From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:21:02 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A1La_Alarma!--Ojo_en_el_INS--Cinco_mytos_=28part?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_4_de_5=29?= Message-ID: Ojo en el INS La globalizaci?n ideol?gica en contra de la inmigraci?n Cinco mitos sobre la inmigraci?n (parte 4 de 5) Por Carlos Armenta Colaborador del Semanario ?La Alarma! El eurodiputado franc?s Sami Nair expone y analiza, en un art?culo publicado en el diario espa?ol El Pa?s, lo que el llama ?los cinco mitos sobre la inmigraci?n en Espa?a.? El presente art?culo (cuarto de una serie de cinco) analizar? el tercer mito dentro del contexto de la inmigraci?n en los Estados Unidos. Cuarto mito sobre la inmigraci?n: La riqueza de los Estados Unidos provoca un ?efecto de llamada? en los pa?ses pobres. Aunque se puede pensar que los globalizados medios de comunicaci?n?los cuales difunden una imagen de la vida en los EE UU que se caracteriza por la despreocupaci?n por los problemas econ?micos y la abundancia?ejercen un ?efecto de llamada? en los pa?ses pobres, los cuales se ven inundados por las im?genes de pel?culas y series de televisi?n norteamericanas, el principal efecto de atracci?n para los inmigrantes lo ejerce en realidad la existencia de una econom?a informal en el mercado de trabajo de los EE UU. La mayor parte de los inmigrantes que ingresan a los EE UU prefieren hacerlo ilegalmente debido al inminente rechazo por parte de las autoridades migratorias (INS) si intentaran internarse por la v?a legal. Dichos inmigrantes prefieren pagar los servicios de un ?coyote,? cuyo costo actualmente ronda los US $2000, que enfrentarse a dicho rechazo y a los complicados tr?mites burocr?ticos que se requieren para ingresar legalmente. Asimismo, dicha ilegalidad les asegura el encontrar un trabajo debido a la existencia de un muy bien establecido sistema de contrataci?n de trabajadores indocumentados. Es de sobra sabida la facilidad con que se pueden conseguir tarjetas de residencia, del seguro social e identificaciones oficiales falsas (como licencias de conducir). Los patrones emplean a trabajadores a sabiendas de que los documentos que estos les presentan son falsos y evitan las sanciones impuestas por las leyes migratorias para quienes contratan mano de obra indocumentada, arguyendo que no es su responsabilidad constatar la autenticidad de dichos documentos. Sin embargo, y gracias a que los patrones saben que dichos documentos son falsos, estos se aprovechan de la ilegalidad de los trabajadores que contratan y los obligan a trabajar en condiciones espantosas. Por ejemplo, los obligan a trabajar hasta ochenta horas a la semana sin pagarles ni siquiera el salario m?nimo establecido por la ley, y mucho menos el que se establece para el tiempo extra, el cual deber?a de ser del doble del normal para el tiempo que exceda las cuarenta horas a la semana. Al mismo tiempo, dichos patrones reportan en sus registros contables que dichos trabajadores solo trabajan 40 horas a la semana y se les paga el salario m?nimo. Es decir, que si el salario m?nimo es de, para usar n?meros redondos, US $5 la hora, se les paga US $200 por semana. Pero como en realidad trabajan ochenta horas a la semana, de las cuales cuarenta son de tiempo extra, entonces deber?an recibir US $600. Gracias a la ilegalidad de este sector informal del mercado de trabajo, los trabajadores indocumentados solo reciben un 33% de lo que recibir?an de acuerdo a la ley si poseyeran documentos migratorios legales para trabajar en los EE UU. Como se puede observar, la existencia de este sector informal del mercado de trabajo beneficia en gran medida a las empresas que emplean a trabajadores indocumentados. De igual manera, y aunque las condiciones de trabajo para dichos trabajadores indocumentados sean tan desfavorables, estos las aceptan con la esperanza de cuando menos poder mandar algo de dinero a sus familiares en sus pa?ses de origen, o la esperanza de integrarse a largo plazo, junto con sus familias, a la sociedad norteamericana bajo mejores condiciones, es decir, la esperanza de lograr obtener la residencia legal o la ciudadan?a. Otros que se aprovechan del efecto de llamada de dicho sector informal son las compa??as que hacen negocio con el env?o de remesas de trabajadores indocumentados a sus pa?ses de origen. Se sabe que el env?o de remesas desde los EE UU es, en el caso de M?xico, la segunda fuente de ingreso de divisas para la econom?a mexicana, solo superado por los ingresos provenientes de la exportaci?n de petr?leo, y superando a rubros de la econom?a tan importantes como el turismo y la exportaci?n de productos agr?colas. As? las cosas, compa??as como Western Union y Orlandi Valuta, solo por citar algunos ejemplos, cobran aproximadamente 10% del valor de los env?os, sumando ingresos realmente impresionantes. Aunque se pueda suponer que los inmigrantes piensen que al venir a los EE UU podr?an disfrutar de una vida como la de los personajes de ?Friends? o de cualquier otra serie de televisi?n a pel?cula norteamericana, son en realidad los testimonios de sus compatriotas que trabajan ilegalmente en los EE UU los que los motivan a venir. Dichos inmigrantes est?n, como ya se ha dicho, dispuestos a aceptar condiciones de trabajo y de vida paup?rrimas, el riesgo de perder la vida al tratar de cruzar la frontera y de utilizar los ahorros de toda una familia despu?s de a?os de trabajo para mandar a un solo miembro a los EE UU a cambio de la esperanza de poder mandar unos d?lares (menos el 10% con el que se queda Western Union, por supuesto) a sus familiares que viven en condiciones de pobreza extrema en sus pa?ses de origen. La mayor parte de los inmigrantes indocumentados saben lo que les espera en los EE UU: una vida que no se parece en nada a la de ?Seinfeld? y sus amigos, pero la aceptan porque saben que hay un sector informal del mercado de trabajo que les ofrece la oportunidad de enviar algunos d?lares a sus familias. No es, pues, la ?riqueza? de los EE UU la que ejerce el ?efecto de llamada?, sino la existencia de un amplio sector informal de contrataci?n de trabajadores indocumentados en los EE UU. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:21:02 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Labor Bits 11-1-02 Message-ID: Labor Bits 11-1-02 Canadian newspaper publishers face striking workers Twelve hundred workers at the Winnipeg Free Press went on strike October 9 after contract negotiations with the new owners of Canada?s largest independent daily newspaper broke down. The contract expired on September 30 and 96% of the workers eventually voted to strike against the company?s proposed take-backs. Workers went back to the job on October 18 with few major gains, but without concessions, either. FP Canadian Newspapers Ltd. Partnership, the new owners, had wanted to institute a two-tiered wage system which would pay new employees less and rescind certain rights of part-time workers. The 1,100 workers with Communications Energy and Paperworkers (CEP) and 60 pressmen with Graphic Communications International Union (GCIU) won wage and benefits increases and some improvements in working conditions. During the strike, CEP issued a request to its membership: ?We?ve already asked you not to vandalize the Free Press sign. Now, we?d like to take it to the next level by returning any letters you may have stolen.? Meanwhile 275 workers at the Victoria Times Colonist have been on strike since September 3 over efforts by the employer to reduce benefits to part-timers, outsource work and reduce the number of unionized workers. The three unions representing the workers earlier rejected a contract offer that included wage increases. Negotiations were broken off on October 12 due to the impasse. Union officials have indicated that the strike may stretch into the spring. In the meantime, the Times Colonist is publishing a scaled-down weekly version of the paper. For their part, the striking workers have published the Picket Post several times per week. The unions have photographed and tracked scab replacement workers in attempts to identify them. In addition, 45 workers represented by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) have gone on strike as of October 11 against the Cobourg Daily Star and Port Hope Evening Guide, both owned by Osprey Media Group Inc. At issue are wages, benefits, compensation for mileage and an employer proposal to reduce sick days. The strike was authorized in September by a 93% vote. Indian power workers campaign against privatisation Around 50,000 power employees staged a satyagraha (nonvilent protest, in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi) on October 18 in cities across the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh as part of a week-long campaign. The workers, including junior and senior engineers, are protesting a government plan to break the State Electricity Board into four separate power distribution companies, a move which the workers say is an attempt to spearhead full privatization of the power utilities sector. After the satyagraha, the Uttar Pradesh Power Technical Employees Joint Action Committee called for a work boycott from October 22 to October 24. The government declared the action an illegal strike. The continuing stalemate has prompted the group to extend the strike indefinitely. Rancor between the two sides escalated after the UP Power Regulatory Commission announced a significant rate hike on October 23. Rates will increase by only two percent for industrial users, but 141% for the power employees themselves. Rates for the domestic sector will increase around 15%. Consumers across the board have criticized the hike, while power employees have emphasized the failure of privatization efforts in other Indian states, drawing attention to rampant power shortages and outages. The extent of those crises dwarfs last year?s energy problems in California. Source: Times of India Millions of workers engage in general strike against Italy?s Berlusconi regime Hundreds of thousands of workers marched in cities across Italy in 120 locations as CGIL (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro), the nation?s largest union, representing six million workers, called for a general strike against economic policies proposed and instituted by the regime of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. One of the largest of the rallies was held in the northern Italian city of Turin, where the automaker Fiat holds its headquarters. The company recently announced layoffs of 20,000 of its workers while the Berlusconi adminstration aims to reform a 1970 law to make it easier for firms to lay off workers. The previous day, 1,000 workers traveled from a Fiat factory in Sicily to protest in Rome, where they were thwarted by police from marching on the government?s headquarters. The general strike is the second this year. The first, which took place in April, was called by CGIL along with the two next largest Italian union federations, CISL (Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori) and UIL (Unione Italiana del Lavoro). Thirteen million workers went out on strike to protest government policies in what was the nation?s largest strike in 20 years. CISL and UIL have since cut deals with the government and each urged their members not to support the latest strike. Sources: Reuters, World Socialist Website French education workers strike and protest funding and job cuts Only three weeks after utility workers struck nationally in protest of plans to partially privatize France?s utilities (see article in the last issue of The Alarm!), the nation?s education workers went on strike and rallied at around 100 locations around the country, crippling the education sector for the day. Tens of thousands of workers took part in the action on Thursday, October 17. The strike was announced after Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin proposed the 2003 national budget, which called for the slashing of 5,600 jobs for classroom aides. The government also indicated that it would not renew contracts with 20,000 young people who work in France?s school system. Source: Associated Press All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:21:04 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--Eye on the INS--Of Paperwork, resignations & flaming hoops Message-ID: Eye on the INS Of paperwork, resignations and flaming hoops By Michelle Stewart The Alarm! Newspaper Collective Where is James Ziglar nowadays? What is going on with the Department of Homeland Security? Curiously these two questions might be linked, in the sense that they are both contemporary indicators of INS health?which is most certainly failing. After 9/11, many believed the only way to breath life into the INS was to file it under the Department of Homeland Security (DHLS) and reimagine the agency as more devoted to security than to paperwork. However, as the anniversary of 9/11 came and passed, so too has interest in the DHLS?seems that the INS may not find life support via the DLHS since the DHLS itself is dying a slow death on the Senate floor. Perhaps, jumbling together some 170,000 plus employees that are involved in over 20 federal agencies and 17 unions is a bit tricky?especially when the federal government is trying to strip union rights out of the DHLS bill. Tricky, and this debate on Capitol Hill will likely result in the absolute failure of the DHLS. Without the DHLS, the INS is left to answer for its own mistakes and shortcomings?many of which are perfect illustrations of bureaucratic inefficiency. A joke you say... Indeed, the INS has seen many tragi-comic moments over the past year. Arguably the most notable came when the agency issued visas for the 9/11 hijackers to attend flight school, many months after the Twin Towers had crumbled. Chewed out thoroughly in the media and on Capitol Hill, James Ziglar?the new commissioner of the INS at the time?fumbled around criticism and used the visa fiasco as illustration that the agency needed to be reconfigured. Ziglar relied on a staple response, saying his hands were tied until the agency was divided into divisions that focused on administration and border security. To the rescue was the proposed DHLS. Proponents agreed with weary Ziglar and said that the INS and the FBI could be reconceived under the umbrella of a larger agency. For the INS, the failure of the DHLS may serve to further illustrate the ridiculous condition of the INS. The INS has gone full-force in drafting and implementing large-scale policy changes, but it lacks the infrastructure to enforce its many new laws and provisions. Indeed, the INS is no longer seen as simply inept; rather, it is inept and becoming slightly senile. Don?t make me stop this car... Much like the parent who constantly threatens punishment for every offense commited on a roadtrip, but never really stops the car, the INS has been running willy-nilly, ordering immigrants and visitors to comply with various programs?but of these new provisions, the INS lacks the capacity to enforce its demands. The bark-worse-than-bite situation can seem rather funny from an outside perspective. However, consider the random ramblings of this agency, the fear with which immigrants are forced to live with as they attempt to comply with all these new demands, when the final realization is that the agency has neither the ability nor the manpower to enforce its demands. Comical, perhaps, for those who don?t have to run frantic with each demand from this agency. Comical, perhaps, if your future isn?t dictated by an agency so oblivious to its own ineptitude. To best understand the current condition let?s take a look at an example: During the summer, Ziglar (when he was still seen in public) announced that the INS would be renewing an archaic law that required all immigrants report a change of address within ten days of moving. The law was over 50-years-old, and had not been enforced in nearly 45 years. The announced penalty for failure to comply was either a fine or deportation (INS loves to embrace the extremeties). Immigrants heard the call, and 500,00?700,000 people submitted the change of address card. A month later, the INS announced it didn?t have the time to process the cards. Of course this didn?t stop the agency from trying to deport a Middle Eastern man for failing to comply. However, an immigration judge stepped in and halted the deporation, pointing out that if the agency had not enforced the law since 1958, how was the man supposed to understand he was subject to it? The INS has responded by turning on their computers and revising a reported 30 forms to help publicize the enforcement of the law. Why are they publicizing this law, when the change of address cards apparently end up in the circular file? Take this job and shove it... Is apparently the motto for many INS workers, making it increasingly clear why none of the paperwork is being handled when it is filed: there?s no one around to do it. According to a recent article in The Oregonian, ?[O]fficers are quitting, sometimes whole shifts at a time. One out of four agents in Arizona left during the past year. In the San Diego area, 30 to 40 agents turn in their badges each week. The national turnover rate for Border Patrol agents has almost doubled this year, to nearly 19%.? Of course, the further implication is that if the DHLS does succeed on Capitol Hill, more agents will leave out of frustration over the lack of union protection in the new agency. Although the INS has been asked to build its numbers?part of the extra one billion dollars added to the agency?s budget was earmarked for hiring more agents?it is obviously failing. More people seem to be leaving than entering the field. For these and other reasons, it is interesting to then see what the INS has accomplished with its inflated budget and heightened sense of authority. We know that many people went into detention after 9/11; however, that was largely the job of the Department of Justice rather than INS. We know that a lot of people died in the desert over the past year; however, that was largely the result of Operation Gatekeeper, which has been in effect for numerous years. We know that a lot of people applied for citizenship?an increase of 63% was reported over the past year?however, this was due to people fearful of being deported after 9/11, not because of some bang-up welcoming project by the INS. We also know that waiting periods for some residency and visa paperwork was reduced from 30 months to eleven; however, this was the result of previous years of work to expedite the permanent residency process. So what has the INS successfully done in the past year with its inflated budget? Well, they report to have successfully targeted and identified some 2,200 illegal airport workers?whew, I feel much safer, and only at a cost of approximately $454,545.50 each! The point is that the INS is not becoming streamlined with its bolstered budget, and the DHLS is not going to be a knight in shining armor. Instead, we are left with an agency that is in the process of losing its commissioner?Ziglar annouced his resignation in August?and is lacking the common sense to pull back on its exteme measures. The INS is trying to crawl out from under the rock of ridicule, and in doing so, it is inflicting itself on the immigrant population. So, Ziglar remains in seclusion, striking days off the calendar until he can ?return to the private sector,? and the agency fumbles along randomly barking orders into the dark. At the core of this crisis is the immigrant who must keep abreast of the list of demands, and pay the various fees, never knowing if the previous hoop she jumped through will really be the last, or if the next one will be on fire. It seems that the immigrant is the plaything of the INS, as the agency lolls about awaiting the outcome of the DHLS. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:21:03 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A1La_Alarma!--Inmigrantes_Nicaragu=EBnse?= Message-ID: Inmigrantes nicarag?enses buscan, cada vez m?s, internarse a Costa Rica en busca de trabajo Por Carlos Armenta Colaborador del Semanario ?La Alarma! Las dificultades econ?micas por las que atraviesa la mayor?a de la poblaci?n nicarag?ense hoy en d?a motiva, cada vez m?s, a muchos ciudadanos de este pa?s a emigrar m?s all? de sus fronteras en busca de sustento para sus familias. Sin embargo, y contra lo que puede suponerse, el destino preferido por dicho migrantes indocumentados no son los EE UU. En los ?ltimos a?os, los nicarag?enses que optan por emigrar fuera de su pa?s se trasladan principalmente a Costa Rica. Este flujo migratorio se ha establecido debido a la disparidad que existe entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua en lo que respecta tanto a oferta de trabajo como a salarios. Los nicarag?enses prefieren, cada vez m?s, trasladarse a Costa Rica debido a que solo tienen que atravesar una frontera para internarse a territorio tico, lo cual es, obviamente, mucho m?s f?cil que emprender la larga jornada que se requiere para llegar a territorio estadounidense. Adem?s de la diferencia en cuanto a distancia, para llegar a los EE UU hay que cruzar cuando menos cuatro fronteras nacionales y aguantar los abusos y vejaciones de cuatro diferentes autoridades migratorias y polic?as nacionales, pagar m?s ?mordidas? (t?rmino con el que se conoce aqu? al soborno) y gastos de transportaci?n. Otra ventaja es el idioma com?n que se habla en estos dos pa?ses (espa?ol). Sin embargo, la jornada y la estancia indocumentada en Costa Rica no est? exenta de peligros y abusos. Las autoridades y los patrones costarricenses aprovechan la condici?n de ilegalidad de estas personas para, tal y como sucede en los EE UU, explotar a los trabajadores indocumentados nicarag?enses. Por un lado, muchos de los elementos de la polic?a costarricense exigen a los inmigrantes indocumentados nicarag?enses considerables sumas de dinero?conocidas popularmente como ?mordidas??para evitar su deportaci?n. Sorayda Pulido, originaria de Le?n, Nicaragua, explica como la polic?a costarricense ?nos extorsiona y nos quita los reales cuando se entera de que somos nicarag?enses ilegales en Costa Rica?. Aunque la se?ora Pulido no especific? la cantidad exacta que los agentes policiales costarricenses le exig?an durante su estancia ilegal en Costa Rica, ni cuantas veces tuvo que dar mordida, ella explic? que la dejaron ?limpia?. La se?ora Pulido tambi?n nos explic? que no tuvo m?s remedio que trabajar lo suficiente para ahorrar para el pasaje de autob?s de regreso a Le?n. La Sra. Pulido coment? que, como la mayor?a de las mujeres nicarag?enses que emigran ilegalmente a Costa Rica, se dedicaba al trabajo dom?stico, por el cual recib?a aproximadamente US $100.00 al mes?un salario considerablemente superior al de US $60.00 al mes que le pagar?an en Nicaragua. Adem?s, explic?, ?no hay suficiente oferta de trabajo para las trabajadoras dom?sticas en Nicaragua. A lo m?s que una puede aspirar es a lavar ropa y cobrar un c?rdoba por pieza (un c?rdoba equivale a aproximadamente siete centavos de d?lar)?. Otro rubro importante de la econom?a costarricense que emplea a un n?mero importante de trabajadores indocumentados nicarag?enses es el agr?cola. Tanto Sorayda Pulido como Joaqu?n, residente de Achuapa, Nicaragua (quien se neg? a proporcionar su apellido por temor a represalias por parte de sus ex patrones, a?n cuando se le explic? que La Alarma! Es un peri?dico de circulaci?n local en Santa Cruz, California), coincidieron en se?alar que ?hoy en d?a hay m?s nicarag?enses que ticos en Costa Rica?. Aunque tal comentario parezca exagerado, en realidad s? hay m?s nicarag?enses que costarricenses trabajando en labores dom?sticas y agr?colas en Costa Rica. La mayor?a de los habitantes de Nicaragua sufren actualmente por el deplorable estado de la econom?a de su naci?n, producto de los devastadores efectos de una guerra civil que extendi? desde mediados de los setentas hasta finales de los ochentas, as? como de desastres naturales como erupciones volc?nicas, terremotos y, m?s recientemente, el hurac?n Match. Asimismo, existe el problema de una corrupci?n generalizada dentro del gobierno nicarag?ense en todos sus niveles. Dicha corrupci?n no ha sido combatida efectivamente ni durante los a?os de gobierno Sandinista, ni durante los m?s recientes a?os de gobiernos de derecha. Solo por citar un ejemplo, el ex presidente Arnoldo Alem?n, quien gobern? al pa?s hasta el a?o pasado, se encuentra actualmente acusado de malversaci?n de fondos estatales y lavado de dinero. Sin embargo, no ha sido arrestado porque disfruta de inmunidad parlamentaria. Alem?n es ahora diputado de la Asamblea Nacional de Nicaragua (equivalente al Congreso en otros pa?ses). La poblaci?n de Nicaragua ha dejado tambi?n de recibir fondos por parte de los organismos de asistencia financiera internacionales (Banco Mundial, Fondo Monetario Internacional y Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo), a?n cuando el Estado nicarag?ense ha seguido muchas de las medidas impuestas por el FMI, el BM y el BID para otorgar ayuda. La educaci?n, por ejemplo, no es completamente subvencionada por el gobierno, por lo que muchos ni?os en edad escolar no asisten a clases. El gobierno de Nicaragua se encuentra tambi?n envuelto en el proceso de privatizaci?n del agua potable, lo cu?l, seguramente, encarecer? el costo de este servicio para la poblaci?n en general. Todo esto para lograr convencer al FMI, BM y BID de que se le otorgue ayuda financiera al pa?s. Faltar? ver quien es el beneficiario real de dicha asistencia financiera. Todo esto provoca que una gran parte de la poblaci?n nicarag?ense decida emigrar hacia Costa Rica a pesar del trato abusivo que reciben en ese pa?s. Joaqu?n (de Achuapa) se?ala que ?aunque la ?ltima vez que estuve all? trabaj? durante dos meses y mi patr?n solo me dio, al final de los dos meses, dinero que apenas me alcanz? para regresar a Achuapa, ni un solo real m?s, no me va a quedar m?s remedio que volver, porque con mi trabajo de guardia de seguridad aqu? en Nicaragua no alcanza ni para frijoles y arroz?. El caso de Joaqu?n no es una excepci?n, sino que se est? convirtiendo en la regla para un n?mero cada vez mayor de nicarag?enses: emigrar, a pesar de los abusos y explotaci?n, o morir de hambre. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:01 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--SC City Council passes resolution vs. USA PATRIOT Act Message-ID: <0B8B3C6A-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> USA Patriot Act under fire from SC City Council By Halie Johnson The Alarm! Newspaper Santa Cruz City Council voted unanimously to pass a resolution opposing parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. Councilmember Mark Primack expressed his support for the resolution saying that parts of the USA PATRIOT Act were sure to cause distrust and weaken any community ?from the ground up.? In adopting this resolution, Santa Cruz is joining 13 other cities across the country that voiced their opposition to the Federal Government?s sweeping ?anti-terrorist? legislation. It was said that twenty-two other cities are currently considering similar resolutions. In short, the resolution affirms City Council?s opposition to those parts of the USA PATRIOT Act and certain Justice Department directives and executive orders that weaken or destroy civil rights and liberties. The resolution calls for the protection of those rights contained in the Constitution. The resolution also requests that Congress ?monitor the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act, directives from Attorney John Ashcroft, and executive orders cited herein and actively work for the repeal of those parts of the USA PATRIOT Act and the withdrawal of those Justice Department directives and executive orders that violate fundamental rights and liberties.? Members of the public spoke mostly in favor of the resolution; many applauded City Council for what they saw as a bold statement. Others complained that Council should not be investing energy in adopting a ?foreign policy,? but should be making local issues top priority. The Mayor will send a copy of the resolution to President Bush, local Congressional representatives and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. To view the USA PATRIOT Act in it?s entirety go to http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html or http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/lawsregs/patriot.pdf. To contact Santa Cruz City Council email, citycouncil@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us or call (831) 420-5020. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:03 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--The Troubles are back Message-ID: <0CA69BCE-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> The Troubles are back By Conn Hallinan The Alarm! Newspaper Contributor The ?Troubles? in Northern Ireland are back, courtesy of an unholy Trinity of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Protestant loyalists who refuse to share power with Ulster?s Catholics, and the Bush Administration. The current crisis, which has seen the British suspend the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and reassert direct control over the province, was sparked by a recent raid on Sinn Fein headquarters. Sinn Fein represents Catholics, and is associated with the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The police foray allegedly uncovered information that the republican organization was spying on the British military and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). In the raid?s aftermath, Blair accused the IRA of threatening ?violence,? and a ?senior Bush Administration official? (according to The New York Times) joined Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid in blaming Sinn Fein for not reining in the IRA. What is this all about? What did the police find that was so terrible it required derailing the peace process? Police say they discovered that Sinn Fein had names and addresses of police and military officials in Northern Ireland. So what? Has Sinn Fein or the IRA targeted such people or engaged in any terrorism for the past eight years? No. Has the Independent Commission verified that the IRA put stores of guns, rocket launchers and explosives ?beyond use?? Yes. Have Protestant paramilitaries done the same? No. Indeed, the Ulster Defense Association (UDA), the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) and the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) ended their cease-fire last October. Do Protestant organizations keep the same files? Yes. Do they engage in terrorism and target the people on those lists? They sure do. When Loyalist leader John Pilling was arrested in September with information on Sinn Fein National Chair Michael McLaughlin, along with the names, addresses and car registrations of seven other Republican leaders, there were no threats from London. Pilling is a member of the Ulster Political Research group, an arm of the UDA, and its hit squad, the Red Hand Defenders. When Northern Ireland police warned Sinn Fein Member of Parliament Michelle Gildernew that the Loyalists had taken out a contract on her life, did Blair accuse Protestants of fomenting ?violence?? When the Red Hand Defenders gunned down journalist Marty O?Hagan last year, did the Bush Administration denounce the Loyalists for not controlling their paramilitaries? No to both. Where were the threats to toss the loyalists out of the government when the UFF and LVF were throwing pipe bombs at four-year-old girls on their way to attend Holy Cross School, while crowds chanted, ?No school today, ya wee whores?? Maybe Sinn Fein has reason to mistrust the intentions of the Protestant police and the British authorities. It was these same authorities who could never seem to find out who gunned down republican solicitor Pat Finucane in 1989 in front of his wife and three children. Maybe they couldn?t find the murderers because the police arranged it. At least that is what UFF gunman, Ken Barrett (now living in England under police protection) told the BBC in June. Barret claims the RUC told him Finucane was an IRA member (he wasn?t) and had to be eliminated. Then he said a British Army undercover agent gave him a photo of Finucane and his address. Barret says he wouldn?t have killed Finucane without pressure from the police. ?Solicitors were kind of taboo, you know what I mean?? he told the BBC. ?We used a lot of Roman Catholic solicitors ourselves.? The one person finally charged with Finucane?s murder, William Stobie, was acquitted, only to be assassinated by the Defenders last December. Needless to say, no one has been arrested. The fiction here is that while Sinn Fein is held responsible for the IRA, Protestant parties like Ian Paisley?s Democratic Unionist Party and David Trimble?s Ulster Unionist Party get a pass on the violence of the loyalist paramilitaries. The whole raid business is damned suspicious. As Roy Greenslade of the British Guardian points out, how did Protestant politicians know the content of the seized documents just minutes after the raid? The answer is that the police gave them the information, just like they have been doing for years. Suspending the Northern Ireland government also gives convenient cover for the Protestants to withdraw from the peace process. The only parties celebrating this recent move are the madmen on both sides who would plunge Northern Ireland back into civil war. And this time around they have an ally in the White House. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:01 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--We can't afford an anti-war movement Message-ID: <0BEB16F4-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> We can't afford an anti-war movement By Chris Kortright The Alarm! Newspaper Contributor The momentum of the war machine is increasing with the UN Security Council?s vote in favor of the US?s resolution on Iraq. The war machine is not the only thing that has gained momentum; the anti-war movement has been increasing its voice and appearances on the national and local scenes. I want to pose a few questions to the readers regarding the anti-war movement. Do we need an anti-war movement? What does that movement accomplish? We must oppose the war, but can it be framed within the context of a ?peace? or ?anti-war? movement? Approaching the war under these labels and moral discussions detracts us from the larger issue: that this war is a product of capitalism. The immediate focus on the war, although necessary, should not distract our attention from the issue of capitalist exploitation and expansion both locally and globally. We need to analyze and oppose the war from an anti-capitalist perspective because the war is motivated by capital interests. I know many readers are thinking that this statement is obvious, but if you go to the Ocean/Water Street weekly protests, you see American Flags, signs that say ?negotiations not bombs? and little analysis of either capitalism or nation-state projects. So, lets look at the war in economic terms. Our present militaristic and aggressive foreign policy is an attempt to minimize competition between capitalist cores and encourage monopolization of markets through imperialist tactics. A large part of the present scenario is the control of oil sources, but not necessarily the oil in the Middle East. US policy makers have their eyes on oil in Central Asia. The US also wants to control sources of oil on which Europe and Japan (our competition within the cores) are dependent. Iraq in many ways is a gateway to both Iran and Central Asia; the US has strategically had its eye on Iraq since the first Gulf War. Most of the discussions regarding the ?War on Terrorism,? or even a ?War against Islam,? miss the motivations of US global militarism. The militaristic actions are for economic domination, profit and improved competitiveness through the control of Central Asian oil; it is not motivated by desires for the removal of Saddam Hussein or the elimination of bin Laden. The economic motivations mean we can?t resist US policies in the name of ?anti-war.? This will be an anti-war resistance that would fail because the short term view of our situation is extremely bleak. We will bomb Iraq, and then other countries will move into the scope of US policies unless we take down capitalism and remove the motivations for US militaristic interventions. If we hope to show solidarity to those suffering on the global capitalist peripheries, we need to do more then stop bombs from being dropped on them. We must attack the economic apparatus that has initiated these militaristic attacks. An ?anti-war? movement can not achieve this. An analysis of militaristic violence that ignores economic violence will not end or reduce suffering in either the peripheries or the cores. I?m not calling to integrate war resistance into the ?anti-globalization? movement because the issue cannot be seen as ?anti-global.? There is a need for globalism right now. But globalism should not be confused with capitalist globalization. The way to stop wars and suffering is to incorporate our resistance to US militaristic interventions into the larger global anti-capitalist resistance. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:02 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Labor Bits 11-15-02 Message-ID: <0C4EA336-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Labor Bits 11-15-02 By Fhar Miess The Alarm! Newspaper Collective Boston janitors win contract After four weeks of walkouts, nightly parades, civil disobedience and mass demonstrations, Service Employees? International Union (SEIU) local 615 (formerly local 254) has settled on a new contract with cleaning maintenance companies. The new contract, announced October 23, increases the number of janitors with health benefits by 1,000 (bringing the total to 2,900 out of 10,700 covered under the contract), provides sick days for all janitors and increases wages by 30% over the five-year life of the contract. Some janitors and supporters are expressing opposition to the contract, noting that it leaves almost 8,000 janitors without health coverage. The two sick days negotiated were fewer than the five expected and the 30% wage increase still leaves wages at $13.10 per hour compared to $17 for New York City janitors. The contract was ratified November 9 by a vote of 622 to 103, indicating an exceptionally low voter turnout below 7%. Many janitors, supporters and union officials consider the contract a qualified victory that makes a step toward improved quality of life while fostering the collective action and solidarity of workers previously alienated from unionism by an undemocratic union leadership. The SEIU local has been reorganized since this corruption. UMass organizing Part of the windfall of the Boston janitors? campaign was an increased solidarity between students and workers. That solidarity is carrying over as workers and students at the 28 campuses across the University of Massachusetts system organize for funding of their contracts. Separate contracts are negotiated for each union and the governor generally signs off the funding of these contracts. Acting Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift this time vetoed pay increases, prompting 200 rank-and-file workers at UMass Amherst on November 6 to urge the Trustees of the university system to get their contracts funded. They threatened a walkout if the contracts are not funded. All of the union workers are working under the coalition Higher Education Unions United, representing an unprecedented system-wide coordination. Students also protested, demanding the restoration of affirmative action at the university. Dissension mounts in the ranks of the PMA At 4 a.m. on November 1, International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) negotiators reached a tentative agreement on the technology issue with the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents shipping and stevedoring companies at West Coast ports. The union called the agreement a major victory and claimed that ?we had bottom-line concerns about jurisdiction and the employers met those concerns.? The details of the technology package, however, are not being released until the entire contract package is negotiated. A ?press blackout??suggested by the federal mediator?was agreed to by the PMA and ILWU. Some, such as Andrea Cappannari and Rafael Azul, writing for the World Socialist Website, consider the deal a major concession to employers. Apparently, one or several companies under the umbrella of the PMA also consider the deal a concession on their own side. The Journal of Commerce reported that ?A faction of employers who strongly opposed the concession were outvoted by another group within the PMA,? citing sources within the PMA. The ILWU has suggested that contract negotiations are presently at a standstill and are being sabotaged because of internal dissent in the PMA. In particular, they blame Stevedoring Services of America, the largest stevedoring company in the US. In a statement to its members on November 7, the ILWU claimed, ?though the article does not mention SSA by name, it is clear that the ?faction? is led by, if not solely comprised of that company.? ILWU official and rank-and-file have consistently accused the SSA of holding a hard line against the union. Meanwhile the union has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Bush administration for documents detailing meetings between management of shippers and members of the West Coast Waterfront Coalition, an organization representing shippers, global traders and retailers. The ILWU has accused the government of collusion with industry leaders in an effort to break the union. Grain workers struggle against elevator operators Around 80 workers who have been picketing a grain elevator in Prince Rupert, British Columbia were ordered back to work on November 9 after a hearing of the Grain Workers Union (GWU) with the Canadian Labor Relations Board (CLRB). The workers initially went on strike in August when some of the 700 fellow unionists locked out by the BC Terminal Elevator Operators Association in Vancouver set up an informational picket at the Prince Rupert facility. The secondary strike was initially declared illegal and the workers were ordered back to work, but the workers returned to the picket line after that decision was reversed by courts in early November with a determination that the unionists work for the same employer. Despite the court victory, just days later, GWU leadership ordered workers back to the job in exchange for an expedited hearing with employers in front of the CLRB. The GWU is seeking a hearing before the end of the peak grain harvesting season, but many rank-and-file workers expressed through on-line forums that they hold little faith in the CLRB and prefer to make their demands directly to the employer through strike action. They have been fighting for seniority rights and against mandatory overtime and the threatened loss of over 200 jobs if the company goes ahead with a plan to introduce nonunion hiring practices. Some unionists have suggested that the workers decertify the GWU and join the more militant ILWU, which represents other workers at the elevator terminals. Unions make concessions to United Airlines The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) offered $2.2 billion in concessions, including an 18% pay cut, to UAL Corporation, which owns United Airlines, on behalf of its 8,800 pilots. United Airlines, the second largest US airline, calls itself an employee-owned company because most of its employees own stock through its Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). The company is seeking a total of $5.8 billion in concessions from its three unions?ALPA, Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and International Association of Machinists (IAM)?in order to gain approval from the Bush Administration?s Airline Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) for $2 billion in federally-backed loans. The company needs the money to avoid bankruptcy. ALPA?s union members will need to ratify the deal this week for it to go through. The AFA also offered a tentative settlement of $412 million in concessions, the details of which have not been released. A settlement from the IAM is the wild card. The union withdrew from joint negotiations with the other two unions, deciding to settle on its own. IAM members own 20% of UAL stock and ALPA members own 25%. AFA never accepted the employee buy-out plan of 1994. Ten percent of the company?s stock is owned by non-union salaried workers in the firm. If UAL declares bankruptcy, the unions would lose their equity in the company, as well as their two seats on the UAL board of directors. In the face of possible bankruptcy, the workers are already losing some of their equity. State Street Bank & Trust Company, which was hired by the unions to manage their ESOPs, has begun selling off as many as eleven million of the 58 million shares held by workers. The investment management company claimed to be protecting the workers? pension plans, to the protest of ALPA and IAM officials and rank-and-file. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:21:04 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--SF Anti-War Protest Message-ID: Anti-War Protesters Rally in San Francisco by Richard Lange and Graham Parsons The Alarm! Newspaper Contributors An estimated 80,000 people gathered Saturday, October 26 at San Fransisco?s Justin Herman Plaza to express their opposition to President Bush?s proposed plan to invade Iraq. The rally, which is being called the largest the city has witnessed since the Vietnam War, took place in solidarity with a gathering of as many as 200,000 people in Washington, D.C. Similar demonstrations also took place in Berlin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Rome, London, Mexico City and Tokyo. The event in San Francisco began at 11:00 a.m. with a series of speeches by a variety of activists from an assortment of political groups. Helen Caldicott, president of the Nuclear Policy Institute and author of The New Nuclear Danger: George Bush?s Military Industrial Complex, called the 1991 Gulf War a war crime. She listed the health costs of that war, costs measured in cancer rates and birth defects that have dramatically increased as a result of the large quantities of depleted uranium left by exploded American warheads. She also discussed the danger of a nuclear attack on Iraq during any future conflict. According to Caldicott, Bush has expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. She said such an attack has the potential to trigger Russia?s early warning system, which could accidentally launch a retaliatory strike toward the US. Other speakers included Trent Willis of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union who called for an end to the Bush administration?s attacks on organized labor. The crowd was also treated to a performance by the group Spoken Word and a rendition of ?Dump the Bosses off Your Back? by folksinger and longtime peace activist Utah Phillips, who also reminded people to curb their consumption of oil, either by riding bicycles or using public transportation. Phillips believes that oil plays a crucial role in the current push to topple Saddam Hussein. The crowd, including a group sporting smiling Bush masks and waving dollar bills, responded with raucous applause and chants of ?No Blood for Oil.? At 12:00 p.m. the gathering began its march down Market Street toward the Civic Center Plaza. The sea of protesters filled the wide street from curb to curb as spectators climbed newspaper machines, lampposts and trees in vain attempts to measure the immensity of the crowd. Many marchers had come from southern California to participate, and a few had come from as far as Arizona, Oregon and Washington. A group of marchers representing Santa Cruz County numbered in the hundreds. Topping the crowd was a forest of signs and banners that showed that people from all walks of life oppose the war. The messages ?Drop Bush Not Bombs? and ?Regime Change Begins at Home? were particularly popular. The atmosphere in the thick of the march was festive, as people danced to several percussion groups and sang their way down the route. At various times, the crowd expressed itself in waves of yells and ululations, but the mood remained peaceful. When a fire truck, sirens blaring, approached the march perpendicularly from the south, the participants respectfully opened a lane and the truck passed through quickly. Peter Camejo, the Green Party?s candidate for California Governor, participated in the march, standing in the bed of a pickup truck, handing out Green Party pennants and posters and greeting supporters. Many marchers carried Palestinian flags, expressing their support for the Palestinian people in their decades-old struggle with Israel, an American ally. The group International ANSWER, one of the rally?s main organizers, stationed members at various spots along the route to collect donations and call on marchers to continue the fight for peace. Upon reaching the Civic Center, the crowd packed the plaza and spilled onto the adjoining streets as a second wave of speakers addressed the crowd from a stage constructed in front of City Hall. Among them were Peter Camejo, US Representative Barbara Lee and actor Amy Brenneman. They called on President Bush to drop his proposed invasion and allow the United Nations to try to settle through diplomatic means the questions surrounding Hussein?s alleged weapons of mass destruction. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:21:05 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:57 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Alarm!--War Notes 11-1-02 Message-ID: War Notes 11-1-02 By sasha k The Alarm! Newspaper Columnist North Korea North Korea?s confession that they have an active nuclear weapons program, in breach of a 1994 agreement with the US, has many people asking ?why are the Koreans admitting this now?? North Korea is already under diplomatic pressure and has been named as one of the three members of the infamous ?axis of evil,? so why bring more pressure upon themselves? North Korea is certainly not in good shape, economically or in terms of international relations--they have few friends left in the world. But for all Bush?s talk of the axis of evil, North Korea hasn?t gotten much attention lately. Now they have. And, perhaps, that is the point. By playing the nuclear weapons card, North Korea might be trying to bring about a more engaged relationship with the US. North Korea seems to be betting that this confession will bring about negotiations with the US that could lead to normalization of relations. Of course, with the Bush administration such a bet might be a long shot. Strangely enough, the Bush administration took half a month to disclose North Korea?s confession. Why did the US hold the information secret for so long? It looks like the Korea issue has started another internal battle in the Bush administration: with Powell?s State Department looking to negotiate and the Rumsfeld wing pushing a much harder line. Powell has already started talking on the diplomatic front, meeting with the South Korean Foreign Minister Choi Sung-hong and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov late last week. ?This is a time to approach this matter with care, to consult closely with our friends. We are all in this,? Powell told reporters. Others within the State Department indicate that the US will take a flexible approach to North Korea. And President Bush stated that, unlike with Iraq, the US would use diplomatic pressure, not military threats, to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program. Department of hypocrisy The different treatment that North Korea and Iraq are getting isn?t lost on the Iraqis. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam Hussein?s most trusted advisors, bluntly stated, ?North Korea has admitted to having a secret nuclear program. The United States is not asking that North Korea be inspected in the way they are asking for Iraq to be inspected. Why? Because there are two things absent in North Korea: oil and Israel. The reason for this warmongering policy towards Iraq is oil and Israel.? Aziz?s statement is part of the diplomatic wrangling surrounding the expected UN resolution on Iraq. Bush speak on the diplomatic front: To the confusion of many, Bush has redefined one of his favorite terms, ?regime change.? ?[I]f he [Saddam Hussein] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions I?ve described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed,? Bush said. So now a regime change does not mean a new regime is put in the place of the old, but that Hussein (since Bush defines the regime as Saddam Hussein) changes his ways. This sudden change in terminology comes, of course, as Bush is trying to convince the big five permanent Security Council members to pass the US version of a resolution on Iraq. Negotiations for such a resolution have been going on for over six weeks. Both France and Russia, however, have been circulating proposals in the UN that take out language that could be interpreted as authorizing an attack on Iraq, forcing the US to slowly remove such language. But on October 23, the US finally formally presented the Security Council with its draft resolution, which included a threat of military action. The Russian ambassador to the UN, Sergey Lavrov, stated that Russia opposed any resolution that included automatic authorization for the use of military force, and that the demands on Iraq for inspections were ?unimplementable, unrealistic.? Yet it is unlikely that France, Russia or China will veto the resolution if the US can garner the seven votes?plus Britain and the US?necessary out of the fifteen Security Council member states. Mexico and Ireland are key pivot votes. The US, fearing that the resolution won?t be strong enough for its tastes, is now arguing to have inspections carried out quickly and forcefully in order to push Iraq into noncompliance. After many weeks of debate on the UN resolution, the US wants to make sure it can still fight its war in the winter months (beginning between December and February), before the sand storms and heat of the spring and summer make war efforts more difficult. Both Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, argued that the inspections should be a quick test of Saddam Hussein. War preparations The build-up in the Gulf is speeding up. More and more troops are arriving at bases in the Gulf. Two aircraft carriers are soon to leave for the Gulf bringing the total there to four. The Defense Department is also beginning to train at least 5,000 troops recruited from the Iraqi opposition to act as spotters and translators in the coming war. More dangerous for regional stability, there are reports that the Bush administration is planning a joint strike with Israel into Iraq?s western territory to disarm any missiles that threaten Israel. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:08 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--How fair is Fair Trade? Message-ID: <100AB85C-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> How Fair Is Fair Trade? By Carlos Armenta Translated By Armando Alcaraz The Alarm! Newspaper contributor The green mountains in the north of Nicaragua offer a friendly welcome to visitors. The greenery and lushness of the region, where one finds the town of Matagalpa, gives the visitor an impression of exceptional richness and fertility. However, contrary to what one might think, this region is one of the poorest in all Nicaragua, a country that has the distinction of being one of the poorest in the western hemisphere. The reason behind the deep contrast between the potential wealth in such a fertile land and the extreme poverty which most of its inhabitants suffer, is the sharp fall of the price of the main product of the area: the grano de oro or ?the grain of gold,? the name given to the coffee bean when it is ready to be roasted. The golden coffee beans are sent to the roasters in the countries that consume the best quality coffee. During the fifth annual assembly of CECOCAFEN (Center of Cooperative Coffee Growers of the North), an organization that commercializes the coffee produced by the cooperatives that belong to it, many coffee growers of Matagalpa offered their impressions on the difficult situation of the Nicaraguan coffee growers and on the real benefits received by those who, like them, can market their coffee as Fair Trade. The generalized opinion of the CECOCAFEN members was that Fair Trade is not that fair. According to Jos? Cornejo and Victorino Peralta, members of the La Providencia Cooperative of Wiwili, the maximum price that they receive for a ?quintal? (1 quintal=100 lbs.) of unroasted coffee is $141. ?The buyers pay us $1.40 per pound?in the best of cases?and the final consumer pays $1.50 per _cup_ of coffee,? said Peralta, pointing out that a pound of coffee can make from twenty to forty cups of coffee. Also, the individual grower only receives $96 per quintal after the CECOCAFEN subtracts market expenses and five additional dollars that go to a social fund, used for public social works in the coffee growers? communities. In addition, according to Peralta, if one factors in the production expenses, which with organic coffee are approximately $0.45 per pound, the grower ends up making only about half a dollar per pound of coffee. Even comparing the price per pound of Nicaraguan Organic Fair Trade Coffee in Santa Cruz, which sells for $8.95 per pound at the Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company, with the $1.40 that the buyers (in many cases the roasters buy the coffee directly from the grower) pay to well-organized cooperatives such as CECOCAFEN, it is possible to understand why the growers often say ?Fair Trade is not that fair.? ?And that is only if we do it inside the Fair Trade, which requires our coffee to be 100% organic and of better quality,? said Peralta. Cornejo, in a sarcastic tone of voice, refers to the coffee growers who sell through Fair Trade as the privileged. ?There are people, even inside our cooperatives, who have an even worse situation,? said Cornejo, as he introduced us to Fabiana L?pez Arauz, a member of the cooperative in La Pozolera, a municipality of Waslala. L?pez Arauz, a widow and a mother of seven, explains that her husband died during the civil war, when the ?contras,? supported by the US government, tried to take the power from the Sandinistas by means of force. L?pez Arauz told us that she is the owner of a small piece of land of about two acres, on which she sometimes grows 65 quintales of coffee per season, but sometimes she can barely grow three quintales. Even thought L?pez Arauz has never used chemical products to produce her coffee?she has always used cheaper organic fertilizers and insecticides?they still don?t certify her coffee as organic. ?They pay me $0.60 per pound (without production costs) and that is barely enough to survive. I have the hope of being certified organic next year so that I can sell my coffee at a better price?but they are also saying that the price could go even lower.? The international price of coffee in the stock market of New York is at a historical low, and it is not expected to climb in the short term. If not part of an organization, a small coffee grower in Nicaragua only gets, on average, $0.45 per pound for non-organic coffee, when the production costs for this type of coffee are about $0.60 per pound. As Cornejo says, ?the fact that we are organized, that CECOCAFEN has the necessary infrastructure to offer select coffee, clean, organic, and of the best quality, and that we have sampling laboratories (where they determine the quality and flavor of the coffee), gives us the possibility of making the minimum income that allows us to survive. However, there are many small growers who don?t have the same possibilities because they are not organized.? Peralta is saddened by the reality of the market. ?The price we get paid keeps going down and the price that consumers pay in rich countries keeps going up. Even being a member of CECOCAFEN, I can only sell a small part of my coffee as Free Trade. Even though it is not that fair, at least I can, if badly, make ends meet,? said Peralta. The consensus amongst the producers is that Free Trade should continue, but that both the coffee marketers and the consumers in developed countries should become aware that Fair Trade should be fairer to be able to justify its name and its price. As Cornejo explains, ?Fair Trade will be fair only when the growers gets to keep at least 40% of the earnings from their own coffee, which is very far from happening when one looks at the numbers.? All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:07 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Consuming the revolution Message-ID: <0F3A9866-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Consuming the revolution By aaronius The Alarm! Newspaper Contributor Ch? Guevara T-shirts. Gandhi posing for Apple, The Gap spray-painting its own storefronts. The revolution will not be televised?but it will be commercialized. And at this rate it won?t be long until we have Michael Moore?s head on a Pez dispenser. It is frustrating that the creative models used to guide and inspire our cultural movements so often lend themselves to commodification. It?s bad enough that our messages generally face total media blackouts (think of recent anti-war activity). But the situation concerns far more than just exposure, and though I?m not trying to deconstruct the culture industry in all its complexity, I can point to a few elements that may not seem obvious at first glance: What strikes me as a characteristic attribute of being politically radical these days is that we have to resist the temptation to vicariously live out our political tendencies through the purchase of cheap, mass-marketed consumables designed to appeal to those soft-spots in our hearts reserved for snapshot memories of a time more subversive. We need to end the commodification of subversion. Creating dissonance in mass culture is absolutely necessary?do it now or lead a long and boring life. If we lose the critical ability to separate our real lives from the lives we watch on TV or the characters we play in video games, we might as well go full throttle and replace our brains with silicon. But wait, we are those people on TV and in the video games. Those characters are reflections of us, right? What the f**k is going on here? I?ll tell you: It?s like being under surveillance and knowing it. We know that no matter what happens, we will continue to see images of ourselves on television screens and in magazines. So we pretend not to notice or not to care or both, but in the end accept it as how the machine works and go about our daily lives. Simply put, that needs to change, and there are two main ways I see that happening. One is to start reducing the number of hours we spend directly experiencing mass media (which is obviously demanding a hell of a lot); we?re totally addicted to computers and television, so it will be hard to break away. The flipside of the addiction, though, and my second point is that we do tend to have a very keen sense of how to use technology, and thus can create our own media independently. This is happening in Santa Cruz all over the place. The Alarm!, Santa Cruz Indymedia, Free Radio Santa Cruz (96.3), and even Santa Cruz Community Television all operate independently of the corporate status quo, and similar examples can be found in cities across the country. So the dissolution of corporate media is already occurring before our eyes?we just need to pause and recognize it for what it is. Actually, we need to go a step beyond recognizing that alternatives to conformity exist?we need to make the practice of creating alternative media a habit of our daily lives. The more of us that do it, the more difficult it will be for our revolutions to be sold back to us as a mass commodity. We?ll be paying less attention to the television and more attention to what?s really going on in the world so that we can report it to our communities. And taking back media doesn?t end with news, either. News is just the beginning of the coup. It continues with the takeover of every other sector of the culture industry?merchandizing, marketing, distributing, you name it. The challenge is to remain independent every step of the way and to never sell out. There was once a time when selling out was the only option and to think otherwise was naive. Now the inverse is true. Culture no longer exists within a vacuum of power. Once you can produce your own media, the power is all yours. Aaronius is founder of the Santa Cruz Independent Media Center(http://santacruz.indymedia.org/) and is an independent videographer. Email him at aaron@cats.ucsc.edu. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:08 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Green Consumerism Message-ID: <0F9F0B3C-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Shopping our way to a better world? Can ?green consumerism? save the planet while ensuring social justice? By Fhar Miess The Alarm! Newspaper Collective As Kevin Danaher and Medea Benjamin, founders of Global Exchange, are quick to point out, it?s not often that you?ll find multinational automobile manufacturer Toyota Motor Corporation sharing an exhibition hall with the radical environmental group Earth First!, but this is precisely the scenario produced by the organizers of the Green Festival in San Francisco this last weekend (November 9?10). The festival was meant to highlight the movement for sustainable economies, ecological balance and social justice and was jointly organized by Global Exchange, Co-op America and Bioneers, mainstays of that movement establishment in the US. Organizers brought together an eclectic mix of purveyors of fair trade coffee, fair trade and ?eco-friendly? textiles and crafts, solar panels, ?sustainable? lumber and building materials, ?clean? transportation solutions and health foods, along with environmental foundations, ?sustainable? investment advocates, consumer and worker cooperatives, social justice groups, body workers and spiritual healers. While the majority of the exhibition hall was devoted to the buying and selling of merchandise?with the typical trade fair noisy ambiance of industry folk talking shop, PA system interruptions and offers of free samples?the festival also featured a line-up of speakers, including such vehement anti-corporate voices as Amy Goodman of ?Democracy Now,? and Alexander Cockburn, co-editor of CounterPunch. Several of the featured ?partners? of the event were large multinational corporations, Toyota of San Francisco being the most obvious with two hybrid cars on the exhibition hall floor. Across the aisle from Toyota?s exhibit was that of Stonyfield Farms, the nation?s fourth largest yogurt company, which uses organic milk. Stonyfield?s CEO, Gary Hirschberg, recently followed the lead of Ben Cohen (who also attended the festival) and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry?s Ice Cream in selling a chunk of his company to a large corporation. Unlike Cohen & Greenfield, who sold their entire operation to Unilever, the largest packaged foods company in the world (which incidentally acquired Slimfast diet products on the same day), Hirschberg agreed only to sell a minority 40% stake in his company to Group Danone, the largest dairy company in the world, so he could remain in control. Still, Hirschberg is unapologetic about joining forces with the corporate bigwigs. In a recent article he writes, ?I must admit that becoming part of the mainstream, while aesthetically unappealing, has nevertheless been THE goal.? Hirshberg?s goal, like that of many of his business colleagues represented at the Green Festival, is first and foremost to capture market share. If it can be done with a ?sustainable? food source, then so much the better. Chris Pomfret, Brands Director of Birds Eye Walls, Unilever?s Frozen Food products company in the UK, went further to state that sustainability is not important simply because eco-friendly and healthy products can be marketed at a premium, but because the very survival of the company depends upon sustainability. In a March 2002 speech, he declared, ?if our business is to continue, then we need to sustain our sources of supply and the only way to do that is to make them sustainable.? But that self-preservation is not just an abstract corporate response, it is also the personal response of individual business people. Jeffery Hollender, CEO of Seventh Generation, spoke at the Green Festival on the subject of ?capitalism at a crossroads.? Near the beginning of his presentation, he posed the question, ?is capitalism itself the problem? Should we be looking for some other structure? My answer is no,? he said. ?I mean, I?m a business person, and I benefit from the system that in some ways I don?t like, but I?m not ready to throw it away.? To be fair, Hollender, like most well-off green business people, does exhibit a sincere concern for some ecological and social justice values; otherwise, they never would have made it through the screening process that potential Green Festival vendors had to pass through. But the personal and institutional investment of Hollender and his colleagues in a capitalist economy puts him at odds with many of the anti-corporate and anti-globalization activists at the festival. So, why were these eco-friendly, pro-business firms willing to share the event with people who consider their consumer capitalist practices antithetical to lasting social justice and ecological diversity? According to Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange, organizers of the event ?never hid the politics of the event and?many of the businesses that participated felt that that was OK. Many of them are in total agreement and those who aren?t I still think felt it was an important demographic group for them to reach.? And this marketing potential cuts both ways. Patrick Reinsborough, an ecology activist, explored the flip side: ?it?s an interesting model to create events that really appeal to a mainstream niche, to have a trade show and even the crass ?come do your Christmas shopping and buy environmentally-friendly products? and bring in a wide group of people with that and then hit them with a much deeper message.? As he points out, however, ?it?s possible to achieve an ecologically sane world that?s not necessarily democratic or just.?I?m trying not to be dismissive of the kind of organizing that happens around green consumerism but to figure out how we can bridge this entry point for a lot of middle-class American people and make sure that we?re actually exposing them to a deeper analysis.? He suggests that examples such as the movements of landless peasants, small farmers and indigenous people might lead to such an analysis: one that points to the need for alternative economic arrangements that honor human and ecological value over that of capital. While the environmental movement takes a great deal of flak for levying plenty of criticisms without suggesting any solutions, Reinsborough notes that ?corporations are largely appropriating the sort of solution-oriented end of the environmental movement,? for instance, the solutions of smaller ecological design vendors present at the festival. This appropriation puts activists even more on the defensive. The jumbled mix of politics and commerce made this festival no exception. Reinsborough told of how he had forgotten his wallet on his way to the festival, so he had no option of buying anything. ?It made me acutely aware,? he says, ?of how little interaction there actually was aside from buying and selling.? Chris Carlsson, who was one of the people to first popularize the Critical Mass bicycle ride in San Francisco ten years ago, was also at the festival, and he shared some of his own thoughts on the event: ?There?s no critique that there might be something wrong with the buying and selling of the products of human labor or of human time itself. There?s no critique of wage labor or anything else.?On the other hand,? he says, for people who are new to green consumerism, ?I would argue that this [event] probably has a radicalizing impact, where people can see how many alternatives there really are, already present, technologically and socially, that represent themselves here through the strange veil of capitalist greenage.? However, he counters, ?I?m quite sure we won?t shop our way to a better world.? ?The reproduction of ?fair? business practices, as opposed to NON-business practices seems to me to speak more to the problem than the solution,? says Carlsson. ?I like things where people are able to engage in direct connections and make alternatives in a way that escapes the logic of buying and selling. It?s not always easy to do because you?re always stuck paying the bills, as I am, too. But when people can break out of that logic, they get a taste of something different and it leads in a more radical direction, psychologically, much more quickly.? All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:07 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Alternatives to shopping Message-ID: <0EEBF648-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Join others, don?t shop, feel better Here are some things you can do that?ll keep you out of stores on November 29, Buy Nothing Day: ? Write letters to everyone you?ve been neglecting. ??Sew sock monkeys out of those sad loner socks whose partners have been lost in the black hole of laundry. All you need are two socks, some buttons, a needle and thread. ? Go for a walk and gather neat looking seed pods, dried leaves, pine cones, acorns, spark plugs, street sweeper blades, buttons, messed up coins and anything rusty. Clean out a nice looking quart jar. Arrange the items in the jar leaving room for the recipient to add their own findings. Hide a note inside (if you want to be super-sneaky). Put a lid on it. INSTA-PRESENT! ? Find one of those tin boxes from those pesky AOL CDs (you can also use old Altoids canisters, etc). Decoupage the outside with cool images from all those magazines you?ve got laying around. Coat with clear nail polish for a glossy finish. On the inside, paste photos. Voila! A picture frame. ? November 16 is free appliance pick-up day all around the city. Go scavenging for an old TV. In preparation find a fish tank/bowl (try thrift stores), a light socket, a pump, rocks, a plastic castle and some fish (living). Then on Buy Nothing Day, gut the TV, put the fish tank inside and light it from behind. (P.S. maybe some of the insides of the TV would look good in a glass quart jar.) ? Go to the beach (make sure it?s not a state beach). Look for polished stones, sea glass and shells. Dig some bottles out of your recycling bin. Remove the labels and clean them. Put your treasures inside. ? Organize a marching band or theater troupe. Dress up. Get creative. Make flyers about Buy Nothing Day and bring them to shopping areas to pass out. Play music. Have fun. ? Visit old people in nursing homes. Bring gifts you?ve made (like sock monkeys and decorative jars). ??Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Just because it?s the day after Thanksgiving doesn?t mean people aren?t hungry. ??Make a care package for someone you miss. ? Go through your closets and figure out all the stuff you can donate to a local shelter, the Drop-In Center or the Walnut Avenue Women?s Center. ? Go to the public library before Thanksgiving (they are closed on Thanksgiving and the day after) and check out videos or DVDs for free. Host a movie day.?H.J. and B.W. Check out adbusters.org for stickers etc. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:05 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--You've got junkmail Message-ID: <0E1FBA16-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> You?ve Got Junkmail! By Michelle Stewart The Alarm! Newspaper Collective It takes just two guys in Northern California to raise a stink. Sick and tired of getting America Online disc everywhere they went, two friends decided to launch a recall campaign. Their goal: gather 1,000,000 AOL discs,return them to the rightful owner, and demand an end to all of the unsolicited junkmail. To date they have approximately 81,000 and they need your help to reach their goal. Aside from the fact that AOL assumes a right to bombard everyone?s lives with these pesky discs, the founders of the recall campaign point out the adverse environmental effects. Citing that there is at least a two-to-one packaging to disc ratio for each piece of junkmail sent out, the organizers say enough is enough. Unbelievably, this two-to-one ratio only relates to some of AOL?s more subtle advertising techniques. More recently, AOL has transitioned away from the cardboard mailers to the tin holders that offer a colossal eight-to-one packaging-to-disc ratio. On the website devoted to this AOL recall, there are visuals and discussions ranging from AOL disc art and experiments to ongoing debates surrounding the ratio of waste-to-disc mailers sent out by the company. Whether you are annoyed about the wasteful disc industry, the overpackaging of the mailers or you are just plain tired of finding your mailbox loaded with AOL propoganda, you are in luck. You have a place to find solace and companionship, an arena of shared frustration?and somewhere to send those !@#*$)- discs! As many opponents point out, if the discs were at least re-writable it would be just a little less annoying to find the discs everywhere you go! So, the next time you find an AOL disc you will never use, remember this: www.NoMoreAOLcds.com. Visit the site, and see if you want to join this campaign to return a million discs. If not, grin and bear it when you hear the clank of another disc hitting the bottom of your mailbox. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:05 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Gimme a Break, USA Message-ID: <0DBFD121-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Gimme a Break, USA By Michelle Stewart The Alarm! Newspaper Collective Biggs, CA , November 4, 2002?Don?t ask if they got milk in Biggs. You may get eight ounces of the white stuff spilled over your head. It was a controversial few weeks in the small town just north of Sacramento, filled with overexposure in the media and tension between citizens. So the City Council held a meeting at the local high school to bring the matter up for discussion and decision. In end?and to the relief of many locals?Biggs turned down the proposal from the California Milk Processors Board. A firm statement was made that Biggs, CA would not become Got Milk?, CA. Earlier this year, Jeff Manning, executive director of the California Milk Processors Board sent out letters to 20 small towns in California asking them to officially change their name to ?Got Milk?? The Milk Board is preparing for a media and advertising frenzy surrounding the tenth anniversary of the ad campaign. As part of the festivities, Manning was hoping to get a town to rename itself. According to Manning, the Board isn?t making any explicit financial offers as part of the proposal. Instead, he believes the town that accepts the offer will experience increased tourism, and the Milk Board might assist in building a museum. Apparently that offer isn?t sweet enough to sell. To date, Biggs is the only town to publicly respond to the letter. Other towns that received the letter include San Juan Bautista and Maricopa. Indications are that most of the towns are not considering the proposal. But Manning holds out hope. The Milk Board cites statistics that indicate a 21% drop in milk consumption over the past 30 years. Will a town name change help a struggling industry? The vote is out on that matter also. It is not the first time that businesses and industry have turned to town naming as a gimmick. In the 1950s, a small New Mexico town renamed itself Truth or Consequences after an offer came in from the popular radio game show. And most recently, Halfway, Oregon picked up a check for over $70,000 in exchange for changing its name to Half.com, Oregon. In Halfway, they only had to do a half-effort, since the name change was only for a year?and the startup company was absorbed by eBay before that year was up. It is not a new idea. But it is an idea that is indicative of the times; on eBay you can pay to name someone else?s child, and when you take a roadtrip you may soon find yourself in town named after a cow campaign. Imagine if Budweiser had picked up this idea and named a town ?Wassuppp?? If you remember that ad campaign, you know what I am talking about. I guess its just too bad its not the 80s, then we could look forward to visiting Where?s the Beef?, Florida. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:03 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Film Review: Three Kings Message-ID: <0D0B8BD0-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Three Kings: Reflections of the Gulf War before the Sequel By Michelle Stewart The Alarm! Newspaper Collective ?For many critics of the war, however, the problem of representation of Desert Storm went well beyond questions of censorship or adequate reporting. The dynamic of saturation live coverage led to a discussion, especially in academic circles, of the Gulf War as the first postmodern war. This was the first time, it was sometimes said, in which representation of the event was the event.??Melani McAllister, Epic Encounters. On Friday, November 8, a 15?0 vote at the UN resolved that weapons inspectors would go back to Iraq on a mission to ensure that Hussein doesn?t have weapons of mass destruction (or any of the fixings thereof). Here we go again?back to Iraq. With the scars of the last invasion not yet healed we enter once again. Whether it is under the aegis of weapons inspections or outright military aggression, one thing is certain: it is Desert Storm, the Sequel. I say sequel, because in a sequel, you are often introduced to many of the same characters and themes. Whereas we entered with Bush, Sr., we are recommitting under Bush, Jr. Colin Powell was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; today he speaks of policy and tactics as the Secretary of State. In the first war, Ariel Sharon was a prominent military official in the Israeli government and advocated for a non-passive response to Iraq?s aggressions. Today, Prime Minister Sharon says he will not allow Tel Aviv to be attacked without response. Twelve years ago, Bush, Sr. and other prominent individuals in the US government tried to create a rallying call, stating, ?the Iraqi people need to rise up against Saddam Hussein,? words that are being muttered once again, on the cusp of the new war. But twelve years ago when the ?Iraqi people? rose up against Hussein, the US responded by abandoning them as it pulled out of Operation Desert Storm. The Gulf War was only the first example of media saturation. Could we have imagined the way 9/11 was handled had we not experienced the media event that was the Gulf War? ?War is only possible when we allow a fictionalized other or enemy to be constructed for us out of all of the lies that make certain we realize how different other lives are from ours, and how threatening that difference is. If we think of our lives as constituted in opposition to what we are not, then we find ourselves threatened by all difference? (Jill Stauffer, War and Peace Small Time). Taking this into account, and adding to it the historical relationship between the Middle East and the US, the ripple effects of Orientalism and the post-9/11 mindset, we begin to see that the sequel may indeed be more vicious than Desert Storm. But what does this have to do with a movie released three years ago? Director David O. Russell came across the script for Three Kings in 1996, and decided to do an 18-month rewrite of John Ridley?s work. Through his research, Russell was able to integrate into the script his reactions to the media coverage, the fall-out of US withdrawal during the ?democratic? uprising, US military policies on racist language and the personal narratives of Arab participants living through the war. In his attempt to ?unpack? the Gulf War, Russell generated a different approach to the action/war film both through his writing and experimental film techniques. In doing so, he allowed his film to be in dialogue with much of the Gulf War discourse. In his research, Russell spent considerable time reviewing media coverage and decided to appropriate some techniques that would be easily identifiable to his viewing audience. Russell mixed contemporary studio techniques and angles associated with CNN?s coverage of the Gulf War to create an intentionally, fragmented viewing experience. He further pushed this feeling of fragmentation by experimenting with the filming style to create a grainy, surreal look. From the opening of the film, the viewer is challenged with these various production experiments. The dialogue and subject matter of the film?s central investigations are also challenging, and concern the democratic uprising that was not supported by the US. Russell makes it his chief priority to question US policy that allowed for the withdrawal during this critical moment: ?Most people themselves didn?t follow what happened, so the characters themselves are confused?it?s Iraqi Insurrection 101?we didn?t know about this here in American so it gets played to us via Mark Walberg, Spike, Cube and George? (Three Kings, ?Commentary?). Using his characters in subtle ways he instigates dialogues and conflicts to illustrate critical aspects of the war that were left largely?or wholly?undiscussed. Assisting in this dialogue is the supporting cast. In scouting to cast the film Russell went to Deerbourne, Michigan and San Diego, California (areas with high Iraqi immigrant concentrations) and cast from the community those who bore witness to the event he was retelling. The supporting cast became informal advisors alongside the military advisors and the Arab Anti-Defamation League. A discussion of Three Kings cannot be complete without a brief moment spent on the issue of violence and gunshots. The director of the film spent some of his research time looking at medical writings that explore the effects of violence on the body. When doing this research, he happened upon a picture and explanation of the trauma a body goes through in the wake of a gunshot wound (Three Kings, ?Commentary?). This part of his research became another key aspect in the film. Throughout the course of the film, Russell approaches each scene involving violence with a variety of techniques. In some scenes, Russell slows the entire film down to show each shot fired and where the bullet hits; in other scenes, he makes specific use of graphic close-ups shots to illustrate the effects of the bullet inside the body. And often if violence is a probability in the scene, the camera begins to use close-up shots of all of the guns that would be involved if violence erupts. In the editing room, Russell maintained his attention to the gun, by demanding that the sound mixers not amplify or alter the sound of the gunshots. It is common in Hollywood studios to use a generic, loud gunshot sound. Russell insisted that the sounds of the guns be left as ?natural? as possible. He believed that the lack of amplification lends to the eeriness of the sound?to which I would agree. So, the next time you are at the video store and happen to be in the Action section, take a moment and locate this film. It is a departure from the genre and a film that serves to open up discussions about a war fought twelve years ago that is being rehashed today. Many of the themes of Desert Storm are beginning to reemerge. And so, in the case of this film, it is interesting to view Desert Storm through Hollywood?s eyes. I have heard it argued that Three Kings is an anti-war testimony. Three Kings must be identified for what it is: it is a compelling Hollywood film that addresses a contemporary event. With that in mind, the film can be seen as a participant in the discourse surrounding the Gulf War. After viewing the movie, you decide if this is an anti-war film, or simply a film that raises compelling questions about Desert Storm. Three Kings was an interesting Hollywood moment in which the action/war genre was manipulated to allow for a compelling script to thrive on the big screen. This was a fleeting moment that should not be over-idealized but rather consciously recognized. Three Kings stars George Clooney, Mark Walberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze. David O. Russell is both the director and screenplay writer. The film is available at your local video store. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:12 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--War Notes 11-15-02 Message-ID: <121322A0-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> War Notes 11-15-02 By sasha k The Alarm! Newspaper Columnist The Resolution On Friday November 8, after weeks of haggling, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution calling for a tough weapons inspection regime in Iraq with a fifteen to zero vote. In the end, the United States, France and Russia compromised. The resolution does not give automatic approval to war with Iraq if they do not comply with the resolution, but it also does not specifically state that military action needs Security Council approval. It is the vagueness of the resolution that allowed its passage. According to resolution 1441, if Iraq does not fully cooperate with implementation, Iraq shall be considered in ?material breach? and Hans Blix, the head of Unmovic, the UN weapons inspection team, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team, are to report Iraq to the Council for ?assessment.? No specific consequences for noncompliance are named, although it is ?recalled? in the resolution that Iraq has already been warned ?that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.? The resolution gives Blix and ElBaradei wide latitude to judge Iraqi compliance. ?We will be guided by the definition of material breach, which is really a major violation of the very purpose of the process,? ElBaradei told the New York Times. Many of the arguments during the drafting of the resolution have been over the meaning of the phrase ?material breach.? The Bush administration has been arguing that even the slightest misstep on the part of the Iraqi government would be cause for war. In addition, the US administration has indicated that it will make its own judgement on whether Iraq is in compliance or not, holding it to tougher standards than Unmovic and the IAEA team. It is the ambiguity of the resolution?in not stating that any response to Iraqi noncompliance must be approved by the Security Council?that keeps us firmly on the path to war. The US policy towards Saddam Hussein is still essentially ?to commit suicide or be liquidated,? as Ayman El-Amir of Al-Ahram has said. The Arab League was quick to offer its own interpretation of 1441. After approving the resolution, they stated that only the Security Council should evaluate the reports of weapons inspectors and that the inspection team must include more Arabs than in the past. Farouk al-Sharaa, foreign minister of Syria, which voted for the resolution as a member of the Security Council, said, ?this resolution stopped an immediate strike against Iraq, but only an immediate strike. Now America cannot strike Iraq under UN auspices, although of course the United States can strike Iraq unilaterally outside international law. If this happens, the world will not be with the Americans. It will have to deal with all those demonstrators from Los Angeles to the Far East and the Arab countries.? Iraqi response: On Wednesday, two days before the Friday deadline, the Iraqi government stated that it would comply with the resolution. Earlier in the week, seemingly as a way to express Iraqi distaste for 1441, the Iraqi parliament recommended that the government reject the resolution, leaving the final decision up to Saddam Hussein. With France, Russia and the Arab world backing the resolution, Iraq had no option to reject compliance. The first opportunity for the Bush administration to again push for war will be thirty days after the adoption of the resolution. By that date the Iraqi government must clearly outline to Unmovic and the IAEA all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapons development projects that it has. If it fails to do so, it would be considered in material breach of the resolution and would be reported to the Security Council. On Wednesday, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN announced that Iraq had no such programs. Britain and the US maintain that it does. Thus the stage for conflict is set. Newest war plans The Pentagon has again leaked a new war plan?ostensibly in an attempt to frighten the Iraqi military and government. This ?rolling war? would not aim to immediately occupy Baghdad, but would instead take three regions of Iraq?the northern Kurdish region from Turkey, the south from Kuwait and the west possibly from Israel or Jordan?and hold them as bases for further attacks on the Iraqi government and military. These bases would allow for attacks aimed at the ?pillars of the regime??its missiles, air defenses, presidential sites and military targets. The hope would be that the Iraqi government would crumble and the military would end its support for Hussein without needing a possibly costly ground assault on Baghdad itself. By taking the southern city of Basra as a major base, US forces would not need to use Saudi territory. Four British minesweeper ships are already on their way to the region to clear the Shatt al-Arab waterway that runs up to Basra. According to the BBC, the plan includes a psychological campaign?including encouraging uprisings and a coup?which would begin before the actual conflict. This campaign is probably already underway. The war, of course, has been underway for some time. US and British fighters have been bombing Iraqi targets since the first Gulf War, despite the fact that no US or British plane has been shot down since then. But since the summer, they have expanded the type of installations targeted. Instead of only hitting anti-aircraft and missile batteries in ?self-defense,? planes are now taking out command bunkers, communication stations and radar systems, weakening Iraqi defenses before the start of full-scale war. Meanwhile, the British organization Medical Action for Global Security estimates that around half a million people would die in a war with Iraq, 200,000 of whom would die from starvation and disease. Yemen On November 3, the CIA used a Predator drone?a remote controlled plane with no pilot?to kill what it claimed were al-Qaida operatives in Yemen. This the first time such planes have been used outside of Afghanistan to target people. They have been used in southern Iraq for the last month and have attacked radar dishes. The CIA and senior intelligence officials seem to have been given the right to decide for themselves when to use the tactic; President Bush did not make the decision himself. Perhaps even more worrying, the Yemen killings closely resemble the Israeli tactic of ?targeted killings? (assassinations) of its opponents. The US has maintained that it opposes the Israeli tactic, but the Yemen assassinations confirm that the US and Israel are increasingly converging on military tactics. The Israelification of US military tactics and strategy?preemption and assassination?coincides with a shift in US strategy that now more than ever promotes Israel as the regional hegemonic power and looks to redraw the Mideast map. All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:10 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A1La_Alarma!--Ojo_en_el_INS--Cinco_mytos_=28part?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_5_de_5=29?= Message-ID: <10C4B934-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Ojo en El INS La globalizaci?n ideol?gica en contra de la inmigraci?n Cinco mitos sobre la inmigraci?n (parte 5 de 5) Por Carlos Armenta Colaborador del Semanario ?La Alarma! El eurodiputado franc?s Sami Nair expone y analiza, en un art?culo publicado en el diario espa?ol El Pa?s, lo que el llama ?los cinco mitos sobre la inmigraci?n en Espa?a.? El presente art?culo (?ltimo de una serie de cinco) analizar? el quinto mito dentro del contexto de la inmigraci?n en los Estados Unidos. Quinto mito sobre la inmigraci?n: ?La inmigraci?n ?amenaza? con alterar la identidad de los Estados Unidos? Primero que nada, nunca ha existido, ni existir?, una identidad nacional totalmente cerrada. La identidad nacional de los EEUU se ha visto transformada, desde el principio de la formaci?n de la naci?n estadounidense, por la aportaci?n cultural de millones de inmigrantes de diversos or?genes nacionales. La sociedad estadounidense siempre se ha jactado de ser un ?melting pot,? es decir, un crisol en el que se funden diversos elementos culturales que le dan a la naci?n un car?cter multicultural. Aunque dicha teor?a del ?melting pot? haya sido despojada de legitimidad por innumerables y cuidadosos an?lisis acad?micos, muchos de los cuales han optada por el modelo del ?frying pan? (sart?n para fre?r), en el cual los que se encuentran al fondo del orden social (o sea, la sart?n) se queman, mientras los que se encuentran arriba se cocinan perfectamente, es indudable que la identidad estadounidense le debe su formaci?n a la aportaci?n de los inmigrantes. Adem?s de los beneficios econ?micos que aportan los inmigrantes a la naci?n estadounidense, los cuales ya han sido analizados en los cuatro anteriores cap?tulos de esta serie, dichos inmigrantes han dotado a los EEUU, y lo siguen haciendo, de un interminable n?mero de aportaciones culturales. Basta citar el ejemplo de California, estado que, desde su incorporaci?n a la uni?n americana, ha gozado de una riqueza y diversidad cultural gracias a la influencia de sus residentes de diversos or?genes nacionales, ?tnicos y culturales. ?Qui?n puede argumentar, por ejemplo, que la inmigraci?n proveniente de M?xico o Am?rica Central ?amenaza? con alterar la identidad californiana, cuando al recorrer dicho estado de sur a norte uno se encuentra con poblaciones que llevan los nombres de San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Los Ba?os, etc.? ?C?mo se puede entender tal argumento si en cada pueblo o ciudad existan establecimientos que ofrecen, por ejemplo, platillos deliciosos de origen mexicano como los tacos, burritos, enchiladas, tostadas, tamales; o salvadore?os, como las pupusas? ?Cu?l ser?a la suerte de la agricultura californiana y de su sector de servicios, solo por citar algunos ejemplos, si el campo y las cocinas de California se vieran privadas del trabajo y los conocimientos culturales de los inmigrantes (legales e indocumentados por igual) que laboran en ellos? Cada cocina, sin importar que tipo de comida se prepara en ellas, cada campo agr?cola o cada hotel en donde se contrate a personal de limpieza es un lugar en donde ya se habla el espa?ol, el chino, el tagalo, as? como una infinidad de lenguas ind?genas de Centro y Sudam?rica. Inclusive los hijos de muchos de las familias m?s privilegiadas, no solo de California, sino de toda la naci?n, se encuentran bajo el cuidado de nanas y personal de servicio dom?stico indocumentados que provienen de lugares de habla hispana o de lenguas ind?genas. California es un estado en el que la mayor?a de sus habitantes son originarios o descendientes directos de personas de otros pa?ses, los cuales le han dado y le siguen dando a California una riqueza cultural y una identidad por dem?s original. La historia nos ha demostrado, una y otra vez, que las sociedades m?s saludables son aquellas que disfrutan de flexibilidad, diversidad y movilidad. No hay que olvidar las horrendas consecuencias que han acarreado, como en el caso de la Alemania Nazi o Sud?frica bajo el Apartheid, el querer conservar la ?pureza? de una raza o de una sociedad. Ll?mesele como se le quiera llamar: alteraci?n, transformaci?n o evoluci?n, la existencia de dicho proceso en el que una identidad cambia y se transforma no representa una amenaza, sino un signo de salud social. Para finalizar esta serie, se deben tomar en cuenta las observaciones hachas por el eurodiputado Nair, el cual subraya que los cinco mitos sobre la inmigraci?n analizados en esta serie ?alimentan un c?rculo perverso, ya que se justifica la marginalizaci?n de la v?ctima propiciatoria mediante la creaci?n continua del chivo expiatorio. Es grave, porque rebajar demag?gicamente el debate sobre el control de flujos migratorios conduce siempre a un debilitamiento de la democracia.? All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:09 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A1La_Alarma!--Comercio_Justo?= Message-ID: <105FC054-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> ?Qu? tan justo es el llamado ?Comercio Justo/Fair Trade?? Lo que el consumidor debe saber acerca de los beneficios del ?Fair Trade? para los productores cafetaleros de Nicaragua. Por Carlos Armenta Colaborador del Peri?dico ?La Alarma! Las frescas y verdes monta?as del norte nicarag?ense ofrecen una amigable bienvenida a todo el que las visita. El verdor y la frescura de dicha regi?n, en donde se encuentra enclavado el poblado de Matagalpa, le dan al visitante la impresi?n de encontrarse en un lugar dotado de una fertilidad y riqueza excepcionales. Sin embargo, y muy contrariamente a lo que pudiera pensarse, esta regi?n se caracteriza por ser una de las que sufre la m?s generalizada pobreza de todo Nicaragua, el cual, dicho sea de paso, es uno de los pa?ses m?s pobres del hemisferio occidental. La raz?n del marcado contraste entre la riqueza potencial de una tierra tan f?rtil y la extrema pobreza en que viven la mayor?a de sus habitantes es la estrepitosa ca?da de los precios de sus principal producto: el ?grano de oro,? nombre que recibe el grano de caf? cuando se encuentra listo para ser tostado, y que es el estado en que dicho grano abandona los pa?ses en donde se produce con destino a las tostadoras instaladas en los pa?ses en donde se consume el caf? de mejor calidad. En el marco de la quinta asamblea anual de CECOCAFEN (Central de Cooperativas Cafetaleras del Norte), organismo que comercializa el caf? que producen las cooperativas que lo conforman, varios productores cafetaleros de la zona de Matagalpa, Nicaragua nos ofrecieron sus impresiones sobre la dif?cil situaci?n de los productores cafetaleros nicarag?enses en general y sobre los verdaderos beneficios que reciben los que, como ellos, se ven en la posibilidad de comercializar su caf??gracias a que se encuentran bien organizados?dentro del marco del ?Fair Trade.? La opini?n generalizada de los productores miembros de CECOCAFEN fue la de que el ?Comercio Justo? (nombre con el que ellos conocen al ?Fair Trade?) no es tan justo. Segun Jos? Cornejo y Victorino Peralta, ambos miembros de la cooperativa ?La Providencia? de Wiwil?, Nicaragua, el precio m?ximo que se paga por un quintal (100 libras) de caf? grano de oro es de $141. ?Los importadores nos pagan a nosotros US $1.40 por libra?en el mejor de los casos?y el consumidor final paga US $1.50 por _taza_ de caf?,? subrayo Peralta, resaltando que una libra de caf? alcanza para veinte o cuarenta tazas. Mas aun, el productor solo recibe solo $96 por quintal despu?s de que CECOCAFEN deduce gastos de comercializaci?n y cinco d?lares que van a un fondo de aportaci?n social, el cual se utiliza para obras sociales en las comunidades cafetaleras. Adem?s, seg?n Peralta, si se calculan los gastos de producci?n, que en el caso del caf? organico son de aproximadamente $0.45 por libra, el productor acaba ganando solamente alrededor de medio d?lar por libra. A?n cuando se compara el precio de venta al p?blico por libra del caf? nicarag?ense org?nico de ?Fair Trade? en Santa Cruz, el cual se vende a US $8.95 por libra en Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company, con los US $1.40 que los importadores (en muchos casos las tostadoras lo compran al productor directamente) pagan a cooperativas bien organizadas como las de CECOCAFEN, nos damos cuenta de porqu? los productores hacen el comentario de que ?el comercio justo no es tan justo.? ?Y eso si comerciamos dentro del ?Comercio Justo,? el cual exige que nuestro caf? sea ciento por ciento org?nico y de mejor calidad,? dice Peralta. Cornejo, en tono sarc?stico se refiere a los productores que comercian dentro del Comercio Justo como los m?s privilegiados. ?Hay gente, inclusive dentro de nuestras cooperativas, que sufren de una situaci?n todav?a peor,? dice Cornejo, present?ndonos con Fabiana L?pez Arauz, miembro de una cooperativa en La Pozolera, municipio de Waslala. L?pez Arauz, madre viuda de siete hijos, nos explica que su esposo muri? durante la guerra civil, cuando los ?contras,? apoyados por el gobierno de los EEUU, trataban de tomar el poder de los Sandinistas por la v?a de la lucha armada. La se?ora L?pez Arauz nos cuenta que ella es due?a de un lote de una ?manzana y media? (poco menos de una hect?rea), de la cual saca a veces 65 quintales de caf? por temporada, pero a veces apenas saca 3 quintales. Aunque la se?ora L?pez Arauz nunca ha utilizado productos qu?micos para producir su caf??siempre ha utilizado fertilizantes y anti-plagas org?nicos porque ser m?s baratos?todav?a no certifican su caf? como org? nico y lo tiene que vender como convencional. ?A mi me pagan $0.60 por libra (sin contar los costos de producci?n) y eso me alcanza para medio sobrevivir. Tengo la esperanza de que el a?o pr?ximo me certifiquen como org?nico para poder vender mi caf? a mejor precio?pero tambi?n me dicen que el precio puede bajar a?n m?s.? En efecto, el precio internacional del caf? que se cotiza en la Bolsa de Valores de Nueva York se encuentra ahora en un m?nimo hist?rico, y las expectativas no auguran ninguna mejor?a en el corto plazo. Los peque?os productores cafetaleros no organizados de Nicaragua solo reciben, en promedio, US $0.45 por libra de caf? convencional, cuando los costos de producci?n de este tipo de caf? andan por los US $0.60 por libra. Tal y como lo apunta el se?or Cornejo, ?el hecho de que nosotros estamos organizados, de que CECOCAFEN cuenta con la infraestructura necesaria para ofrecer un caf? seleccionado y limpio, org?nico, de la mejor calidad, y de que contamos adem?s con laboratorios de cataci?n [donde se determina la calidad y el sabor del caf?], nos da la posibilidad de poder obtener una m?nima ganancia que nos permite sobrevivir. Sin embargo, hay todav?a muchos peque?os productores que no tienen las mismas posibilidades porque no est?n organizados.? Para Peralta, la realidad del mercado es triste. ?El precio que nos pagan a nosotros sigue bajando mientras que el precio que pagan los consumidores en los pa?ses ricos sigue subiendo. Yo solo tengo la posibilidad de vender, a?n siendo miembro de CECOCAFEN, una peque?a parte de mi caf? dentro del ?Comercio Justo,? que aunque no sea tan justo, cuando menos me ayuda a mal pasarla,? dice Peralta. El consenso entre los productores es de que el ?Comercio Justo? debe continuar, pero tanto los que comercian su caf? como los consumidores en los pa?ses desarrollados deben de tomar conciencia de que el ?Fair Trade? debe ser todav?a m?s justo para poder justificar tanto su nombre como su sobreprecio. Es decir, y tal y como lo explica el se?or Cornejo, ?la justicia del ?Fair Trade? solo se dar? cuando al productor le quede cuando menos un 40% de la ganancia de la comercializaci?n de su caf?, lo cual, al analizar cifras, se da uno cuenta de que est? muy lejos de ser una realidad.? All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From wires at the-alarm.com Thu Nov 14 22:31:11 2002 From: wires at the-alarm.com (The Alarm!Newswire) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] The Alarm!--Eye on the INS--Snapshots from the war on terror Message-ID: <11A634FD-F853-11D6-9A26-0003938C6F60@the-alarm.com> Eye on the INS 11-15-02 Snapshots from the War on Terror By Michelle Stewart The Alarm! Newspaper Collective ?Anonymous mailer sends us photos taken inside a military C-130 transporting POWs,? reads the headline on the website of radio host Art Bell. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Bell, on this website you will also find many stories and/or photos that are ?evidence? of alien life on earth. However, in the case of these photos, there has been an authorized voice that verified their authenticity, as well as a firestorm of response?both from the Federal government. ?We have very very tight restrictions on any images of the detainees for security purposes and because we have no interest in potentially holding detainees up for any kind of public ridicule,? said Victoria Clark at a Pentagon press conference the morning after the photos first appeared. Clark announced that the Pentagon was mounting an investigation to determine who in the plane took the photos, because the release was unauthorized and perhaps the photos themselves were unauthorized. Does the Pentagon want to keep these photos from the public to insure the detainees are not subjected to ?public ridicule,? or rather to insure that the Pentagon itself is not subject to public scrutiny? The answer seems obvious. In looking back over the past few months, perhaps the chain of events has forced the Pentagon to try and avoid this type of scrutiny. Early in the summer, a certain photo of John Walker Lindh surfaced. In the photo, Lindh was heavily restrained, blindfolded and appeared to be strapped to a carrying board, naked. The Pentagon was challenged about the way Lindh was being handled. The Pentagon responded to the criticisms by stating that Lindh?s restraints and lack of clothing were part of their security measures. It later surfaced?according to Lindh?s defense attorneys?that he?d been ridiculed by officers, and that his body had both pro-America and homophobic language scrawled on it in marker. Despite initial concerns, the public soon forgot these issues, along with concerns about the initial photo and the way Lindh was treated. Lindh eventually took a plea bargain and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Earlier in the year, the US government released photos to the press of some of the first detainees arriving at Guantanamo Bay. The government, expecting a reaction of adulation from a fearful public, was surprised when the photos were greeted with horror and questions were raised about the treatment of US-held prisoners in the ?War on Terrorism.? The chief concern surrounded the ways in which the prisoners were uniformly transported with eye goggles and ear muffs as well as shackles and often surgical masks. The government responded that these were security measures taken to insure the safety of all involved in the transport (even the safety of the prisoner). Over time, this outcry, too, was silenced. People seemed to ?accept? that the US had the right to snatch up whomever it wished (no trial, no public proof offered) and schlep them off to an island (Guantanamo Bay) in another country (Cuba), bound, gagged and goggled for an indeterminate amount of time (the joys of being labeled a material witness, not a Prisoner of War)?in the name of security, of course. With the photos on Bell?s website, here we are again. The only difference this time is that the US didn?t officially release the photos?probably sick and tired of defending itself, it is keeping the photo album closed to the public. So, aside from the occasionally leaked photo, what will the public do now? We have proven ourselves to be rather accepting of these disturbing pictures. Over time we seem to silence our complaints and outcry. Without the photos as reminders, are we simply going to become absolutely compliant with the way in which events play out in this endless and ambiguous ?War on Terrorism?? I fear we are. Lost in this latest round of discussions about the photographs of detainees is the fact that they are being treated as human cargo. And consider for a moment the timing. What have we been hearing about Guantanamo Bay lately? Well, in October, the government prided itself on releasing prisoners; it was expelling those prisoners who were not deemed adequate material witnesses. For all intents and purposes, the government has not talked about bringing in more detainees; rather it has only spoken of releases. Of course this was coming up on the elections where, perhaps, it did not want to be seen as ?collecting? detainees and thereby spending American tax dollars on a program that is not precisely collecting terrorists. Material witnesses are not very exciting, and cost a lot of money to house and feed. But whether we have photos?officially released or not?I am left with the sneaking suspicion that people are largely undisturbed by these pictures or the general landscape of this ?War on Terrorism.? That the mantra of homeland security has finally taken hold, and the treatment of anyone who is suspected of terrorism is inconsequential. Do we care that the CIA is sending out unmanned drone missiles to kill people ?believed to be? members of al-Qaeda, that the attack in Yemen did kill an American, that we are killing suspects? And those we don?t kill we strap into cargo planes, bound and gagged? Is this what we are agreeing to? Whether it is the nearly 600 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or the hundreds still held in INS detention, the War on Terrorism is very tangible, and yet we don?t seem to respond. The War on Terrorism is not just about bin Laden (or nowadays Hussein), it is about treating people as cargo, about assuming the guilt of all suspects, about treating Arabs or Muslims as guilty and about the pretense that in the name of ?security? we must accept these violations of decency. So, do we respond or do we just shake our heads at these photos? Do we dismiss the photos?when they surface?and ignore the INS?s detainees; just sit back, and turn our collective attention to the upcoming ?holiday season?? Your comments are encouraged and welcomed at michelle@the-alarm.com All content Copyleft ? 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial purposes or by government agencies. From boyer2128 at msn.com Thu Nov 14 23:24:13 2002 From: boyer2128 at msn.com (SARAH BOYER) Date: Sun Feb 8 02:51:58 2004 Subject: [Dryerase] Taking Back Iraq's Oil, November Public i Message-ID: Taking Back Iraq's Oil by Jeff Sowers Oil may not be the only reason the U.S. government is rushing into war with Iraq, but it is certainly one of the main reasons. Domestic politics, arms industry sales, and other factors all play a role. But for the money-hungry oil corporations, like Exxon-Mobile, Shell, and BP, it is oil that glitters like a mountain of diamonds in the Iraqi desert. Crude oil is the world's most actively traded commodity, and when it comes to oil, Iraq has lots of it. With proven reserves of 112-bil bbl (barrels of oil) and probable reserves of 214-bil bbl, Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in crude oil reserves. Industry experts believe that Iraq's true resource potential may be far higher, however, as years of war and sanctions have severely restricted exploration and development. At current prices of about $27 a barrel, this comes out to be a prize worth between $3 trillion and $8.1 trillion. No wonder a post WWII, U.S. State Department assessment called the gulf oil resources “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history ... probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment.” Buying Security Council Votes with Oil The central role that oil is playing in this crisis was evident in recent U.S. efforts to get the support of Russia and France, who have been resisting U.S. pressure to authorize the use of force against Iraq before inspectors are allowed to return. Their backing has been crucial because they are among the five Security Council members with the power to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing force. Why would Russia and France be so resistant to using force against Saddam Hussein? It is because both have a large stake in Iraqi oil and have already invested heavily in it. On September 1st, the headline of a Washington Post article read “Russian-Iraqi Oil Ties Worry U.S.: Moscow's Support for an Attack on Hussein May Depend on Economic Assurances.” The article talked about the “depth” of economic ties between Russia and Iraq, which have been long-time allies, ever since the emergence of the Ba’th party and Saddam Hussein in the late 60’s. Major Russian oil corporations such as LUKoil and Zarubezhneft have made major investments in Iraq and have been seeking to position themselves as leading exporters of Iraqi oil when economic sanctions are lifted. LUKoil currently owns 68% in a consortium that has invested a reported $6 billion in developing the 20-bill bbl West Kurna oil field; Iraq also owes Russia at least $7 billion in debt from previous decades. In a September 9th New York Times article a senior Bush official said the arguments presented to the Russians to get their vote for war against Iraq had been “economic,” and that the U.S. “did not rule out the possibility of negotiating explicit guarantees for Russian interests, mostly oil-related.” The official also stated that “they're a lot more likely to get their debts paid off” by supporting the U.S. policy. France also has major investments in Iraqi oil. It, more than any other western nation, has cultivated a relationship with Iraq. France was the largest supplier of arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In the 1970’s they helped Iraq build a nuclear power plant that was subsequently bombed by Israel in 1981. The French oil corporation TotalElfFina, the fifth largest oil corporation in the world, has a major presence in Iraq. Among other deals, TotalElfFina has negotiated with Iraq on development rights for the fabulously rich Majnoon oil field, the largest in Iraq. A top French official candidly laid it out in a September 15th article in the New York Times. He said, “In a sense we're trapped. Ultimately, we will want to re-engage in Iraq. We built a strategic relationship there. We have a market. We want the oil and we want to be in the game of rebuilding the country. If there were a new regime and we have not been with the Americans, where will we be?” Actually, what is probably worrying the Russians and the French more than what might happen if they don’t go along is what might happen if they do. Will they get their “fair share” of Iraq’s oil even if they give their support, or will they be left to scramble after the crumbs left behind after U.S. and British oil corporations are allowed to sweep in and gobble up the juiciest and most lucrative fields? Recent statements made by the U.S.-backed opposition group the Iraqi National Congress (INC) would certainly give Russia and France reason to pause. INC officials have made it clear that “they will not be bound by any of the deals” Iraq has made with Russia, France or other nations. Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he supports the formation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," he said. Exxon and Mobil Had it First But how did it come to be that Russia and France got the dominant position in Iraqi oil, a position they are now anxious about losing to the British and Americans? Not so long ago, before the era of Saddam and the Ba’th party, it wasn’t LUKoil and TotalElfFina that had the dominant position in Iraqi oil, but Exxon-Mobil, BP and Shell. From their perspective, îregime change” in Iraq would give them the opportunity to reclaim what was “theirs” to begin with. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, western governments and oil corporations descended on the Persian Gulf like a pack of hungry hyenas, growling and nipping at each other as they fought for the greatest share. Britain was the main military power in the region, and pieced together Iraq from remnants of the Ottoman Empire. They placed King Faisal, a British puppet, on the throne, and proceeded to block Exxon and Mobil's exploration efforts in Iraq while giving full support to those of British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. This led to intense diplomatic pressure by the Americans. A British foreign office official complained that "Washington officials began to think, talk and write like Exxon officials.” Finally, in 1928, as part of an overall deal to divide the region’s oil between the world’s great powers, known as the “Red Line Agreement,” Exxon and Mobil were granted a 25% share in the Iraq Petroleum Company. Production began in 1934. While the oil corporations were satisfied with the arrangement, many Iraqi’s were not. To insure their control, Britain maintained bases in the area and routinely bombed and strafed rebellious Kurdish and Shia tribesmen. When the Iraqi leadership rebelled in 1940, the British were forced to send in reinforcements leading to armed conflict with Iraqi forces in 1941. The conflict was short lived, the rebellious Iraqi leadership fled the country, and Britain reestablished its authority. Iraq Slips Through Britain’s Fingers In 1958, the British again lost control when an Iraqi revolution led by an army faction known as the Free Officers, under the leadership of Abd al-Karim Qasim, overthrew and executed the British puppet King Faisal II. This time, however, reestablishing British control would not be so easy. The Cold War was in full swing.