Globalization
Please Note: You can now translate this site into French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Please click here.
ARTICLES BEFORE NOVEMBER ARE IN THE ARCHIVES
Multinationals Take Aim at Protesters, By Bill Berkowitz ~ December 25
If We Want To Defeat The FTAA, We Have To Beat Fast Track First, Michael Dolan ~ Dec. 19
Latin America Is Priority on Bush Trade Agenda, By Anthony DePalma ~ Dec. 18
Ogden Corp. Quits Indian Dam Citing Economic Concerns, By Patrick McCully ~ December 14
Study Finds Dangerous Rise in Corporate Power, By Tamara Straus ~ December 7
Police Use Tear Gas as Trouble Flares in Nice, Reuters ~ Dec. 10
Play It Again Sam: The IMF And World Bank Are At It Again, Robin Hahnel, ZNet Commentary ~ Dec. 9
SAMWU Condemns Global Privatisation Summit Starting Monday in Capetown, By Anna Weekes ~ Dec. 6
Protesters Demand Buffalo State Cut Ties to Private Prison Industry, By Karen Brady ~ Dec. 5
Seattle WTO Activists Accuse Mayor Schell of Obstructing WTO Teach-In, By Mark Taylor ~ Dec 2
Glaxo Stops Africans Buying Cheap Aids Drugs, By Sarah Boseley ~ December 2
ALERT: Zambia Debt Fiasco - Letters Needed by Dec. 7 ~ Dec. 1
Police Attack Peaceful March Against Third World Debt, By Paul Lavery ~ Nov. 26
Invisible Government: Cincinnati Protesters Shine Spotlight on Influential CEO Group, By Daniel Zoll ~ Nov. 2000
The World's Poor Gather in New York City - Poverty Outlaws, Lenora Todaro, Village Voice ~ Nov 22-28
Many Summer Protesters Cleared, By Debbie Goldberg ~ Nov. 30
People's Caravan 2000 Culminates in Massive Protest Against TNCs and Imperialist Globalisation, People's Caravan ~ Nov. 24
Stop Oil/Gas Development in Kirthar National Park in Pakistan, The Citizens Committee on Kirthar ~ Dec. 1
On First Anniversary of Seattle, Student Movement Is Alive, By Bhumika Muchhala ~ Nov. 25
Demand World Bank Assume Responsibility For Sardar Sarovar Project, Susanne Wong ~ Nov. 25
Placing Blame For Genocide: Guatemalan Massacre Survivors Seek Damages From Dam Financiers, Karen Levy ~ November 16
The People's Caravan In Bangladesh - November 18-24, The People's Caravan 2000 - Land and Food Without Poisons! ~ Nov. 24
Biotech Firm Buys Tonga's Gene Pool, Vanessa Williams in Melbourne ~ Nov. 22
Successful Demonstration In Uruguay Against GMOs, Vivianne García ~ Nov. 23
Japan Adds its Voice to the People's Caravan, Citizens on the Move for Land and Food Without Poisons! ~ Nov. 21
Canadian Aid Agency Pays World's Third Largest Engineering Firm to Justify Dam Construction in Belize, Probe International ~ Nov. 21
Under The Gun of Free Trade, Arthur Sandborn ~ Nov. 5
The Real Green Revolution Has Begun: Indian Farmers On The War Path, Dr. Vandana Shiva ~ Nov. 19
Indonesia Adds Its Voice To The People's Caravan, The People's Caravan 2000 ~ Nov. 18
The People's Caravan Mobilises Farmers For Food Rights, The People's Caravan 2000 ~ Nov. 17
Corporate Saboteurs, By Robert Lenzner and Tomas Kellner ~ Nov. 17
Power Without Firebombs, By Tomas Kellner ~ Nov. 17
Damned If You Do, By Michael Maiello ~ Nov. 17
A Coalition Organized in Steven's Point is Calling for Action: Who Has Control at OUR Universities? ~ November 17
World Bank President Compelled to Meet Over 2500 'Civil Society' Representatives, By Sanjay Sangvai ~ Nov. 15
Thousands Confront the World Bank President in Delhi, By Narmada Bachao Andolan ~ Nov. 13
The TransAtlantic Business Dialogue, By Mike Dolan ~ Nov. 12
MF, World Bank Reforms Leave Poor Behind, Bank Economist Finds, By Mark Drajem ~ Nov. 7
Asia's Poor Farmers Demand Genuine Agrarian Land Reform, Jennifer Mourin ~ November 8
Farmers Protest on PhilRice Anniversary -- Demand Land and Food Without Poisons ~ Peasant Movement of the Philippines ~ November 7
Canadian Group Wants More Dams Dismantled, Neville Judd ~ Nov. 7
Don't Let The WTO Get Hold Of Our Water! By Ruth Caplan ~ Nov. 7
Biwater Seeks to Suppress Public Debate and Grassroots Organizing Over the Internet ~ November 6
Indonesian House Commission Works on GMO Rules, Jakarta Post ~ November 6
Asia's Rural Poor Denounces Next Round of APEC Meetings, PAN AP ~ November 7
The World Social Forum To Provide Space for Economic Alternatives, World Social Forum ~ November 6
Quebec 2001: A Carnival Against Capitalism, la C.L.A.C. ~ November 2
Asian NGOs and Farmers Groups Oppose Genetically Engineered Rice, The People's Caravan 2000 ~ November 3
U.S. Congress Gives Governors Authority Over Future Water Sales, By Katherine Rizzo, Associated Press ~ November 3
For Whom The Bell Tolls, Devaki Jain ~ November 2
US Sign-on Letter To Stop Sardar Sarovar Dam, International Rivers Network ~ November 2
ARTICLES BEFORE NOVEMBER ARE IN THE ARCHIVES
Multinationals Take Aim at Protesters
By Bill Berkowitz, In These Times ~ December 25
In response to the anti-globalization movement's numbers and vigilance, multinational companies and right-wing think tanks are beginning to take aim at the protesters. According to a document obtained by the newsletter Inside EPA, the Sony Corporation has been preparing an "action plan for counteracting the efforts of several domestic and international environmental groups-including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition" that are involved in a campaign to hold electronics manufacturers responsible for their toxic waste.
Last summer in Brussels, Belgium, Sony representatives presented a paper called "NGO Strategy" to the European Information and Communications Technology Industry Association's conference on environmental policy. Sony's strategic suggestions included "pre-funding intervention" to reduce the financial support that liberal foundations give to environmental organizations; a recommendation that companies ratchet up their capability to quickly respond to environmental critics and pre-empt future legislation; and the development of a "detailed monitoring and contact network" to keep tabs on these organizations.
Inside EPA suggests that this monitoring might be carried out by "one of the dozens of new Internet 'intelligence' agencies-such as the London-based Infonics PLC-that monitor chat rooms, e-mail lists, electronic bulletin boards, online news services, newsgroups and other sources of public information for specific data requested by a company or industry group." Sony executives have acknowledged that the company is monitoring environmental groups. "We are obviously concerned about our image," Mark Small, Sony's vice president of environmental and health and safety issues, told the InterPress news service. "If Greenpeace is pushing something, we want to be on top if it."
Sony's interest in "pre-funding intervention" dovetails with the publication of "Who Props Up the Protesters," an extensive report from Truth About Trade, a new organization that purports to "tell the truth" about the organizations active in the Seattle demonstrations and the foundations that fund them. Truth About Trade is a Des Moines, Iowa-based agriculture industry group headed by Dean Kleckner, former president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, a leading agribusiness lobby. Kleckner says that Truth About Trade's mission is "to stand up for farm exports and advancements in biotechnology based on sound science," and to prevent environmental extremists and radical protesters from limiting America's economic and technological potential.
Truth About Trade's report (http://www.truthabouttrade.com) provides "an outline of the history, goals, financial strength and level of activism for ... organizations involved in the anti-trade protests in Seattle." "Who Props Up the Protesters" contains profiles of more than 50 "environmental groups actively opposing trade, "including the Ruckus Society, Direct Action Network, Earth Island Institute, Friends of the Earth, Global Exchange and the National Wildlife Federation, and details how these groups participated in the Seattle protests. [*]
For just one example, in its profile of the Berkeley, California-based Ruckus Society, Truth About Trade asserts that Ruckus uses its training on nonviolent civil disobedience as a cover for its real agenda: "violent lawbreaking" by "leaders [who] are no stranger to violence themselves, [and who] might actually have expected the vandalism by the anarchist members of their protest." One of Truth about Trade's most significant contributions to intelligence gathering is documentation that the fair-trade network is bankrolled by "grantmakers [who] are funneling large sums of money to environmental groups." Among the major foundations highlighted are the Bullitt Foundation, HKH Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, Rockefeller Foundation, Turner Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation and C.S. Mott Foundation.
There are several other conservative institutions focusing on the foundations who are providing the financial lifeblood for the environmental movement. The Washington-based Capital Research Center is one of the rising stars in the crowded universe of right-wing think tanks ("http://www.capitalresearch.org") <"http://www.capitalresearch.org")> . Established in 1984, the Capital Research Center analyzes how "those organizations with tax-exempt, tax-deductible-and sometimes tax dollars-mix advocacy and 'direct action' to promote their own vision of the public interest." It also looks at how closely individuals in the corporate and foundation sectors are sticking to the "donor intent" of the founders of these corporations and foundations.
Conservatives become apoplectic when they discover that a significant amount of money earmarked for environmental groups comes from foundations established by free-market entrepreneurs who accumulated enormous wealth based on decidedly anti-environmental activities. "The source of wealth for the Pew Trusts comes from energy exploration and development," the Capital Research Center's President Robert Huberty told the House Resource Committee at a May hearing. Complaining about Pew support for a forest protection campaign, he said that the original intent of the founders of the foundation was to "acquaint the American people [with] the evils of bureaucracy, the values of a free market and the paralyzing effects of government controls on the lives and activities of people."
Frustrated, Huberty asked, "How do the Pew Trusts honor the intentions of their donor by supporting a campaign to permanently end logging in a large portion of the national forests?" Anti-globalization activities clearly are becoming a direct threat to global corporate power. Surveillance, propaganda and counter-intelligence efforts mounted by the rich and powerful are just beginning to reveal themselves, but they surely are a harbinger of things to come.
Bill Berkowitz is a freelance writer covering the religious right and related conservative movements. Contact him by e-mail at wkbbronx@aol.com
END
If We Want To Defeat The FTAA, We Have To Beat Fast Track First
Michael Dolan, Trade Watch ~ Dec. 19, 2000
The new Administration needs Fast Track in order to expand NAFTA throughout the hemisphere (see NYT story below). The transnational corporate 'free trade' lobby will make Fast Track its highest legislative priority in the new Congress. Our challenge is to repeat the victories of '97 and '98 when we frustrated the Clinton White House, Big Business and the Republican congressional leadership by defeating Fast Track in the House of Representatives.
We can meet this challenge only by organizing at the grassroots level, targeting undecided congress-members, especially Democrats, starting immediately.
U.S. based activists: please activate your Fair Trade networks now, while the Congress is still in recess, and make your opposition to FTAA and Fast Track loud and visible.
For more information about FTAA and Fast Track, please don't hesitate to access our web-site, www.tradewatch.org.
END
Latin America Is Priority on Bush Trade Agenda
By Anthony DePalma, New York Times ~ December 18, 2000
He may not be comfortable discussing unrest in East Timor, or pronouncing the name of the leaders of Turkmenistan, but President-elect George W. Bush considers the rest of the Western Hemisphere "our backyard" and will have several opportunities in his first year in office to make Latin America a trade and foreign policy priority.
During the campaign, Mr. Bush said he would kickstart the stalled process of getting a free trade agreement of the Americas signed by 2005. The agreement would build on the North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect in 1994, and would unite 34 of the countries in North, Central and South America into what President Clinton once said would be "the world's largest market."
The first order of business would be a bruising battle in a divided Congress over fast-track authority, the legislative tool that Mr. Bush will need to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal. Under fast track, trade deals are brought to Congress for approval only when complete. Congress then votes on the agreement without having the chance to add amendments that suit the needs and wishes of individual members.
"I'd expect that within the first 100 days in office he'll propose approval of fast-track authority," said Sidney Weintraub, an economist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international finance and development.
Even though Republicans narrowly control the House of Representatives, Mr. Bush will need to reach across the aisle to Democrats for help in getting fast-track authority approved. Mr. Weintraub expects that the need for bipartisan cooperation will provide Democrats an opportunity to attach environmental and labor standards to the bill, although Mr. Bush has made it clear that he does not support such standards if they are too rigidly drawn.
In negotiating a trade deal, Mr. Bush would also have to heed strongly voiced opposition to such side agreements from some Latin American nations, led by Brazil, that fear that labor and environmental standards attached to a trade deal could be used as protectionist shields by American businesses that feel threatened by Latin American competition.
In a campaign speech in Miami in August, Mr. Bush said the Clinton administration dropped the ball on Latin America after losing the legislative battle to win fast-track authority. In the speech, he said that by the time the third Summit of the Americas meets, a fast-track bill will already have been introduced in Congress.
"When the next president sits at the Americas Summit in Quebec next April, other nations must know that fast-track authority is on the way," he said during the campaign.
Although Mr. Bush criticized President Clinton for stalling the drive for a free trade agreement of the Americas, the process has actually been chugging along, though largely out of sight. Negotiating teams have continued to work on technical details, and when trade officials gather in Quebec, a substantial framework for the trade negotiations leading to a 2005 deal will be in place.
"The 2005 date was set at the first Americas Summit in Miami in 1994 and reconfirmed at the second in Santiago," said Richard E. Feinberg, a former senior director of the National Security Council's Office of Inter-American Affairs under President Clinton and now a professor at the graduate school of international relations at the University of California in San Diego. "All the major players remain committed to the 2005 date."
During the campaign, Mr. Bush talked about developing a "special relationship" with Mexico, which is one of the few foreign countries he has ever visited. Referring more broadly to all of Latin America, he said he would "look south, not as an afterthought but as a fundamental commitment of my presidency."
As governor of a border state, Mr. Bush has had a front-row seat on the expansion of international trade, and the effect on Texas has been substantial. According to a recent study by the Council of the Americas, Texas exports to Mexico have more than doubled since Nafta came into force in 1994.
Mr. Bush will not have to worry about union opposition to new international trade deals as much as Vice President Al Gore would have, but there is a segment of the Republican Party that has become increasingly protectionist and could complicate any trade deal. That could force Mr. Bush to take a page from Mr. Clinton's playbook and cast increased trade in political and strategic terms, as Mr. Clinton did in winning a trade vote on China.
Mr. Bush had promised to meet with Mexico's president, Vicente Fox Quesada, even before Mr. Fox was inaugurated on Dec. 1, a signal that the administrations of both countries, starting at roughly the same time, would work in tandem to resolve common problems like illegal immigration, illicit drugs and environmental pollution. Because of the extraordinary delays in the American election, the meeting never took place, but Mr. Bush sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Fox on the day of his inauguration.
Mr. Fox has already taken a pre-emptive lead on some of these areas. During the summer he visited Mr. Clinton and both presidential candidates, and talked freely about his ideas for deepening Nafta and taking measures to reduce barriers that prevent Mexican workers from entering the United States to find work.
Mr. Fox's ideas were not warmly embraced by either Democrats or Republicans, and a close relationship with him and Mexico could put Mr. Bush into a difficult position with members of his own party.
"He will, as he said, have a `special relationship' with Mexico, but the question now is what kind of relationship will it be," said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington, who supported Mr. Gore. "Here is where a Bush presidency might run into real trouble."
END
Ogden Corp. Quits Indian Dam Citing Economic Concerns
By Patrick McCully, International Rivers Network ~ December 14
New York-based Ogden Corporation have ended their involvement in the controversial Maheshwar Dam on India's Narmada River. Mr Kent Burton, Ogden's Vice President for Policy and Communications, told IRN today that the company had decided to quit the dam due to "growing concerns on project economics". "IRN welcomes Ogden's decision to pull out of the Maheshwar dam," says Patrick McCully, IRN Campaigns Director. "This is yet more evidence of the non-viability of this project and of big hydro projects in general. Its now time for Siemens and other foreign companies involved in this disastrous project to follow Ogden's lead," McCully added.
"Ogden's prudent decision should serve as yet another warning to Indian and foreign investors to stay away from this economically unviable and destructive project," says Chittaroopa Palit, Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA - Save the Narmada Movement) activist. "We call on the Indian government to scrap the dam and implement viable alternatives to meet the energy needs of the people of India", says Palit.
Ogden signed a Memorandum of Intent to take a 49 percent equity share in the Maheshwar dam in March, 2000. Since thenthe NBA, IRN and other human rights and environmental organizations have repeatedly drawn Ogden's attention to the poor economics and disastrous human rights and environmental impacts of the project. Ogden is the latest in a series of foreign companies to have dropped out of Maheshwar. In 1998, Pacgen, a subsidiary of Oregon power utility Pacificorp, withdrew their commitment to take a 49% share in the project. Pacgen's stake was then taken up by German power utilities Bayernwerk and VEW Energie, who then in turn withdrew in 1999.
In June 2000, after a highly critical report on the project was published by the country's development ministry, the German Hypovereinsbank cancelled its planned investment in Maheshwar. Several foreign companies remain involved in the dam, most notably engineering company Siemens of Germany. The German Development Ministry's report on the dam, however, was a serious blow to Siemens and forced them to withdraw their application for an export credit guarantee from the German government. Siemens plans to sell generating equipment and take an equity share in Maheshwar. Others involved in the project are ABB Portugal, which is set to sell equipment to the dam and UK engineers W.S. Atkins who are preparing - in total secrecy - an environmental assessment of the project.
The Maheshwar Dam, located in Madhya Pradesh state in central India, would affect around 40,000 farmers, wage laborers, fishers and crafts people in 61 villages and submerge about 1,100 hectares of rich agricultural land. Many of these people would lose part or all of their lands, while others would lose their source of livelihood. Local people, led by the Narmada Bachao Andolan which has campaigned for more than a decade to stop dams on the Narmada River, are fiercely opposed to the project and determined that it will never be completed.
Project promoter S. Kumars, an Indian textile firm with no prior experience in dam building, is currently seeking financial backing from Indian public financial institutions, such as the Power Finance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation of India, and the Housing and Urban Development Corporation. Preliminary construction work has been done on the dam. The recent report of the World Commission on Dams has highlighted the poor economic performance of large dams. The World Bank-sponsored commission found that the average cost overrun for the 81 projects it reviewed was a massive 56% and that hydro projects produced on average less energy that claimed in project documents.
for more information Patrick McCully - 510 848 1155 Chitaroopa Palit, Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA - Save the Narmada Movement)
END
Study Finds Dangerous Rise in Corporate Power
By Tamara Straus, AlterNet ~ December 7
Not since the Gilded Age when John D. Rockefeller dominated the oil industry and J. P. Morgan served as America's unofficial central banker has there been so much talk about how big corporations threaten democracy. Al Gore got on the bandwagon this summer; wherever the vice president went he talked about the powerful -- "big tobacco, big oil, big polluters" -- versus the powerless of the people. And of course corporate power and its discontents were at the center of Ralph Nader's run for the presidency.
A critic of corporate power will probably not occupy the White House in January. But whoever the 43rd president of the United States is, it is doubtful he will see the issue go away. According to a September 2000 Business Week/Harris Poll, between 72 and 82 percent of Americans believe that "business has gained too much power over too many aspects of American life" and 74 to 82 percent believe that big companies have too much influence over "government policy, politicians, and policy-makers in Washington." Now, to add to this growing consensus is a new study, published by the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank in Washington, DC. "Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power" argues that the leading economic story of the last five years is one of rapid growth of the world's top 200 corporations and diminishment of government and citizen control.
Perhaps the most important finding of IPS's study is that of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations, whereas 49 are countries. In other words, General Motors has greater economic power than the majority of the world's nation-states, as does Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil. The report also provides statistical evidence that combined sales of the top 200 corporations are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 10, and that such sales are 18 times the size of the combined annual income of the 1.2 billion people (or 24 percent of the world population) living in "severe" poverty. "Growing private power has enormous economic consequences," concludes the study. "However, the greatest impact may be political, as corporations transform economic clout into political power."
To learn more about IPS' study, AlterNet spoke with Sarah Anderson, co-author of "Top 200" and director of the Global Economy Project of Institute for Policy Studies.
AlterNet: How does the 2000 report on global corporate power differ from the one IPS published in 1996?
Anderson: One disturbing change is evident in the largest employers on the top 200 list. In 1995, General Motors was the biggest, with 709,000 workers. By 1999, GM's employment had dropped to only 388,000, largely because of outsourcing. The firm that took GM's place as the No. 1 employer is Wal-Mart, with a staggering 1,140,000 employees, up from 648,500 in 1995. Whereas a good share of GM's jobs were unionized and decently paid, Wal-Mart is a notorious union-buster that employs armies of workers on a part-time basis to avoid paying benefits. These changes reflect the overall trend towards fewer and fewer union manufacturing jobs and the rise in poorly paid, non-union service-sector work.
Another dramatic development over the past five years is the surge in economic power of U.S. firms over those in other countries. Largely because of economic stagnation in Japan and mega-mergers among U.S. firms, the United States dominates the top 200. U.S. corporations hold 82 slots, followed by Japan, with only 41. In 1995, these countries were virtually tied, with 59 and 58 firms in the top 200, respectively.
AlterNet: What do you consider to be the most surprising results of your research?
Anderson: What surprises most people is not that these firms have tremendous power, but that their power is so out of whack with the contributions they make in terms of jobs and taxes. When I tell people that their sales are the equivalent of more than a quarter of world economic activity, they assume that they must provide somewhere near an equal amount of the world's jobs or taxes. The reality is that they employ less than 1 percent of the world's workforce and many of the top corporations don't pay any U.S. federal taxes at all.
Many people also ask whether the clout of global corporations is really new. How is this different from the power of the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds in the last century? What the report shows is that the concentration of power among the top 200 firms has been steadily increasing in relation to world economic activity in general. Between 1983 and 1999, the top 200s' sales grew from the equivalent of 25 percent to 27.5 percent of world GDP. Yes, we've had mammoth firms for a long time, but we haven't had this level of concentration of economic clout on a global scale.
AlterNet: What has the feedback on the report been so far? Have conservative think tanks, for example, contested your research?
Anderson: USA Today quoted two people who were critical of the study. The first was Murray Weidenbaum, former economic adviser to President Reagan, who pointed out that a large share of corporate revenue goes to pay for worker compensation. My response to that is yes, many workers do depend on wages from these firms, but they are hardly getting their fair share of the dramatic profit growth we've seen over the past decade. In the United States alone, CEO pay grew 535 percent during the past decade while average worker pay grew only 32.3 percent. And of course many of these firms are shifting production to low-wage countries, making the global gap even wider. The other person they quoted was Michael Santoro, of the Rutgers Business School. He stated that these corporations create products that consumers want and that they are "in general using the resources of the world in a positive way."
Our study doesn't deny that these firms influence our lives in ways other than by providing jobs and taxes. Nevertheless, I thought Santoro's statement was a rather sweeping one to make about a group that includes tobacco-peddler Philip Morris, major polluters like Exxon Mobil, companies with questionable environmental and human rights records like Royal Dutch/Shell and Chevron, and controversial genetic engineer Novartis.
AlterNet: Given that 51 of the largest 100 economies in the world are corporations, what conclusions can be drawn about the state of economic democracy?
Anderson: I think once you understand the extent of their economic power, it should be no surprise that most governments in the world have been pursuing policies that are in the interest of these large corporations. Through the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and also regional trade agreements, large corporations are getting more and more powers and privileges to operate as they like around the world. Meanwhile, workers and communities are not getting any new powers to fight for their fair share of the benefits of the globalized economy or to prevent these corporations from destroying the environment to make a profit. It's a dismal scenario, but what I always try to remember is that while they might have the economic power, we have the people. And as we've seen in Seattle and Prague and many other places around the world, a new peoples' movement against corporate globalization is beginning to take off.
AlterNet: In your opinion, what can be done to restore greater economic egalitarianism?
Anderson: One reason corporations have so much power around the world is because so many countries are so desperate for foreign investment and export revenues to pay off their external debts that they are willing to look the other way when global corporations behave in socially irresponsible ways. So full debt relief for the poorest countries is a first step. The bigger challenge, though, is to rewrite the rules of the road to globalization. Right now, the rules set by the WTO, World Bank, IMF and other trade and investment agreements are designed to benefit large corporations. We need new rules that will put the goals of environmental sustainability, reduced inequality and human rights at the forefront. To create a political climate in which these types of radical changes would be possible, we also need to get big money out of politics and to regain the spirit of monopoly-busting that has been subverted by the goal of global competitiveness.
Full Text of Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power.
END
Police Use Tear Gas as Trouble Flares in Nice
(Reuters) ~ Dec. 10
French police fired tear gas to disperse bottle-throwing protesters Wednesday after a peaceful march by tens of thousands of demonstrators on the eve of the European Union summit in Nice.Witnesses said 200 to 300 militants, many of them Italians, had confronted police at the French Riviera resort's railway station to protest that fellow activists from Italy had been stopped from entering France to join the day's demonstrations.
Two ambulances were seen leaving the scene, but there were no reliable reports of injuries or arrests. Squads of police in full riot gear later sealed off the station area. Earlier, over 60,000 trades unionists and anti-globalization activists had marched through Nice in rain to protest against perceived inadequacies in a Charter of Fundamental Rights that EU leaders plan to endorse on the first day of their summit. The document is intended to enshrine social rights across the 15-member Union. The summit will focus primarily on difficult talks on reforms to the way the EU works ahead of its planned expansion into former communist eastern and central Europe.
END
Play It Again Sam: The IMF And World Bank Are At It Again
Robin Hahnel, ZNet Commentary ~ Dec. 9
Just in case anyone thought the IMF and the World Bank had gotten the message in Seattle, Washington DC, and Prague, all he or she has to do is read the December 5 edition of the Washington Post to find out otherwise. Looming disasters in Chad and Turkey are proof positive that nothing besides a tactical adjustment of rhetoric has changed at the Bank and the Fund. Anyone who thought the World Bank had finally learned that helping multinational companies and banks accelerate the extraction of third world natural resources does not benefit the third world poor, much less the environment, needs to check out what is happening in Chad. And anyone whothought managers at the Fund had learned from the East Asian crisis that capital liberalization puts third world economies dangerously at risk, and conditionality agreements only compound the crises that result, needs to watch the Fund repeat every mistake they made in East Asia, Russia, and Brazil all over again in Turkey.
Douglas Farah and David Ottaway inform us: "In June, when the World Bank agreed to back a controversial, 650-mile oil pipeline from this impoverished desert nation [where more than two-thirds of the population lives on an average of less than $250 a year] to Africa's Atlantic coast, it declaredthat it had found a way to prevent corrupt officials from stealing the country's new wealth. Criticized for years over projects in developing nations that failed to return benefits to their populations, bank officials knew that the $3.7 billion pipeline -- the most expensive infrastructure project now underway in Africa -- would be closely scrutinized. So they imposed strict accounting standards and insisted on guarantees from the Chadian government to ensure that its oil profits would be spent to improve public health, education and vital infrastructure here, rather than disappearing into secret bank accounts or funding weapons purchases by those in power. World Bank officials said that their 'Chadian model' would prove they could overcome the African nation's endemic corruption and that it might be applied to other corruption-prone oil-producing lands. In a press release after it approved the project, the bank called the agreement with the Chad government an 'unprecedented framework to transform oil wealth into direct benefits for the poor, the vulnerable and the environment.' So when Chadian President Idriss Deby, a general who seized power in a 1990 coup,declared last week that he had used $4.5 million of the government's first oil receipts to buy weapons instead of bolstering social programs, saying 'it is patently obvious that without security there can be no development programs,' he sent a jolt through the bank."
The demonstrators in Seattle, Washington DC, and Prague were not the only ones who warned the World Bank that this is exactly what would happen. Human rights activists in Chad fought the project for years, claiming it would "only escalate armed power struggles and be diverted by authoritarian rulers to buy guns or to fatten their bank accounts." Delphine K. Djiraibe, president of the Chadian Association for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights was quick to point out after the story broke: "The arms purchases should be a warning to show that when the oil money flows, the World Bank won't have any way to know what Deby will do with it."
But the diversion of profits to purchase arms is only one problem. The main objections critics have voiced to this and similar World Bank projects elsewhere are that too much of the profits go to foreign companies and banks, leaving too little to make a significant dent in unpayableinternational debts that should be forgiven. Chad is only projected to receive $2 to $3 billion over 25 years from the pipeline, the rest going to the consortium of international oil companies led by Exxon Mobil Corp., to the international banks financing the project, and to the World Bank itselffor brokering the deal and putting up 3 percent of the initial financing.
Meanwhile, another IMF "success story" is in crisis and about to receive the usual IMF ministrations -- the twenty-first century version of blood letting with leeches. In the same edition of the Washington Post, Molly Moore informs us from Istanbul that "Turkey's stock market plunged today and some interest rates soared to more than 1,200 percent in a financial crisis that analysts fear could spread to Russia and other struggling economies. Turkish officials began emergency talks with the International Monetary Fund in Ankara, the capital, urgently asking for a $5 billion loan to help counter a rush to sell Turkish lira that threatens to undermine the country's precarious economy. Officials fear that if it is not contained, the financial crisis could send Turkey's economy into a downward spiral of unemployment and company closures. Investors, both foreign and Turkish, are moving their money out of markets here as they lose confidence in the country's future and worry about the effect a devaluation of the lira could have on their holdings. Turkey's stock market has lost nearly 40 percent of its value in the last two weeks, including today's plunge of 8 percent.
"How is this possible? Reporting from Washington in the same story Steven Pearlstein tells us: "The first 10 months of this year marked one of the most stable economic periods in recent Turkish history." And: "In the past year, Turkey has won praise from the IMF and international financialanalysts for streamlining its financial policies, reining in government spending and making other economic policy changes suggested by the IMF." In other words, Turkey was a paragon of neoliberal economic virtue according to the IMF, and therefore one would think the last place a crisis should break out. But of course that was what the IMF and World Bank had said about the East Asian economies only a year before their crises. In that case as well, East Asian economies who succumbed to pressure from the US Treasury Department and the IMF to open themselves completely to international financial investment, including short-run, speculative capital flows, were praised by the US and the Fund as neoliberal success stories. But as soon as the hot money took fright and fled, as soon as the IMF imposed its draconian conditionality agreements -- calculated to protect international investors -- in exchange for a bail out, and as soon as all this left the East Asian economies in ruins, Fund managers hastened to tell us the East Asian governments had been less virtuous than heretofore presumed. And just as Fund managers hastened to point the finger of blame elsewhere for the disaster they were responsible for orchestrating in East Asia, with the help of the mainstream Western media they are already positioning themselves to blame the victim in Turkey.
Once again we will be told the Turkish fall from grace is due to their "crony capitalism," "lack of transparency," and "insufficient prudential regulation." We are already being told "the crisis was set off by almost daily disclosures of banking scandals and related criminal investigations" - as if this were not what triggers most financial crises. The real question is why disclosure of some bad loans triggered a crisis in this situation whereas it usually does not. The reason we are not reminded of the real question is the answer points straight to the magnitude and conditions under which international speculative capital poured into Turkey over the past few years, i.e., the "financial streamlining" orchestrated and praised by the IMF. We are also told "astronomically high interest rates have taken hold in loans between banks because lending banks fear that borrowing banks may default" - small wonder! The real question is who decided to subordinate the interest of financing productive Turkish investments, which will be brought to a standstill by astronomical interest rates, to the interests of international wealth management in the first place? Again, international investment banks taking part in an IMF sponsored program in Turkey come to mind. Moore informs us: "Banks in Germany--which have invested heavily in Turkey's efforts to sell off state-owned companies and in its economy in general -- have suffered drops in their own share prices because of the Turkish crisis." Finally, we are also being warned that Turkish government reluctance to shut down troubled banks and assume their liabilities may deepen the crisis. "The government has already placed 10 troubled banks in receivership. According to sources familiar with the talks, the IMF is pressing officials in Ankara to take over and close more of the country's 81 banks, a politically difficult step that would cause powerful owners to lose their investments. In return, the government would guarantee all or most of the depositors' funds." Notice whose cronyism is subject to criticism and whose is not. For the Turkish government to worry about Turkish business loses is irresponsible cronyism. But when the IMF urges the government of a developing country to guarantee the funds of wealthy international depositors -- in this case German banks financing the IMF privatization program in Turkey! -- it is only sound crisis management.
One question is whether the IMF bailout will work in Turkey in even the most narrow terms. We are informed: "The flow of investment funds out of the country has led the central bank to spend at least $6 billion of its $18 billion foreign exchange reserves in the last two weeks shoring up the lira -- buying the currency to offset the downward pressure on its value caused by investors selling it to buy dollars and leave the country. Analysts fear that if the IMF does not quickly give Turkey its requested $5 billion emergency loan, the government could soon run out of foreign reserves and be unable to support the lira. In that case, the currency's value would likely plummet." Whereas the IMF pulled off a successful bailout in Mexico in 1995, they failed to do so in East Asia in 1997 where it was predominantly Japanese banks and multinational companies who stood to lose, as opposed to US banks and companies in Mexico. Technical "success" in Mexico was due to the speed and size of the bailout package. In Asia the IMF was slow and cheap, concentrating instead on forcing internal "reforms" in the stricken economies. The US Treasury Department even dispatched then deputy secretary Larry Summers to tell the Japanese in no uncertain terms that their offer to put up $100 billion for bailouts without conditions was unacceptable. Turkey has already spent a third of its foreign exchange reserves in just two weeks to prop up the lira. Whether $5 billion from the IMF will prove enough, and arrive quickly enough to ward off the speculative attack on the Turkish lira remains to be seen. I have no doubt what the German government will be lobbying the new German managing director of the IMF to do! Whether Larry Summers proves more interested in using the crisis to force further debilitating "reforms" on Turkey, or more interested in staving off an international financial crisis and any possible contagion, remains to be seen.
But whether the IMF bail out is a technical success, as it was in Mexico, or a failure, as it was in East Asia, is not the most important issue. Technical success means international investors will not suffer and the stricken economy will recover more quickly. Technical failure means greater investor loses, extending to taxpayers, contagion effects in other emerging markets, and a much deeper and longer depression in the afflicted economy. But in either case IMF policies are detrimental to the interests of developing economies as they tie them ever more tightly to the torture rack of highly leveraged international wealth management. At a minimum, the crisis in Turkey proves once again that playing the IMF game -- reducing government spending, privatizing public services, opening completely to international investment, and accumulating what used to be more than sufficient foreign exchange reserves to adequately protect your currency ($18 billion in the case of Turkey!) - is no protection at all from economic ruin in the brave new world of unchecked neoliberalism.
Update: Financial crisis are fast breaking stories. On December 7, 2000 Molly Moore wrote: "The International Monetary Fund today announced a $10 billion credit package for Turkey in an effort to stem a financial crisis that has seriously undermined the nation's economy and threatened to spreadto other emerging markets." What are we supposed to think when the Turkish government asks for a $5 billion bailout one day and is delivered a $10 billion bailout the next! Could it be that somebody at the Fund is just a little concerned? But obviously Fund concern is not limiting its demands, aswe also read that the Turkish government has caved to Fund pressure to assume responsibility for bank deposits and speed up privatization: "IMF officials were concerned that Turkey had not responded sufficiently to the banking scandal that has left 11 of the nation's 81 banks in receivership. Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said today that the government would make bolder efforts to insure deposits in the nation's troubled banks and will move to begin privatization of the state-owned telephone company, Turk Telecom, Turkish Airlines and the power and electricity sector by the end of next week." Obviously what managers at the Fund have learned from a year of escalating protests and public concern is to rev neoliberalism up to warp speed.
END
SAMWU Condemns Global Privatisation Summit starting Monday in Capetown
By Anna Weekes, SAMWU ~ Dec. 6
SAMWU condemns the Global Summit on Public-Private Partnerships and Private Finance Initiatives, which starts in Cape Town on Monday. The Summit is hosted by Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel and Minister of Local Government Sydney Mufamadi at the Cape Sun Hotel. In attendance are privatisation ministers from 14 countries, as well as international financiers that only give money to local government when it promises to privatise, such as Bank of America, European Investment Bank and Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
The Development Bank of Southern Africa, a public finance institution which refused to lend Nelspruit TLC money to upgrade its water infrastructure but then lent a British multinational R150 million to privatise the water is attending the conference, and has clearly taken on the role of a private bank. SAMWU objects strongly to this. SAMWU is disgusted that international consultants which only advise municipalities to privatise, such as Price Waterhouse Coopers, KPMG and Investec, are speakers. Consultants have already milked our municipalities of well over R200 million in the last two years - money which is desperately needed for service delivery.
The union believes that the concept of Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which was introduced in Britain in the early 90's by the Conservative government, has no relevance at all to South Africa and the developing world. It has already been rejected by one million public sector workers in England. Under PFI, private companies take over services for as long as 60 years. Instead of the municipality borrowing money to finance services,they are forced under the PFI to pay a hefty annual fee to the private company.
Under PFI, the future provision of public services is determined by what the private consortium wants rather than what the public needs. The lengthy contracts mean that elected councillors lose control completely of any influence they have over service delivery. Entire councils can be replaced yet service delivery remains tied into a contract. International experience shows that PFI projects profit from paying lower wages than municipal employers and by cutting back on health and safety standards.
There are many examples of PFI contracts failing, such as the British pass port office where the private company failed to provide a computer system that worked, leading to huge delays in processing passports, huge queues at passport offices and more expensive passports. The cost of PFI arises from the "buy now pay later" financing of projects. The long term costs of PFI are much higher than in publicly financed projects because of the high setting up costs of a PFI contract. Costs escalate further with high interest that the company pays private banks on loans, lengthy negotiations involving solicitors and consultants, and the profit margin that must be built into the cost of the service - PFI consortia demand an excessive rate of return of over 20% on their investment.
It is a mark of disrespect that Ministers of Finance and Local Government are hosting a conference to effectively determine the future of services in South Africa during elections, when ordinary people are voting for councillors who are supposed to be the ones deciding with the community on service delivery. "The PFI mechanism also seriously undermines delivery of free basic services," said SAMWU General Secretary Roger Ronnie.
For all the above, we need e-mails of solidarity. Please send to all these addresses: samwu@sn.apc.org; gendero@samwu.org.za; interno@samwu.org.za
We need letters of protest to Council bosses. These are the names in Joburg:
EXCO Chair Kenny Fihla afihla@gjtmc.org.za
Co-ordinator in office of the Mayor pmoloka@gjtmc.org.za
Acting CEO Mavela Dlamini mdlamini@mj.org.za
Graeme Reid, Inner City Manager greid@mj.org.za
Ketso Gordhan, City Manager kgordhan@mj.org.za
Makgane Thobejane, Labour Relations mthobeja@mj.org.za (former General Secretary of Public Sector Union NEHAWU)
Roland Hunter, Chief Financial Officer rhunter@mj.org.za
Pascal Moloi, Transformation Project Manager pmoloi@gjtmc.org.za
Phindile Nzimande, Legal Adviser pnzimand@mj.org.za
Anthony Still, Transition Manager of Water Utility astill@mj.org.za
Rest of the councillors: pandrade@gjtmc.org.za; busnet@mweb.co.za; mmokoena@gjtmc.org.za; imogase@gjtmc.org.za; jbriggs@gjtmc.org.za; pbuthele@mj.org.za; jbriggs@hixnet.co.za; fkendall@global.co.za; iisaacs@gjtmc.org.za; cfortuin@gjtmc.org.za; mm44@pixie.co.za; pdewet@gjtmc.org.za; rdubazan@gjtmc.org.za; donaldforbes@yahoo.com; mmoriarty@gjtmc.org.za; smgidlana@gjtmc.org.za; ymakda@gjtmc.org.za; smabuza@gjtmc.org.za; emabe@gjtmc.org.za; panda@mweb.co.za; mlombard@gjtmc.org.za; alewis@gjtmc.org.za
We also need letters to the South African Press. Here are their e-mail addresses:
alive@safm.co.za; xundux@tml.co.za; phumzile@kaya-fm.co.za; raborokj@sowetan.co.za; editor@kaya-fm.co.za; belnews@wn.apc.org; israel@sapa.org.za; sapa@iafrica.com; mahap@woza.co.za; lungile@yfm.co.za; haffajeef@bdfm.co.za; alackay@beeld.com; tcelean@tml.co.za; bramdawn@tml.co.za
Please send letters to the Editor on the situation to these newspapers:
The Sowetan mangaa@sowetan.co.za
Mail and Guardian editor@mg.co.za
The Star newspaper sma@star.co.za
Business Day busday@bdfm.co.za
Sunday Times suntimes@tml.co.za
Please send copies to the SAMWU addresse (samwu@sn.apc.org) so that we can upload to our website.Yours in the struggle against privatisation, Anna Weekes, SAMWU Media Officer
END
Protesters Demand Buffalo State Cut Ties to Private Prison Industry
By Karen Brady, News Staff Reporter ~ Dec. 5
A peaceful protest against the private prison industry turned not-so-peaceful Monday as more than 40 local college students and community activists attempted to force their way into the administration offices at Buffalo State College."We wanted to see the president," Buffalo State senior Edward T. Ellis said of college President Muriel A. Howard. The students and others, Ellis explained, wanted to present Howard a petition, with more than 1,300 signatures, against Buffalo State food service provider Sodexho Marriott's ties to the prison industry. "We wanted to demand that the college not renew its contract with the food provider," Ellis said.
He and other protesters entered the administration building, Cleveland Hall, after a mid-day rally by more than 150 opponents of the private prison industry and Sodexho Marriott's link to it. The link is through Sodexho Alliance, a shareholder in the private Corrections Corporation of America. "There were guards (Public Safety) at every entrance, but I found a back door that was open, and we all ran in before they could close it," said Ellis, who then tried to climb the stairs of Cleveland Hall with the other protesters to the fifth-floor administration offices. "We were making a lot of noise, and they locked us out of the floor, so we just stayed in the stairwell," Ellis said.
The small band stayed in the stairwell for about two hours, chanting, "The student voice must be heard," and, "Brick by brick, wall by wall, we're taking back Cleveland Hall." Dean of Students Phillip Santa Maria told the group that Howard was not on campus and they would have to leave, Ellis said. "He told us we could not disrupt business as usual." The students stayed until Vice President for Student Affairs Hal D. Payne "showed up on the stairwell," Ellis said. "He addressed some of our issues but did not tell us the college would not renew the Sodexho Marriott contract - so there is still more work to be done. The fight is not over."
Sodexho Marriott, which has dining hall contracts with more than 400 colleges and universities in the United States, has said it is not in the prison business and has no control over the investments and business dealings of its subsidiaries, including Sodexho Alliance. The food provider's 11/2-year contract with Buffalo State runs through May, and the college is in the bid process for a new, 10-year food service contract. Buffalo State spokeswoman Nanette Tramont said that the college could not comment on the situation because of the bid process.
Monday's protesters were not let into Cleveland Hall, she added, because "we didn't want our service of our students to be disrupted, so we didn't permit the protesters to do that."
"Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation."
-Clarence Darrow
END
Seattle WTO Activists Accuse Mayor Schell of Obstructing WTO Teach-In
By Mark Taylor ~ Dec 2
Jeremy Simer, of the Roundtable on Environmental and Economic Justice, told a crowd at Saturday's WTO Anniversary Teach-in at Seattle Central Community College that pressure had been put on SCCC President Dr. Mitchell to disassociate the college from the teach-in on corporate globalization.. He said, "Funding for this event has been pulled by Mitchell as a result of phone calls from the city."
Sponsors of the teach-in included the King County Labor Council AFL-CIO, Jubilee 2000, the Roundtable on Environmental and Economic Justice, the American Friends Service Committe, SCCC Anthropology Department, the Northwest Labor and Employment Law Office, Washington State Jobs With Justice, St. Mark's Cathedral, Teamsters Local 174, and the National Lawyers Guild.
Representatives from various groups expressed outrage and resentment that the Mayor's Office would interfere with the event. Activist Mark Taylor-Canfield said, "Business interests were concerned that SCCC was hosting an event which might give the impression that there is community support for the WTO Anniversary protests." He suspects that they pushed Schell to put pressure on Mitchell to cancel the event.
Mitchell angered students last year when he supported an economics instructor who was accused by 5 witnesses of assaulting a student during a political rally. Several days ago he forced teach-in organizers to change the name of the event from a "community forum" to a "teach-in" to avoid criticism from those in the city government who did not want to see SCCC hosting a community event in support of the WTO protest anniversary.
Although the teach-in was created as an educational event only, organizers were forced to appoint "peace keepers" to satisfy Mitchell. When the funding assistance was pulled by Mitchell after pressure from the city (even though three SCCC student groups were co-sponsoring) organizers fumed and swore to unseat the mayor in the next election. A Seattle Central Community College anthropology student named Bambi referred to the November 30, 2000 arrests of 140 people and the mayor's meddling when she complained, "Now that we know we have a mayor and a police chief who both condone mass arrests (including journalists and labor leaders) and interfering with free speech, I think we can safely say that a petty dictatorship has been established in our city. I feel sorry for their small little minds that are so afraid of the truth. It would be better for them to go to Singapore or China where political dissent is eliminated by brute force - they'd really enjoy that."
Utilizing technicalities in the reservation process, Mitchell forced organizers to end the teach-in 2 and 1/2 hours early. People arriving after 4 PM to attend a closing plenary session with world famous author and economist David Korten found that the doors of the college had been chained and locked.
Information: Mark Taylor-Canfield, Roundtable on Environmental and Economic Justice Committee For Local Government Accountability
END
Glaxo Stops Africans Buying Cheap Aids Drugs
By Sarah Boseley, The Guardian ~ December 2
The arguments over affordable life-saving medicines for the developing world intensified yesterday when it was revealed that the multinational pharmaceutical company Glaxo-Wellcome has blocked imports of cheap copies of one of its Aids drugs into Ghana. The revelation came as South Africa announced it had done a deal with a second company, Pfizer, over supplies of the drug Fluconazole to treat infections such as meningitis that often kill people whose immune systems are wrecked by the Aids virus HIV. Under pressure from campaigners, who began bringing a cheaper version of the patent-protected branded drug into South Africa which massively undercut the usual Pfizer price, the company has agreed to supply Fluconazole free.
But although aid organisations such as the charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) hailed the deal as an example of what can be achieved if countries show a willingness to turn their back on the pharmaceutical giants and buy copies, Britain made it clear yesterday that it was not in favour of such tactics. Trade minister Richard Caborn told activists from the London-based organisation Action for Southern Africa (Actsa) that such measures "are not the answer here".
Campaigners insist that developing countries must use every possible means to get hold of affordable drugs that can stop people dying. But western governments say the companies have a right to protection for the drugs they sell at high prices in order, the companies argue, to recoup research and development costs. The west says the right approach is for countries to negotiate discounts with the companies. But African nations say they cannot afford the drugs even at the discount prices offered in May this year by five multinationals. Only Senegal has so far taken up the invitation to negotiate a deal.
The giants take very seriously the threat of competition. Glaxo-Wellcome has blocked the import into Ghana of a version of its Aids therapy Combivir made in India by Cipla. It is argued by campaigners that impoverished countries faced with a health emergency have a right under international trade legislation to buy generic drugs. The African Regional Industrial Property Organisation was quoted yesterday as saying that if Glaxo went to court, it believed it would lose. But poor countries fear confrontation will upset relations with the west. Glaxo's spokesman said the company had offered Ghana its own drugs under its "preferential pricing" scheme.
The price for the generic version of Combivir has not been revealed, but generics sell for a fraction of the branded price. MSF has gathered data showing that Cipla sells Fluconazole for $0.64 (45p) in India, compared with Pfizer's price in South Africa of $8.25 and in Kenya of $10.56. MSF pointed out yesterday that AZT and 3TC, the two drugs in Combivir, are both old and that they were developed with the help of public funds in the United States. Glaxo Wellcome has already made many millions out of them. "It cannot argue it needs to recoup its investment," said a spokesman.
Actsa says that the threat of generic competition made Pfizer lift restrictions it wanted to impose on the Fluconazole it is donating to South Africa. "At first it was going to be only for meningitis and not for thrush, which affects more people. The company was dictating how the drug was to be used," said a spokesman. The Pfizer deal was announced the day after South Africa's medicines control council said it would allow generic Fluconazole to be used in the country.
END
ALERT: Zambia Debt Fiasco - Letters Needed by Dec. 7
50 Years Is Enough Network ~ Dec. 1
We have just learned that the IMF and World Bank boards will be considering the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) debt relief package for Zambia on Thursday, December 7. Outrageously enough, this package would actually have Zambia pay MORE debt servicing for the next several years than they have been paying. For people in the U.S., please send the following letter or one like it to the following people (in other countries, please contact your Finance Ministry). We are providing fax numbers and/or email addresses (faxes are preferable). Following the letter are some facts on Zambia provided by Jubilee 2000/USA, and a statement on the Zambian case issued by a debt activists' conference in Helsinki.
Mr. Larry Summers - Secretary of the Treasury - 202/622-0073
Mr. Timothy Geithner - Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs - 202/622-0417
Ms. Karin Lissakers - U.S. Executive Director to the IMF - e-mail: klissakers@imf.org or phone: 202/623-4661
Ms. Jan Piercy - U.S. Executive Director to the World Bank - e-mail: jpiercy@worldbank.org or phone: 202/477-2967
Dear _______,
I have learned that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank will be deciding on Zambia's eligibility for their debt relief program ("HIPC") on December 7. I understand that it appears that Zambia will actually have to pay more in debt servicing once it is approved to receive debt relief. Can there be any more pointed example of the bankruptcy of the IMF/World Bank debt program than this? What sort of cruel accounting joke would subject the people of a country to a debt relief scheme that increases annual debt servicing from $150 million to $235 million by 2002? I understand that the IMF has suggested that its "relief" could be "frontloaded," meaning that reductions which would normally be scheduled for five years from now could be moved up. Even under this arrangement there would still be no reduction in Zambia's debt payments. The IMF's suggestion -- which may not be taken up by its Board at any rate -- would still deprive Zambia of any new funds for poverty-targeted programs.
This situation would be outrageous in any country where the IMF operates. But with 80% of Zambia's population living on less than one dollar a day, and almost 10% of the people known to be HIV positive, this parody of "debt relief" is particularly cruel. Zambia cannot sustain more loans to spread out the scheduled spike in debt payments. The only logical or just solution is comprehensive cancellation of Zambia's debt. Given that the major source of Zambia's debt crisis is loans made by the IMF itself in 1995 (which were intended to pay off previous loans), and given the absurd penalties involved in getting "debt relief" under the HIPC program, how can the supporters of HIPC argue with the position of some in the U.S. Congress that HIPC is nothing more than a way for the institutions to bail themselves out with money contributed by taxpayers in countries like the U.S.? Why should citizens of the U.S. and other wealthy countries continue to support a program that does no good for people in Southern countries and just contributes money to keep the institution that makes these absurd debt arrangements afloat? I urge you to use your influence at the IMF and World Bank to advocate for 100% cancellation of Zambia debts.
Sincerely,
From Jubilee 2000/USA Additional Facts on Zambia (figures derived from the IPRSP document on IMF website):
-- More than 70% of population is poor, living on less than $1 a day
-- Life expectancy = 44 years
-- All development indicators are below the average for Sub Saharan Africa and have worsened over the last 10 years - Only 1/2 of the population has access to safe water
-- 53% of children under 5 are chronically undernourished.
-- School enrolment rate (primary school): Has declined substantially since early 80s. Now at 68%. One explanation: children staying home to care for sick relatives
-- Problems Zambia has faced: several droughts; drop in price of copper (since 1995); drop in copper production; recent oil price increase; ripple effect of Asian currency crisis; debt burden Zambia's debt:
-- At end of 1999 the debt was $6.3 billion in nominal terms 43% of the debt is multilateral: 19% of the debt is owed to the IMF 58% of the debt is bilateral, owed to Japan and other countries
Since 1990 Zambia has paid $4.437 billion in debt payments (interest and principle), an average of $443.7 million per year. For the past three years the payments have taken about 1/4 of the government's revenue (national budget). During the years 1990-1996 the average payment was equal to 85.9 % of the country's revenue. The increase of Zambia's payment obligations, despite HIPC debt relief, is due to IMF loans coming due starting in 2001. These loans were taken on in a massive effort to clear out "arrears", or overdue payments, on other loans.
(note that the date of the meeting on Zambia's HIPC plan changed shortly after the issuance of this declaration)
Zambia
A Declaration from the Eurodad Tenth Anniversary Conference, Helsinki, Finland November 15-17, 2000
This Conference notes that:
* Zambia, one of the poorest countries in the world, with an average life expectancy of 44 years and falling because of the impact of HIV/AIDS, has been presented with an agreement under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative whereby actual debt payments will increase, not decrease, after the agreement is implemented. Under this agreement, annual debt payments will increase from $150 million to $235 million by 2002.
* The IMF's proposed 'solution' to this problem is to change the timing of its relief, taking assistance from later years in order to reduce payments in the first few years. This does not provide any net benefit to Zambia and means that payments will still not fall after the HIPC initiative, allowing no extra funds for poverty reduction - one of the stated aims of the HIPC initiative.
* Even with the IMF's solution, Zambia is likely to pay around $150 million on debt service in 2001, almost one-third of its entire budget. This is more than the entire $123 million health budget in a country where HIV/AIDS has left nearly 13 per cent of children orphaned - the highest rate in the world.
* The problem at the root of this issue was caused by lending by the IMF in 1995 which was intended in large part merely to provide the funds to pay off earlier debts, and the solution proposed merely repeats that same bad practice of the IMF in its failure to recognise debts that are unpayable.
* The case of Zambia highlights the inadequacy and inflexibility of the HIPC initiative to meet its own stated goals of providing a sustainable exit from the debt crisis and releasing new funds for poverty reduction.
* The Board of the IMF will be discussing Zambia's case on November 27th, when it is expected that Zambia will reach the 'Decision Point' of the HIPC Initiative (the point at which the amount of debt to be cancelled is determined, and where 'interim debt relief' begins).
This Conference therefore:
* Welcomes the call by the Zambian government and civil society for the complete cancellation of its debts, so that these resources can be used in the fight against poverty.
* Rejects the HIPC agreement offered to Zambia and the inadequate solution proposed by the IMF.
* Calls on the Managing Director, Governors and Executive Directors of the IMF to go beyond the terms of the HIPC initiative and agree the immediate cancellation of 100 per cent of the debts owed by Zambia to the IMF, as the only genuine and sustainable way to solve Zambia's IMF debt problem - a problem largely of the IMF's own making.
The above Declaration was agreed by a range of representatives from civil society organisations from around the world, including the following:
50 years is Enough Network - USA
Broederlijk Delen - Belgium
Christian Aid - UK
Debt and Development Coalition/Jubilee Ireland
Erlassjahr 2000 - Austria
Eurodad Secretariat - Belgium
Friends of the Earth (FOE) - USA
Ibis - North/South Coalition - Denmark
Jesuits for Debt Relief and Development (JCTR) - Ireland
Jesuits for Debt Relief and Development (JCTR) - Zambia
KEPA (Service Centre for Development Co-operation - Finland
KOO - Austria
Norwegian Campaign for Cancellation of Third World Debt/Jubilee 2000
(SLUG) - Norway
Oxfam International
Swiss Coalition of Development Organizations - Berne
WEED - Germany
WEMOS - Netherlands
END
Police Attack Peaceful March Against Third World Debt
By Paul Lavery ~ Nov. 26
It was a beautiful sunny morning. My friend Marco, a law lecturer at a Barcelona University, popped around for a cup of coffee. He wanted to bring around a little present for my son Lucas who was born two and half months ago. He told me he was heading for a demonstration that was about to take place in the centre of Madrid against third world debt. The march was due to start in Plaza Cibeles, head down past the Prado Art gallery and finish at Atocha train station some 10 minutes walk from where I live. I decided to join him and asked my partner if I should bring Lucas out with me for some fresh air. Marco thought there wouldn't be too many on the demonstration and it was likely to be mild and good humoured. As Lucas is still being breast fed we made a quick calculation of when he would need his next maternal fix and decided that he would be screaming for his lunch before I could get back. I decided not to bring Lucas and headed off with Marco.
On the way over to Plaza Cibeles he told me about the Citizens Network for Cancellation of Third World Debt. It sounded a very main stream broad coalition and similar to Jubilee 2000 back in Britain. They organised their own very imaginative public consultation to coincide with the general elections last march. They set up ad hoc voting urns and asked those voting in the elections to cast their vote for or against abolition of third world debt. Over a million voted, with Catalunya being the best organised with 500,000 votes. Predictably, 95% plus voted in favour of cancelling the debt and organisers seemed delighted with grass root organisers ability to highlight the fact that debt repayments dwarf budgets of health and education combined in many developing countries where infant mortality is a major killer.
On arriving in the plaza by pure coincidence I stood next to an older group of religious activists and one nun, cross round her neck, from Extremadura in the south West of Spain. To the other side were a bunch of mostly young people in their early twenties from Barcelona who were singing and dancing as they waited for the march to start. I saw a woman who was about 7 months pregnant and it made me think of Lucas. A mere half hour late and the march shuffled off. It was a very modest number, perhaps around two thousand. It was very good natured, with the usual chants, songs, and array of posters against third world debt.
Along each side of the march were the "policia antidisturbios" which literally means "anti-disturbance police". These were all big burly officers who were obviously in good shape. I was fascinated by their dark blue uniforms which appeared like a tight version of workers overalls except they have reinforced padding around legs and body for extra protection. Among their various gadgets they all carried handguns in a holster and heafty batons some three foot long. Several carried riffles which appeared to have a strange fat muzzle at one end. I found out later these were for firing hard rubber balls about the same size as a snooker ball. They also had helmets with plastic visors. The distance from Cibiles to Atocha is some one and half kilometres. Halfway down this beautiful tree lined street which also boasts the world famous Thyssen museum and Prado Art gallery is a stunning round-about with a statue of Neptune in the middle. Some 100 yards west of Neptune is the Parliament building. (Congress of Deputies.)
As the march slowly reached the roundabout there was a sudden burst of action. About three hundred and fifty of the marchers sprinted between the police and charged up the street towards the Congress of Deputies building. The police pulled out their batons and whacked a few as they ran past and then chased them up the street. The majority stayed behind by NeptuneÌs monument. I ran up too. The marchers ran to the steps of the Parliament building and sat down. By the time I arrived the steps were fully occupied by approximately one hundred and fifty protesters. I joined the other two hundred or so who sat on the street in front of the steps.
The protesters huddled together and started chanting "Cancel the debt". There was now little or no movement from the protesters, but dozens of police vans came screeching around a corner. More riot police arrived and fitted their helmets. Approximately twenty five police made their way to the top of the steps and formed a line between the marchers and the building. At no point did the marchers try to enter the building or break that line. In fact, they were all sitting on the steps with their back to the front door and therefore with their backs to the police who were standing above them.
As the chant "Cancel the debt" rang out I saw the entire row of police, almost as one, start to kick the protesters in the back. Then to my left, without any warning whatsoever, five police started laying into the seated protesters with their batons. They hit them as hard as they could. I was some 15 to 20 metres from them and had a clear view. Since the protesters were seated at their feet, with their backs to them, most of the blows rained down on their heads and shoulders. Then the other police joined in and started beating the rest of the protesters, both on the steps, and those seated in front on the road.
Some of the protesters were grabbed and pulled from the group. But to my genuine amazement the majority of these young people curled up and remained on the steps as the police continued to beat them. Those in front of the steps too were being hit but not to the same extent as those on the steps. Those that were dragged from the steps sat down again on the street. I saw one young girl, perhaps 17 or 18, who appeared less than 100 lbs, being beaten and dragged from the steps. She got back up again and sat on the same spot. A police raised a baton to whack her but laid it down again in total frustration.
Among the chaos something remarkable happened. As the outside lines bore the brunt of the blows, those lucky enough to be in the middle and not on the receiving end started chanting "Sin verguenza!" "Sin verguenza!" Literally, "Without shame" which then built up to a crescendo of "We are pacifists....we are pacifists...we are pacifists...we are human beings, we are human beings...." and the protesters held up their bare hands.
Then something even more remarkable happened. Gradually the police stopped beating the protesters and there was shouts for silence. Most of the protesters now sat on the road in front of the steps. As the silence grew I could see and hear the police, who now surrounded the sitting protesters, try to catch their breath. One was panting from his exertions, pulled up the visor from his face, and wiped the sweat running down his cheeks. Some of the protesters were moaning or crying from the blows they had received.
One of the organisers, a man in his late forties, started negotiating with what I can only assume was the policeman in charge. There were more calls for silence and the organiser, who had an ugly gash on his head from a blow and whose hands were splattered with blood, started speaking to the still seated protesters. He called for a vote on the following options. They could read aloud their statement about the third world debt crisis and then be allowed to join the rest of the marchers still waiting by the Neptune round-about, or they could continue with their act of civil disobedience and "suffer the consequences". Those by me understood that meant they might or might not be arrested, but all understood they would certainly be beaten up. Given the fact that they were surrounded by police, with batons drawn, and who were ready to go into action again there was no possibility of other options being discussed. He asked for a show of hands.
Not surprisingly, given the beating many had received, a clear majority of 90% against 10% voted to read their statement and then join the rest of the march in the designated route. In silence, and in front of two TV cameras, the organiser read out their declaration which amounted to a summary of their reasons for supporting cancellation of the debt. There was around of applause and people stood up to leave. Suddenly some four yards from where I was standing the police grabbed a man in his thirties. He was well built but quite short. Instead of leading him away in an ordinary arrest he was grabbed from behind by the throat and forced to skip along on his tiptoes as the two arresting policeman were much taller and stronger.
Since this man seemed to be picked out at random, and arrested in such an unnecessary violent manner, everyone sat down again. The chant went up, "If you arrest one, you arrest us all". Again there was a stalemate. After a couple of minutes the police seemed to back off. A gap appeared in their lines and they stepped back to the sides. Muffled sounds came from a police magaphone in the distance, but it was impossible to make out the words. Several beside me shouted "Can't hear you". Then I saw two policeman step forward with the riffles with the fat muzzles. At first I wondered if they were going to fire tear gas shells. One seemed to fire in the air. The other held the gun at waist height and shot into the heart of the now seated group from about 25 to 30 meters. Panic then ensued as the protesters realised they were firing rubber balls. The police charged again hitting people with their batons. They chased the splinter group of protesters down again towards the main body of marchers still waiting by Neptune.
The rest of the march continued without incident till they reached Atocha station. Organisers got together, and via mobile phones they managed to locate the whereabouts of friends who had either been brought to health centres or hospitals for treatment or arrested. I donÌt know how many were arrested though it seemed to me they were more interested in beating protesters than arresting them. I met my friend Marco. He was sitting on the front row when the police opened fire with the rubber balls. The young woman he was sitting beside and talking to was hit on the side of the face with the rubber ball and had to be carried off by friends for treatment. Marco told me, "We were sitting down and facing the police. Luckily she turned round to speak to me, otherwise the ball would have hit her full in the face". I don't know if she was badly hurt or not. It is not surprising she was hit in the head given the fact I saw the police man hold his gun horizontally at waist height and fire it in to a crowd who were sitting.
At Atocha the mood was very subdued. I met the nun again with some of her friends. "Now you know what kind of Government we have here." I wondered around the demonstrators and listened to them speak. I saw many lift their jackets and shirts to let friends examine their backs and shoulders. I saw at least six with ugly baton marks. Several had a cuts and bumps on their heads. I saw dozens and dozens being struck repeatedly. Did I see any violence by the demonstrators? I saw one big demonstrator who was being attacked by two policeman with batons. He started kicking back as blows rained down on him. He was grabbed by three friends and pulled into the middle of the group where he was held by his palls till he calmed down.
Apart from that I did not see one single violent incident by a protester. I didn't see one single item being thrown. I didn't see one single act of vandalism to property. For the record, I was truly surprised at their restraint given the level of violence against them. But more than that, I was amazed at their physical courage. What I did see was planned and systematic violence by the police against pacifist demonstrators who organised civil disobedience on the steps to the Parliament building which I assume to be out of bounds and therefore illegal.
Something really caught my attention. There were several cameras filming the entire incident. It did not inhibit the police at all. The evidence is there for all to see, if there is any interest in making the "anti-disturbance police" accountable for their actions, but more importantly, those that give them orders.
END
Invisible Government: Cincinnati Protesters Shine Spotlight on Influential CEO Group
By Daniel Zoll ~ Nov. 2000
It's Getting so you can't even organize a meeting of global power brokers anymore without calling in the National Guard. A year after historic protests derailed the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle, followed by actions in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Prague, demonstrators descended on Cincinnati Nov. 16 to expose an obscure but influential CEO group called the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue. Fifty-three activists were arrested at the Cincinnati protests, during three days of mostly peaceful rallies, teach-ins, and marches that attracted more than 1,000 people. Why target the TABD? In the words of one of its boosters, deputy treasury secretary Stuart Eizenstat, "The TABD has become deeply enmeshed and embedded into the U.S. government decision-making process on a whole range of regulatory, trade, and commercial issues. The TABD has had a truly remarkable impact in our country."
The trouble, critics say, is that the group's "remarkable impact" comes at the expense of health, environmental, and consumer protection, not to mention the democratic process. About 130 corporate chieftains from Europe and the United States, representing multinationals such as America Online, Bayer, and United Technologies, gathered in Cincinnati's Omni Netherland Hotel for the three-day meeting. Topping the list of the TABD's Cincinnati recommendations is a policy it calls "approved once, accepted everywhere." In other words, the TABD wants uniform procedures for product approvals. This process, which it refers to as "harmonization," sounds harmless enough, but the details are troubling.
When countries have conflicting regulations and standards, critics say, the TABD typically lobbies to push the more stringent standards downward. "Their so-called harmonization goal is to gut the best laws in Europe and the U.S. and replace them with the worst laws in Europe and the U.S.," said Ed Mierzwinski of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "Whether it's privacy-in-banking laws or tire-safety standards or food-safety standards, their goal is to harmonize at the floor rather than at the ceiling of existing laws. And that's a serious problem."
According to the TABD's 2000 Mid-Year Report, the group is seeking uniformity in dozens of areas, including drugs, medical devices, auto safety, aviation safety, biotechnology and genetically modified foods, cosmetics, cellular phones, dietary supplements, and chemicals. Mary Bottari of Washington, D.C.-based Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch says the TABD's goals are nicely summed up in one sentence in TABD's midyear report: "The new obstacles to trade are now domestic regulations."These domestic regulations, Bottari says, are "exactly the consumer protections, the environmental protections, and the animal-welfare protections that we've all been fighting for for years. Those are the 'barriers to trade' that TABD wants to take out."
One way the TABD is targeting domestic regulations is by aggressively pushing a new round of WTO trade talks and an expansion of the trade organization's already sweeping authority. The TABD has even figured out how to fend off regulations before they see the light of day. The group has convinced the United States and the European Union to adopt what it calls an "early warning" system, which alerts corporations to regulations that may be "barriers to trade." Domestic regulations on the TABD early-warning hit list include a European computer waste recycling law, another E.U. measure regulating animal testing of cosmetics, an Italian ban on genetically modified organisms, and U.S. cell-phone radiation standards.
TABD deputy director Jeffrey Werner denies that his group favors the lowest common denominator when it comes to consumer and environmental protections. "We just encourage wherever possible to work internationally and supranationally to try to avoid the complications you have in a globalized world," he said. "People who are involved in business know that the minute you start alienating consumers is the minute you go out of business."
Werner downplayed the influence of the TABD, saying that it is just one of four forums created by the United States and the European Union to coordinate transatlantic issues. The other three "dialogues" - dealing with consumer, environment, and small-business issues - all have the same level of access to policy makers, he said. But USPIRG's Mierzwinski, also a member of the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue, says it is absurd for the TABD to equate its influence with that of the other TransAtlantic groups. For one thing, while luminaries such as U.S. vice president Al Gore and E.U. trade commissioner Pascal Lamy regularly attend TABD conferences, the governments send midlevel bureaucrats to address the consumer group. The most glaring evidence of disparity, however, is that the Clinton administration has essentially adopted the TABD's agenda of liberalization, privatization, and deregulation as its own trade policy. None of the other groups can say that.
Gore confirmed as much when addressing the TABD in November 1998. "I know that you are proud of the fact that of the 129 recommendations TABD has made in the past three years, over 50 percent have been implemented into law," he said. The vice president wasn't exaggerating. The TABD is so confident in its position that it even sets deadlines for government compliance. For example, on the subject of outstanding WTO disputes between the United States and the European Union, the TABD urges the governments to come to a solution "no later than the TABD conference in Cincinnati." This could be dismissed as mere grandstanding if the governments didn't often meet such deadlines.
Below the radar
The TABD is more effective, and insidious, than other corporate trade groups, critics say, because it was actually initiated by corporate allies within government. It was launched in 1995 at the suggestion of then-U.S. commerce secretary Ron Brown and E.U. trade commissioner Leon Brittan as a way to speed up transatlantic trade liberalization. Part of the TABD's strategy seems to be to operate below the radar. The elusive group has no permanent office; operations are headquartered at a different corporation each year. In fact, officials say, it is not really an organization at all but an "informal process."
Here's how the process works: The dialogue consists of more than 40 issue groups covering different sectors, such as medical devices and telecommunication services, and topics, such as customs regulations, climate change, and intellectual property. Each issue group, led by two business executives, one from the United States and one from the European Union, makes joint trade recommendations and tracks their implementation. The TABD officially presents its demands or "deliverables" to government officials at E.U.-U.S. summits, held twice a year.
The TABD quietly pursues its agenda in several ways. One of these is shaping free-trade treaties and aggressively pushing the expansion of the WTO. Another, lower-profile tactic is to promote "mutual recognition agreements." Under these reciprocal deals, one nation agrees to recognize another nation's safety inspection and approval system in sectors such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications. Critics say this is a backdoor way to relax standards: for example, the fine print of the agreement on medical devices, which has not yet been fully implemented, calls for farming out quality inspections to private third parties hired by the manufacturers, rather than federal regulators.
The TABD also is out to bar governments from applying a principle that serves as the basis for many public-health and environmental regulations, particularly in Europe. Known as the "precautionary principle," it holds that when an activity or substance raises potential threats to human health or the environment, government should step in and regulate. When there is scientific uncertainty, the industry - not the public - should bear the burden of proof. In other words, better safe than sorry.
That's the approach many European countries are taking on the genetically modified food issue, which is why TABD members and biotech giants such as Monsanto and Unilever are so keen on killing the precautionary principle. Monsanto and its allies favor foisting unproved technologies on the public, arguing that regulations should wait until they can be based on "sound science." In a related case, the TABD is trying to stifle an E.U. proposal, based on the precautionary principle, to regulate pharmaceuticals containing beef-derived ingredients that could carry traces of mad cow disease.
On behalf of its members in the electronics industry, the TABD is trying to eliminate a new E.U. initiative aimed at reducing computer trash. The increase in the use of PCs and other high-tech equipment in recent years has created a huge increase in hazardous waste. Electronic trash contains many dangerous substances, such as lead, mercury, and cadmium To address this, the European Union drafted the Directive on Computer Waste, a law that would require electronic equipment manufacturers to replace those toxic heavy metals with less harmful substances by 2008. The directive also would require manufacturers to begin retrieving and recycling old electronic equipment by 2006. The TABD and its high-tech industry members have mobilized to kill the proposal