Faculty Evaluators: Phil McGough, Laurie Dawson
Student Researcher: Mariah Wegener-Vernagallo, Doug Reynolds

“Country by country, the world is discovering the great value of shopping at Wal-Mart,” says John Menzer, president of the international division of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer. Menzer’s vision is one where Wal-Mart becomes a global brand, just like McDonald’s or Coca- Cola, monopolizing the global retail market.

What Menzer fails to tell shareholders is the fact that Wal-Mart is also facing lots of consumer pressure both at home and abroad for some of their business activities. Wal-Mart’s strategy of corporate takeovers in other countries has come into question. When entering a new market, the company never opens directly to the public; instead they buy into an already fully operational company and slowly take control. First, a large competitor is eliminated, then Wal-Mart gains real estate and employees creating a massive presence in its targeted location.

In addition, by taking over existing stores rather than opening new ones, Wal-Mart avoids the community opposition that it faces in the U.S. Al Norman, the founder of Sprawl-Busters, who has been described by CBS’s “60 Minutes” as the guru of the anti-Wal-Mart movement says. “What Wal-Mart did in Mexico was very instructive. Mexico was a testing ground for the method of operation. They basically acquired existing stores. They moved into Mexico and that became the theme in other countries like the UK, Germany, and Japan. They would buy into an existing operation, rather then start from scratch.”

Wal-Mart opposition overseas has been from unions (over low pay), local regulators (over predatory pricing), and small businesses that face financial ruin. Recently, the company has also come under pressure from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) in the US for not allowing union representation in their superstores. With new superstores opening that contain groceries as well as all other Wal-Mart amenities, competitor supermarket chains with unions are worried about their future revenues.

Just as Wal-Mart exports sprawl, it exports bad labor practices. Uni-Comerce, the global trade union for commercial workers, characterizes Wal-Mart as “an obsessively anti-union company at home and abroad.” The company “builds its competitive advantage on low wages, poor benefits, and a squeeze on producers. Through predatory pricing, it can force both large and small competitors out of business,” according to Uni-Commerce. “Worldwide, Wal-Mart is the most serious threat to employment, wages, and working conditions in commerce.” The problem with low pay and unions is one of the main obstacles the company faces in its international expansion plans. The rift between unions and Wal-Mart, say financial analysts Fallstreet.com, is “intensifying with each global step the company makes.”

Wal-Mart also threatens small shops in countries in which it does not even operate. In 1998 the Irish government adopted a cap on the size of stores. But companies like Swedish furniture retailer IKEA and Wal-Mart are believed to be pressuring government officials to lift the cap. The only place such large stores would be built would be out of town, creating sprawl. “Any country that has predominantly smaller stores will be shocked by the superstore format,” argues Norman.

“In five or six years, you could be talking about 5,000 to 6,000 Wal-Mart stores outside of the United States,” says Norman. “Wal-Mart is Americanizing retailing around the world. It is a really undesirable outcome both culturally and economically for a U.S. company to be exercising so much power.”

UPDATE BY ANDY ROWELL: Wal-Mart’s unstoppable spread continues. In September 2003 Wal-Mart announced the “continuation of its aggressive unit growth for the fiscal year beginning February 1, 2004”. In the U.S. Wal-Mart planned to open approximately 50 to 55 new discount stores, 220 to 230 new Supercenters, 25-30 new Neighborhood Markets and 35-40 new Sam’s Clubs. Wal-Mart International planned to open 130 to 140 units in existing markets.

In March 2004, Wal-Mart Brazil announced the acquisition of Bompreco, a retail chain in northeastern Brazil with 118 units (hypermarkets, supermarkets and mini markets).

In April 2004 the company’s international operations stood at 1,494 total units; Mexico (641) Puerto Rico (53) Canada (236) Argentina (11) Brazil (144) China (35) South Korea (15) Germany (92) United Kingdom (267). Its international sales were $47.5 billion, a 16.6 percent increase over the previous year. International operating profit was $2.3 billion, an increase of 18.6 percent compared to the previous fiscal year.

And so it goes on. Where will the next Wal-Mart be? Will it be your local community? Do you want a world run by Wal-Mart, where raw economic muscle of a huge global retailer can out-price any local competitor and put them out of business? In this cut price war the consumer will lose, the environment will lose and communities will lose.

In the U.K, Wal-Mart’s takeover of Asda has had a devastating effect. Award-wining food journalist Joanna Blythman’s new book called “Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets” published May 2004 outlines how: “I learned that UK supermarkets now jump to the tune of our second largest chain, Asda. Since 1999 when it was taken over by the biggest retailer in the world, the U.S. chain Wal-Mart, Asda’s strategy of ‘Every Day Low Pricing’, has triggered a supermarket price war in which chains without buying muscle are disadvantaged. In order to keep up with Asda, our leading chains in the UK must be ever more ruthless in the way they operate or else risk losing their place at the supermarket superpowers, top table”.

This means that suppliers are squeezed, farmers are squeezed and supermarkets source from the cheapest overseas suppliers where labor, human rights and environmental standards are the lowest. Every week in the UK, 50 specialist shops like butchers and bakers are closing and one farmer or farm worker commits suicide. We enter a race to the bottom where everyone loses, especially the consumer.

Additional information: Al Norman’s Sprawl-buster, http://www.sprawl-busters.com; Joanna Blythman’s “Shopped”,http://harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=27115; Friends of the Earth supermarket campaign,http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/press_for_change/; Coalition of groups in the UK against supermarkets,http://www.breakingthearmlock.com; Wal-Mart and unions, http://www.union-network.org/; selection of Andy Rowell articles, http://www.andyrowell.com.

Resources: Al-Norman ˆ guru of the anti-Wal-Mart movement has a new book out called The Case Against Wal-Mart. To order: Call toll free (in the US) 877-386-5925 or E-mail ruth@raphel.com or visit: http://www.raphel.com

The post 25. Wal-Mart Brings Inequality and Low Prices to the World appeared first on Project Censored.

BUZZFLASH.COM, November 11, 2003
Title: “Would a Second Bush Term Mean a Return to Conscription?’
Author: Maureen Farrell

WAR TIMES, October-November, 2003
Title: “Military Targets Latino Youth”
Author: Jorge Mariscal

Evaluator: Robert Manning
Student Researchers: Jenifer Green, Adam Stutz

The Selective Service System, the Bush Administration, and the Pentagon have been quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide in order to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. In preparation several million dollars have been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget. The SSS Administration must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. An unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld’s prediction of a “long, hard slog” in Iraq and Afghanistan (and a permanent state of war on “terrorism”) proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward in 2003, introduced by Democratic Representative Charles Rangel and Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings. Entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, their aim is “To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will no longer be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a “Smart Border Declaration,” which could be used to contain would-be draft dodgers. The declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a “pre-clearance agreement” of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminate higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

In May 2000, Delaware was the first state to enact legislation requiring that driver’s license information be sent to the SSS. By August 2003, thirty-two states, two territories and the District of Columbia followed suit. Non-compliance with sending information to the SSS has always been punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Up to now, the government has never acted on these measures, but levied punishment would bar violators from federal employment and student loans. The SSS has altered its website (http://www.sss.gov) to include a front-page denial of a draft resurrection, but continues to post the twenty-four page Annual Performance Plan which includes its June 15 deadline still intact.

In addition to the possibility of a draft, the continual recruitment of Latinos into the armed forces has been creating volatile reactions from anti-recruitment advocates. The target recruitment of Latinos began during Clinton’s tenure in office. Louis Caldera, then Secretary of the Army, was able to discern that Latinos were the fastest growing group of military-age individuals in the United States. In May of 2003, the military was involved in a diplomatic dispute when recruiters made their way across the border. The headmaster of a Tijuana high school threw out the recruiter, and the Mexican government was vehemently upset. The Pentagon has preyed on the fact that Latinos and Latinas often enter the military in search of “civilian skills” they can apply in the workforce.

In 2001, Department of Defense statistics showed that while 10% of military forces are comprised of Latinos, 17.7% of this group occupies “frontline positions.” This includes, “infantry, gun crews, and seamanship.” With the army’s continual banter about educational subsidies of up to $30,000 for college and completion of GED requirements, the “glitz and glamour” of the military has enhanced misconceptions about the nature of military service for Latinos.

Charles Pena, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute presents a comparable conflict between the United States and the Middle East and the British and Northern Ireland where the occupying army encountered hostile opposition from civilian populations. In that situation the occupying army needed a ratio of 10 or 20 soldiers per 1,000 population, “…If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you’d need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.” With no sign of retreat or resolution and every indication of increasing opposition in locations occupied by troops, it will likely be deemed necessary to increase and maintain military presence. Additionally, there is the massive exodus of ally troops and aid from areas of occupation and combat. The US has been unable to draw major assistance from other countries and high enlistment bonuses have been both ineffective and expensive in light of the rapidly growing debt. Add to the growing list of unfavorable realities an unwillingness of soldiers to re-enlist, and the US is unable to meet the soldier quotient needed to continue occupation of Iraq alone; excluding the probability of troops expanding occupied territory and the White House promise of war in multiple theaters.

UPDATE BY MAUREEN FARRELL: While the draft became newsworthy in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, the mainstream media brushed most concerns aside. “Military Draft Unlikely for ‘War’ on Terrorism,”ABC News reported on Sept. 18, 2001, citing military analysts’ opinions. The Brookings Institutions’ Michael O’Hanlon, however, admitted that, should the U.S. military become involved in an extended occupation, then perhaps we’d be looking at “the kinds of man power requirements that would advise in favor of a draft.” By May 2004, O’Hanlon updated his prediction, citing mounting casualties and an over-reliance on National Guard and reserve troops in Iraq. “The most likely cause [for reinstatement of the draft] would be an even more severe over-deployment of the all-volunteer force. . . ,” he wrote in the Los Angeles Times.

Though Rep. Charles Rangel also addressed conscription concerns, by the time my story appeared on BuzzFlash.com, little had been written about changes that would make “draft dodging” more difficult. Few mentioned that draft laws had been changed in 1971 to restrict college deferments and even fewer discussed the sweeping new policies regarding selective service registration. The border agreement between Canada and the U.S. (yet another roadblock to would-be draft dodgers) received even less press.

I first became interested in this story in July 2002, after reading a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding pending legislation linking drivers’ license applications to selective service registration. At the time, half of all U.S. states had enacted such legislation (with scarce media attention) and as of April 9, 2004, all but 13 states had either passed such legislation or were in the process of doing so (also with scarce media attention).

Since this story broke, Presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader have raised concerns over conscription’s ever-increasing likelihood; Sen. Chuck Hagel has called for a national debate on the issue; and the Selective Service System’s proposal to draft women and extend the draft registration age from 25 to 34 has been uncovered. Yet the mainstream media continues to ignore the larger implications in regard to he 2004 election. (The Internet remains an exception, however. BuzzFlash has featured several editorials on the subject and in May 2004, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts, writing for antiwar.com, wrote: “If Bush is reelected, wider war and a draft to feed it seem a certainty.”)

This story is important for several reasons, but most notably for the questions it raises. Why did the Selective Service System feel compelled to insure compliance through new laws? Does this shift have anything to do with the larger, but also underreported agenda to widen the war in the Middle East? Do most Americans comprehend the long-term consequences of President Bush’s stated desire to “change the world”?

An informed citizenry is crucial to democracy. Given that our military is already overextended, Americans need to scrutinize this administration’s intentions for “dealing with” Iran, Syria and other countries. And before they vote, they should also understand that extended military commitments would most likely require a return to the draft – and that this time around, neither college nor Canada would provide refuge.

For map of states linking drivers’ license applications to Selective Service registration:http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/DriversLicense2004.pdf
For information on how the draft has changed since Vietnam:
http://www.sss.gov/viet.htm
For more on the U.S.-Canada “Smart Border Agreement”:
http://www.canadianembassy.org/border/declaration-en.asp

UPDATE BY JORGE MARISCAL: My article called attention to the Pentagon’s efforts to double the number of Latinos in the U.S. military by 2006 and to the on-going militarization of public school systems. As popular support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq began to decline throughout early 2004, the Latino/a community became increasingly aware of the negative consequences of military service, the distortions used by military recruiters to seduce young people, and the increasingly limited range of alternatives available to working-class youth.

Counter-recruitment activities in predominantly Latino schools increased as never before. For the first time, activists, students, and educators in Los Angeles held a citywide counter-recruitment conference at Manual Arts High School. The organization formed at that conference continues to leaflet local high schools and hold meetings for parents and teachers. I was able to deliver lectures on militarism and the militarization of public schools at a number of venues throughout the Southwest. In April, activist Fernando Suarez del Solar and I spoke to approximately 300 students at the University of Texas, El Paso. Many of them vowed to begin counter-recruitment projects. Others said they would reconsider their decision to enlist in the military as a way to receive funding for education. We witnessed similar results in Albuquerque, San Antonio, and other cities with large Latino populations. Students at several universities in Puerto Rico organized protests to challenge the use of funding for ROTC programs. Efforts to establish a national network of counter-recruitment groups were successful and organizers called a national meeting for the summer of 2004 in Philadelphia.

Working with Fernando Suarez del Solar (who lost his son during the invasion of Iraq) and his Guerrero Azteca Project, our organization Project YANO visited numerous high schools, colleges, and Latino parents’ groups in California. Across the state, students leafleted their schools with information about the truth behind the recruiters’ sales pitch. At an anti-war poetry recital in San Diego, poet Jimmy Santiago Baca joined young local poets to raise funds for YANO’s important work. YANO continues to produce Spanish language literature on the realities of military life and the partial truths presented by recruiters. Its director, Rick Jahnkow, advises other groups on how to begin and sustain counter-recruitment activities. YANO and its sister organization COMD continue to offer sound advice on the possibility of a military draft.

Mainstream coverage of the issues presented in my story was minimal. French, Swiss, and British journalists contacted us on several occasions but U.S. media outlets did not. In terms of our work in Spanish-language communities, we received a great deal of coverage from Spanish-language radio and television (e.g. Univision, Radio Bilingue) as well as the Spanish-language print media. Public radio stations with limited Latino programming in English (such as KPFK in Los Angeles) conducted several interviews with YANO members and associates.

Additional information about the issues raised in my story can be found at the following locations: Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (YANO), http://www.projectyano.org; Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD), http://www.comdsd.org; American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), http://www.afsc.org/youthmil.htm;Guerrero Azteca Project, http://www.guerreroazteca.org.

The post 24. Reinstating the Draft appeared first on Project Censored.

Left Turn, Mar/Apr, 2004
Title: “Lula’s First Year”
Author: Brian Campbell

Faculty Evaluators: Robert Girling Ph.D. LeiLani Nishime Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Hilton Jones, Chris Cox

The Free Trade Agreement of the America’s (FTAA) could become the biggest trading block in history, expanding NAFTA to 34 countries from Canada to the bottom of South America. This deal is unlikely to meet its January 2005 deadline, now that the second largest player in the negotiations, Brazil, is holding back. Brazil played an important part in the November, 2003, Cancun WTO meeting. Led by President Lula, a 20-country coalition that opposed the agenda of the northern countries caused the meeting to end abruptly and collapse.

The United States has reacted swiftly by making bilateral agreements with individual Central and South American countries and threatening to restrict their access to U.S. markets if they refuse to cooperate. In many cases, these poorer countries have no choice but to agree to the very strict and unfair agreements that the United States demands. Countries such as Peru, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Ecuador, and many other Central American nations involved in the FTAA want access to U.S. markets, even if it means relaxing anti-trust laws and workers’ rights. This tactic of coerced bilateral agreements has, so far, been successful in hindering Brazil from building coalitions with neighboring countries. Brazil is the fifth largest nation in the world, both in size and population. Boasting a consumer market of 182 million people, the United States desperately wants in.

Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, the President of Brazil, has taken a very anti-Washington stance in the recent talks on the FTAA. All 34 countries had demands put upon them in a two-tier system. Since the United States and Brazil both sit comfortably in the top tier, they are able to opt out of any negotiations not favorable to them. This has allowed the United States to keep its farm subsidies, which is the only way the U.S. sugar industry can compete with the largest sugar exporter in the world, Brazil. In return, Brazil is not obligated to open up any of its service industry and government contracts to foreign competition.

Since NAFTA did little to stop jobs in Mexico from going overseas, particularly to China, where wages and operating costs are even cheaper than Mexico, Brazilian politicians are very hesitant to sign up for Washington’s latest economic plan. A poll by the University of Miami indicated that 76 percent of Latin American business people, journalists, academics, and government officials believe that the FTAA plan would benefit the United States and not Brazil. This is one reason President Lula is staying away from the FTAA and bolstering talks abroad with India and China that focus on technology and natural resources.

UPDATE BY BRIAN M. CAMPBELL: The election of Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva and the Workers Party in Brazil was heralded as a defeat for neo-liberalism and the beginning of a new era in Brazil, where people would be put before the dictates of international capital. The aim of this story was to look at what had happened to that promise during the first year of the Lula administration.

Latin America has been the guinea pig for neo-liberal policies. Free market theories were given the green light immediately after the military coup on September 11, 1973 that murdered the elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. The result has been 30 years of escalating poverty and economic collapse across the region.

During the period 1980 to 2000, per capita income grew at a mere one-tenth of the rate of the previous decade, leaving the continent scarred by poverty and inequality. In Brazil, out of a population of 175 million, 53 million are poor, 23 million are homeless, and 8 million are unemployed. Meanwhile, three percent of the population own two-thirds of the land. Argentina has an unemployment rate of 21.5%-a country that used to feed the world can no longer feeds its own people. In Bolivia, 60% of the population is defined as poor. These figures are not unique to these countries, but sum up the experience of countries from Mexico to Chile: by the end of the 1990s, 11 million more people lived in poverty than at the beginning of the decade.

In 2003 the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, the body that coined the phrase “lost decade” to sum up the regions experience during the 1980s, issued another report that read in part: “Half the countries in the region have seen GDP per head fall in the past five years and the economies that grew rapidly during the 1990s have slowed down.” Perhaps the most extreme example of the failure of the neo-liberal model was the economic implosion and social uprising in Argentina in December 2001.

The desperation inflicted by the neo-liberal economic model has not gone unchallenged by the people of the region. Fights against International Monetary Fund-mandated privatization plans have raged in El Salvador, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. Many have been successful but have at best delayed the neo-liberal juggernaut. It was under these conditions and in this atmosphere that the people of Brazil went to the polling booths. The result was an entire country saying no to the dictates of neo-liberalism.

During the election campaign, the mainstream media had spread various scare stories about the impact that a Workers Party administration would have on the health of the Brazilian economy-meaning the ability of foreign owned companies to take money out of the country. Such talk caused a crisis in the economy and forced Lula to agree to abide by IMF rules. After Lula was inaugurated, he followed the rules of the international banking institutions and subsequently was lauded by newspapers such as the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. Any failure to follow through on pre-election commitments to Brazil’s poor have not been covered.

The best source to follow the progress of the Lula administration can be found on the Brazilian Landless Laborers website at http://www.mstbrazil.org/

Another useful resource is the ZNET website, especially the pages on Latin America and Brazil,http://www.zmag.org/LAM/index.html

The post 23. Brazil Holds Back in FTAA Talks, But Provides Little Comfort for the Poor appeared first on Project Censored.

Asheville Global Report, May 12, 2003
Title: U.S Army Major Refuses Order to Seize Iraq TV Station
Author: Charlie Thomas

Faculty Evaluator: Jeffrey Holtzman Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Sara Brunner, Doug Reynolds

Soon after Coalition forces toppled the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, occupying Chief L. Paul Bremer III, reflecting on the new freedom in Iraq, told journalists that they were no longer constrained by the government and were now “free to criticize whoever, or whatever, you want.” But he was not telling the truth. Everything changed very quickly when Bremer was the person coming under that very criticism.

When negative critiques of his policies appeared on the Iraqi Media Network (IMN), Bremer placed controls on its content. IMN was an American-run outfit contracted by the Pentagon to put out news after the fall of Saddam. IMN’s mission was two-fold: to be both a PBS-style broadcaster and a means for the occupying authorities to communicate with the Iraqis. Bremer issued a nine-point list of “prohibited activity” that included incitement to violence, support for the Baath Party, and publishing material that is patently false and calculated to promote opposition to the occupying authority. He clamped down further on the independent media in Iraq by closing down a number of Iraqi-run newspapers and radio and television stations. The IMN was bound to find a conflict in encouraging democratic values while under pressure to go along with the coalition forces ruling by force.

From the beginning, Pentagon decisions seemed to run counter to its well-publicized intention to create a free Iraqi society. Early last year, rather than hiring a media outlet to run the IMN, the Pentagon chose a defense contractor, Scientific Applications International Corp. (SAIC), instead. With SAIC’s orientation leaning more toward information control than information dissemination, it is hard to see how they were going to create a public broadcasting-style multimedia operation in post-war Iraq. The IMN was created in April, 2003, and it was not long before journalists hired by the SAIC realized their double role. The occupying authority told them to stop conducting man-on-the-street interviews, because some were too critical of the American presence, and to stop including readings from the Koran as part of cultural programming. IMN TV was also forced to run an hour-long program on recently issued occupying authority laws despite objections from Don North, a senior TV advisor to the IMN station.

Additionally, coalition forces were ordered to seize the only TV station in Mosel Iraq because they had televised some programs from the network Al-Jazeera in its broadcast. The independent station had lost its cameras to looters so they had turned to a mix of Arabic news channels and NBC to continue broadcasting. The Commander of the 101st Airborne Division, Maj. Gen. David Petraeus gave the order to seize the station. But in a surprising show of bravery and professional ethics, Major Charmaine Means, the head of the Army public affairs office in Mosul, would not agree to the seizure, saying that to do so would mean the station would be intimidated into airing only material approved by the U.S. Military. She refused twice to follow her superior officers’ orders, after which she was relieved of her duties. The station was eventually taken over by coalition forces. IMN has said that it would like to take over the offices in Mosul. IMN’s having direct control over the facilities would give the American authority a broadcasting foothold in northern Iraq.

The Occupying authority is now developing an independent media commission run by journalists rather than the U.S. Army to enforce Bremer’s rules more judiciously and to develop a more rational set of media regulations.

UPDATE BY ALEX GOUREVITCH: My main interest in writing the article was to identify the core problems with the idea of ‘exporting democracy’ to other countries. I had heard there were problems with developing an independent and public media in Iraq and thought that looking at how the U.S. tried to manage the development of open media and ‘free speech’ would be an excellent way of showing how external ‘democratization’ doesn’t work because democracy has to come from the inside. The people have to define the parameters of their politics, interpret principles like free speech, for themselves.

I thought my article exposed the contradiction between the logic of occupation and the logic of democratic politics, and I think this continues to be a problem. For instance, one of the triggering events of the recent and ongoing Sadrist uprising was the CPA’s decision to shut down al-Hawza al-Natiqa, a low circulation newspaper supportive of Moqtada al-Sadr. Less radical Iraqis have also responded negatively to heavy-handed treatment of the media. On May 4, the Washington Post reported that the editor-in-chief of Al-Sabah, the U.S. funded newspaper in Iraq, Ismael Zayer, resigned along with some editors and reporters. Zayer told the Post that “We thought that Americans were here to create a free media” but “instead, we were being suffocated.”

The CPA justifies its restrictions and censorship on the grounds that there is a tradeoff between liberty and security, especially when it comes to potentially incendiary speech. The problem isn’t that Iraqis don’t appreciate this trade-off or that the CPA is perceived as uneven and politically motivated in its application of the law. Rather, what upsets Iraqis is that it is the CPA that reserves the authority to decide when security, or some other value, trumps liberty. In fact, it appears that after the June 30 ‘hand over of sovereignty’ the CPA will keep its authority to enforce Article 14 (the statute allowing the shutting down of media outlets if they are deemed to threaten law and order). The essential problem here is not just whether the CPA’s decisions are fair or proper, but that they get to make the decisions in the first place.

What kind of sovereignty do the Iraqis have if they are not allowed to interpret their own constitution? The contradiction between the logic of occupation and the logic of democracy continues, and will persist so long as the CPA or the coalition force remains in Iraq.

There has been some mainstream press coverage of this issue, although my story in particular has not received a great deal of attention. The New York Times did publish a short summary and snippets of the article in its Sept. 28 – Oct. 4 issue of The Week in Review Reading Desk: The Reading File, section. Other than that, it has not received a great deal of attention. For further information on these topics, the best places to go are independent media watchdog groups like Index on Censorship, http://www.indexonline.org; Reporters Without Borders,http://www.rsf.org and http://www.indymedia.org.

UPDATE BY CHARLIE THOMAS: After Major Charmaine Means was relieved of command, she was reassigned to a stateside post at Fort Bragg. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus was promoted to Lt. General and is back in Iraq in charge of training all Iraqi military and security forces.

Since the seizure of the Mosul TV station, the whole world has become aware of the illegal actions of the U.S. in Iraq. Fresh reports of violations of the Geneva Convention are frequent. Col. David Hogg, in an off-the-cuff remark, noted that U.S. forces routinely take hostages: “…his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: ‘If you want your family released, turn yourself in.’” (Washington Post, July 28, ‘03). Article 34 of the Geneva Convention is specific: “The taking of hostages is prohibited.”

Many news outlets reported that U.S. forces kept sick and injured civilians away from the hospitals during the siege of Falluja, but none noted that this behavior is a war crime.

And now comes former Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey, a veteran of the invasion of Iraq, reporting that he and his troops were ordered to, and did, fire on unarmed protestors, killing most of them.

After the World Trade Center attack, the U.S. essentially declared itself exempt from international norms. The military is following the civilian leadership: “In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.” – White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, 1/25/02 (Memorandum to the President)

The post 22. Exporting Censorship to Iraq appeared first on Project Censored.

Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency, May 14, 2003
Title: “U.S. WTO Dispute Could Bend Poor Nations to GMOs-Groups”
Author: Emad Mekay

CMW Report, Summer 2003
Title: “A Rebuttal to the Tribune”
Author: Liane Casten

SF Weekly, June 2-8, 2004
Title: “Bioscience Warfare”
Author: Alison Pierce

Faculty Evaluator: Al Wahrhaftig Ph.D., Eric McGuckin Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Larissa Heeren

The Bush Administration, on behalf of the biotech industry, intends to force the European Union (EU) to drop trade barriers against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Their claim is that such a trade barrier is illegal under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and that the distribution of GMOs is a necessary part of the campaign to end world hunger. However, the reason behind U.S. governmental support for GMOs may have more to do with heavy lobbying, campaign contributions and the close relationships between government agencies and biotech companies than actual science and the war against hunger. U.S. industry loses some $300 million a year of possible GMO exports to the EU. Biotechnology promoters like Monsanto and agri-business have strenuously lobbied the administration to bring a formal WTO case against the EU while suppressing studies that show GMOs may have adverse effects on health and the environment.

The connections between biotech companies and US regulatory agencies are deep. According to globalinfo.org, Ann Veneman, US Department of Agriculture Secretary, used to serve on the board of Calgene, the company that brought us the biotech tomato. She also used to head Agracetus, a subsidiary of Monsanto. In another example of the “revolving door” between biotech companies and regulatory agencies, the person who wrote the GMO regulations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was a lawyer who “previously” represented biotech-giant Monsanto. After writing the FDA legislation, the lawyer returned to work for Monsanto.

Another factor that has powerfully influenced the growth of the GMO industry throughout the world is the link between international development organizations (such as the World Bank) and the biotech industry. Under an approved “staff exchange program” the World Bank trades its employees with employees from companies like Dow, ARD, and Aventis. There are also exchanges with academic institutions, governments, and UN development agencies. One startling example involves Eija Pehu, a senior scientist with the World Bank’s department of agriculture and rural development. The former president of a Finnish biotech company, Pehu is also listed as a board member for the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), an influential lobbying organization whose funding comes from companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer. The ISAAA’s objective is “the transfer and delivery of appropriate biotechnology applications to developing countries.” They have successfully pursued this program with projects in at least 12 developing nations.

The U.S. has a history of attempting to push GMOs on developing nations through the use of food aid. Yet, despite enormous pressure and Washington PR campaigns, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique have turned down shipments of U.S. GMO aid because of health and environmental concerns. Ronnie Cummins, national director of Organic Consumers, says the real aim of the United States is to frighten poor developing nations into complying and opening their markets for controversial products.

But while GMO companies continue to open new markets abroad, the jury is still out on whether or not their products are likely to provide any real benefits. Controversy and scandal surround the biotech industry and charges that it manipulates the results of research performed on GMOs. Biotech companies create relationships with universities that conduct research on their products by providing sorely needed funding for university research departments. (Over the last three decades, funding provided to U.S. universities by the industrial sector grew faster than any other source.) Researchers who have come forward with evidence showing that GMOs can be harmful claim they have experienced pressure from university research alliances to alter results. Some assert that the priorities of private sponsors influence what should have been impartial findings. One researcher who found less than desirable results, and discussed them publicly, had the misfortune of being blacklisted and the target of a powerful GMO PR campaign to discredit his work. In 1998, Arpad Pusztai, a scientist at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland discovered that genetically modified potatoes caused inflammations and tumors in the lining of stomachs of lab rodents. After publishing his story, his home was burglarized, his research was stolen, he lost his job at Rowett after 30 years of employment, and he was maligned by the Royal Medical Society (after his research was published in the reputable scientific journal Lancet). This story was Censored #7 in 2001.

The European Union denies that it has enacted a trade moratorium and says it simply needed more time to develop systems for tracing and labeling GM foods and feed. However, even if the EU were to abide by the WTO’s rules, “there is no way in hell they can force the European consumers, supermarkets, or farmers to stock GMO tainted crops,” says Ronnie Cummins.

Meanwhile, the anti-GMO movement in the United States is rapidly gaining steam. In March 2004, Mendocino, California became the first county in the U.S. to ban the growing of genetically modified crops and animals.

UPDATE BY KATHERINE STAPP: With public concerns over genetically modified (GM) foods intensifying this year, the agricultural biotechnology industry appears to be focusing even more intently on developing countries, where regulations governing their use are generally more lax.

In April, the European Union announced tougher labeling requirements for genetically modified products. In May, agricultural giant Monsanto said that it was dropping plans to commercialize a variety of GM wheat in the United States and Canada because of consumer and farmer opposition.

By contrast, India’s $200-million-dollar National Technology Project (NATP), funded in part by the World Bank, has stepped up experimentation with transgenic cotton, rice, sorghum, groundnut, chickpea and pigeon pea. According to reports from the Pesticide Action Network, dozens or more World Bank-funded projects, in Brazil, Indonesia, India, Peru, Romania, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Kenya refer explicitly to agricultural biotechnology.

In a related development (since many of the same companies involved in biotech also manufacture pesticides), PAN also gave the Bank a failing grade on sustainable farming practices. Its review of 100 Bank projects determined that only nine percent comply with the Bank’s stated commitment to reduce pesticide use in its agricultural projects.

This growing divide between North and South is illustrated by estimates from industry groups like the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), which tout the spread of GM crops. In January, the ISAAA announced that “7 million farmers in 18 countries – more than 85 percent resource-poor farmers in the developing world – now plant biotech crops, up from 6 million in 16 countries in 2002.” Interestingly, since IPS made inquiries, ARD scientist Eija Pehu is no longer listed on the ISAAA’s web site as a member of its Board of Directors (although Gabrielle Persley, a long-time advisor to the Bank, is still there).

Activists are also focusing World Bank funding for GM trees through its Prototype Carbon Fund, which facilitates emissions trading to comply with the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases. They fear that pollen drift from these GM “carbon sinks” could contaminate native species, and also open the door for widespread planting of GM trees in developing countries.

The World Bank’s lack of accountability to governments or civil society is at the heart of many complaints about its activities, underlining the importance of the independent media in exposing abuses. In terms of the mainstream press’ response to the IPS story, I’m not aware that there was one.

More information can be found at PAN’s web site (http://www.panna.org), the Global Justice Ecology Project (http://www.globaljusticeecology.org), the Bank’s Staff Exchange site (http://www.staffexchange.org), which lists its “corporate partners”, and a new book titled “Gene Traders: Biotechnology, World Trade and the Globalization of Hunger” by Brian Tokar (Toward Freedom press 2004).

The post 21. Forcing a World Market for GMOs appeared first on Project Censored.

Mainstream media coverage: CNN July 3, 2003; USA Today October 29, 2003; The New York Times December 17, 2003

Faculty Evaluator: Ervand Peterson Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Shannon Arthur, Cassie Cyphers, Melissa Jones

The UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) views the events of 2003 in Europe, America and Asia as so astonishing that the world needs to be made aware of it immediately. The WMO reports extreme weather and climate occurrences all over the world. Reports on record high and low temperatures, record rainfall, and record storms in different parts of the world are consistent with the predictions of global warming. The significance of this particular report is that it comes from the highly respected UN organization known for its conservative predictions and statements. Based in Geneva, the WMO collects its information from the weather services of 185 countries.

Supercomputer models show that, as the atmosphere warms, the climate is not only becoming hotter, but very unstable, with the number of extreme events more likely to increase. In southern France record temperatures were recorded in June 2003. Temperatures rose above 104ºF (40°C) in some places, which is 9 to 13º F above average. In Switzerland, it was the hottest June in over 250 years. In Geneva, daytime temperatures made it the hottest June ever recorded.

In the United States there were 562 tornadoes in the month of May, causing 41 deaths. This year’s pre-monsoon heat wave in India brought about temperatures of 113ºF (45°C), which is 4 to 9ºF above normal. This extreme heat was responsible for at least 1,400 deaths. In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfall from tropical Cyclone 01B resulted in floods and landslides, killing at least 300 people. The infrastructure and the economy of southwest Sri Lanka were heavily damaged. England and Wales experienced the warmest June since 1976 with average temperatures of 61ºF (16°C).

A WMO representative said, “New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes has been increasing.” Extreme heat waves that scorched Europe in August 2003 were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. The Earth Policy Institute reports there were 35, 118 deaths. Most of the deaths occurred in France with 14,802 fatalities, followed by Germany with 7,000 and Spain and Italy each suffering over 4,000 losses. The United Kingdom, Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium combined had over 4,000 deaths.

According to recent reports of the joint WMO/United Nations Environmental Panel on Climate Change, the global average surface temperature has increased around 1°F since 1861. New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that in the 21st century increases are likely to be the largest in any century over the past 1,000 years. Average global land and sea surface temperatures in May 2003 were the second highest since records began in 1880. The ten hottest years in the 143-year-old global temperature record have all been since 1990, with the three hottest being 1998, 2001 and 2002.

Document last updated 10/26/2004.

The post 20. Extreme Weather Prompts New Warning from UN appeared first on Project Censored.

Evaluator: John Lund
Student Researcher: Anna Miranda

Over the last two decades, agribusiness and food retail mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and informal contract agreements have transformed the agri-food system into a powerful network of transnational corporations that have the power to control the world’s food supply at every stage of food production-from gene to market shelf. By cooperating with one another rather than competing, transnational corporations escape the scrutiny of federal anti-trust regulators and manipulate the market through “non-merger alliances.” In April 2002, the world’s two largest seed corporations, DuPont and Monsanto announced that they would agree to swap their key patented agricultural technologies and drop all outstanding patent lawsuits.

The flurry of mergers and acquisitions throughout the agri-food system has created highly concentrated markets as agribusinesses expand their dominance by diversifying their commodities. Cargill is among the top five companies in the US market for flour milling, grain and oilseed processing, salt production, corn and soybean exports, turkey production and processing, pork processing, and beer processing.

As fewer corporations control each stage of food production, farming is becoming a kind of serfdom. Consolidation among suppliers and processors leave farmers with few choices of who to buy from and who to sell to. Dominant agribusinesses have the ability to drive up the prices they charge for inputs while watering down the prices they pay for outputs. Furthermore, the rise of patented seed varieties places farmers in an even worse position, as agricultural biotech companies gain ownership of the germplasm itself.

Consolidation in the food system is not limited to the production and processing side. Consolidation activity among food retailers has catalyzed a domino effect of mergers and acquisitions. ConAgra, a company few Americans have heard of, is a major force in food production in the US and has continued to aggressively acquire small rivals while expanding its operation worldwide. It is estimated to be the #3 seller of retail food products in the world. Although consumers might be unfamiliar with the name ConAgra, they will recognize some, if not all, of ConAgra’s popular brand names: Armour, Butterball, Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, La Choy, Orville Reddenbacher, Parkay and Hebrew National, just to name a few. ConAgra is also known for a recall of 19 million pounds of tainted beef after 47 people were sickened and one died from E. coli poisoning in 2002.

The top five supermarket chains capture one half of all food sales in the US, and it is widely predicted that there will soon be only six major retail supermarkets selling the majority of the world’s food. Because it is necessary for each and every one of us to eat and drink, we will pay what it takes to make sure we do not go hungry or thirsty. Although food may appear to be “cheap” with fewer and fewer retailers, lack of competition will ultimately lead to higher prices, lack of choice, and poorly paid employees. Wal-Mart typically sells grocery products at prices 14% lower than competing grocers, in part because the company is a non-union employer that hires clerks at below-poverty wages.

Food corporations rely on the consumers’ lack of knowledge as to where their food comes from, how it is produced, and who wins the profits. The trend toward consolidation at every stage along the food production chain has dramatically impacted the global economy and distribution of income and wealth. Given the complexities of the domestic policy-making and legislative processes, and the numerous mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and “non-merger mergers,” it is not surprising that few people are aware of the degree to which food companies influence food safety policies, competition and decide where and how food is produced and how much it will cost.

Prior to committing suicide as an act of political protest on September 10, 2003 against the World Trade Organization in Cancun, Mexico, Lee Kyung-Hae, a 56-year old farmer from South Korea circulated the following statement. “My warning goes to all citizens that human beings are in an endangered situation in which uncontrolled multinational corporations and a small number of big WTO official members are leading undesirable globalization of inhumane, environmentally degrading, farmer-killing and undemocratic policies. It should be stopped immediately, otherwise the false logic of neo-liberalism will perish the diversities of global agriculture with disastrous consequences to all human beings.”

The post 19. Global Food Cartel Fast Becoming the Worlds Supermarket appeared first on Project Censored.

GUARDIAN UNLIMITED, December 2, 2003
Title: “Bottom of the Barrel”
Author: George Monbiot

Faculty Evaluator: Rick Luttmann Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Philip Rynning, Julie Mayeda, Anna Miranda

If the former industry executives, geologists, and statisticians in the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) are correct, oil may have already reached its highest levels of production potential. But U.S. leaders, and the mainstream media, refuse to acknowledge that we are headed for an inevitable oil crisis with extreme consequences sure to impact every aspect of our lives. As the peak is reached, oil prices will start to rise (as they have every year since 2000). As the oil decline accelerates, prices will rise even faster.

The problem is that our lives have become hard-wired to the oil economy. Oil powers the machinery of modern society and lubricates its engines. Materials need to be transported and companies need working people to make them. Workers in turn need to run a car, pay for electricity to heat their house, buy food (that is packaged in plastic). High transportation prices mean high food prices. Oil is the main ingredient in plastics and polyester: the clothes we wear, the carpets we walk on, frames for our computers, seats to sit on, bottles to drink from, and band-aids to salve our wounds. What will replace them, and who will be able to afford them, as the price of oil starts to rise? This story isn’t about the ‘end of oil’ as it is often portrayed; it is the beginning of the end of oil. But this still means a paradigmatic shift at a level not seen since the Industrial Revolution.

Our government has yet to begin diversifying our energy. Head of the energy investment bank Simmons & Co. International, Matthew Simmons said, “I am an advisor to the Bush Administration. Although, I’m not sure they are listening. What I basically told them is that we had some looming energy problems: that we were barreling into a really nasty energy crisis. We need a new energy.” But a viable alternative has yet to be developed. These economic problems will be exacerbated by the direct connection between the price of oil and the rate of unemployment. The last five recessions in the US were all preceded by a rise in the oil price.

Alternative energy, such as hydrogen, which President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union speech in January of 2004, has its own complexities and system requirements. Hydrogen, natural gas, bio-diesel, and nuclear energy sources are all considered alternative fuels. Wind and solar power are considered renewable energy resources. The viability of these options depends directly on how we plan to implement them.

The only rational response to both the impending end of the oil age and the menace of global warming is to redesign our cities, our farming, and our lives. But this will not happen without massive political pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted for austerity. People tend to take to the streets because they want to consume more, not less.

Author Adam Porter offers these tips: Eliminate non-essential energy use, and encourage others to do the same. Move towards renewable sources. Drive only when necessary. Buy local to defray the strain from transportation consumption. Get involved locally to plan within the community. Write your local paper as well as your representatives. The greater the demand for public discourse, the sooner the U.S. government will supply a solution. In 1976, President Jimmy Carter said, “We must face the prospect of changing our basic ways of living. This change will either be made on our own initiative in a planned way, or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature.”

UPDATE BY ADAM PORTER: The story that global oil output is peaking, that the demand will continue to outstrip production, is simply the biggest story of the age. Bar none. It connects to everything else. It is a building block for all other stories; be it Iraq, corporate greed, Chinese growth or basic political power. You want to travel to Mars with no oil? You want to watch the Superbowl half time with no electricity? You want Michael Jackson to moonwalk on his limo outside court when even he can’t afford to drive there anymore? Think again. It’s all about oil.

Since publication of the story in New Internationalist magazine the price of oil has risen to $41 a barrel from about $30, oil workers are being killed in Saudi, pipelines and platforms are being destroyed in Iraq, Shell mislaid 23% of its reserves (whoops) and of course, oil companies are making record profits.

Mainstream response to my story was zero, nada. Some outlets are now looking at the subject in more detail. But then again they can hardly miss it. It would be a bit like not covering the Iraq war. Most of the coverage is ignorant of basic facts; all quoted reserves are lies, and parrots oil company and government policy. At least it’s consistent.

If one would like more information on the subject simply go to the internet and Google for oil production, there are enormous amounts. Other than that, go to http://www.peakoil.net, that is a good place to start. In Spanish, go to:http://www.crisisenergetica.org.

UPDATE BY GEORGE MONBIOT: Since my story was published, both Shell and BP have been forced to downgrade the size of their reserves. The oil price has continued to climb: at the time of writing it stands at over $40. The mainstream media is at last waking up to the idea that this non-renewable resource won’t last forever. The New York Times, the London Times and CBS have all followed up on the story I wrote. Perhaps, just perhaps, humanity will, almost for the first time in history, do something before it’s too late.

Recommended websites include: http://www.peakoil.net/; http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/; The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, http://www.odac-info.org/; http://www.hubbertpeak.com/.

The post 18. Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies appeared first on Project Censored.

Left Turn, March/April 2004, v. 12
Title: “Ambitions of Empire: The Radical Reconstruction of Iraq’s Economy”
Author: Antonia Juhasz

Faculty Evaluators: Haidi LaMoreaux Ph.D., Susan Garfin Ph.D.
Student Researchers: Katie Drewieske, Adam Stutz

In the Wall Street Journal on May 1, 2003 an article leaked the confidential Bush Administration documents outlining “sweeping plans to remake Iraq’s economy in the US image. Hoping to establish a free-market economy in Iraq the US is calling for the privatization of state-owned industries such as parts of the oil sector. This all-inclusive plan for mass privatization of Iraq is divided into three stages. In the first stage corporations are not only able to establish their businesses in Iraq, they are also able to own Iraqi resources, including two of the most precious Iraqi resources: oil and water. In the second stage, all Iraqi resources would be turned over to private ownership. The final stage includes the establishment of a Free Trade Area in the Middle East paving the way for US domination of the entire region.

The beginning of the corporate invasion was signaled by the many multi-million dollar contracts that were handed to corporations via the Bush administration. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) secretly sent out bids for contracts. Iraqis, humanitarian organizations, the United Nations and any non-US led business were left out of the contract bids. Although Halliburton and Bechtel are some of the most well known corporations that have received these contracts, there are a plethora of others that have been included in these secret bids:

MCI/WorldCom
DynCorp/Computer Sciences Corp
Flour Intercontinental
Creative Associates International Inc.
Research Triangle Institute

With Halliburton now responsible for the extraction and redistribution of oil, Bechtel has been handed the contract to oversee the management of water systems and waste water management. Being the largest private company in the world responsible for water management, (it is involved in over 200 water and waste water treatment plants around the world) Bechtel’s contract has been extended to include the distribution of water just as Halliburton’s was for oil. With this in mind, the private ownership of Iraqi water supplies could have devastating consequences for the Iraqi population.

In addition to the privatization of the Iraqi resources, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq has kept in place many of Saddam Hussein’s anti-labor practices.

In 1977, Saddam Hussein purged unions and made radical parties illegal. Many labor leaders were executed or fled the country to live in exile. Ten years later, Hussein reclassified the people who worked in large state enterprises as civil servants. That meant that the government employed 70 percent of Iraqi workers, and made it illegal for them to form unions or to bargain for better working conditions.

Since the Hussein regime fell last April 2003, workplace-organizing activity has exploded. Union organizers emerged quickly, spearheading a drive for better wages. A worker strike was held in Basra two days after British troops arrived. Workers demanded the right to organize and protested the appointment of a Ba’ath party official as the new mayor. Similar demonstrations have been going on throughout the country. 400 union activists met in Baghdad in June 2003 to form the Workers Democratic Trade Union Federation, and planned to reorganize unions in many of Iraq’s major industries.

But the CPA, while striking down almost all of Hussein’s other laws, has kept the ban on unions, keeping wages low and unemployment high (at about 70 percent). They are privatizing the state enterprises that employed most of the workers. As of December 2003, 138 of the 600 state-owned businesses were being offered for sale.

On Sept. 19, 2003, the CPA published Order No. 37, which suspends income and property taxes for a year and limits future taxes to 15 percent. Later that day, they issued Order No. 39, permitting 100 percent foreign ownership of businesses (except oil) and allowing repatriation of profits. Outright ownership of, access to, and profits from Iraqi oil fields is still under dispute – although it is likely that U.S. interests will prevail.

The CPA has set an emergency pay scale for Iraqi workers’ wages, which for most is $60 a month. This is the same wage scale that workers had under the Hussein regime. Benefits under Hussein included frequent bonuses, profit sharing, medical coverage, and food subsidies. There is no overtime pay under the CPA, no benefits, and an increase in the exchange rate has made imports and essential items very expensive. Workers have had a drastic cut in income since April 2003 as a result of CPA decisions.

Low wages aren’t the only problems unions hope to combat. Working conditions are exhausting and dangerous. Under the Hussein regime, the workday was seven hours long. Now a day shift is 11 hours, a night shift is 13 hours. Safety glasses and other safety equipment are virtually unknown in most industries. If workers get sick or hurt, they must pay for their own medical care and also lose pay for the time they miss. “Life has gotten much worse,” said one worker. “Everything is controlled by the coalition. We don’t control anything.”

Workers in the businesses to be privatized could face even more problems in the future. If they have no legal union, no right to bargain and no contracts, they may not be able to oppose the privatization of their plants and potential huge job losses. A plant manager in one industry seemed willing to talk to the union in his factory, but since finances and wages are controlled by the CPA, he is not able to sign any kind of contract with the group.

The factory manager pointed out that under the Hussein regime, the 3,000 workers were guaranteed jobs for life. He was not allowed to lay off anyone. But if his business were privatized he would have to fire about 1,500 people in order to make a profit; since there is no unemployment insurance, he will be killing those workers and their families.

Iraqi Labor Undersecretary Nuri Jafer says he would like to start an unemployment insurance program, but so far no country is willing to help fund it. Meanwhile, none of the $87 billion that Congress allotted for Iraq will go to increase wages or implement a large jobs program.

A delegation from U.S. Labor Against War – a group of American union and labor councils – visited Iraq in October to investigate conditions. They asked Jafer repeatedly whether or not the 1987 law banning unions would be repealed, but he would not answer the question. The British CPA representative at the Labor Ministry also refused to answer, and complained that the foreign union delegations that visited the ministry were wasting the Labor Minister’s time.

UPDATE BY DAVID BACON: The disaster that is the occupation of Iraq is much more than the war that plays nightly across U.S. television screens. The violence of grinding poverty, exacerbated by economic sanctions after the first Gulf War, has been deepened by the U.S. invasion. Every day the economic policies of the occupying authorities create more hunger among Iraq’s working people, transforming them into a pool of low-wage, semi-employed labor, desperate for jobs at almost any price.

The effects of U.S. policy on daily life, especially the economic situation of most Iraqis, go largely ignored in the U.S. media, although anyone walking the streets of Baghdad cannot miss them. Children sleep on the sidewalks. Sewage still pours into the Tigris River, and those who must depend on it for drinking or cooking continue to get sick. The violence of poverty is not held to be a violation of human rights in the United States – just one manifestation of the great division in the world between the wealthy, industrialized north, and the developing south. The U.S. does not recognize that human rights include economic and social rights, in part because they are collective rights of groups, social classes, or even nations.

The story on labor in Iraq detailed these violations of human rights. Most of the specific CPA decrees mentioned in the story, suppressing union rights and setting the stage for privatization, are unarguably violations of international human rights standards.

Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labor Organization, guaranteeing freedom of association, makes the continued enforcement of the 1987 ban on unions illegal. Convention 135, preventing retaliation against workers for union activity, makes the arrests of union leaders, and their expulsion from their offices, illegal as well.

The story exposed not only the growing poverty of Iraqi workers, but the conscious effort to use a falling standard of living as an attraction for foreign investment. After the story appeared in The Progressive, the situation for workers and unions grew worse. Members of the national executive board of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions were arrested in December, along with leaders of the Union of the Unemployed of Iraq. In January and February, a wave of work stoppages and labor confrontations in the south hit Iraq’s key industries – oil and electrical generation. Worker resistance grew so heated that the occupation authority was forced to withdraw decrees which would have lowered wages even further.

In an especially Orwellian moment, George Bush even declared in his January State of the Union speech that U.S. intervention in Iraq would promote the formation of free trade unions in the Middle East. Nevertheless, as of April, the occupation authority continued to enforce the Saddam-era ban on union in most workplaces.

Few other media outlets picked up the story of the violation of Iraqi labor rights. A notable exception was the labor press, especially The Dispatcher (of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union) and the Guild Reporter (of the Newspaper Guild). This labor attention reflects the growing antipathy and opposition to the war and occupation among U.S. unions, a story in itself.

There was some attention on the radio, due in part to the efforts of the Institute for Public Accuracy. None of the major national daily US newspapers, however, and none of the television networks, have run any news stories at all about Iraqi labor and workers. Perhaps this is just an extension of their failure to cover unions and workers in the US, but given the need to develop the institutions of civil society in Iraq capable of governing the country, ignoring unions and their allied popular organizations seems a kind of willful blindness typical of the occupation generally.

The best source for continued and up-to-date information about Iraqi workers and unions can be found on the website of U.S. Labor Against the War, the national network of unions opposed to the Bush war policy.http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org.

The post 17. U.S. Government Represses Labor Unions in Iraq in Quest for Business appeared first on Project Censored.

Community Alliance, April 2003
Title: “Police Infiltrate Local Groups”
Author: Mark Schlosberg

CovertAction Quarterly, Fall 2003
Title: “Denver Police Keeping Files On Peace Groups”
Author: Loring Wirbel

SF Indymedia, October 4, 2003
URL: http://sfbay.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/1650550.php (first publish of Rhodes article)
Title: “Local Peace Group Infiltrated by Government Agent”
Author: Mike Rhodes

Reprinted: Community Alliance, November 2003
http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/magazine/2003/2003index.htm

North Bay Progressive, Volume 2 # 8, October 2003
Title: Fresno Peace group Infiltrated by Government Agent
Author: Mike Rhodes

World Socialist Web Site, http://www.wsws.org, 1/10/04
Title: Bush Administration Expands Police Spying Powers
Author: Kate Randall

Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Botterell
Student Researcher: Joni Wallent

With virtually no media coverage or public scrutiny, a major reorganization of the US domestic law enforcement intelligence apparatus is well underway and, in fact, is partially completed. The effort to create a new national intelligence collection, analysis, and sharing system has frightening implications for privacy and other civil liberties.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) with Department of Justice (DOJ) assistance decided to organize a summit in early 2002; the topic was “Criminal Intelligence Sharing: Overcoming Barriers to Enhance Domestic Security.” At the summit, a select group of 100 “criminal intelligence experts” and VIPs from local, state, and federal agencies-including the military-formulated what came to be known as the “National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan” (NCISP).

The IACP summit report calls for the creation of a “Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council” (CICC). The Global Intelligence Working Group became operational under the umbrella of John Ashcroft’s Department of Justice (DOJ) as the first incarnation of the CICC in the fall of 2002.

While they invoke the terror of 9/11, the NCISP and related documents offer no argument that 9/11 could have been prevented with better intelligence sharing between federal and state/local law enforcement. The IACP summit report simply asserts “While September 11 highlighted urgency in improving the capacity of law enforcement agencies … to share terrorism-relevant intelligence data … the real need is to share all–not just terrorism-related–criminal intelligence.” Information would be shared though out all channels of enforcement agencies. State and local agencies are to act as partners in the participation of collection, analysis, dissemination, and ultimately resulting in police infiltration collecting criminal intelligence.

Several police departments have increased surveillance and intelligence gathering activity against innocent citizens exercising their constitutional rights to participate in religious and social protests. The Denver Police were collecting criminal intelligence data on American citizens participating in “political, religious and social gatherings. The Denver Police Intelligence Bureau has conducted infiltration and observation on groups such as: American Friends Service Committee, Citizens for Peace in Space, and Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission. Records on participants of these events were filed and shared between undercover police groups in Denver and national agencies

American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the city of Denver and the police admitted to maintaining files on 3,200 individuals and 208 organizations.

In Fresno, California a local peace and justice group discovered that they had been infiltrated by an undercover law enforcement officer. Fresno Sheriff Aaron Kilner, known to the Peace Fresno group as Aaron Stokes, attended several peace meetings and anti-war vigils. Peace Fresno found out about the infiltration when a local obituary reported the death of Officer Kilner in a motorcycle accident. Officer Kilner was listed in the obituary as working for the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

On the same day that Saddam Hussein was captured, President Bush sign into law the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2004. The act essentially expanded the Patriot Act by allowing government to request personal information on individual citizens from stockbrokers, car dealerships, credit card companies and any other businesses where cash transactions occur. By broadening definitions of financial institutions, the Bush administration expanded the 2001 USA Patriot Act. The FBI does not have to appear before a judge nor demonstrate “probable cause.” Moreover, a national Security Letter comes attached with a gag order thereby preventing businesses from informing their clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI.
The intentions of current intelligence gathering activities have little use in the prevention of terrorist attacks, and have more to do with the reconstruction of local, state, federal, and private enforcement agencies with unrestricted access to citizen records.

UPDATE: The story of the Global Intelligence Working Group is more important now than when it was first published because its National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) has largely been put into service. There was a flurry of mainstream media attention on May 14, 2004, in response to a Department of Justice (DoJ) signing ceremony and press conference. Unfortunately, the coverage had little, if any, analysis and most articles mainly regurgitated a DoJ press release. Here’s an excerpt from the press release:

Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the launch of the [NCISP], an initiative designed to link federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies so that they can share intelligence information to prevent terrorism and crime. He was joined in the announcement by Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI; Deborah Daniels, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs; General Frank Libutti, Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection at the Department of Homeland Security; Chief Joe Polisar, President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; Melvin Carraway, Superintendent of the Indiana State Police and Chairman of the Global Intelligence Working Group; and Carl Peed, Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The NCISP is built around three guiding reforms: prioritization, with the emphasis on prevention, mobilization of resources, and coordination of intelligence gathering and integration.

“The [NCISP] is the first of its kind in the nation, uniting law enforcement agencies of all sizes and geographic locations in a truly national effort to prevent terrorism and criminal activity,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “By raising cooperation and communication among local, state and federal partners to an unprecedented level, this groundbreaking effort will strengthen the abilities of the justice community to detect threats and protect American lives and liberties.”

The implementation announced by Ashcroft in May differs from earlier proposals in several ways but the significant threats to the civil liberties of Americans and resident aliens are undiminished. The protections of a republican form of government and the inadequate safeguards erected during the 1970s and 1980s have been further weakened with little, if any, notice or opposition from politicians or the media. The American Civil Liberties Union sounded the alert last year when the DoJ proposed to change 28 CFR 23, the “Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies.” Beyond that, however, they and other civil liberties organizations seem unaware of the threats to civil liberties posed by the changes in federal, state, and local police spying and information sharing. Activists should contact the ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, and other civil liberties groups to alert them.

A slightly more recent version of the original article appears on the Political Research Associates web site athttp://www.publiceye.org/liberty/repression/big-broth-kin.html. The Federation of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program has posted some of the relevant documents in its news section (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/index.html); their Secrecy News is recommended (go tohttp://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html). The DoJ’s GIWG site (http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=56) remains an important source of information although they have apparently removed some files from the site.

The post 16. Law Enforcement Agencies Spy on Innocent Citizens appeared first on Project Censored.