árabes e islámicos, Universidad de Alicante, Ignacio Castien, Profesor Contratado Doctor, Facultad de CC. Políticas y Sociología UCM, Instituto de Estudios sobre Conflictos y Acción Humanitaria IECAH, International Jewish Antizionist Network - IJAN,Irene Fernández Molina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Isaías Barreñada Bajo, miembro de la junta directiva de ACSUR, Izquierda Unida, Joan Coma i Roura, José Abu-Tarbush, Profesor de la Universidad de La Laguna, Juana Moreno Nieto, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IESA-CSIC), Laura Camargo Fernández Profesora Universitat de les Illes Balears, Lidón Soriano Segarra (Profesora Universidad Camilo José Cela. Madrid, Manuela Piazza Manuello, Marc Agramunt Mayà, Setem, Maria Jose Lera, Profesora Titular Universidad de Sevilla, premio Clara Campoamor 2009, Marta Godinho Marques de Carvalho, Marta Ter Ferrer, Lliga dels Drets dels Pobles, Mercè Adrové Ariño, Mujeres por la Paz y Acción Solidaria con Palestina - canarias, Najaty S. Jabary, Nieves Ortega García, Profesora Asociada de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Palestinarekin Elkartasuna, Pamplona - Iruña, Pascual Serrano, periodista, Pedro Azaola Rodríguez-Espina, médico, Pierre Galand, Presidente del European Co-ordinating Committee of NGOs on the Question of Palestine, Pilar Salamanca, Plataforma 2015 y más, Plataforma de solidaridad con el pueblo palestino de Ibiza, Plataforma de Solidaridad con Palestina de Sevilla, Plataforma Solidaria con Palestina - Valladolid, Rafael Escudero Alday, Profesor Titular de Derecho, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Rafaél González Fernández Profesor Titular Facultad de CC. Políticas y Sociología de la UCM, Red de Jóvenes Palestinos, Red Solidaria contra la Ocupación de Palestina, Santiago Alba Rico, escritor y filósofo, Sergio García Arcos, Sodepau, Sodepaz - Valladolid, Sodepaz, Taula per Palestina, Illes Balears, Unión Sindical Obrera - USO, Willy Meyer Pleite, eurodiputado de Izquierda Unida, Xarxa d'Enllaç amb Palestina

Netanyahu’s New Quest: The Game is On

Sun, 31 May 2009 02:28:00 +0000

Netanyahu’s New Quest: The Game is On

By Ramzy Baroud

“We've accomplished quite a few things, and I think the most important one is to cement the principle that the path to peace is through negotiations and not through violence.”

These were the 'encouraging' words modestly uttered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during a joint press conference with the US president. The President was then Bill Clinton, and the date was October 2, 1996.

In the occupied Palestinian territories, the situation then seemed incredibly grim. But there was no Israeli wall. The settlements were smaller in size and in population. Gaza was besieged, but not to the point of total suffocation.

Recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu paid a highly anticipated visit to the White House, on May 18, 2009, this time meeting with Barack Obama.

“I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world,” said Netanyahu.

One need not emphasize the harm inflicted upon the Palestinian people during those years. The violence, which Netanyahu seemingly decried in ’96, visited Palestinians countless times. Starting December 27, 2008 and for 22 frightening days, much of Gaza was decimated by the Israeli army, using US weapons, killing and wounding thousands. There is now a giant wall, hundreds of miles in length, snaking around the West Bank, separating Palestinians from their land, livelihoods and any possibility of a true statehood. There are Jewish settlements, joined by Jewish-only roads that hopelessly fragment the occupied West Bank. They all are illegal under international law, as is the so-called Separation Wall, as are the brutal attacks and siege on Gaza, as is the Israeli military occupation altogether.

We are told that Obama is serious about peace in the Middle East. He maybe is. But even such assumed seriousness might not be able to change the disturbing pattern that forced Clinton before him, according to former top Middle East Advisor, Aaron David Miller, to utter the following words: 'Who the f*** does he think he is? Who's the f***ing superpower here?'

In recent meetings between the two leaders, Obama clearly highlighted his country’s commitment to a Palestinian state, and, surprisingly, made mention of “Gaza” during the press conference. But the words of praise of Israel’s greatness were at an all time high. “Obama talked about the ‘extraordinary relationship [with Israel], the special relationship ...the stalwart ally ... the historical ties, emotional ties [and] the only democracy in the Middle East ... a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people’,” observed commentator George Hishmeh.

Following his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu made a visit to the US Congress, where he conferred with the 'great friends of Israel'. On his visit to Capitol Hill, he met House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner. The Israeli leader also met members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Jewish legislators. He was given the same exceptional treatment enjoying by other Israeli leaders. Committee chairman Senator John Kerry was 'encouraged by a number of things' Netanyahu had said. Following meeting with Congressional leaders, Netanyahu observed, as if breaking some unexpected news: there is 'an American consensus' regarding 'the special relationship we have between Israel and the United States.'

The game is on. Netanyahu will once again try to overwhelm the President of the United States by rallying the Congress behind him in preparation for any possible confrontation with Obama’s administration. Obama, on the other hand, will attempt, however bashfully, to assert a new direction in US foreign policy – through tempting Israel by embracing harsher Iran policies and pressuring the Arabs to normalize with the Jewish state in exchange for Israel’s mere promise of moving the peace process forward.

In 1996, Netanyahu spoke of the immediate danger facing Israel, in reference to Iraq. Now Iraq – which had no weapons of mass destruction, after all - is no longer an “existential threat” to the state of Israel.

And now the Israeli leader has set his sights on Iran. “The challenge is the potential arming of Iran with nuclear weapons capabilities. That is a great danger to all of us ... We have to do this in tandem ... I was very encouraged to learn that this is the American policy. We're going to try to do it together, because if we do it together we'll get a lot further, a lot faster.'

It might not take thirteen more years before Netanyahu’s wishes come true, before getting a lot further, a lot faster, i.e. unleashing a war against Iran. But mark my words, Netanyahu, as well as those before him, as well as those after him, have no intentions of making peace with the Palestinians. He is simply waving a carrot before Obama to get what Israel wants, an attack on Iran. It’s as simple as that.

If Obama hesitates in confronting the new Israeli agenda, and if the Congress continues to treat Israel’s security obsessions as top American priorities, there is no telling what the Middle East will look like the next time Netanyahu arrives in Washington to meet the new American president.

--Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, 'The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle' (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London).

Podcast #100: Can Capitalism Last?

Sat, 30 May 2009 09:02:00 +0000

5-29-09, 4:45 pm

Subscribe to this podcast in iTunes

Political Affairs #100 - Can Capitalism Last?

Interview with author Daniel Rubin about his new book 'Can Capitalism Last?'. Discussion of the economic crisis, Marxism, socialism and other hot topics.

Why We Can't Compromise on Public-Plan Choice

Sat, 30 May 2009 02:52:00 +0000

5-29-09, 10:37 am

Original source:

Of all the components of the health reform package that will be debated in Congress this year, none inspires greater admiration or ire than the idea of “public plan choice.” Public plan choice means simply that Americans younger than 65 who do not have employment-based health insurance should have the option of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan that provides good coverage on equal terms in all parts of the country.

As I have argued at length, by creating a benchmark for private plans and a new means of reining in costs and improving quality, public plan choice is the key to ensuring that health reform provides quality affordable care to all Americans over the long term.

Health Care: How 'Public' Must A Public Plan Be?

In the days leading up to the America's Future NOW! conference starting June 1, we're hosting an online dialogue featuring conference speakers on the key issues they will be addressing during the conference. Join the conversation by clicking the 'Discuss' link below or contribute your own post.

Register today for the America's Future NOW! conference in Washington.

Recently, some policy experts have called for a “compromise” approach that would involve state-based public plans designed to mimic state self-insured health plans. Some have even backed models that simply involve a government contract with one or more private insurers to administer claims. Neither approach would achieve the cost savings nor delivery system changes that a truly national public plan could. Indeed, in an online debate, Stuart Butler of The Heritage Foundation correctly stated that a self-insured nonprofit health plan such as those now run for public employees in many states would be “a public plan in name only.”

A true public plan cannot rely on private insurers to set premiums, provider rates, or terms of coverage, and it must be publicly accountable at the national level. The simplest, most workable, most cost-effective, and most attractive way to achieve these crucial goals is to model the new public plan on Medicare, the successful and popular public health insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

A Medicare-like public plan would be much more stable and secure than other approaches. It would provide the broadest possible choice of doctors. It could be offered throughout the nation on the same terms. It would have the lowest administrative costs. And its bargaining power and large risk pool would allow it to offer the most affordable possible premiums and most effectively restrain costs while upgrading the quality of care.

No less important, this model is overwhelmingly popular: In polls, between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans say they want private plans to compete with a “government-administered public plan similar to Medicare.”

In stark contract, state-run plans or plans run by third-party administrators would have severe disadvantages:

1. They would require building a new plan (or a new set of regional plans and oversight agencies) largely from scratch, which would mean forfeiting the administrative, economic, and political advantages of building on the Medicare infrastructure.

2. Such models would also require forfeiting another major advantage of a Medicare-like public plan: the ability to provide enrollees with a broad choice of providers.

3. Most important, the prospect for cost restraint and/or quality improvement under these proposals would be limited. Medicare has increasingly out-performed private plans in restraining the rate of increase of health spending while maintaining broad access. A new public plan could draw on Medicare’s experience, as well as the experience of the national VA system, to improve its cost-control methods and enhance the quality of care.

In short, the public health insurance plan should be a model for how to deliver cost-effective high quality care. Only a national, comprehensive and truly public plan can provide this essential benchmark for private plans.

So let’s not compromise away an essential element of health reform. When the debate over reform heats up, advocates will need a clear, simple, and unthreatening vision of reform that makes a simple promise: Americans should get a real choice between private insurance and a Medicare-like public plan, not a false choice between private insurance plans and a “public plan in name only.”

Cartoon: Capitalism, This Way...

Sat, 30 May 2009 01:15:00 +0000

US Rep. John Conyers on Health Care

Sat, 30 May 2009 01:11:00 +0000

5-29-09, 8:57 am

Original source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA – US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) made Atlanta his first stop on Wednesday, March 27, 2009, as part of his six city, five day tour across the country to visit hospitals, speak with doctors and nurses, and listen to stories from US citizens struggling to pay for healthcare.

As part of the tour, Conyers is also promoting his legislation, HR 676, which would implement a single payer healthcare system that would be available to all US citizens.

After a press conference and rally in front of Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta Progressive News sat down with US Rep. Conyers and his legislative counsel Michael Darner to talk further about single payer healthcare.

The Michigan Congressman, who is also Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, recalled APN from our extensive coverage in 2006 and 2007 of his legislation to look into possible grounds for impeaching former President Bush. APN is well-regarded, he said.

Why is single payer the best form of healthcare delivery?

Essentially, it distinguishes itself from insurance. Insurance is something you have to be able to purchase and you’ve got a policy and you get terms.

Unless you are a doctor and an accountant, you could read that insurance policy and not have [any] idea of what you’re covered for and what you’re not.

Single payer takes the what was once the revolutionary step - now every industrial nation on the planet does this – is that you’re born into a country with total health coverage which is totally unconnected to your employer and the amount of money you earn. You get a card and that’s it.

[For more from Conyers on why single payer is best, visit www.atlantaprogressiveblog.com.]

President Obama has said a single payer system would bankrupt the country? How do you respond?

What I’ve heard him say is that if we didn’t already have a system, if we were starting out all over again, that single payer would be the best. He said that we’re not starting out all over again and we’ve got to build on what we’ve got.

This is a long cry from his earlier statements in which he totally committed himself to a single payer system. But, you know, this is then and this is now.

People modify their positions but he understands...

He’s the smartest political person in the United States but some of the people around him are not the smartest people in their positions. As a result, some of his advice is less than perfect.

Single payer brings everybody into the system just by being alive and born in America but we also do something else: we disconnect from any employer. It is not employer connected. We sever that connection.

Another thing we do is that it doesn’t require an assurance. You’ve got everything understood and I mean everything.

So you can just go to a hospital and get what you need?

Right, right. Present the card and establish who you are.

Do you think HR 676 might have a better chance with stronger Democratic majorities in Congress and a Democratic President?

Yeah, it gets stronger and stronger as we go along. The best impetus we’ve got is by Obama becoming the 44th president. That changes the whole terrain completely.

Now within the Congress, there are different Conservative factions that are not willing to take this step.

How do you bring skeptical Republicans and Democrats to your side?

By having open discussions with them in terms of what their alternative is as opposed to what we present.

The truth of the matter is that many people don’t scrutinize the legislation, including members of Congress. So what we do through public discussion, that’s why I’m inviting Congressman Gingery (R-GA) to a discussion in his district here in Georgia about the merits of my plan and whatever merits that are in his plan, if he has one.

So that’s going to change a lot of people. I mean, wow. He’s a doctor. Presumably he knows what I know and hopefully more.

We’re gonna call him after lunch and then we’re going to send him a letter.

Does a person have the choice of opting out of a single payer system? If not, would he ultimately be paying for two plans?

I don’t know the answer to that. I turn to my esteemed colleague.

Darner: 676 is financed through a combination of a payroll tax increase, rolling back the Bush tax cuts, small tax and bond transfers. There are a couple of other possibilities. The bill doesn’t mandate a particular type of financing but those are sure the ones we’re talking about.

In addition to what people pay for their Medicare and their payroll and their Social Security, we add 2.3 percent payroll tax.

What 676 does is it bans insurance companies from providing benefits that mimic the program. Essentially it does ban [insurance companies] from providing health insurance. They can provide other things to you, if they’re in the business of life insurance, insure people’s pets, something like that.

We do allow for supplemental insurance, things like plastic surgery that aren’t covered in the benefit package of a single payer system, you could get covered by that.

You’re not going to be able to get a health insurance package that mimics the benefits of the program and even if you bought supplemental insurance, you’re still paying through the payroll tax system into the system.

So there’s no incentive even if you had the option to buy into the private insurance system.

There seems to be a lack of single payer advocates who have been allowed to participate in hearings and forums on healthcare so far [in the US Senate]... Why do you think these folks are being left out of discussions and hearings?

Because [single payer opponents] know it’s the best plan. The whole idea is to take a half step rather than going all the way and you can’t take a half step if you have a full and honest examination of let’s do it all.

There are also a number of legislative necessities that are built up around the plan. We need more primary care physicians. We need a redistribution of public health hospitals and community clinics. We need far more nurses.

We’re importing the nurses when we could easily [train our own nurses] with more nursing schools and higher compensation for nurses. The teachers in nursing schools make less than the future nurses they’re training.

This is so obviously correctable that you say why are we bringing in hundreds of thousands of nurses from the Philippines as if there is something disabling [about] training our own nurses.

You need companion pieces of supporting legislation.

Is HR 676 scheduled to come up for a hearing anytime soon?

That’s what we’re setting up when you go back from [Memorial Day] recess. We’re down to whether we’re going to meet with each of the individual committees, which is what I want to do, or whether we’re going to meet with all the committees in the House and all the committees in the Senate.

I’d rather meet with the committees as a smaller and more intimate [setting]. You put all [the House and Senate committees combined] in a room and they’re gonna look at their watches and miss half of what you’re saying anyway.

Could you have more meetings with the single payer advocates and get them into question and answer sessions with lawmakers?

What I’d like to do is bring in the team of our cosponsors of 676 and some of our leaders in the medical profession, scholars of medicine, experts outside of the legislative process to sit with Obama.

[NOTE: Darner told APN after the interview that Conyers, along with other members of Congress, recently met with Majority Leader, US Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who said, 'the [Democratic] leadership was committed to incorporating single payer into their discussion efforts that they’re having officially and that they were going to make a serious effort to include single payer experts in the committees of jurisdiction when they’re talking about healthcare.”]

--Jonathan Springston is a Senior Staff Writer for The Atlanta Progressive News and is reachable at jonathan@atlantaprogressivenews.com.

The Cyclical Crisis of Capitalism: Who is to Pay for the “Recovery”?

Sat, 30 May 2009 01:00:00 +0000

5-29-09, 8:46 am

Original source: The Guardian (Australia)

There is little agreement amongst politicians, economists, business leaders and media commentators on the likely speed of economic recovery. The government predicts the economy will continue to shrink for another year, before growing by 2.25 percent in 2010-2011. Treasury secretary Ken Henry expresses confidence that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will rise to 4.5 percent the following year. Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull described the government’s predictions as “completely unbelievable” and “crazily optimistic”. Others suggest it might take as long as 5-10 years. Regardless of the economic forecasts and political brawling over whether Labor governments are poor economic managers, Treasury, Labor, Liberal, big business and their capitalist economic commentators all agree on three things.

The first is what constitutes economic recovery. According to that circle the main indicators of economic recovery, for them, are growth in the GDP (a measure of national income), stock market indexes, corporate profits and the level of private investment.

The second area of agreement is what the government should do during the recovery: it must return to budget surpluses and clear its debts – more than $220 billion of accumulated deficits – as quickly as possible. To do this the government must place caps on and make huge cuts in its spending in the years to come.

The third area relates to wages. In their view, wages must be restrained and where wage cuts were imposed during the recession these should be maintained during the recovery period.

Anyone who thought the scorched earth policies of economic rationalism (neo-liberalism) were dead and buried should think again. The stimulatory measures contained in the government’s recent packages and the May budget are intended to be a short-term bail-out of capitalism. When the recession shows signs of bottoming, then cost-cutting and “tough” decisions will be to the fore.

As for recovery for ordinary Australians and their families relying on wages, pensions, unemployment and other welfare benefits, the forecasts are not so rosy. Treasurer Wayne Swan told Lyndal Curtis on the ABC PM program (13-5-09) that it would be years before Australians are as well off as they were two years ago. Unemployment, according to the government is set to remain high for some years to come.

A recovery without recovery for the people? How can they talk about recovery when there is no recovery for ordinary working people and their families? To answer these questions, it is necessary to look at the cyclical nature of capitalist production and where the present economic crisis fits into this.

Capitalist production cycle

During production value is added to the various inputs through the labour of workers. Workers are not paid the full value of that labour. The difference between the value of their labour and what they are paid is what Karl Marx called “surplus value” – which becomes profit when the commodity or service produced is sold. The process of extracting surplus value, of not paying workers for the full value of their work, is how workers are exploited under capitalism.

The capitalist’s pursuit of maximum profit is the objective and principle motive of capitalist production. When the cost of production, including labour costs, is less than the selling price of what is produced, then the capitalist makes a profit.

This process of exploitation creates a gap between the value of what is produced and the means people have to purchase the products and services. Over a period of time that gap builds up and fuels what Marx called an economic crisis of over production. This is not over production in the sense that people do not need or want what is produced, but because they do not have the means to buy everything. It is overproduction in relation to the objective of capitalist production – maximum profit.

Just months before the crisis hit, the Australian economy was suffering from what capitalist economists were describing as “too much boom”. Corporate profits had reached new heady heights, the stock market seemed to have no limits, there were skilled labour shortages. The Reserve Bank of Australia was trying to cool the economy down with a rapid succession of interest rate rises.

Then almost overnight, what seemed an endless boom was turned on its head. Thousands of workers were being sacked, profit forecasts were being adjusted downwards, the credit squeeze was sending businesses to the wall, retail sales were hit and the talk was crisis. The Reserve Bank did an about-turn, lowering interest rates. The government stepped in with a host of measures to bail out the corporate sector and stabilize the banking system. It followed these with two stimulatory packages putting money into the hands of ordinary people, with the message “spend, spend, spend”. While these handouts were of great benefit to many people struggling to make ends meet, their main aim was to keep business afloat.

The crisis phase of the boom – crisis – recession – recovery cycle that Marx so clearly analyzed more than 150 years ago had set in. Since then, the economies of the capitalist world – individual countries and the entire system as a whole – have been plunged into crises of over production at intervals of approximately 8-10 years.

The specific details of each cycle vary; some recessions are deeper than others, some have a longer recovery or boom period, and so on. Government actions can affect the timing and severity of a particular crisis, but they cannot prevent them occurring. The extension of easy credit, increase in government spending, including on war or war preparations, for example, can delay the onset of crises, but not eliminate them.

Workers hit on all fronts

This most recent crisis is typical with its bankruptcies, plant closures, takeovers, asset sales, shops and other businesses slashing their prices, and falling profits. Workers always feel the full brunt of a crisis, as they are sacked, their entitlements go up in smoke, wages are reduced and working conditions come under attack.

The crisis of over production leads to the actual destruction of capital as plants are shut, surplus stock destroyed and investments on stock markets and in managed funds shrink. Historically, the collapse of stock markets and other investments were of little concern to workers – it was the rich who lost their money. Today it is a very different situation. Millions of workers directly own shares in their employer’s company or in other corporations and banks such as Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank. The stock market fell by over 50 percent. Workers’ retirement savings in superannuation funds were likewise hit to varying degrees.

Bankruptcies and plant closures continue to increase. Some companies have sacked workers because demand has shrunk and the work is just not there to do. Other bosses have negotiated arrangements for their workforces to have “non-work” days, shorter hours, cut shifts, accept wage reductions and other arrangements to avoid or reduce sackings. In many sectors – on the waterfront, car manufacturing, in the hospitality sector, mining, etc – there is not enough work for existing workforces.

There is a great deal of insecurity in the workforce; casuals are the most vulnerable, but thousands of “permanent” employees are being sacked every week. Some employers see the crisis as an opportunity to sack workers, impose longer hours of work, unpaid overtime and cut conditions, even when their businesses are still thriving. They are simply taking advantage of the precarious situation facing workers with unemployment rising and job opportunities all but vanished.

Capitalists never let up in their struggle to reduce the cost of labour. Every dollar less paid in wages, every dollar saved through unpaid overtime, means a corresponding rise in profits.

Ironically, these measures reduce the income in workers pockets, leaving them with even less to spend and so adding to the crisis of over production. A downward spiral is set in motion, more businesses go bust, more workers are laid off, etc.

This downward spiral of destruction of capital continues until a balance is achieved, where the rate of profit is largely restored as the reduced levels of production correspond to the demand for goods and services. At this point production becomes relatively stable, laying the basis for the recovery phase of the cycle.

The government’s most recent $900 and other cash handouts had the aim of countering that spiral by giving people more money to spend as did a number of the one-off spending measures in the May Budget.

The military industry in Australia also saw the huge increase in the defense spending of close to $6 billion on new submarines and other equipment as stimulating the economy. It is true that it will increase demand for products and create jobs, but the same amount of money spent on public services such as housing, transport, education, health and community services would create many tens of thousands more jobs, and be of considerable benefit for the people of Australia. The massive increase in military spending is nothing short of preparing for war – an exercise that will bring death and destruction – and of course super profits for the war industry.

Recovery

When the corporate sector begins to rebuild, it will be doing so in a way to maximize profits – by maximization of the exploitation of workers and restoring and increasing the rate of profit (profit as a percentage of capitalist investment).

Employers will be hell bent on holding onto all the cuts in wages and working conditions and other sacrifices that workers made during the crisis. Their aim will be to consolidate their gains. The trade union movement will have a big battle ahead of it to restore these lost wages and conditions, let alone gaining new wage rises.

In some workplaces, where there was strong union involvement, agreements were made to revert back to previous pre-crisis wages and conditions when the volume of work picked up. This was done, for example, on the waterfront.

Regardless of any agreements, government and employer pressure will be on not to “harm the recovery” with wage rises. The old “trickle down” myth, telling workers to restrain wages to boost profits so as to create jobs, will be trotted out yet again. But very little trickles down to workers. Any new investment is more likely to be spent on takeovers and chasing cheaper labour overseas. Wage restraint and wage freezes boost profits. That is their aim and they do it well.

There will also be calls to raise productivity – meaning output per worker without a corresponding increase in wages. This results in a larger volume of production relative to the income received by workers. In other words, it creates a bigger gap between the value of the work done (labour), what is to be sold and the amount of money workers have to spend.

Hence the capitalist process of recovery based on restoring and increasing the rate of exploitation, begins the process of building the gap, the inability of people to buy what is purchased, that eventually results in another economic crisis of overproduction. The foundations for the next economic crisis of overproduction are being laid during the recovery period of the economic cycle.

The various measures the Rudd Labor government has taken are focused on restoring the rate of profit of the corporate sector (albeit from a smaller asset base). The calls on the government to move as quickly as possible to restore a budget surplus, wind back public debt and make the “tough” decisions to slash spending are also directed at recovery for the private sector. They do so at the expense of people’s personal incomes and social expenditure on welfare, public hospitals, education, housing etc.

That is why capitalism can never eliminate the “boom-bust” economic cycle. The cycle arises out of the basic contradiction of capitalism – the private ownership of the means of production and the social nature of production. As long as workers are not paid the full value of their work, as long as the means of production and what is produced by the labour of workers are privately owned that contradiction, and along with it the economic cycle, will remain.

When capitalist economists, government and big business representatives use the GDP as a measure of recovery they have in mind only one component of the GDP. Recovery to them means growth in corporate profits. Growth at the expense of the other two key components – wages and the taxation of both those profits and the incomes of the rich.

Momentum for Sotomayor Confirmation Builds

Fri, 29 May 2009 01:25:00 +0000

5-28-09, 9:08 am

After the announcement of President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court, a broad array of organizations and advocacy groups expressed strong support for the decision.

At the announcement at the White House on Tuesday, May 26th, President Obama cited Sotomayor's vast experience at all levels of the legal system, her 'rigorous intellect,' and her 'commitment to impartial justice' as defining characteristics that helped him make this decisions.

The President also detailed Sotomayor's background. Raised in a poor household, an immigrant family from the South Bronx, Sotomayor, as she says herself, stood on the shoulders of many people: her family, her teachers and her mentors.

'When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: equal justice under the law,' President Obama stated.

Her wealth of experience, legal knowledge and commitment to justice earned Judge Sotomayor much praise this week.

For example, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney cited her role in the 1995 baseball strike. In issuing an injunction in that case, Judge Sotomayor forced the Major League baseball team owners to reverse their actions in causing the strike. 'She has enforced the rights of all workers to be free of all types of discrimination at work, to be paid the correct wages and to receive health benefits to which they are entitled,' Sweeney noted. 'She has recognized that persecution for union activity can be a basis for granting asylum in this country.'

Describing the President's nomination of Sotomayor as 'good day for the federal judiciary, and for our nation,' Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, stated, 'A sharp, tough and unflaggingly fair jurist, Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications are beyond dispute, and her legal and judicial experience will be unmatched on the Court.'

Praising the President's choice, Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), told supporters on a national teleconference on May 27th that 'Judge Sotomayor is uniquely, well-qualified as a Supreme Court nominee, someone with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity.'

Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza, called the selection of Judge Sotomayor as a 'monumental breakthrough.' Her story represents the 'American dream' for so many people of all backgrounds, Murguía said. 'President Obama has made the right choice for the entire country.'

For some, the historic nomination of Sotomayor and her likely confirmation suggested that America as a whole has made much progress. Susan L. Taylor, editor-in-chief emeritus of Essence Magazine, remarked, “The United States is becoming the nation it ought to be. Sonia Sotomayor's success is a shining example of what is possible for our young living in poverty and filling up prisons.”

League of Women Voters President Mary G. Wilson echoed the sentiment, saying, 'It is a time to celebrate our nation’s diversity and differences. The nomination of the first Latina and the third woman to the country’s highest court is cause for all Americans to be proud.'

In addition to achieving these democratic ideals, Sotomayor's qualifications make her a common sense pick, others indicated. 'This nomination shows that President Obama is appointing judges who understand that the role of the courts is to give everyone a chance to be heard, to stand up for their rights, and get justice,' added Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron in a press statement.

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, noted, 'Judge Sotomayor appears to be an eminently qualified judge with the intellectual heft, strong record and common touch that is needed in a Supreme Court justice. We believe the President has made an outstanding choice.'

National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy praised Sotomayor's qualifications. 'Judge Sotomayor will serve the nation with distinction. She brings a lifelong commitment to equality, justice and opportunity, as well as the respect of her peers, unassailable integrity, and a keen intellect informed by experience,' she said.

Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, president of the Skinner Leadership Institute and member of NCBCP Black Women’s Roundtable, praised the President's choice and said of Judge Sotomayor, 'she ... embodies the kind of level headed sensitivity to the pressing needs of ordinary citizens that is so critical for justices today.”

Judge Sotomayor's nomination won approval as well from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club. That organization's executive director, Carl Pope, praised Sotomayor's legal opinions in environmental cases. Specifically, he cited two important cases where 'she ruled in favor of environmental protection and against attempts by the government to ignore true environmental benefits when enforcing clean water laws.'

At least one of her opinions 'set the stage for the action finally being taken now by the federal government to begin curbing global warming pollution,' Pope added.

The Coalition for Constitutional Values, a national coalition of public interest organizations, has launched a campaign in support of Sotomayor's confirmation. It has begun airing TV ads to help introduce Judge Sotomayor to the public and to urge speedy confirmation.

See the first TV ad here:

Somali Piracy: Predictable Result of Global Exploitation

Fri, 29 May 2009 01:16:00 +0000

5-28-09, 9:02 am

Original source: People's Voice (Canada)

If someone had said two years ago that piracy would soon be a serious international issue, most people would have disregarded the claim as the delusional result of watching too many Johnny Depp movies.

Yet today, cases of real-life piracy can be found in the pages of every major newspaper on nearly a daily basis. The pirates are portrayed as simply bad apples, greedy, or otherwise morally reprehensible. But, like the rest of us, they are merely the product of their environment.

Somalia, like other African countries, is impoverished and underdeveloped due to a long history of exploitation going back to the days of slavery and colonialism. When Somalia's central government collapsed in the early 1990s, the United States was quick to intervene. Corporate interests had their eyes on Somalia as a source of natural resources (oil, iron ore, copper, salt, etc.) as well as potential cheap labour. They also considered it militarily strategic due to its proximity to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

For these reasons, U.S. imperialism, directly and through its puppet governments in neighboring countries, has consistently played a provocative, warmongering and destabilizing role in Somalia. Over 1.1 million people have been displaced in recent years, helping to ensure that the country remains unable to pull itself out of the cycle of foreign control and exploitation which has led to its impoverishment.

This situation in general, and more specifically, the theft and destruction of the natural resources on which Somalia's coastal villages survive, has given birth to the surge of piracy.

The majority of piracy takes place in the Gulf of Aden and the western Indian Ocean. Villages along the Somali coast depend largely upon fishing for their livelihood. In the past, families could fish enough to feed themselves and to sell additional catches in local markets. But today this source of livelihood has been stolen from the Somali people by foreign corporations.

Fishing trawlers are frequently targeted by pirates. These trawlers, owned primarily by Asian and European companies, have robbed the Somali people of an estimated $300 million per year by depleting the fish stocks upon which many villages depend. These profiteers, who are illegally pillaging fish and other sea life from Somali offshore territory, are in many ways the real pirates, or at any rate, the real thieves.

Perhaps even more reprehensible has been the dumping of nuclear and toxic waste along the Somali coast by European corporations. This dumping came to light in December 2004, when the Indonesian tsunami stirred up tones of waste and revealed to the world the poisoning of the Somali people and their shores by foreign corporations for profit. It is estimated that the costs of 'disposing' of this waste in Somalia was a mere $2.50/ton, as compared to nearly $1000/ton to properly dispose of the waste in Europe. This very profitable venture for the corporations came at a high price for the Somali people, many of whom suffer from radiation sickness characterized by skin and respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding and abdominal hemorrhages. The dumping of nuclear and toxic waste has also caused a major environmental crisis in the affected areas, reaping further havoc on the available fish stocks.

Somalia's agriculture-based economy has also been hard hit by intense drought, which threatens the possibility of famine if foreign aid is not sufficiently applied. According to BBC reports, nearly half the population is suffering malnutrition, with roughly 24% of children under five year of age suffering from acute malnutrition.

Against this war-torn backdrop of hunger, desperation and lawlessness, there is little wonder how piracy came to flourish.

Predictably, the imperialist countries (the primary targets of pirate attacks) are focusing on military-based 'solutions' to the problem. Much like organized crime in North America, piracy in Somalia will not be stopped by more violence, enforcement and suppression. The situation was caused by the vicious profiteering policies of imperialism, and will only be solved by addressing these root causes.

Foreign troops, military bases and interference in the affairs of government must be removed from Somalia, and the right to self determination and sovereignty must be guaranteed. Foreign assistance to the Somali people should be rendered in the form of reparations for years of war, theft of resources and polluting of territory. Foreign companies and governments should be held responsible to pay for cleaning up the mess they have made. If not, incidences of piracy will likely continue to increase as starving Somalis struggle to feed their families.

It’s Time to Break With 'Capitalism Without Rules'

Fri, 29 May 2009 01:15:00 +0000

5-28-09, 9:00 am

Original source: Akahata (Japan)

Japan’s economic growth measured by gross domestic product (GDP) fell four percent, or a 15.2 percent annualized rate, in the fourth quarter (January-March 2009) of FY 2008.

In addition, the previous quarter’s contraction in GDP was revised downward to 3.8 percent (14.4 percent annualized rate) from 3.2 percent (12.1 percent annualized rate).

For two consecutive quarters, Japan’s GDP growth fell below the previously worst-ever minus growth of 3.4 percent (13.1 percent annualized rate) in the fourth quarter of FY 1974, the year following the “oil shock.”

Consumers are being discouraged from spending money

Economic growth in the fourth quarter was impacted by sharper declines in domestic demand than in the previous quarter. This is due to the mass layoffs of temporary and fixed-term contract workers carried out by large exporting companies in response to rapid declines in foreign demand, including that in the United States.

The nation’s nominal and seasonally adjusted employee compensation decreased 0.4 percent in the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, it decreased 0.7 percent. At an annualized rate, workers’ compensation fell two trillion yen from the previous quarter, a decrease of 18 trillion yen from the record high mark in the second quarter of FY 1997. Household spending in the fourth quarter showed a steep decline, down 1.1 percent from the previous rate of 0.8 percent.

Despite these serious circumstances, the Aso Cabinet and the ruling parties are optimistic. Prime Minister Aso Taro at the House of Councilors Budget Committee on May 20 said, “Industrial-production index has been on an upward trend.” He even said, “Little by little, the government’s economic measures) are starting to producing results.”

In its monthly economic report, the government made an upward revision to its economic outlook for the first time in three years. It further seeks to start the general election campaign after declaring that the economy has ceased receding, aiming to appeal to the public on the supposed positive effects of the stimulus package pushed through by the Liberal Democratic and Komei Parties.

The recent recovery in industrial output can be attributed to the fact that large exporters reduced their inventories faster than ever at home and abroad. It happens that levels of production and exports appear to be stronger than they actually are in the course of returning to normal levels of inventory. The “recovery” is nothing but a temporary phase of the conventional economy led by exports.

The Aso Cabinet, which was shortly before calling for a “change to domestic demand playing a leading role,” has turned back to its position of high dependence on exports after the immediate danger is seemingly past. To comply with requests from financial circles, its supplementary budget now being discussed in the Diet includes expenditures favorable to large corporations dependent on the export market.

In the United States, the major source of Japan’s trade surplus, the household economy has been heavily hit by the collapse of the housing bubble. The United States is urged to turn away from its economic pattern in which households borrow money in order to spend more, which eventually leads to economic growth. Unless the Japanese government squarely faces up to the fact that the U.S. consumption bubble has burst and takes the initiative to change the economy into one led by domestic demand, the Japanese economy will face a bleak future.

For an economy that is led by domestic demand

A Reuters survey shows that 40 percent of the leading manufacturers in Japan are planning to cut full-time jobs. Large corporations are responsible for the collapse of the job market, which is worsening people’s livelihoods and the national economy at the same time.

It is imperative for the government to order large corporations to stop laying off workers by paying out part of their enormous internal reserves in order to prevent the economic downturn from becoming worse as well as to change the economy into one led by domestic demand.

The mass media abroad are watching Japan because they think that such things as karoshi (death from overwork), unpaid overtime and the growth of the working poor are unimaginable in Europe. The task of reforming “capitalism not governed by rules,” which is an aberration in the world, cannot wait any longer.

Communist Party USA Statement on North Korean Nuclear Test

Fri, 29 May 2009 01:12:00 +0000

5-28-09, 8:57 am

Original source:

The Communist Party USA is shocked and appalled at North Korea's recent nuclear test, as well as its subsequent test firing of at least two missiles.

We see these acts as incredibly provocative and irresponsible. Unfortunately, they are not a surprising departure from the way the DPRK leadership has handled itself in recent years. Even North Korea's most important ally, China, was horrified by, and condemned, the tests.

Of course, North Korea is right to say that it has been, and still is, the victim of imperialist aggression, specifically from the US. It is true that the United States has never made reparations for the destruction of the Korean War, has repeatedly threatened North Korea, and encroached upon its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to peacefully use nuclear power.

In addition, the United States has helped to isolate North Korea from the rest of the world, encroaching upon its sovereign rights and hindering its economic development, and therefore providing the basis for the problems afflicting the region.

It was the United States that fought the Korean War, and partitioned the nation into two separate states. The line of demarcation between north and south is one of the most militarized in the world. Currently, tens of thousands of US troops remain in South Korea, and the US routinely practices joint military drills with south Korea, simulating a ground invasion of the North.

Nonetheless, we are resolutely opposed to the use or development of any nuclear weapons by any nation.

Nuclear weapons threaten the very existence of humanity itself. The tests heighten tensions in the region: The sections of Japan's leadership that want to see Japan change its “peace constitution” so that Japan can maintain a standing army have seized upon these provocative tests to push forward the changes they want.

Further, the results of the tests are in direct contradiction to the stated aims of battling imperialism. The general direction of the Obama administration's foreign policy is at odds with that of any administration in the past 30 years, if not longer. While Obama has to navigate the political realities of the US, his administration has sought to reduce the nuclear threat, as well as the threat that the US poses to other, oppressed nations. Consequently, powerful sections of the U.S. ruling class have made their aim to derail the Obama administration altogether.

The fight for progressive forces is to make sure that Obama, and the social strata that are part of the Obama movement – the working class, women and the racially and nationally oppressed especially – meets success.

The ultra-right has already seized upon North Korea's nuclear tests to attack Obama, Obama has been forced to respond sharply, and the movement for peace and against imperialism is that much more difficult. We believe peace is possible in today’s world, but this nuclear test, on the contrary, strengthens the ultra-right and imperialism, not the cause of peace.

The Communist Party USA, along with North Korea's neighbors, including socialist China and Vietnam, and many other progressive forces around the world, condemn these tests and urge the North Korean leadership to abandon its policy of brinkmanship.

Further, we urge all parties, including the United States and Japan, to exercise restraint in response. As we have always said, the main way to solve the nuclear issue, as well as the problems of Northeast Asia more generally, is through good-faith dialogue, through the six-party talks or some other mechanism, and not through military saber-rattling and brinkmanship from any quarters.

Free Trade With Panama: Some Winners And Some Losers

Thu, 28 May 2009 06:15:00 +0000

5-27-09, 2:01 pm

Original source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Last Thursday the Senate Finance Committee convened in order to address a number of controversial issues that have sprung up regarding the pending U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) with Panama. Following the hearing, U.S. Trade Representative for Western Hemisphere Affairs Everett Eissenstat announced that President Obama would consult with U.S. lawmakers before sending the controversial FTA to Congress for approval. Eissenstat added that the “agreement has the potential to be a good deal for the United States.”

In early March, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued a statement of intent, indicating that it would move on the pending Panama Free Trade Agreement “relatively quickly.” However, a number of road blocks, including strong U.S. labor opposition and concerns over Panama’s classification as a tax haven, are currently holding up the FTA’s ratification in the U.S. Congress.

The Free Trade Agreement, which has been re-branded as a “Trade Promotion Agreement (TPC),” in order to distance itself from the controversy surrounding other FTAs, was signed by the Bush administration on June 28, 2007. The accord was passed by Panama’s assembly the following month, in what some have called a rushed and non-transparent process. Critics attacked the legislation on grounds that no Spanish version of the agreement had been made available, and that members of civil society who were known to be opposed to the pact were not given adequate time to review and comment on the text. The opposition within Panama has been made up of a mixed bag of labor unions, farmer groups, leftist politicians and progressive church voices, who, according to one Panamanian reporter, developed their own meaning for the acronym TPC: “Todo Panama Colonizado” (All of Panama Colonized).

Nevertheless, both the Torrijos government and now the president-elect of Panama, Ricardo Martinelli, have been pushing hard to get the agreement ratified before those who oppose the trade pact on human rights grounds are able to block its passage on the Hill. Torrijos has expressed his desire to see the accord passed before he leaves office on July 1. While some trade specialists are convinced that the U.S.-Panama FTA will pass the U.S. Congress, a number of highly regarded analysts think to the contrary. According to Eric Jackson of Panama News, “I would expect this treaty to die, but I also expect talks about a new proposal to eventually take place between the Obama and Martinelli administrations. Those would not be easy negotiations.”

The Panamanian government has insisted that none of the issues holding up the FTA in Congress are, in its eyes, legitimate concerns. Talking with Reuters, Martinelli’s top economic advisor Frank de Lima claimed that the “perception that Panama is a tax haven is totally false.” He went on to assert that Panama respects labor rights and collective bargaining. However, a growing body of evidence increasingly points to the contrary.

Panama’s Phantom Economy

For decades, Panama has adjusted its laws and regulations in order to ensure that its ‘business climate’ is one of the most competitive in the world. On the other hand, critics maintain that such regulation offers a number of opportunities for foreign companies interested in dodging fair taxes, exploiting malleable labor regulations, and taking advantage of shrouded financial transparency. Panama’s level of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has skyrocketed since legislation was passed in 1992 which established “Export Processing Zones (EPZs)” in a number of locations across the country. Companies from all over the world are welcome to establish factories in these zones for “light manufacturing, assembly, high technology, and specialized and general services.” Companies operating there are exempt from all taxation on imports and exports, sales tax, and imports on capital and assets. In addition, EPZs are free from all restrictive national labor and immigration standards. Instead, they are allowed to operate under provisions which are “more favorable [to foreign companies] than the current Panamanian Labor Code.”

Since Public Citizen released a report in April 2009 highlighting the country’s banking secrecy rules and lax financial regulations, there has been much circulation in the media concerning Panama’s status as a top tax haven. All foreign corporations conducting business in Panama are exempt from national taxes, making the country a “100 percent tax haven,” according to the report. It comes as no surprise that over 350,000 foreign-registered companies nominally operate from Panama, and $25 billion of U.S. investment already has been sunk into the country, according to the U.S. State Department.

In addition to tax incentives, Panamanian law also makes it easy for multinational corporations to “cook the books.” According to the Public Citizen report, “Panama has one of the world’s most restrictive information exchange regimes,” which allows the country to withhold information even within the framework of a criminal investigation. Moreover, extremely strict slander laws known as “Calumnia Y Injuria” rules can be used to arrest journalists for reporting facts and figures, if they do not reflect well on business interests. This lack of transparency, coupled with a lenient regulatory system governing the country’s banking and financial sectors, enables corporations to “conceal their financial losses and engage in off-balance sheet activities.” Evidence also links Panama’s Colón Free Zone (CFZ) with trafficking of narcotics and other illicit substances, in addition to off-shore activities carried on by foreign corporations. Panama’s CFZ, which is the second largest free trade zone in the world, provides a centrally located “transit area for drugs and related money laundering,” activities moving up through Mexico to its northern border, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The illicit matters have grown even more controversial since the G-20’s recent conference decided to crack down on tax havens and step up financial regulation as key steps toward global financial recovery. Various U.S. government bodies estimate that closing global tax havens would save U.S. taxpayers between $210 Billion and $1 Trillion over the next decade.

A free trade agreement with Panama, argues Public Citizen, would actually hinder efforts on the part of the US government to crack down on tax evasion and money laundering in Panama. The proposed FTA contains provisions that forbid cross-border regulations on financial transactions between the U.S. and Panama, and would provide subsidiaries operating in Panama enhanced “investor rights,” enabling them to challenge any attempt by the U.S. government to monitor or limit financial transactions. In the words of Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch: “Members of Congress wouldn’t vote to let AIG not pay its taxes or to give Mexican drug lords a safe place to hide their proceeds from selling drugs to our kids, but that’s in essence what the Panama FTA does.”

Bad News for Labor

According to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who has been straining to get safe passage for the Panama trade measure during his short time in this position, Panama has made “very good progress” on labor issues hindering U.S. approval of a free trade agreement. Kirk and others point to the fact that the agreement incorporates the policies of the “New Trade Policy for the Americas (TPA).” This provision contains the same labor and environmental protections which were added to the recently enacted US-Peru FTA. However, in Peru such punative protections failed to guard labor or the environment from being scaled back and hassled as result of its FTA being enacted. Additionally, the U.S. Labor Advisory Committee stated in its report that the labor stipulations in the Panama FTA “will not protect the fundamental human rights of workers in either country.” Although the FTA makes reference to the UN International Labor Organization’s Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work Declaration, it contains no provisions that would force the signatories to strictly implement the UN’s labor standards. Further, the agreement does not prevent Panama from “weakening or reducing the protections afforded in domestic labor laws” in any future effort it may make to “encourage trade or investment.”

The U.S.-Panama FTA contains only one enforceable labor provision: a requirement for the government to adhere to its own labor laws. Unfortunately, there is a significant canard involved in this language. Panama’s labor track record is not entirely clean; in August 2007 two construction union members were assassinated while demonstrating for worker rights. Furthermore, if existing labor laws are broken, the FTA’s “dispute settlement system,” set in place to uphold these standards, serves as little more than window-dressing. The maximum government fine is capped at $15 million, which amounts to about one-tenth of one percent of total US-Panama trade in 2006. Additionally, these funds, in the unlikely circumstance that they ever will be collected, are paid a “joint commission to improve labor rights enforcement,” which in turn could be easily funneled back into Panamanian government’s coffers.

Given that the Panamanian labor code does not even apply in Export Processing Zones, and in conjunction with the fact that approximately two-thirds of Panamanian workers operate in the informal economy, the remedial power of any labor provisions that might be included in the agreement would be severely limited. This FTA will ultimately exonerate the signatories from meeting an acceptable human rights standard.

Agriculture Markets and Rural Poverty

In addition to labor and tax issues, the FTA will inevitably have the effect of slowly eroding the protections that Panama has worked to maintain in its most vulnerable economic sectors. Due to a number of existing regional trade agreements, Panamanian products already enter the United States duty free. The pending FTA, according to the State Department’s Charles S. Shapiro, would simply “reduce [Panama’s] tariffs on products imported from the United States.” Aware of the dangers associated with the FTA’s role in opening the country up to the behemoth U.S. economy, Panama’s negotiators were able to reserve some protections for the country’s developing sectors, specifically agriculture. This relatively young sector not only employs 17% of the country’s labor force, but also supports 40% of the country’s rural population, according to the US Congressional Research Service. Thus, the Panamanian government has argued that opening the country’s markets to U.S. agricultural goods, which are subsidized by the government and produced on a much greater scale than its more protective partner, would be “highly detrimental to the social structure of the rural economy, leading to increased unemployment, poverty, and urban migration.”

Despite the fact that “agriculture was one of the most sensitive issues for Panama,” its officials failed to reach lasting and effective compromises in order to protect their markets from U.S. incursion. The FTA immediately eliminates tariffs on over 60 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Panama, with most remaining tariffs to be gradually eliminated over a period of 15 years or less. Two key products: locally-grown rice (which currently supplies over 90% of Panama’s domestic demand) and sugar (which presently accounts for a third of Panama’s agricultural exports, as well as 41percent of its agricultural exports to the United States), will retain limited protections in the short-term. However, as tariffs are slowly lifted over a fixed period of years, Panama could lose the “relatively high wage rates” that it currently enjoys in these sectors.

According to the congressional report, this phase-out period would “buy time for Panama to develop its nontraditional export crops, such as melons, palm oil, and pineapples, which some view as the future of this sector.” Unfortunately, these are precisely the crops that the rest of Central America already exports to the U.S. at bottom-barrel prices. Thus, Panama, under this new regime, would be forced to join the regional ‘race to the bottom’ in order to ensure competitive prices for its products on the global market. The impact on Panama’s rural poor could be debilitating. In addition, Panama’s already spotty social safety net stands to suffer as the global economic partnership involving Panama develops. In a bid to attract foreign investment, President-elect Martinelli has committed his government to “massive infrastructure spending in partnership with foreign investors,” according to Reuters. This spending is not likely to benefit the approximately one third of Panama’s population currently living below the poverty line in the country’s rural areas. Already, very little public spending is allocated to this demographic. The World Bank has identified sharp geographical inequities in health care and education spending, which disproportionately benefits the urban upper and middle classes far more than the rural poor and indigenous populations. This trend will likely worsen with a free trade agreement that opens Panama’s agriculture markets to fierce competition and commits further government revenue to the country’s urban commercial centers.

In short, the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement inevitably will be a bonanza for big business. It would contribute to the elimination of many inconvenient hurdles that cut down on corporate profits, such as labor regulations, taxes, and fair-minded market signposts. A far larger portion of the population could lose out under the FTA including those who benefit from these protections, such as workers in both countries, poverty-stricken Panamanian farmers, and the American taxpayer. As a battle between corporate interests and civil society ensues in the U.S. Congress, a parallel struggle to sway public opinion is taking place in the media. However, whichever way the decision falls, a lasting solution to global economic ills is unlikely without a fundamental shift in the way the United States conducts its business in developing countries.

Editorial: Overcoming Hate After Prop. 8

Thu, 28 May 2009 02:31:00 +0000

5-27-09, 10:09 am

Democracy in America suffered a major setback Tuesday, May 26th. The California State Supreme Court ruled that some people because they are gay or lesbians or bisexual or transgender do not have to be treated the same or deserve equal status as others.

In the case of Strauss v. Horton, the state Supreme Court upheld a narrowly passed statewide referendum (Prop. 8) that took away rights granted to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people wishing to marry. It may be the first time a state actually deleted rights, setting a dangerous precedent that leaves no fundamental Constitutional right safe from legal challenge.

Ironically, the same court ruled in 2008 that marriage was a basic civil right that could not be denied to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation. Now that principle has been discarded. The ruling appears to uphold the long-repudiated legal philosophy of 'separate but equal,' by attempting to create separate legal categories for different groups of people, based solely on sexual orientation.

Such a ruling flies in the face of the ideals of the democratic traditions in our country, which see ever-expanding inclusion of people in civil society.

The small bright spot in this legal fiasco is that the court agreed to continue to recognize the some 18,000 marriages affirmed during the one year period of marriage equality.

The California decision contrasts with the growing trend across the country that is leaving anti-gay basis behind. By September 2009, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine will have granted full marriage equality rights. Five additional states, including California, will have provided some separate, unequal status for same-sex couples. Both New Hampshire and New York are considering laws that would grant marriage equality. Washington DC and New York are close to recognizing same-sex marriages entered into outside those jurisdictions.

For the first time in our history, more Americans support marriage equality than oppose it.

In the landmark US Supreme Court ruling in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, the court unanimously agreed that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' violated basic Constitutional principles of equal protection before the law. These principles cannot voted down by Congress, one state or by one state court. They are fundamental.

Thirteen years later, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Loving v. Virginia, that 'marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.''

While the California decision in this case is a victory for those who continue to hate gay people, it is also a launching point for a renewed movement for equality across the country. It is a movement that will not stop until full equality for all people is guaranteed.

While democracy suffered a setback in America on Tuesday, May 26th, the forces for democracy and equality have never been more determined and united.

North Korea: No way to act

Thu, 28 May 2009 02:09:00 +0000

5-27-09, 9:55 am

Original source: People's Weekly World

North Korea's recent nuclear test, as well as its subsequent test firing of two missiles, represents a grave threat to peace and stability in the region, the fight to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world and, more generally, the fight for peace and social progress.

We condemn these reckless and provocative acts.

North Korea has claimed that it has been the victim of imperialist aggression, specifically from the United States. The United States has refused to sign a peace treaty with North Korea, has hedged on agreements made in the six-party talks aimed at solving the nuclear issue, and, over the decades, worked to isolate North Korea.

And it was the U.S. that fought in the war which divided the country into two -- a war that has never officially ended. The border between North and South Korea is one of the most militarized in the world.

Nonetheless, building nuclear weapons, which endanger the very existence of humanity itself, can never be justified.

Recent changes in the world make the test all the more irresponsible. Today, Barack Obama is the U.S. president and as such pledged to reduce nuclear arsenals, to sign a treaty that would ban all nations, including the U.S. itself, from any nuclear tests. Unprecedented vows from any U.S. president, and one that has been welcomed around the world.

The current fight for progressive forces is to make sure that such a nuclear policy is implemented. North Korea's tests do exactly the opposite. They play into the hands of those in the U.S. who want to derail the Obama presidency, as well as into the hands of those in Japan who would like to destroy the nation's “peace constitution” and turn Japan itself into an aggressive power.

The North Korean news agency said, “The test will contribute to defending the sovereignty of the country and the nation and socialism and ensuring peace and security on the Korean peninsula and the region.' However the world sees it differently, including North Korea's socialist neighbors, China and Vietnam, which have condemned the tests.

Who Owns the World's Forests?

Thu, 28 May 2009 02:06:00 +0000

5-27-09, 9:52 am

Original source: IRIN News

JOHANNESBURG, 26 May 2009 (IRIN) – The Congo Basin countries, home to the world's second largest tropical forest, are 260 years behind those of the Amazon Basin, where the trend is to hand ownership of the forest to communities, according to a new study assessing tropical forest tenure.

The conclusion was drawn from a comparison between the annual rate of transferring forest to communities in 39 countries, representing 96 percent of global tropical forests.

Community ownership – making people the custodians of the forests - was critical to stopping deforestation, which would stem greenhouse gas emissions and alleviate poverty, said Jeffrey Hatcher, leading author of the study by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), a UN treaty-based agency, and the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI), a global coalition of non-governmental and community organizations working to advance forest tenure.

Much attention is being paid to forest tenure, as the study released at an international conference in Cameroon on 26 May points out, because there is money to be made in saving forests, which could help the communities living there.

• Deforestation, a major driver of climate change, is responsible for 17.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – way ahead of emissions from the transport sector, which account for just over 13 percent – according to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body.

• At the UN meeting on climate change in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007, signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognized halting deforestation as critical to keeping the global mean temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.

Various studies have shown that a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in mean global temperature would probably destroy 30 percent to 40 percent of all known species of plants and animals, generate bigger, fiercer and more frequent heat waves and droughts, more intense weather events like floods and cyclones, and raise the sea level by at least a meter, displacing millions of people.

• The need for implementing a strategy – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) – in developing countries was also recognized in Bali. Various policies are now being put in place to help local communities conserve forests, including funding these efforts through governments and market-based mechanisms, like trading the carbon stored by forests as credits to greenhouse gas-emitting industries.

• This gives communities and individuals with forest-ownership rights more bargaining power than those who are tenants of the state, but the nettlesome questions of the extent of such rights have yet to be settled: Who owns the carbon sequestered in trees and forest soils? Who owns the rights to the carbon emissions avoided? Who should be compensated for protecting the world's forests and aiding climate stability?

• Should it be only those with formal, secure tenure? If so, the poor risk exclusion: approximately 800 million people live in forests, of whom a large but unknown number have weak formal land and resource tenure security, or none at all.

• Ten countries responsible for 54 percent of global carbon emissions caused by deforestation have transferred no legal ownership of forest areas to communities and indigenous peoples, or very little: Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon and Venezuela.

• More than 70 percent of Africa's remaining tropical forests are located in the Congo Basin, where civil conflicts, inadequate governance, and a lack of action on land reform have put much of it at risk.

Hatcher and his co-authors noted in the report that even if the Congo Basin countries moved as quickly as the Amazon countries, a change in forest ownership would take 16 years. 'The conference in Cameroon is a step to bringing awareness,' he told IRIN.

Cartoon: Global Economic Crisis, What Next?

Tue, 26 May 2009 02:10:00 +0000