Cracking the Contracts
23 Apr 2008
In January 2003 Middle Eastern Peace Envoy Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, was planning a war. The media meanwhile debated imaginary threats and UN Resolutions; for the most part respecting the taboo that the planned invasion might have something to do with oil. When, nevertheless, Blair was confronted with that suggestion at Prime Minister?s Question Time he decided to, as he put it, ?deal with the conspiracy theory?. If oil were the motive he reasoned, it would be ?infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam? who he said, ?would be delighted to give us access?. And he was right. But the war was never about buying Iraq?s oil; it was about selling it. Five years later the big oil corporations are still waiting for Iraq?s oil fields to open for business. Violence and instability have been one obstacle, but not the main one. After all, oil corporations often operate in hostile environments. As one British official recently put it, ?if you can successfully operate in the Niger Delta, that is a very different benchmark from imagining that Basra needs to be like London or Paris.? The real problem has been persuading Iraqi politicians to enact legislation which would guarantee corporate investments. The Economist called post-invasion Iraq a ?capitalist dream?, but although the occupation forcedly privatised pretty much everything, they were not foolish enough to attempt to privatise Iraq?s most precious resource. Instead, the oil companies and the occupational powers have pushed for Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), in which the state and the oil corporations ?share? the risk, ownership and profits of Iraq?s oil wealth. But a groundswell of public opinion developed against the oil law, and against PSAs. In December 2006 Iraq?s trade unions released a joint statement opposing ?the handing of authority and control over the oil to foreign companies that aim to make big profits at the expense of the people and to rob Iraq?s national wealth by virtue of unfair, long-term oil contracts?. A year later the head of the Directorate of Licensing and Contracts would lament that ?the political and economic culture and atmosphere in Iraq is not conducive to this contract? . But as opposition grew, so did the pressure from oil corporations and the occupying powers. Only a month after the trade union statement, Washington announced a ?surge? in occupation troops, and a massive escalation in aerial bombardment. Slow movement towards a corporate-friendly oil law was a significant reason behind the new policy, and the passing of the oil law became one of the four ?bench marks? gauging the success of the ?surge? initiative. That bench mark has so far not been met. In February 2007, as more foreign troops flooded into Iraq, the cabinet submitted a new oil law to parliament, but once again it came to nothing. The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), less hindered by public opposition, became as impatient as the occupying powers. In August 2007 it passed its own oil law and immediately began awarding contracts to foreign corporations. Before passing its oil law the KRG had already awarded concessions to several small companies including Turkey?s Petoil, a Turkish/Canadian joint venture of General Enerji and Addax Petroleum, and the Norwegian company DNO. Some of these were granted before the Iraqi Constitution itself was signed, let alone an oil law. With the new law in place the KRG has granted contracts to at least another 20 foreign companies, including Heritage Oil (Canada), Hunt Oil (USA), Sterling Energy (Britain) and Gulf Keystone (Britain), OMV (Austria), Reliance (India), and SK Energy (Korea). Washington?s position on this is not clear. It is known to have opposed independent Kurdish moves in the past. In 2006 US officials met with oil companies to discourage them from dealing separately with the KRG, and Condoleezza Rice met the Kurdish president, Massoud Barzani, to encourage him to cooperate with Baghdad. Washington commented that the Kurdish contracts had ?needlessly elevated tensions?, but according to the New York Times it ?hasn?t leaned very hard on the one American oil company involved, Hunt Oil?. If opposition from Washington was relatively mute, Baghdad was furious. The Natural Resources Minister Hussain al-Shahristani condemned the concessions as illegal and called the companies involved ?opportunists who are seeking an opportunity where they think they can get a high profit?. In January the Iraq government halted its Basra oil exports to South Korea?s SK Energy in response to its newly acquired Kurdish contract and in February it halted its exports to Austria?s OMV. Although not enough to discourage smaller companies who thrive in such niches, these threats are enough to discourage the big oil corporations. Iraq?s greatest reserves are in Basra, and that remains the ultimate prize. Royal Dutch Shell commissioned research into Iraqi Kurdistan?s fields but also has hopes for joint projects in the south in partnership with BHP Billiton. Total and Chevron have both teamed up on projects in the south, and BP has studied the southern Rumaila field which borders Kuwait. None of them want to risk alienating the Iraqi government; rather they have done their best to work on service contracts on existing fields, which although do not yield the enormous profits possible under PSAs, might bring them one step closer to searching for, owning and then selling Iraq?s untapped oil. Today the coveted national oil law seems no closer, but the Kurdish initiative does seem to have forced the central government closer to the oil corporations. In January the Iraqi government invited them to submit documents for a prequalification process pending the eventual planned licensing allocations. Companies involved in the Kurdish contracts were excluded. In February it was announced that as many as 115 companies had registered. The government also announced that Iraq was concluding negotiations for technical support contracts with large oil corporations including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, Total and Chevron.

Rats Loose in the Granary
21 Apr 2008
Put rats in charge of the granary and, without doubt, you will get cereal thieving, and haven’t Gordon Brown and his Chancellor Alistair Darling found the truth behind that rather feeble joke. Not even waiting 24 hours after the deadly duo hurled 50 billion their way, the pack of merchant bankers who style themselves Britain’s finance industry, but ought more accurately to be known as the country’s top predators, have stuck two fingers up at them and gone their own merry and profiteering way. Despite all of Mr Brown’s sanctimonious pleading on Monday that the 50 billion windfall to the bankers was to stabilise the mortgage industry and give back a chance to first-time buyers to enter the housing market, Britain’s second-largest lender Abbey announced on Tuesday that it is to screw customers who can’t stump up at least 25 per cent of the price of their home as a deposit. With lower rates and its tracker mortgage only being made available for those with a large deposit, the first-time buyer is, as one City source put it, “stuck, unless they have parents who can help.” So, home-buyers who cannot afford a large initial deposit or don’t have a rich mummy and daddy behind them will be forced to take less competitive rates and pay more on their monthly repayments. Once again, as with the 10p tax rate abolition, it’s the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what takes the blame. And is there any clearer way for Abbey to let Mr Brown know just who is in charge in the City and underline that it isn’t him? Well, other bankers clearly think that there is. Not content with access to 50 billion to defray its risks, the boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland is asking shareholders to pump in 12 billion of new capital, diluting their existing holdings by a hefty percentage unless they fork out again, given that the new rights offer is in the ratio of 11 new shares for every 18 existing shares that they hold. According to RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin, whose 4.2 million pay package included a 2.9 million bonus last year, the bank’s financial position was “satisfactory” less than two months ago. Does anyone seriously believe that things have changed so much in just eight or nine weeks? And, if they have, should people who did not even foresee it be left in charge of the banking industry? It should be noted that the bank, which claims to have lost another 5.9 billion recently, spent nearly 50 billion last year on the acquisition of Dutch bank ABN Amro, so it certainly isn’t down to its last few bob. And other banks are expected to jump on the rights issue bandwagon, including Barclays and Halifax Bank of Scotland. Both banks are denying this, but they would, wouldn’t they? The result of all this would seem to be that 50 billion of taxpayers’ cash has vanished into the banks’ black hole and many billions more are going to be raised by rights issues, all to correct the absolute dog’s breakfast that a pack of avaricious speculators have made of the banking system that they are still to be left in charge of. Meanwhile the lower paid are screwed on their tax, cut out of the housing market, the government is giving away their cash, and no attempt is being made by central or local government to supply social housing in anything like the amounts needed. And they say that socialists are the impractical and unrealistic ones!

Bluefin thinking
21 Apr 2008
Tuna, particularly the canned variety, has long been one of the UK’s staple foods and most of us probably have a couple of tin or two somewhere in our cupboards. More recently, we’ve been developing a taste for raw tuna, as sushi bars continue to spread throughout the country. So, what’s the problem? Tuna is a wild source of protein. We don’t farm tuna; we catch it from the great oceans of the world. And that is where the predicament starts, because global tuna stocks, like those of other species, have been grossly overexploited and are now in big trouble. The iconic bluefin tuna, widely used in sushi, is critically endangered. Bigeye and albacore tuna are also under threat, while yellowfin tuna is in decline globally. Worldwide, up to 90% of stocks of large predatory fish, including tuna, have already been fished out. The organisations responsible for managing the international tuna fisheries have failed dismally. But where governments have failed, retailers, restaurants and consumers can help turn the tide. Greenpeace is campaigning to stop the collapse of the world’s remaining tuna fisheries, pushing for the creation of large scale marine reserves and changes in fishing practices to allow tuna and other fish stocks to recover. This month, the Greenpeace ship Esperenza is confronting tuna boats that are fishing unsustainably in the Pacific. Meanwhile, today, more than 80 Greenpeace activists used nets and chains to close down the stands of five of the biggest and most unscrupulous tuna suppliers at the European Seafood Expo, the world’s largest seafood fair. The UK is a huge consumer of canned tuna on a global scale. We import well over 100,000 tonnes each year. Sushi sales are also increasing. So, what can we do as consumers? First of all, look out for restaurants and retailers that show commitment to sustainable seafood when you eat out or shop. For example, it was hearing about the plight of tuna that leading UK sushi chain Moshi Moshi to the decision to stop serving bluefin in their restaurants and to adopt strict sourcing policies. Among retailers, Marks and Spencer has consistently topped Greenpeace’s seafood sustainability surveys. Second, avoid red-listed species like bluefin tuna. (You can find a guide to these species here.) Third, wherever possible, choose pole- and line-caught tuna, the most environmentally friendly way of catching the fish. Other methods of catching tuna, even when the cans are labelled “dolphin friendly”, can be very destructive – killing rare giant turtles, sharks, juvenile tuna and many other fish species. Sustainable seafood is part of the answer, but the science is clear that we also need a global network of no-take marine reserves, like national parks at sea, covering large parts of the oceans. Following the science, Greenpeace is calling for 40% of the world’s oceans to be marine reserves, where no fishing is allowed. By only choosing sustainable seafood in shops and restaurants, we can all make a difference. Alternatively, as professor of marine biology Daniel Pauly, of the University of British Columbia, has said, you don’t need to worry about these problems – as long as your children like plankton stew.

Covering Israel-Palestine – the BBC’s Double Standards
21 Apr 2008
An Exchange With The BBC?s Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen The media reported last week that at least 22 people, including five Palestinian children, had been killed during Israeli ?incursions? into Gaza. The Israeli military ?operations? were ?sparked? by a Hamas ambush that had left three Israeli soldiers dead. Reporting followed the usual script that Israel?s state-of-the-art weaponry is deployed as ?retaliation? for ?militant? Palestinian attacks. The latest deaths followed the killing in early March of over 120 Palestinians under a massive Israeli assault on Gaza. (See our Media Alerts: ?“Israel?s Illegal Assault on the Gaza ?Prison??, March 3, 2008; and ?Israeli Deaths Matter More?, March 11, 2008) One of last week?s dead was a Reuters cameraman, a 23-year-old Palestinian, killed by a shell fired from an Israeli tank he was filming. Few details emerged of the other numerous victims of Israeli violence. Media Lens emailed Jeremy Bowen, the BBC?s Middle East editor: ?In the BBC’s recent reports about the violence in Gaza, the only victim of Israeli firepower that I can recall the BBC naming is Fadel Shana, the Reuters cameraman. ?As you know, 22 people were killed, 5 of whom were children. Why are their names not provided by the BBC? Where are the further details that tell us something about them as individuals? Where are the interviews with their grieving families? ?If logistical problems make it difficult to do this, shouldn’t you explain this clearly and prominently to your audience? ?Surely if 5 Israeli children had been killed, the BBC’s news coverage would have been significantly different.? (Email, April 17, 2008) Bowen responded on the same day: ?You imply that we have double standards in marking the deaths of Palestinian and Israeli children. I can assure you that we do not. ?After twenty years of reporting wars I believe strongly that it is important to humanise the victims. But we cannot broadcast long roll calls of the dead. News is often about death. If we read out the name of everyone whose death we covered, we would have no room for anything else, including a proper explanation of how and why they died. ?Our coverage yesterday did that I thought excellently. Paul Wood’s piece on the Ten O’Clock news was particularly strong, though the work of all the staff in our Jerusalem bureau, supported by our Palestinian staff in Gaza stood out. ?There were no interviews yesterday with grieving families because as the death of the Reuters cameraman showed, it was very dangerous to move around. They may well surface in the next few days. Very little video came out of Gaza yesterday. In a piece I did the night before last I interviewed the father of an 11 year old boy, Riad al Uwasi from al Burej camp, who was killed last week. When he was killed it was impossible to get to al Burej, which is where the Reuters cameraman died. When things were calmer, it became possible, until the next incursion.? (Email, April 17, 2008) We replied the following day: ?Many thanks for responding. I appreciate your remark that ?it is important to humanise the victims.? Your response, however, tacitly acknowledges that you cannot do this so readily for Palestinian victims of deadly Israeli force. ?Justifiable concerns for the safety of BBC staff severely constrain timely and extensive coverage from the scene of Israeli attacks, or their aftermath. And so we hear too little from bystanders and grieving families, or Palestinian spokespeople. Compare and contrast with the headline BBC coverage of attacks on Israelis, such as the recent shooting at the Merkaz Herav Yeshiva in Jerusalem [See our March 11 Media Alert]. Your Middle East webpages are full of reports, analyses and commentaries on that single event alone. ?Five Palestinian children in Gaza have just been killed by Israeli forces. How has the BBC’s recent coverage ?humanised? these young victims? Where are the interviews with those on the receiving end of overwhelming Israeli firepower? You say such interviews ?may well surface in the next few days.? I hope so. But sadly, the record shows that this is not the norm in BBC reporting. ?Instead, the record shows that the BBC does a poor job of reflecting the huge disproportionality of killings, violence and force under Israel’s military occupation. As of March 13, 2008, 1,033 Israelis and at least 4,604 Palestinians [had] been killed since September 29, 2000. The ratio of more than 4 Palestinians killed for every Israeli is even more stark when we look at the number of children killed: more than 9 Palestinian children for every Israeli child (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/) ?The extent of relative media coverage to both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian ‘conflict’ does not have to reflect exactly these tragic statistics. Nor does the BBC viewer require endless reminders of the vast US financial, military, diplomatic and other aid to Israel. Nor do we need to hear again and again the array of UN resolutions targeted at Israel over 60 years [since its founding in 1948], and routinely ignored by that state. But, certainly, the BBC audience would have a hard time finding such salient facts in your reporting. And yet, you promise ?a proper explanation of how and why they [the victims] died?.? We then quoted Glasgow University media analysts Greg Philo and Mike Berry who noted, on the basis of extensive research of media coverage of Israel-Palestine: ?The emphasis here is on ?hot? live action and the immediacy of the report rather than any explanation of the underlying causes of the events. One BBC journalist who had reported on this conflict told us that his own editor had said to him that they did not want ?explainers? – as he put it: ?It?s all bang bang stuff.? The driving force behind such news is to hold the attention of as many viewers as possible, but in practice, as we will see, it simply leaves very many people confused.? (Philo and Berry, ‘Bad News From Israel’, Pluto Books, London, 2004, p. 102) Israeli Perspective Routinely Highlighted We invited Professor Philo to comment directly on our exchange with Jeremy Bowen; in particular, on Bowen?s assertion that the BBC is even-handed in its coverage of Israeli and Palestinian victims. In response, Philo pointed to the findings of ?Bad News From Israel?: ?[T]he focus on Israeli victims, both in terms of the quantity of coverage and the language used to describe them, led some viewers to believe wrongly that the Israelis had the most casualties and these beliefs were attributed directly to what they had seen on television.? (Email, April 18, 2008) In fact, as we saw above, there have been over four times as many Palestinian as Israeli deaths between September 2000 and March 2008. And the ratio is as high as nine when it comes to children?s deaths. It is highly doubtful whether ?consumers? of corporate news media, the BBC included, are aware of this. The Glasgow University study also cited an unnamed ?very experienced? Middle East BBC correspondent who noted ?the difficulties of movement applied to media teams trying to reach Palestinian areas.? This is an important point implicitly conceded by Bowen in his reply to us above. This limitation is bound to affect media coverage. As Philo and Berry warned: ?This cannot be an acceptable situation for a publicly accountable broadcasting corporation that is committed to impartiality. Broadcasters cannot absolve themselves from the requirement for balance by accepting a status quo in which one side can ensure that it receives more favourable treatment by imposing restrictions on the other. The broadcasters really have to devote the necessary resources to make sure that both sides are properly represented.? (Philo and Berry, op. cit., p. 137) Their careful research concluded that news headlines ?highlight Israeli statements, actions or perspectives.? Palestinian views do appear in the media ?but tend to be buried deep in the text of news bulletins. [...] it is hard to avoid the conclusion that one view of the conflict is being prioritised.? (Ibid., p. 144) Put more explicitly, it is ?the Israeli perspective [which] is highlighted in terms of causes, motives and preferred outcomes.? (Ibid., p. 166). Moreover, Philo and Berry point to ?a continued emphasis on Israeli deaths and injuries, both in terms of the amount of coverage which they receive and the consistently detailed accounts which are given of them.? (Ibid., p. 184). This is a pattern that persists to the present day. Jonathan Cook, an independent journalist (www.jkcook.net) whose honest and incisive reporting from Israel puts the corporate media to shame, told us: “It is a terrible irony that, precisely because Israel has created an environment in the occupied territories in which it can unleash so much violence so unpredictably, journalists are increasingly fearful of venturing there to tell the human stories of the Palestinian casualties behind the simple numbers. It is, of course, equally ironic that, because life inside Israel is relatively safe, journalists can easily humanise the stories of the far smaller number of Israeli casualties. Unfortunately, Bowen and most other journalists fail to appreciate this irony or to act in useful ways to counter its effects on their reporting. ?When Bowen tells us that ‘we cannot broadcast long roll calls of the dead’, he’s implicitly accepting a set of news priorities that mean the more Palestinians killed the less importance their deaths have to news organisations like his. Conversely, the fewer Israelis killed the more seriousness their deaths are accorded.” (Email to Media Lens, April 21, 2008) Israelis Are ?People Like Us? We contacted Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent, for his view. He praised Jeremy Bowen?s impact on the BBC?s performance: ?My view of the BBC’s Israel/Palestine coverage has changed a little, and mainly because Jeremy Bowen’s presence on the ground and in London has brought some sense and balance to the operation. The standard of reporting from Palestine has also improved in the past couple of years or so, since Jeremy took over and especially since the departure of James Reynolds.? He added: ?Jeremy has some licence from the BBC, and its trillion on-line producers, managers and editors, because of his knowledge, authority and status, which he has built up as both a Middle East afficionado and broadcasting professional over the past twenty years. He has taken the trouble to do his homework and get into the region.? Llewellyn, however, pointed to the deep constraints that preclude fair and balanced reporting: ?The problem [of bias] is not with him and cannot be dealt with within his aegis.? Llewellyn explained: ?Editors, producers, presenters, and their immediate bosses, live in the heated climate of London and very much still within their own cultural heritage: the politics of the day plus the memories of an English education. [...] the story ?concept? in London is still, I am afraid, that Israelis are ?people like us?, who should not be shelled every day while they drive their Polos to recognisable branches of Asda or whatever; while Arabs are ?tricky? and ?emotional? and if they weren?t all firing rockets and hating Jews in the first place none of this would be happening. This is still the platform off which most Western journalists in London jump. To take a different tack is to run into that wall of ?anti-semitic? or ?unbalanced? reportage that any of us who tries to explain the facts on the ground in the region runs into.? John Pilger is one journalist has been on the receiving end of such flak in his extensive reporting on Palestine over several decades. His award-winning 2002 television documentary, ?Palestine is Still the Issue?, is one of his most powerful, and most watched, films on the crisis. We sent Pilger our exchange with the BBC?s Middle East editor, highlighting Bowen?s assertion that “You imply that we have double standards in marking the deaths of Palestinian and Israeli children. I can assure you that we do not.” Pilger replied: “Jeremy Bowen’s quote is indefensible. One only has to read the acclaimed study, ?Bad News from Israel?, to understand the difference in the reporting of the humanity of Israelis and Palestinians. However, Bowen himself has been an able and brave reporter — I acknowledged this in ?Hidden Agendas? (pages 47 & 50).? Pilger then recounted an example of the BBC?s institutional bias that systematically suppresses uncomfortably honest perspectives: ?A few years ago, [Bowen] invited me to take part in a BBC special about war correspondents, and we spent an enjoyable hour or so ?in conversation?. Although it was clear that tales of derring-do would have been preferred, I raised the unwelcome subject that the BBC was an extension and voice of the established order in Britain and its reporting on the Middle East and elsewhere reflected the prevailing wisdom — with honourable exceptions from time to time. My contribution was cut entirely from the programme. I emailed Bowen and someetime later received an unsatisafactory response that there wasn’t ‘time or space’ in the film — something unsurprising like that. Censorship by omission is standard, if undeclared practice.” (Email, April 18, 2008) Regular readers of our alerts will be familiar with the corporate media claim that lack of ?time? or ?space? somehow ?explains? the regular omission of honest reporting and critical analysis. As a result of this undeclared media censorship, public understanding of the Middle East remains limited; and challenges to Western support of brutal Israeli policy are easily diffused and minimised. Sadly, the net effect is that the BBC provides cover for Israel?s oppression of the Palestinians. This is a tragedy that stretches back to the ?Nakba?: the ?catastrophe? of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which was the prerequisite for the founding of the Israeli state in 1948. Now seems as good a time as any to exert pressure on this publicly-funded institution to report painful truths. SUGGESTED ACTION The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to: Jeremy Bowen, the BBC?s Middle East news editor Email: jeremy.bowen@bbc.co.uk Write to Helen Boaden, BBC news director Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk Please send a copy of your emails to us Email: editor@medialens.org

Industry Pushes For 25% Agrofuel Target
20 Apr 2008
Despite clear warnings about the impact of agrofuels (commonly referred to as biofuels) on the world food supplies, those within the industry think that Europe?s 10% target is not high enough. They are pushing for a 25% target by 2030 [1] ? and some members of the European Commission appear to be listening to what they have to say. Corporate Europe Observatory attended the launch of the European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBTFP) Strategic Research Agenda and Strategy Deployment Document (SRA & SDD) in Brussels to find out more about how industry is using this important document ? it is set to influence future EU spending on agrofuel research ? to push for a bigger guaranteed market and the opportunity to boost its profits, to the detriment of the environment and the world?s poor. What is the EBFTP? The European Biofuel Technology Platform was set up by the European Commission to look at the future needs of the agrofuel industry, particularly in terms of research. It has around 145 members, mainly from industry, with members from research institutes and just two from NGOs.[2] The Platform receives funding from the Commission. It is, in effect, a descendant of the Advisory Research Council for Biofuels (BIOFRAC) and continues its work. BIOFRAC?s chair, Anders Roj of Volvo, together with the vice chairs were asked to work with the European Commission to select members for EBFTP?s steering committee.[3] The Platform represents a range of industries interested in agrofuels ? from car makers to biotech companies. The steering committee was chaired by Luis Cabra from the oil and gas giant Repsol, which is developing ambitious plans for agrofuels in co-operation with Bunge and Acciona. In January this year he handed over to another oil company rep, Vronique Hervouet from oil company Total. Five Working Groups, drawn from interested players from the world of industry and research, were set up to develop the research agenda (SRA). Drawing on BIOFRAC?s agenda, they have taken the proposal for a 25% target ? originally put forward by BIOFRAC ? as their overall aim. Their draft proposals were published online for a brief public consultation and some 600 responses were submitted, Birger Kirkow from EBFTP?s secretariat explained to stakeholders that these had been taken into consideration ?where appropriate?. In reality very little of substance changed at all. Technology Platforms Technology Platforms like the EBFTP, were set up by Science and Research Commissioner Janez Poto?nik to allow industry to influence research and development priorities on strategic issues. They play an important role in developing European research policy and are seen as a way of ensuring that Seventh Research Framework Programme (ie EU public-funded research) better meets the needs of industry. The EBFTP, which is the youngest of all the technology platforms dealing with agrofuels, sees its role as in building ?synergies? with others platforms, such as the Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform (FTP), the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform (HFP), the European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC), and the Biotechnology Platform (Plants for the Future) ? creating a ?knowledge based bio economy?. This move towards industry-driven research fits in with the European Union?s Lisbon Agenda, which aims to make Europe ?the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world.? Priority is being given to research into new areas of industry ? with little opportunity to question the wider impacts of this work. In a letter to CEO, Commissioner Poto?nik justified the dominance of industry saying: "European Technology Platforms have been conceived as a means to help realise the Lisbon Strategy. The platforms can play a key role in better incorporating industry’s needs into EU research priorities by bringing together stakeholders, led by industry, to define a Strategic Research Agenda and to suggest possible directions for its implementation. This is the underlying rationale for the deliberate industrial focus of technology platforms, which was indeed, as you note correctly, reflected in BIOFRAC and is also manifest in the composition of the Biofuels Technology Platform." The problem with targets The European Commission is already pushing an agrofuel target of 10% by 2020.[4], much to the alarm of environmental and poverty campaigners. The vast majority of NGOs working on the issue have condemned the target because of the damaging social and environmental consequences and in April 2008 the European Environment Agency?s Scientific Body [5] called for the target to be dropped. International bodies including the UN and IMF have warned on the impact of agrofuels on food supplies. A wide range of studies, including some from the EU?s own Joint Research Committee (JRC), have highlighted problems around the impacts of agrofuels ? including the impact on food production and prices already being seen, the problems created for small landowners and workers in producer countries and the damage to the environment. Research has shown that large scale changes in land use will be needed to grow agrofuels, and that doing so will result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions exacerbating climate change instead of mitigating it. Agrofuels are not a sustainable form of energy ? and many question whether they ever can be so. But the EBFTP has ignored these concerns ? raised by many in response to the consultation ? and proposed increasing the target to 25%. Campaigners outside the stakeholder meeting, angered by the proposed target, greeted delegates with a banner saying: ?Agrofuels ? no solution for oil addiction? and handed out popcorn from a petrol pump. With food prices already rising as farmers switch from growing food to growing fuel, how, they asked, can an increase in agrofuel production be justified? Civil society groups, including Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe, WDM and the Transnational Institute, also wrote to Commissioner Poto?nik ahead of the SRA stakeholder meeting to condemn the role of the EBFTP.[6] Why, they asked, should this undemocratic body ? which effectively excluded the input of all those who did not support the call for a 25% target ? be allowed to determine the EU?s research agenda or hold such influence? Sustainability on the agenda? Inside the meeting, the issue of sustainability was less prominent ? although many of the speakers seemed keen to show that it was an issue they were aware of. Martin Kaltschmitt of the German Institute for Energy and Environment referred to sustainability as ?a critical, very emotional issue?. Using non-food crops, such as jatropha, was put forward as one solution by Harri Turpeinen from Finnish transport fuel company Neste Oil. His company?s aim was ?to get out of the food chain,? he said. ?We are completely in line with the tune of the demonstrators outside the building,? he added, completely ignoring the social and environmental threats posed by large scale jatropha plantations, which are as damaging as any other form of monoculture. ?Sustainability indicators? and ?sustainability criteria? were put forward as essential to allow industry to show the wider world that what they are producing is acceptable. But the sustainability criteria used by European Commission ? outlined by Ariane de Dominicis, from DG Environment ? will not guarantee any degree of sustainability ? they fail to take account of the big picture concerns around land and resource use (the displacement effect) and ignore many of the environmental impacts, such as the effect on water and soil. Monitoring future land use patterns and food prices is like waiting for the patient to die before the doctor is called. Many of the so-called solutions being put forward by industry ? such as the use of GM technology to produce more efficient crops and ?second generation biofuels? ? raise even more environmental and social concerns. Ulrich Schuur, Director of the Institute Phytosphere in Germany shared his vision of how genetically modified plants could allow improvements in germination or increase the rate of photosynthesis for example. Some in the audience were left to wonder whether GM plants ? rejected as a food source by many European consumers ? be allowed to spread across the countryside for use as fuel? Jos Manuel Silva, Head of DG Research warned that industry must learn the lessons of the GM debate. ?We cannot repeat other cases, like GMOs, where the debate happened after the research actually started,? he said. Ralph Sims from the International Energy Agency was one of the few to sound a note of caution, warning that scientists had been talking about second generation biofuels since the 1970s but there were no guarantees that they would ever materialise at a low production cost. ?Put stricter speed limits on the highways,? he said. ?It?ll cost nothing and you?ll get huge greenhouse gas reductions.? Industries? Dream But for many speakers at the stakeholder event, technology was the way to improve the efficiency and sustainability of agrofuels. Markku Karlsson from the Finnish wood and paper company UPM Kymmene, illustrated new ways of exploiting biomass residues and waste for ethanol. Dirk Carrez from the Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry (SusChem) showed how in the United States, energy efficiency and renewable energy research funding from the Department of Energy is being used to support a range of companies working in agriculture, transport, biotechnology and the chemicals industry. In effect, European funding is providing an opportunity for the oil and petrochemical industries to diversify into new areas. As Swedish MEP Lena Ek said at the opening of the event: ?The market is there. Market potential is huge for the industry.? Although without a European target, the market would not be there ? as in the current market place agrofuels cannot compete with fossil fuels in terms of price. The EBFTP in fact represents a no risk strategy for industry ? persuade the European Union to create guaranteed demand and then persuade them to partly fund the costs of developing new products to meet this demand. Poto?nik?s support Having set up the EBFTP and encouraged industry?s involvement, Commissioner Poto?nik seems prepared to ignore all criticism, however well-supported by evidence. In his reply to campaigners, he did not even respond on the key issue of the 25% target and did not address questions regarding the fundamental sustainability of agrofuels, accepting wholesale EBFTP?s reassurances that technology can solve any problems they face. He also said he was reassured by the open and transparent process adopted by EBFTP, despite the limited involvement of civil society ? and despite the EBFTP?s failure to listen to concerns raised by many people in the consultation exercise. Indeed many campaigners see involvement in the EBFTP process as futile ? and for that reason have chosen not to become official stakeholders. Despite its claims, industry is not interested in considering whether agrofuels can ever be sustainable ? it wants to create security for investors. Concerns, it wants us to believe, can be overcome with the power of science. The only real concern is the need to ensure that public opinion does not turn against them ? which again (as with GMOs) they seem to think they can achieve by a selectively promoting some of the science and promising greater technological improvements for the future. In whose interest? The Commission is spending public money on agrofuel research, providing private interests with a Platform to ?advise? how this money should be spent. Seizing this opportunity, industry has proposed a research agenda based on an absurd 25% agrofuel blending target by 2030. The European Commission says that it is ?not in any way bound by the views, results or recommendations arising from the activities of any of the technology platforms?, yet previous evidence suggests it is only too willing to listen to what they have to say.[7] There needs to be a public debate on the role being played by technology platforms. Corporate Europe Observatory and others are calling on Commissioner Poto?nik and the rest of the European Commission to face up to the problems agrofuels cause and impose a moratorium on agrofuel targets ? including the target of 10%. The EBFTP should be dissolved. Research priorities should be determined through discussion between stakeholders without commercial interests, and must not be allowed to be at the expense of societies outside the EU. Research on the real impacts of new fuels, on developing sustainable electric transport systems, and on the relation between trade liberalisation and increased transport demands would all be good places to start. Notes Strategic Research Agenda & Strategy Deployment Document, European Biofuels Technology Platform, January 2008. WWF and the European Environment Bureau (EEB). For more detailed information on BIOFRAC and the EBFTP see The EU?s agrofuel folly: policy capture by corporate interests, Briefing paper, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), June 2007. Proposal for a directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, European Commisison, 23 January 2008. Suspend 10 percent biofuels target, says EEA’s scientific advisory body, press release, European Environmental Agency, 10 Apr 2008 For the full correspondence between CEO and Commissioner Poto?nik see: Corporate Europe Observatory, Letter to Commissioner Poto?nik, 1 June 2007 Reply Commissioner Poto?nik, 27 June 2007 Corporate Europe Observatory and others, Letter to Commissioner Poto?nik, 15 January 2008 Reply Commissioner Poto?nik, 28 February 2008. The car lobby for example has successfully blocked a proposed restriction of 120g/km CO2

Indie?s new editor means bad news
20 Apr 2008
Roger Alton’s move from the Observer to edit the Independent is as shocking as Tony Blair’s appointment as Middle East envoy, and marks a set-back for the anti-war movement. To understand why, we must look at the Indie’s stance on Iraq, why Blair hated the paper, Alton’s politics and what he did at the Observer. Alton was a crusader for the invasion of Iraq. As Johann Hari, who himself backed the invasion at the time, put it on the eve of the war: “There is now a considerable school of British centre-left thinkers and commentators who are lobbying hard for war, so that the Iraqi people can be freed: Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen, John Lloyd, Julie Burchill, Roger Alton and David Aaronovitch.” In other words, Alton was up there with the worst of British journalists in terms of craven support of Bush and Blair and contempt for the anti-war case. Hari’s observation is backed up by Nick Davies, who discovered that Alton had an intimate lunch with Blair in autumn 2002 “from which, according to colleagues, Alton returned full of determined support for the campaign against Saddam”. With the Observer’s home affairs correspondent David Rose being fed “sheer disinformation” by MI6, and its political editor Kamal Ahmed deep in Alastair Campbell’s pocket, readers of Alton’s newspaper were, as Davies catalogues in some detail, “slowly soaked in disinformation” about Iraq. Yet Alton carried on with his support for the invasion. When columnist Richard Ingrams quit the paper in 2005, he insisted that the Observer’s stance on Iraq was damaging the paper: “It’s particularly noticeable on the whole Iraq issue. In the Indie, you had a very strong attack on the whole thing from the beginning. But The Observer’s got it wrong about Iraq, which goes on and on, and you’re clobbered by that unless you get up and say: ‘We got it wrong’.” Ingrams was right that the gap between the Observer and the Independent was huge. On the day after the Hutton report came out in January 2004, the Independent produced a totally white front page with a one-word headline: “WHITEWASH”. In Blair’s last major public speech as prime minister, he attacked the Independent, after which the paper splashed with: ?Would you be saying this, Mr Blair, if we supported your war in Iraq?? Beneath that headline, the paper’s editor Simon Kelner hit back brilliantly at Blair: “After 10 years of the Blair administration, a decade of spin and counter-spin, of dodgy dossiers, of 45-minute warnings, of burying bad news, of manipulation and misinformation, we feel that the need to interpret and comment upon the official version of events is more important than ever.” Kelner saw it as a “badge of honour” to be singled out by Blair. Will Alton take a similarly brave and principled stand against Gordon Brown and George Bush? It is enough just to ask the question to see what an absurd proposition that is. But if you need more proof, here it is from the horse’s mouth. Alton on Blair: “Blair is fucking good.“ And again: “I think he’s a very good prime minister and an exceptional politician who will be much missed when he’s gone. Some of the hostility to him is quite baffling. I just can’t understand it. It doesn’t logically relate to things.” Alton on editorial priorities: “Absolutely have your environmental horrors in Sudan, but you might put it on page four. On page three you might well have, as we did, inside Sven’s five-star England football World Cup love nest ? just because it’s more visual.? On the prosecution of BNP leader Nick Griffin: “ludicrous? should never have been brought”. On Kamal Ahmed: ?Kamal is one of the best journalists I have ever worked with and of the highest integrity, so if anybody impinges his integrity I?ll go and punch his fucking face in.? What Alton’s editorship of the Independent means is this. Every pro-war editor will feel safer in his or her job, and more confident in their editorial line. Piers Morgan and Greg Dyke, sacked over Iraq, are still in the news media wilderness. But Alton has taken over the Indie. The message couldn’t be clearer. Every other editor will feel under even more pressure to give in to the dominant pro-war assumptions: our leaders’ intentions in the “war on terror” are noble; Iraq is yesterday’s story and our audience doesn’t want to hear about it; the anti-war movement is beyond the pale, an unrepresentative rump that is stuck in a rut. Every journalist will feel it that more difficult to stand out against the notion that the Iraq WMD fiasco is behind us, we can carry on as if nothing had happened. Alton’s appointment at the Indie is a disgrace. The anti-war movement should watch closely what happens to the paper and be ready to mobilise against Alton in support of the Indie journalists who have made their paper the conscience of the British media.

The Great Catastrophe
20 Apr 2008
In the coming months, the same event will be commemorated by two different groups in starkly contrasting fashions. May 15 sees the 60th anniversary of the birth of the State of Israel. In Britain, the programme of celebrations includes a gala fund-raising dinner at Windsor Castle in the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh (the Queen’s husband), a variety show at Wembley Stadium and street parades for Israel in London and Manchester. Remembering a tragedy Meanwhile, Palestinians and their supporters will be recalling the same event in entirely different tones, and without the benefit of State support or vast sums of money. In meetings, conferences and exhibitions they will seek to remind the world of the Nakba — catastrophe in Arabic — that accompanied Israel’s birth in 1948. In 1947, there were 12,93,000 Arabs and 6,08,000 Jews in Palestine. Though Jews made up 32 per cent of the population, the U.N. partition plan assigned them 55 per cent of the country, including the economically developed citrus growing plains. Israel’s Declaration of Independence was preceded by several months of civil war between Jewish and Palestinian forces, and followed by more months of war between the new State and its Arab neighbours. When the fighting finished in early 1949, the Jewish State had acquired 78 per cent of Palestine. 1,80,000 Palestinians found themselves a minority within the expanded borders of the Jewish State. 7,00,000 to 9,00,000 had been made refugees. In April and May, before the expiry of the British mandate, the cities of Haifa and Jaffa fell to Jewish forces, and more than 1,00,000 Palestinians fled. To the north, in Galilee, the Haganah — the mainstream Zionist defence force — systematically conquered clusters of villages, emptying them of inhabitants and often levelling them. In June, the Israelis advanced further into territory designated for the Arab State, capturing the towns of Lydda and Ramle where they killed 250 Palestinians and expelled almost all the rest — 40,000 — at gunpoint. In 1948, 500 Palestinian towns and villages were abandoned, evacuated or destroyed. More than 70,000 Palestinian houses were demolished. In the Jaffa area, 96 per cent of the villages were totally destroyed. As Jewish forces proceeded with the ethnic cleansing of territories both within and outside the U.N.-allotted borders of the Jewish State, a British army of 70,000 refused to intervene, despite being charged under the mandate with the protection of the civilian population. Expansionist State At the onset of the conflict, Jews owned 1,159 sq. km. of land (6 per cent of the total). By July 1949, thanks to the Absentee Property laws passed in haste by the new Israeli parliament, they owned more than 20,000 sq. km. In 1954, more than one third of Israel’s Jewish population lived on absentee property. Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property. For many years, Zionists claimed that the Palestinians had left voluntarily at the behest of Arab leaders. That myth has been repeatedly disproved: there’s no evidence of so much as a single broadcast or leaflet telling people to abandon their homes. There is, on the other hand, a great deal of evidence that the Zionists used the war to alter the demographic facts on the ground. On April 6, for example, Ben Gurion told a Zionist meeting: “We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way…. I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population.” The facts of the Nakba are now well documented and beyond serious dispute. Yet Nakba denial remains widespread, and is as vile as denial of any other historic crime. Acknowledgement of the Nakba is resisted because it undermines the moral foundations of the Israeli State. It’s a handicap in the Israelis’ global propaganda battle with the Palestinians, and a challenge to their own self-definitions, a truth that simply cannot be assimilated. The Nakba is no mere historical controversy. It’s an unresolved issue. The Palestinian refugee population — descendants of those driven out in 1948 — now numbers more than 4 million, one half of whom live in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. One million remain Stateless, with no form of identification other than a card issued by UNWRA, the United Nations refugee agency. Each year since December 1948, the U.N. General Assembly has reconfirmed Resolution 194, which enshrines the refugees’ right of return. Any peace treaty that leaves these people out would be neither just nor lasting. Shocking perversion As if experiencing a Nakba wasn’t enough, the Palestinians are now being threatened with a Shoah, the Hebrew word for the Holocaust. In a shocking perversion of a historical legacy, the word was used by an Israeli defence minister to describe the punishment that would be meted out to the people of Gaza — who are there because they were driven there in 1948 — in response to the Qassam rocket attacks. Already, as I write, in the past four days alone, more than 100 Palestinians, including 49 unarmed civilians, among them 25 children, have been killed. Another 250 have been injured. As the furious assault on Gaza continues, Israel’s 60th birthday celebrations look increasingly unpalatable.

Why Greens should vote for Ken
20 Apr 2008
Whenever I hear cynics complaining that politicians nowadays are all in hock to vested interests and unprepared to show leadership, I respond with two words: Ken Livingstone. London?s mayor has made the UK?s capital a world leader on environmental and transport issues ? often in the teeth of determined opposition from the media and the political Establishment. If he loses the 1 May election to the charming Tory buffoon Boris Johnson, it will be a tragedy both for London and for global environmental politics as a whole. Ken is that rare thing in today?s world: a politician who is prepared to lead rather than follow public opinion. If the congestion charge had been put through new Labour?s focus groups it would never have happened. Opinion polls were dead set against the scheme right up until it became a success, at which point most people switched allegiances or argued that they had actually been in favour all along. In 2004, the Conservative Party?s mayoral candidate, Steven Norris, pledged to abolish the congestion charge ? and lost. Now, even Boris says he wants to retain the scheme, although in what form remains unclear. The progress of the congestion charge has been keenly watched from abroad: New York?s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is planning to introduce a similar scheme in Manhattan. Livingstone has been much attacked ? particularly by such critics as the London Evening Standard and the NS?s Martin Bright. But Livingstone is by far the best-qualified candidate to run London ? and from an environmental perspective, this is even more the case. While Johnson is on record as opposing the Kyoto Protocol ? as the Green candidate, Sin Berry, has repeatedly pointed out ? Livingstone helped bring together big cities in the United States to keep the Kyoto flame alive during George Bush?s disastrous presidential reign. Livingstone has forged partnerships on all sides. His London Energy Services Company, which aims to make decentralised energy solutions mainstream across Greater London, is a partnership with EDF Energy, whose parent company operates nearly 60 nuclear reactors in France (Ken is strongly anti-nuclear). As mayor, Livingstone set up the London Climate Change Agency to co-ordinate the capital?s response to what he identifies as ?the biggest long-term challenge facing humanity?. The mayor?s Climate Change Action Plan aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2025 ? to my knowledge the toughest targets adopted by any major political entity anywhere in the world. These targets would ? if emulated by governments internationally ? go most of the way towards solving the global warming problem. That written targets are already backed up with practical achievements makes them doubly valuable: London is the only major city in the world to have seen a shift from car use to public transport, and with large-scale investment in bike lanes cycling has increased by a heady 83 per cent. (In the country as a whole, cycle use is still flatlining.) The contrast with Johnson could hardly be starker. The Tory candidate is still waffling on about recycling and planting trees, suggesting he is stuck back in the light-green era of the 1980s, despite his much-trumpeted credentials as a cyclist. Though he says he will ?make London the greenest city in the world?, this turns out to be more about parks than emissions. Johnson?s manifesto says that he will keep Ken Livingstone?s climate-change targets ? but there is a lack of both consistency and enthusiasm running through his statements. While both Ken and Boris oppose a third runway at Heathrow ? today?s litmus test for climate-change credentials ? Boris supports the construction of an entirely new airport somewhere in the Thames Estuary, on the grounds that ?London?s airport capacity has to expand?. That doesn?t sound very climate- or environment-friendly to me. While loyal Greens will no doubt wish to support Sin Berry?s candidacy, I wholeheartedly endorse her and Livingstone?s call for Labour and Green voters to put each other?s candidates down as their second preference. Let?s keep Boris in the TV studios by all means ? he?s a gifted entertainer ? but let?s keep him out of City Hall.

No Bases for Empire
20 Apr 2008
AMY GOODMAN: It sounds like a fast-food franchise?hundreds of locations spanning some 130 countries across the globe?but in fact, it?s perhaps the ultimate face of US hegemony: military bases. There are more than 700 US military bases worldwide, used for launching wars, holding prisoners, testing weapons. One could be closing down in Ecuador, where lawmakers recently approved a ban on foreign bases. The Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has famously quipped that he?ll let the US military remain if the US agrees to an Ecuadorian military base in Miami. Well, things are different in Europe, where the Bush administration now appears to have secured plans for its proposed missile system. US missiles would be stationed in Poland along with a radar site in the Czech Republic. Earlier this month, NATO leaders met in Romania and endorsed the missile plans. The Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg said a formal accord will likely come next month. KAREL SCHWARZENBERG: [translated] I met with the US Secretary of State in friendly talks where we discussed the plan to have a radar facility as part of our NATO defense system. Once we are clear about the contents, we will discuss the possibility of signing the agreement. The first week of May looks like a good time to sign. AMY GOODMAN: Majorities in both Poland and the Czech Republic oppose the missile plan, which is widely seen as a first-strike threat against Iran. Two activists are in the United States now, speaking as part of a campaign called ?No Bases for Empire.? They?re joining me from Washington, D.C. Jan Tamas is from the Czech Republic. He?s the founder of the No Bases Initiative, a coalition against the proposed US missile system in Eastern Europe. I?m also joined by Olivier Bancoult. He has been expelled from his native Diego Garcia when he was four years old. The US has operated a military base there since British forces expelled native islanders in the early ?70s. Olivier is with the Chagos Refugee Group. I want to begin with Jan Tamas. Talk about the Czech Republic. JAN TAMAS: Hello. Hello to you, Amy, and to all the listeners. Well, yes, like you said, the majority of Czech people oppose this project. 70 percent of people have been steadily opposing this for the last two years. And the reason why we oppose it is that we really do fear that this will lead to a new arms race, that this may lead to a new Cold War. And in fact some of the statements by the Russian President Putin proved that that?s actually the case. They do feel threatened by this, and they do say that they will need to take measures to respond to this. You have to keep in mind that no matter how sophisticated a military system the US is going to implement, the enemy is always going to be able to implement other measures that will overcome it. And so, the US will then have to take other measures to overcome the countermeasures of the enemy. And in this way you begin to have this spiral of armament, and so that?s the new Cold War. Or it could even be a hot war, we don?t know. So we believe that the way to achieve peace in Europe and the world is actually by disarming and not creating new military bases, not by arming. AMY GOODMAN: What is the attitude of people in the Czech Republic right now? JAN TAMAS: I?m sorry? AMY GOODMAN: The attitude of people in the Czech Republic to the base? JAN TAMAS: Well, since the first polls that were conducted back in August 2006, there were 73 percent of Czechs opposed it. It?s steadily around that number. More than two-thirds of people oppose this. But our government continues the negotiations as if nothing has happened. And so, we really see this as a deficit in democracy, because we believe in a truly democratic society the politicians should reflect on the will and the voice of the people; however, that?s not the case in our country. And I would just like to say one thing. We?ve heard our foreign minister before saying that the deal will be signed sometime during the first week of May. That is the truth. However, that will only be the agreement between the government, and what has to happen in our country is that that deal then has to be passed, it has to be ratified by the Czech Parliament. And the situation is far from clear, because the government has a very small mandate. They don?t even have a majority. They were only able to pass a confidence vote after seven months of negotiations, and thanks to some two members of parliament that didn?t vote against them. So they have a very weak mandate, and it?s far from clear how the vote will go. That?s why we have now intensified our campaign. We are more than sixty organizations from all kinds of different backgrounds. And we are now, among other things, having an online petition on the website nonviolence.cz, where we would like to have a million signatures within the next few weeks so that we would intensify the pressure on the Czech parliamentarians, so that they would not be willing to raise their hands for this dangers system. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Olivier Bancoult of the Chagos Refugee Group. You left Diego Garcia when you were four years old. You were expelled. Explain what?s happening on your island. OLIVIER BANCOULT: Yeah. On our island, it had been decided in 1965 that every people, all the people have to move in order to make place for US military base. All of the removal started on Diego Garcia were?had been used to build a US military base. But first of all, I have to let people know that before choosing Diego Garcia, the choice was making on an island called Aldabra, where there were a population of giant tortoises. When the expert, American expert and US?UK expert go and visit Aldabra, they found a population of giant tortoises. They decided just to leave these tortoises in peace and just make the second choice?that is, on Diego Garcia, where human beings were having this wonderful life. When the removal started on Diego Garcia, they just used to kill more than 1,500 dogs, in order to frighten people to leave, because without the dogs, the island will become dangerous. I was age four, and the reason I was forced to go to Mauritius, because my sister was?had been hurt by a wheel cart, and when my mom decided to have treatment for my sister and?in a view to return back in Peros Banhos. But arriving in Mauritius two months after my sister passed away, when we decided to return, we have learned that the island had been given to Americans. And what?s the way? All those who were living on the island had been ordered they have to leave, and there is a communication. All thing had been cut, all the link with Mauritius had been cut. That is in a very shameful way and a forcible way that we have been uprooted from our motherland, the Chagos Archipelago. AMY GOODMAN: You are awaiting a high court decision in Britain, your case expected to be heard on June 30? What will happen there? OLIVIER BANCOULT: Yeah. As you know, since 1997, we started a legal procedure against the British government, because we think that what had been done to us is unlawful, because our fundamental rights as a human being had been violated by the UK government, because there is an ordinance in 1971 who say that no native can return back to their homeland, whereas UK and US soldiers can do so. We started, and we have been able to win three cases in our favor, mostly where the judge concludes that what had been done to us is unlawful, and then we are belongers and that what had been done is very repugnant, and the queen have the right to govern, but don?t have the right to remove people?everything. But now, still now, the UK government is still giving us a very hard time. They just bring it to the House of Lords, but even that, we will not give up our struggle. On the 30th of June this year, we will have an appeal from the British government to our case, and this will be heard in the House of Lords, where we shall be present. Of course, we are very optimistic, because we think that justice must be done again in our case for all variation, for all unhuman that had been to us. AMY GOODMAN: Jan Tamas, final words, as you are wrapping up your journey around the United States in this No Bases for Empire project? JAN TAMAS: Yeah. Well, I would say we are understanding that we are fighting a global enemy: the corporations that are going to make huge profits on this. Already more than $100 billion have been spent on the missile defense itself, and it?s not even near to working. These huge profits are being made by global corporations. They cross boundaries as if they don?t exist. And so need we. We also?the global?the peace movement needs to become global. And that?s why I?m here as part of this tour, to intensify the links, to intensify the cooperation across the Atlantic, across the boundaries of countries and across different organizations, so that together we have a stronger chance of winning this nonviolent battle against this armament effort that is underway right now. AMY GOODMAN: Jan Tamas and Olivier Bancoult, both of the No Bases for Empire project, I want to thank you very much for joining us from Washington, D.C.

Will a decline in reporting European news result in more paid-for journalism?
20 Apr 2008
Like other powerful but controversial institutions the European Parliament is stepping up its investment in what amounts to paid-for journalism. Contracts are about to be awarded for funding programmes to be broadcast by local and international television channels. But, with editorial budgets for investigative and analytical journalism in steep decline, are the European Parliament — and also the European Commission — faced with no alternative but to buy news coverage in the media market place in the hope of gaining some favourable exposure? If the initial reports are correct, and if the contracts likely to be awarded for programmes on CNN and ITV are to be controlled by script and even post-production approval, the European Parliament could be in danger of repeating the worst examples of embedded journalism during the Iraq War and might well end up financing nothing more than blatant propaganda. Nicholas Jones examines an initiative which is already producing some agonised soul searching among Europe?s journalists. Journalists trying to wrestle with the complexities of the European Union pose a difficult dilemma for both the European Parliament and the European Commission: How are these two institutions going to overcome an appalling information deficit among the people of Europe? And, perhaps more alarmingly, is the news media about to be manipulated? Having spent the last five years meeting and talking to reporters in many of the newer and most recent EU member states, I know how irritated they can become in their dealings with the Parliament and Commission. Not only are there language problems but all too often they say that in their search for reliable facts and guidance they come up against a seemingly impenetrable bureaucratic barrier. Such is their frustration they tend to fall back on reporting the facts and opinions relayed to them by their national governments and politicians rather than do their own investigation. As a result, there is little analysis and their reporting is stuck in the rut of pre-determined agendas. Nowhere is the communications gap more apparent than in an accession country like Turkey. In its south-east corner, on the borders with Syria — and what might finally become the EU?s ultimate eastern frontier — the plight of local journalists was all too evident when their representatives met to consider how to improve coverage of European affairs. Although anxious to learn more about the implications of Turkey?s proposed membership of the EU, the difficulties which the journalists faced seemed insurmountable. At a seminar in Gaziantep (28.3.2008) to discuss the response so far by media organisations in south-east Anatolia, Murat Gures of the Gaziantep Journalists? Association, painted a bleak picture. The Association represents journalists on seven television channels, fifteen local newspapers and twenty local magazines but he readily acknowledged that negotiations for Turkey?s accession to the EU have sparked little interest. There was not enough understanding of European issues to generate an adequate level of reporting. Nor was any solution forthcoming from the newspaper owners. Orhan Kizilaslan, president of the Gaziantep Anatolian Press Association, freely admitted that the local press did not have the economic wherewithal to provide the kind of journalism that would inform the local people of the EU accession process. ?Local newspapers are the most important instrument for providing the people of Anatolia with information about the EU. But although the local press could be used as a tool for providing news and comment we do not have the economic means to inform the public and support the EU process?. What compounded the difficulties faced by the Anatolian news media was an equally frank acknowledgement by Ms Ulrike Hauer, a counsellor and head of section in the European Commission?s delegation to Turkey, that its communication strategies, especially in accession countries, were woefully inadequate. Surely the right answer is for the EU to do much more to disseminate information in an accessible form to media organisations in the 27 member states and those countries hoping to join. As a first step it could invite journalists to Brussels at the Commission?s expense so that they could be instructed on how best to extract information on EU policies and how to follow the Parliament?s decision-making process. Instead of reaching out to the journalists themselves, the Parliament seems to think the only realistic solution is to invest in collaborative projects with local media outlets in order to help them finance the production of more informed reporting of its proceedings. Rather than opt for what could turn into some pretty blatant product placement, another more imaginative solution might be to fund an arms-length television and radio service along the lines of the BBC or even a channel like Al Jazeera, which has transformed news coverage in the Arab world thanks to the foresight and generosity of the Emir of Qatar? When facing the twin pressures of strained resources and increased competition, journalists realise they cannot turn their back entirely on the reality of media economics. Subsidised reporting comes in many different forms: without an agreement to accept advertisements there would be no way of sustaining both BBC World and overseas access to BBC News Online. What seems to be missing in the plethora of documents about the development of the European Union?s media strategies is a clear-cut statement on the need to protect journalistic independence and an assurance that subsidised reporting and collaborative programming will not undermine the financial viability of existing hard-pressed media outlets. Awarding prizes to journalists for the most informed reporting of the European Parliament will alarm some MEPs who fear this will encourage sycophancy. The test of any such contest will be its independence from the donor of the prizes and the degree to which it can reflect differing national agendas. Perhaps there will have to be prizes in each member state which might make the cost prohibitive but so great is the lack of understanding among journalists about EU affairs and so few are the opportunities to learn more, that an awards system might at least generate some interest.

IMF and OECD: Europe will be hit hard by US recession
20 Apr 2008
Reports issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warn that the United States is entering into a recession and reject all claims that Europe will be able to avoid severe economic dislocations as a result of America?s worsening situation. The OECD meeting in Paris this week estimated that global losses from the US subprime mortgage crisis would surpass $440 billion. This was a sharp upward revision of its previous estimate of $200-300 billion. Europe was more vulnerable than many thought to the global financial markets crisis, and would be especially so if trouble spread to the equity derivatives markets, officials said on April 15. The OECD?s estimate of likely bank losses ranges from $350 billion to $420 billion, based on different assumptions as to the amount of distressed assets the banks will be able to recover. Assuming a 40 percent recovery rate, the OECD estimated losses in excess of $422 billion, of which $87 billion would be borne by US banks?$60 billion by commercial banks and the rest by investment banks. These losses would ripple throughout the world. A third of the collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) and other financial instruments based on US residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that are tied to sub-prime markets have moved offshore, mainly to Europe, the OECD said. Forbes magazine, commenting on the OECD report, noted: ?More dangerous still, it said, was another area so far not hit by the crisis that spilled out of the subprime market last August?capital-guaranteed financial products with exposure to equities and based on complex operations-replication programmes.? The OECD stated that a $1 trillion equity derivatives market based on these products had developed between 2003 and the start of this year. These instruments are the basis for many of the savings products offered by scores of retail banks and building societies. Europe is the dominant force in these Constant Proportion Portfolio Insurance (CPPI) products. Thomas Weiser of the OECD said one of the big risks now was that economic growth could be hit by loss of capital at banks which played a key role in the wider economy. He called for massive injections of cash by the world?s central banks. The IMF described last summer?s crisis in the financial markets as ?the largest financial shock since the Great Depression.? It stated that the world?s bankers have created a pool of $1 trillion in toxic debt, twice the sum estimated in earlier projections. The IMF?s conclusions are conservative, given such a description. It predicts that the US will go into a ?mild recession? this year, with growth of around 0.5 percent, even after the economic stimulus package from the Bush administration and sweeping cuts in interest rates. It warns that there is a one-in-four chance of a full-blown global recession over the next 12 months. At best, it forecasts that world economic growth will fall to 3.7 percent for the next two years. The IMF issued particular warnings that house price inflation in several European countries, including Britain and the Netherlands, where housing was said to be 30 percent overvalued, would make them more susceptible to the global downturn. Britain has long been recognised as the European country most exposed to the economic turmoil unleashed in the United States and most heavily dependent on world financial markets. The IMF downwardly revised UK growth figures from the Treasury?s estimate of 2 percent this year and 2.5 percent next to 1.6 percent for both 2008 and 2009, the worst performance since the last recession ended in 1992. After nationalising Northern Rock and injecting 50 billion of liquidity into the markets, the Brown government and the Bank of England plan to risk billions more, emulating the US Federal Reserve by taking over bad mortgage debts from banks in return for secure government bonds. House prices in Britain already fell by 2.5 percent last month and are expected to decline by as much as 10 percent this year. Britain?s Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reports that the number of residential property agents saying prices declined exceeded those reporting gains by 78.5 percentage points in March, the worst since records began in 1978. Britain is also labouring under staggering levels of personal, unsecured debt. Total UK unsecured debt is 1.3 trillion?more than the rest of the European Union put together. Lorna Bourke, writing in Citywire, rejects claims that the present housing crisis is not as bad as that in the 1990s, when there were 78,000 repossessions a year, because unemployment is lower. She notes that ?In the early nineties high unemployment created by the collapse of the debt market in 1987 and rising inflation meant homebuyers could not meet their mortgage obligations. Does that sound familiar?? Credit card debt is much greater than it was in 1990. Financial analysts Mintel have reported that mortgage costs in Britain trebled during the past 10 years and now account for 25 percent of consumer spending, compared to 14 percent a decade earlier. The debt management company TDX Group estimates that the number of people struggling with debt is set to double during 2008. Around one million people have unsecured debts totalling 25 billion, averaging a staggering 25,000 each. Some 60 percent is owed on credit cards, with the rest mainly in personal loans. London?s role as a financial centre will translate into a massive and relatively immediate impact from a global economic downturn. JPMorgan Chase analysts estimate that 40,000 City of London jobs could be lost as a result of the credit crunch, doubling the forecast by the Centre for Economics and Business Research. Amongst the cuts already announced are 900 jobs at UBS, the European bank worst hit by the credit crunch, representing 10 percent of its London workforce. Merrill Lynch has warned of 450 imminent job losses in London. Initial signs have emerged of a rise in unemployment from its present 1.6 million. Although the claimant count rate fell by 1,200 in March, the previous month?s 2,800 decline was revised to show a 600 increase?the first since September 2006. Sterling has hit repeated all-time lows against the euro, which is presently worth more than 80 pence. The Bank of England has cut interest rates to 5 percent in an attempt to stimulate the release of credit by banks and building societies. Europe?s economic powerhouse, Germany, does not at first appear to be in such a precarious position. Its exports continue to rise, even though the euro has dramatically risen in relation to the dollar. But there are clear signs of troubles ahead, of which the ?4.3 billion losses incurred by the Bavarian State Bank (BayernLB) from its dealings on the US subprime mortgage market, as well as the billions lost by SaxonyLB and WestLB, are only a foretaste. These banks, partly owned by the federal government and various German states, are to be bailed out to the tune of ?30 billion?at taxpayer expense. According to Der Spiegel, this is only the tip of the iceberg. It wrote on April 2, ?The end of the crisis is not in sight: According to one study (by business advisory group Ernst and Young) German banks have hidden away rotten credits in their books?amounting to a total sum of ?200 billion.? This week, four leading German economic think tanks cut their forecasts for growth this year to 1.8 percent, down from the 2.2 percent they predicted last October, and projected even slower growth of 1.4 percent next year. The German government is less confident still, predicting growth of just 1.7 percent this year. The Financial Times reported April 14 the views of several leading European industrialists that the worst effects of the credit crunch will not be felt for six months. Peter Lscher, chief executive of Siemens, said, ?I don?t see any impact at the moment. But I have no doubt it is coming, probably in 6 to 12 months? time.? Wolfgang Reitzle, chief executive of the Linde industrial gases group, added, ?It will happen with a time lag … of maybe a year…. We are in the most critical business environment in decades.? Gareth Williams of ING Financial Markets stated, ?This [financial] quarter is going to be pretty horrible. But the worst will come in the fourth quarter.? Teun Draaisma of Morgan Stanley is forecasting a 16 percent drop in earnings over the year and an ?earnings recession in Europe.? Germany and Europe, with a monetary system based on stability and spending targets, are particularly fearful of the impact of runaway inflation and angry over how the US Federal Reserve is pumping money into the economy. An article in Der Spiegel from April 14, entitled ?The Madness of Ben Bernanke,? gave full vent to these tensions. Comparing Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, the former and current heads of the Federal Reserve, to Siegfried and Roy, it described their ?pumping easy credit into the system? as ?a crazy policy that will worsen the crisis…. The aim is to keep on financing consumer spending and even to stimulate it further?for reasons of patriotism. There?s a word for this policy?madness.? The strong euro has not so far done major damage to the European economy, particularly because it has reduced the cost of dollar-priced oil imports. But companies reliant on dollar sales such as Airbus have been hit and a ?pain threshold? will eventually be breached. More long term, the divergence of policy between the Fed and the European Central Bank (ECB), which has kept interest rates steady, cannot but destabilise the global economy. The dollar?s decline also means that its repayment of debts has less value, punishing US creditors in Europe and elsewhere. Inflation is a major problem for Europe, now running at a record 3.6 percent in the euro zone. The ECB has set its main policy rate at 4 percent, but fears that inflation will make this unsustainable. Food and energy price rises alone added 1.6 percentage points to March?s inflation figures. Jorg Kramer, chief economist at Commerzbank AG in Frankfurt, told the International Herald Tribune, ?The Fed is not so interested in inflation, currently. They have a bigger problem: recession.? But he warned that ?someday, this crisis will be over? and inflation will necessitate drastic action. The Fed?s benchmark rate is currently at 2.25 percent and a further cut is expected. Krmer said he expected Bernanke to cut the fed funds rate to 1.25 percent by June. The ?fight against inflation? is always a codeword for moves to cut the wages of the working class. German government and bank officials are complaining of recent high wage settlements being unsustainable, including a meagre 8 percent agreement in Germany?s chemical sector that is staged over two years and barely matches the official inflation rate. In Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has imposed a 2.5 percent pay ceiling throughout the public sector, already provoking strikes involving hundreds of thousands of civil servants and teachers. Draconian attacks are being prepared in France, where dissatisfaction with the country?s economic performance in ruling circles is most pronounced. Prime Minister Francois Fillon has cut the official forecast for gross domestic product (GDP) growth in France in 2008 to 1.7-2.0 percent from a previous estimate of ?around 2.0 percent.? The right-wing administration of Nicolas Sarkozy has announced public spending cuts of ?6-7 billion annually to run for a three-year period in 2009-2011. But with a public deficit running at ?1.2 trillion in 2007, far greater attacks must be anticipated.

March to Stop the St Athan’s Military Academy
19 Apr 2008
The Government is spending 14 billion building a huge, privatised UK Military Academy to train the latest recruits to the ‘war on terror’ and foreign militaries and mercenaries, funded by our taxes, the profits will pour into the coffers of companies like Raytheon. It looks set to become Britain’s ‘School of the Americas’ – a centre for counterinsurgency training and future imperialist adventures abroad. A mass-demonstration is planned for this month called by the Stop the St Athan’s Military Academy Campaign & supported by local peace groups, anarchists, socialists, trade unions, UK Stop the War Coalition and CND Cymru and anti-war campaigners from across the length and breadth of Britain! Imagine a world in which the armed forces are trained by arms dealers. And we subsidise their profits. That world will become reality unless we stop the proposed school of death at St Athan. The creation of a military super-academy at St Athan, between Cardiff and Swansea, was announced as a done deal in January 2007. Despite the fact this represented the biggest PFI in history, involving 14 billion of taxpayers’ money, there had been no debate in either Westminster or the Welsh Assembly (Senedd). A promise of 5500 local jobs was trumpeted loudly by an uncritical news media and presented as a great victory for Wales. No wonder the politicians didn’t want any debate. The new super-academy, replacing many smaller centres, means that military training will now be in the hands of shameless profiteers. The winning bidders for the project were the Metrix consortium. This consortium includes Qinetiq, the privatised research and development wing of the MoD. Qinetiq was recently the subject of intense criticism by the National Audit Office. Its privatisation was proposed by MoD managers ? who then saw their shares rise 10,000% on the day of the sale! 33.8% of Qinetiq was also bought by the US-based Carlyle Group, a sinister lash-up of politicians and arms dealers with a vested interest in promoting war. Former members of its board include one George W. Bush. Then there is the US arms manufacturer Raytheon. Raytheon make the missiles which deliver cluster bombs, the horrendous weapons which are estimated to have killed 100,000 people ? 98% of them innocent civilians. The world can also thank Raytheon for the depleted uranium weapons which have led to thousands of horribly deformed babies and large increases in cancers in war zones and beyond. Raytheon, Qinetiq and friends will not just be training UK armed forces at St Athan. They will train any soldiers, sailors and air force personnel that are willing to pay for the privilege. And like all PFIs, the St Athan academy will be subsidised by the taxpayer, and if necessary, bailed out with public money. There has never been a detailed breakdown of the jobs the academy will bring. However, even Metrix admit that many of the military trainers will relocate from elsewhere. Every PFI has secured profits by cutting costs. St Athan will mean less MoD jobs overall, and the poorest pay and conditions for lowskilled workers. In any case, imagine what else could be done with 14 billion! With hospitals and schools closing throughout Wales and the UK, with a desperate need to improve social facilities, create sustainable sources of energy etc, such public money could be invested in socially useful projects rather than the preparation for future wars of occupation like Iraq. If this development goes ahead, 21 st century Wales will be become a militarised, security-obsessed nightmare. If you want to stop the war profiteers in their tracks, support the campaign and raise it in your union, student union, workplace and community. The March to stop the St Athan’s Military Academy will take place on Saturday 26 April. Assemble 1.30 pm, Cathays Park (opp. City Hall & Museum), Cardiff City Centre. Demo at 2pm. To join the mailing list, email no2militaryacademy@inbox.com , or write to: Stop The St Athan Academy c/o Temple of Peace, Cardiff, CF10 3AP. For more details visit www.cynefinywerin.org.uk/index.php?docid=265

Groundhog Day for Boom and Bust
18 Apr 2008
ANYONE looking at the recent Financial Services Authority report on its failures to supervise Northern Rock properly would be struck by how it neglects the systemic aspects of the current financial crisis. The informed view is that the credit crunch will result in global losses of around $1.2 trillion (600 billion). About 40 per cent of these losses ? or $480 billion ? is expected to be absorbed by banks and financial institutions in the United States. Some expect the crisis to spread to the insurance sector. Britain does not come out unscathed. Gordon Brown?s Government has barely managed to bail out Northern Rock ? the cost of which could be anything from 25 billion upwards. Huge Government credits are being made available to other banks while the Government is unable find resources to fund a decent state pension, rebuild schools and hospitals. Not only have the financial regulators failed, there are also failures of other institutions. Credit rating agencies failed to downgrade banks holding toxic loans. Company accounts are supposed to alert markets and regulators, but failed to alert anyone. Company auditors collected huge fees, but their audit reports turned out to be worthless. Consider four examples. Northern Rock received a clean bill of health from its auditors on its 2006 accounts. The auditing firm also acted as a consultant to the bank and received 700,000 for the non-audit work. The fee dependence is always likely to dull any sense of inquisitiveness. On January 25 2008, Bear Stearns, America?s fifth largest bank, received a clean bill of health from auditors on the financial statements for the year to November 30 2007. Yet Bear Stearns could not sustain its financial position and, on March 17, it was sold to JP Morgan Chase for $2 (1) a share, valuing it at 118 million. Just 16 days earlier, it was valued at 30 billion. Under pressure from major investors, the offer was raised to $10 a share. On February 27 2008, Carlyle Capital Corporation, an 11-billion hedge fund registered in Guernsey, received a clean bill of health from auditors on its financial statements for the year to December 31 2007. The accounts stated that the directors were satisfied the group has adequate resources to continue to operate as a going concern for the foreseeable future. Two weeks later, Carlyle collapsed, as it could not reach financing agreements with its key creditors. On February 27 2008, Thornburg Mortgage, America?s second-largest independent mortgage provider, published its audited accounts for the year to December 31 2007. These accounts carried a clean bill of health from auditors. Six days later, the company explained that it was renegotiating its financial position. The auditors retracted their opinion. Although some financial institutions might grab headlines, similar failures have occurred in the recent past, most notably at Equitable Life, Independent Insurance, Barings, Johnson Matthey and Bank of Credit and Commerce International ? to name just a few. The usual response after each of these is to tweak the regulatory structures, but little has changed. Above all, no questions are asked about the values embedded within the regulatory and political positions. The regulatory Humpty-Dumpty cannot be put back together by re-arranging the deckchairs. There are too many institutionalised failures. The financial regulators are part of a political structure that is available for hire to the highest bidder. Corporations and a wealthy elite fund political parties and individual politicians with the aim of keeping threatening issues off the political agenda. They also fund think-tanks and various media to ensure that an ideological climate favourable to their interests is sustained. Through revolving doors, corporate executives become regulators and regulators looking for higher financial rewards and company jobs go easy on corporate misdemeanours. The possibilities of emancipatory change are stymied and institutionalised social squalor is the inevitable result. Effective financial regulation is unlikely to be developed without a major change to the institutions of politics. The crisis has been fuelled by the poverty of political policies. Successive governments have vacated the commanding heights and instead placed excessive reliance on interest rates to steer the economy. Companies wanted cheap money and successive governments obliged. With the low cost of borrowing, companies found it easier to make profits. Cheap money discouraged savings and fuelled a borrowing binge. Combined with speculative activities and cheap money, major companies doubled their profits. Yet regulators ask no questions about the quality of corporate earnings. Governments continue to mistake growth in company profits for economic renaissance. Regulators reflect the broader political culture and are too close to business interests. Banks have been allowed to get way with booking their profits offshore, avoiding taxes, not passing interest rate cuts on to borrowers, slapping exorbitant interest charges on credit cards, imposing excessive overdraft charges and closing branches even though banks make huge profits. Yet no government has charged the regulators to protect the wider social interest. That task would require them to keep a certain distance from the regulated and develop alternative values, vocabularies and agendas. Openness would be a vital part of that drive. Thus all correspondence between the FSA and any financial institution must be publicly available. Yet there is little sign of such changes proposed in the FSA report. Successive governments have refused to create effective regulatory structures on grounds of cost. Yet they fail to recognise that the lack of regulation also results in ?costs?. Just ask anyone suffering from the consequences of the credit crunch. Now, after Northern Rock, the FSA is promising to recruit additional staff and undertake annual reviews of banks? strategy and plans. The examples of Bear Stearns, Carlyle and Thornburg show that, with a fundamental shift in the role of finance, the situation changes very quickly and an annual review is simply not timely enough to deal with any crisis. The FSA needs to eliminate accounting firms and instead create a dedicated taskforce of bank auditors or inspectors who are permanently present at banks and conduct continuous audits of business strategy, plans, liquidity, solvency, financial products and accounts. Yet politicians are not ready to take on corporate interests to promote this change. Successive governments have shied away from doing anything about excessive executive remuneration. Yet this is central to the current financial crisis. At most banks and insurance companies, executive pay is linked to published profits. That provides plenty of temptations to massage company accounts, keep liabilities off balance sheets and even show bad debts as good. Ministers have no proposals to reform the executive reward system ? for example, by linking it to broader performance benchmarks which include innovation, services to the local community and free banking for the poor. The timidity of financial regulators has encouraged banks and financial businesses to become casinos above all. People?s savings and investments entrusted to them are gambled on the likely movement of the price of oil, gas, commodities, food, interest and exchange rate movements, often without adequate public accountability. This state of affairs is promoted as ?risk management?, but has inflicted hardship on millions of people. This system has produced neither responsible management nor a vibrant economy. Yet no financial regulator has shown the inclination to tackle these habitual gamblers. Without attention to the systemic factors and failures of institutions, such financial crises will continue to recur. Prem Sikka is professor of accounting at Essex University

Secrecy and Corporate Dominance -
18 Apr 2008
A study on the composition and transparency of European Commission Expert Groups Executive Summary (the rest of the report can be found here) The European Commission?s Expert Groups play an influential role in shaping policies at EU level in the crucial early stages. They are involved in drafting and commenting on EU legislation covering awide range of policy issues, including, for example, energy and climate change, and the import/export of dangerous chemical substances. The composition of the Expert Groups, and the interests that are represented,will to a large degree, determine the outcome of the consultation. The input provided by such Expert Groups often forms the backbone of the Commission?s proposals and through a process that often involves very little change, eventually become adopted as European legislation.(1) For example, currently, Expert Groups controlled by lobbyists representing commercial interests are playing a key role influencing critical policy-decisions such as the EU definition of ?clean coal? (a possible ?alternative? in order to reduce CO2 emissions) and whether/how the EU should promote biotechnology or agrofuels. So far, in spite of this crucial role, very little has been written about Expert Groups; their place in the decision-making process, their influence, composition and methods of operation. It is clear from theCommission?s own Register of ExpertGroups that there are more than1,200 Expert Groups advising the EuropeanCommission, but the exact number is likely tobe far higher. The lack of transparency concerning their number, composition and meetings means that these powerful consultative bodies are able to operate away from the glare ofpublic scrutiny. The Commission?s online register of Expert Groups has existed since 2005, but it fails to provide the names of the individual members and the organisations they represent, making it impossible to assess the balance in representation. The register moreover is neither up-to-date nor complete. Therefore, concerned about improving the democratic quality of EU policy-making, ALTER-EU has conducted an analysis of a sample of 44 Expert Groups. The 44 Expert Groups were chosen based on a range of key policy areas identified by the ALTER-EU member groups carrying out the analysis as being of particular importance due both to the EU?s legislative role and the need for the wider public interest to be reflected in policy-making.(2) These areas can be categorised as environment, energy, agriculture, consumers, health, water and biotechnology. In testing the legitimacy of Expert Groups according to theirmake-up, the analysis only focused on Expert Groups in which industry was represented and excluded those composed of only government representatives.(3) The aim of this research is to provide an initial indication of the extent to which the composition of Expert Groups in key public interest policy areas provides a balanced representation of concerned stakeholders, or whether lack of transparency has allowed for certain interest groups to dominate and thereby benefit from privileged access to decision-making processes within European institutions. As most of the information needed for analysing these questions is not in the Commission?s register, nor anywhere else in the public domain, formal requests to the European Commission were made using the EU ?access-to-documents? directive (1049/2001). The aim was to obtain the membership lists, reports and meeting minutes for these 44 Experts Groups, data which according to the ?access-to-documents?directive should be available to EU citizens upon request. So additionally, this allowed an assessment of the effectiveness of this directive as a means of providing the publicwith policy-related information. Unfortunately, this experience was not positive. In total, information was provided on 29 of the 44 expert groups investigated, with full details provided for just 14 of the groups (see also table 1). In many cases, no explanation was offered as to why the missing data had not been provided. While in 60% of the cases the European Commission released the names of the Expert Groups? member organisations (25 of 42)(4), only in 43% (18 out of 42) of the cases were the names of the individual members released in addition to the organisation names. The Commission used a range of flawed arguments for withholding the names of Expert Groups? members, including ?commercial interests? and ?personal data protection.? Both the European Ombudsman and the European Court of First Instance have last year rejected the Commission?s arguments for withholding lobbyist names and in unmistakable terms called upon the Commission to disclose names of lobbyist. The Commission?s failure to provide us with the requested information obviously also constituted amajor hurdle for our research project, reducing the sample of expert groups whose composition we could include in our analysis. Basing conclusions on these sample findings, two major shortcomings with the EU decision-making process emerge. First is a serious lack of transparency surrounding key bodies involved in decisions-making and a very worrying degree of secrecy with the Commission seemingly reluctant to provide full and accurate information on the nature, composition and workings of Expert Groups. The problems encountered in obtaining relevant information amount to a systematic failure by the Commission to be open and transparent. Another transparency failure confirmed by ALTER-EU?s research is that the Commission?s online register of Expert Groups is seriously incomplete and outdated. To add insult to injury, some of the Expert Groups that are listed in the register do not actually exist. They are included because one of the Commission?s Directorates-General (DGs) asked for and got permission for establishing the group and a budget for its functioning, but the group was never actually established. As table 1 shows, the composition of a significant number of Expert Groups in our sample proved to be seriously unbalanced. In a range of key public interest policy areas, Expert Groups appear to be dominated by representatives fromthe business sector. These findings raise serious concerns over the democratic quality of decision-making within the European Commission. On a number of pressing policy issues, such as biotechnology, textiles and climate change for instance, the European Commission is formulating European policies based almost exclusively on the advice of those stakeholders who have a direct commercial interest and whose judgment might not be themost objective ormost suited to serving the common good. Despite covering only a small sample of the Commission?s expert groups, these cases of industry dominance are not only very serious in their own right: the findings are likely to be indicative of a broader problemwhich the Commissionmust take determined action to address. This could start by undertaking a broad review to identify which Expert Groups are controlled by industry (or by any other special interests), and result in dissolving Expert Groups with a seriously problematic unbalanced composition. Strong safeguardmechanisms against privileged access and unbalanced composition of Expert Groups must be developed. To help avoiding corporate capture of Expert Groups the Commission must provide full transparency around the creation of new Expert Groups and establishing an open and fair process for selecting Expert Group members. In summer 2007, the European Commission on several occasions made clear its intention to improve transparency around the Expert Groups. For example, in June 2007, during the ?third joint Parliamentary meeting on the future of Europe? EU Commission President Barroso said that a list of the organisations represented on the Expert Groups, as well as the names of the individuals that participate, would become publicly available in 2008.(5) This statement was repeated by EU Commission Vice president Kallas during a hearing in the European Parliament.(6) Such statements are certainly encouraging and need to be followed by swift action, not only to provide this basic level of transparency but also to prevent commercial lobbyists fromdominating the membership of Expert Groups. It is clearly necessary, given the strong influence of Expert Groups, for the European Commission to make changes in response to the situation uncovered by this research. In order to adhere to the EU?s own declarations on ?good governance? and ?participatory democracy?,(7) ALTER-EU recommends that the European Commission acts immediately to: 1. Disclose on internet themembership and key documents of all Expert Groups; 2. Ensure full transparency around the creation of new Expert Groups; 3. Ensure an open and fair process for selecting the Expert Groups?membership; 4. Devise strong safeguard mechanisms against privileged access and unbalanced composition of Expert Groups; 5. Dissolve all Expert Groups that are controlled by industry or by any other special interests; 6. Conduct a broad review on the composition of all Expert Groups. Table 1 Overview of the findings: On the effectiveness of the Access to Documents Directive ? In 34% of all cases, the European Commission failed to provide any information about the Expert Groups; ? In 34% of all cases the European Commission only provided partial information. ? The Commission only provided a complete and satisfactory response in 32% of the cases. ? In only 36% of the cases the European Commission provided information within the prescribed 15 working days. ? In only 43% of the cases the European Commission provided names of organisations and individuals that were represented in Expert Groups. On the composition of the expert groups (based on the scant information provided by the Commission). ? Over 25% of Expert Groups appear to be controlled by corporate interests:more than half of all theirmembers (including governments) are industry representatives. ? In 64% of the Expert Groups being studied, business interests appear to be over-represented: industry representativesmake up more than 50% of the non-Commission and non-government members. ? Only 32% of the Expert Groups sampled appear to have amore balanced allocation of stakeholders. ? One Expert Group (4%) was unbalanced in favour of NGOs. Table 2: The Corporate-Controlled Expert Groups revealed by the survey: 1. Competitiveness in Biotechnology Advisory Groupwith Industry and Academia (CBAG) 2. High Level Group on Textiles and Clothing 3. Supervisory Group of the voluntary commitments of carmanufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions 4. Informing Consumer BehaviourWorking Group 5. Coal Combustion Clean Coal and efficient coal technologies, CO2 capture 6. Alternative fuels 7. Changement Climatique et Industrie Notes 1 Between 1986 and 1995, 80%of the Commission proposals got adopted ? Simon Hix, ?The Political System of the European Union?, Palgrave 1999, p. 60 2 Corporate Europe Observatory, Friends of the Earth Europe, Food & Water Watch and Spinwatch 3 For more information about the methodology for our research project, see page 10-12. 4 Two out of the 44 groups investigated have never been convoked and never had any members. Consequently, we do not count them here. 5 See MEP Jens-Peter Bonde?s reaction to this announcement. http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_uk/article/bonde24241 6 Discussion on the European Transparency Initiative in the European Parliament?s AFCO committee, 16 July 2007. See also: http://www.bonde.com/index.phtml?sid=487&aid=24241 7 The White Paper on European Governance (latest version: 25.07.2001) proposes opening up the policymaking process to get more people and organisations involved in shaping and delivering EU policy. TheWhite Paper promotes greater openness, accountability and responsibility for all those involved. The Commission underlines its intention to ?reduce the risk of the policymakers just listening to one side of the argument or of particular groups getting privileged access [?].?The importance of involving civil society organisations in consultation processes is explicitly stressed.

After 5 Years, Let’s Put the Record Straight
17 Apr 2008
FIVE years on, and the spin is as thick on the ground as ever. General David Petraeus ? the latest American commander in Iraq and author of the ?surge? policy ? blames continuing attacks on the Iranian ?Quds? movement. We are told of the ongoing British commitment to the coalition, while our remaining forces sit in isolation in an airbase, awaiting repatriation. In short, we are no closer to hearing the truth from our governments today than we were during the build-up to this pointless war. Five years on, and British Government statements continue to be characterised by distortion, misrepresentation and downright lies. One would have thought that the powers-that-be would have learned some lessons by now, but perhaps we expect too much. Yet this collective mindset of denial displayed by the governing class poses fresh dangers. There is a belief by many among them that they can literally get away with murder. It would be no surprise to me if George Bush?s administration ? or a John McCain successor ? launched another attack, this time on Iran, and possibly through the Americans? Israeli proxies, with British support. The truth is that the leading lights in both the Labour and Conservative parties believe they have got away with their dirty war on a sovereign state, in defiance of national and international opinion. Tony Blair appears to have walked away from his personal responsibility to a multi-faceted new role, including, improbably, as a Middle East peace envoy. He is also being seriously peddled as a possible president of the European Union. That is a measure of how much of the establishment believe that Iraq as an issue is behind us. All those who so enthusiastically backed the illegal and immoral attack on Iraq ? in politics, media, the forces and business ? are happy now to criticise the post-invasion planning (or lack of it) in the vain hope that the dishonest and venal rationale for the invasion can be glossed over. Well, it cannot for a variety of reasons ? not least is the possibility of arraigning those responsible for this war of aggression before the international courts. At the very least, if we mouth platitudes about democracy and human rights, there ought to be a practical demonstration of our commitment to them before the international community. Otherwise, we will rightly be condemned as the hypocrites our leaders have shown themselves to be. Of course, none of this could come to pass without there first being a full and independent inquiry into why we went to war in Iraq in the first place. There remains vigorous opposition to such an investigation. Conservative calls for one are based on the cynical view that they will not secure a parliamentary majority to ensure that there is one. Even if they were to succeed, we can rest assured that the Tories would scupper such an inquiry. After all, the record shows that they were more gung-ho for war than Blair. The Hutton and Butler inquiries were narrow, controlled ones. Their terms of reference ensured that in neither case could they get to the nub of the issue: what had Blair agreed with Bush and when? What decisions were made to lie to the British Parliament and people to wage an illegal and immoral war? Now is the time to set the record straight. Peter Kilfoyle is Labour MP for Liverpool Walton and a former defence minister

Deaths in Detention
17 Apr 2008
‘When I calmed down I asked them why they hit me in the nose and jumped on me. They said it was because I wouldn’t go in my room so I said what gives them the right to hit a 14 year old child in the nose and they said it was restraint.’ These poignant words were written by Adam Rickwood who was found hanging in his room at Hassockfield Secure Training Centre in August 2004 ? at 14 he was the youngest child to die in custody. Hours before his death, he had been subject to restraint by four male officers including the use of a technique designed to inflict pain known as ‘nose distraction’ and which caused his nose to bleed for an hour. His death followed that of Gareth Myatt a mixed race 15 year old boy who was killed at Rainsbrook STC on 19 April 2004 during the application of physical restraint methods which continued despite Gareth complaining he could not breathe, that he was going to defecate, did defecate, and then vomited. He died from asphyxia and was the first child to die following the use of restraint. What became clear from the inquests in 2007 was the complete failure of the Youth Justice Board to properly manage the circumstances in which physical restraint was used and the safety and appropriateness of the techniques used. INQUEST has worked closely with the families and their legal team to brief parliamentarians, other child rights and penal reform organisations and the Children’s Commissioner on the human rights abuses these cases exposed resulting in widespread public, parliamentary, and media concern about the treatment of children in custody. After the conclusion of the inquest into Gareth Myatt’s death the Coroner, His Honour Judge Pollard made a report to Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, under Rule 43 (of the Coroners’ Rules). Following extensive consultation with the family’s lawyers, the report specified 34 preventative actions which range widely over the treatment of children, the use of restraint, monitoring, good practice, access for emergency vehicles, and inspection saying that it would be ‘wholly unforgivable and a double tragedy’ if there was any delay in learning from and acting upon the lessons of Gareth’s death. This followed the scathing narrative verdict reached by the inquest jury which implicated failures by the Home Office/Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board in the death. The government’s abiding lack of will to engage with the serious and wide-ranging failures to emerge from the tragic deaths is reflected by unjustified and undemocratic amending of the Secure Training Centre Rules. This broadened the circumstances in which children can be forcibly restrained without parliamentary debate or consultation. Instead, in July 2007, the government announced a joint review of the use of restraint in STCs, Young Offender Institutions and Local Authority Secure Children’s Homes. This review is an inadequate response to the broader systemic issues these deaths raise about how we deal with children in trouble with the law. A proper legacy for these families and their children would be an independent, holistic enquiry in public of the juvenile justice system with the effective participation of families, children, and those working within the youth justice system. Such an enquiry could effect meaningful change by moving us towards a more humane and safer society ? and by preventing future child deaths. We fervently believe that there can be fewer goals which are more important. INQUEST has been calling for such an enquiry since the death of 16 year old Joseph Scholes in HMYOI Stoke Heath in 2002. He was a vulnerable boy with a history of self-harming behaviour who, despite the expressed concerns of professionals with whom he was engaged and clear warnings by himself, took his own life, by hanging, in his prison cell just nine days into his sentence. At the time of writing, we learned of the death of a 15 year old boy found hanging in HMYOI Lancaster Farms. Why, despite the deaths of 30 children in detention since 1990, have successive governments resisted a public enquiry? The deaths raise issues that go beyond the prison walls and to the heart of society’s collective responsibility for tolerating a system that responds to challenging children and young people with punishment and the infliction of pain to control behaviour. What often goes unmentioned is the high price paid by bereaved families in remaining involved in the lengthy, complicated investigation and inquest process. The families have shown incredible courage, diligence, and persistence to ensure that the disturbing issues surrounding the deaths of Gareth and Adam came to light. Without their participation in the process, it is doubtful that these hidden practices within STCs would have been exposed to any proper scrutiny. While these two deaths are deeply shocking because they involve children, INQUEST deals on a daily basis with some of the most horrendous consequences of detention in prison, in police custody or in psychiatric detention. Last year, INQUEST published Unlocking the Truth: Families’ Experiences of Investigation of Deaths in Custody that documents some of the unseen consequences of deaths in detention ? the impact of a death and its investigation on the family of the deceased and the lack of adequate mechanisms to ensure similar deaths are prevented. INQUEST has consistently worked alongside families to build up relationships of trust, respect, and compassion so that the families feel empowered and engaged, and feel they can cope with the intrusive and complex legal process in which they are involuntarily engaged. The strategy of persisting in trying to broaden scope of enquiry at inquests, supported by detailed knowledge of other cases and an experienced network of lawyers, has ensured that the details of many deaths in custody are made public. Establishing the truth about deaths in custody sheds light on the way we treat some of the most vulnerable men, women, and children in society. It is important that we recognise, scrutinise, criticise, and argue for reform of the way the state deals with deaths in custody, as these processes are an indicator of the condition of its democracy. Last year, of the 45 inquests that have concluded on INQUEST’s cases, many after delays of years since the death, four have involved deaths in psychiatric detention, six police custody, and 35 deaths in prison. Many of these inquests have been unreported, not even deemed worthy of a couple of lines in the local media. But they reveal, again, shocking failures in the treatment of vulnerable detainees. Inquests into deaths in police custody have highlighted ongoing concerns about the poor treatment of people with mental health problems, drug and alcohol problems, and poor medical care. Running through INQUEST’s work are concerns about the lack of accountability and failure to learn lessons to prevent similar deaths by taking follow up action on inquest and investigation outcomes across custodial institutions. We worked with others to successfully achieve amendments to the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 to ensure it would apply to deaths in detention. The government attempted to present the current mechanisms of investigation and accountability as sufficiently robust. Parliament disagreed, and this was further underlined when the Forum on Deaths in Custody published its Annual Report in September 2007 in which the number of deaths in all forms of custody in the preceding year were officially collated and published centrally for the first time. These figures need more scrutiny and analysis than the Forum can provide, in particular the 328 deaths in psychiatric detention. It does not have the capacity to research deaths in custody, to collate and analyse jury findings and coroner’s reports or to monitor the implementation of recommendations arising from inquests or investigation reports. It cannot call to account and recommend action against those institutions and individuals who fail to take action. In May 2007, the government conceded that the Forum’s powers and resources were insufficient and made a commitment to reviewing and strengthening the current arrangements, something which is ongoing. INQUEST has proposed a properly resourced independent overarching Standing Commission on Custodial Deaths with statutory powers to address the complexity and breadth of issues that arise. It is clear that the current mechanisms are insufficient as death after death occurs revealing horrific conditions and lack of basic humanity in the care of detainees. In November 2007, the inquest into the death of 25 year old Martin Green, who died in HMP Blakenhurst in July 2002, concluded with the jury returning a highly critical narrative verdict. Found dead in his cell in the health care centre while undergoing detoxification, Martin, who was 188 cm (6 ft 2 in) tall, weighed just 43 kg (6 st 10 lbs). The jury made numerous criticisms in their verdict, and concluded that his poor medical state coupled with poor assessment, planning, and communication contributed significantly to his death. The shocking fact of this case, the lack of media interest in the inquest, and the delay of nearly five years in concluding the investigation make a mockery of the government’s arguments earlier last year that current investigation mechanisms are sufficient, further illustrated by the last-minute ditching of the promised coroners reform bill. The circumstances of this death raise very serious questions about the quality of medical care afforded prisoners in the custody and care of the state. Martin Green was owed a particular duty of care, and that duty was not met. As a result, he died an inhuman and degrading death. The number of custodial deaths remains far too high, and many cases reveal a horrendous catalogue of failings in the treatment and care of vulnerable people in custody or otherwise dependent on others for their care. They raise questions about excessive and inappropriate use of custody for some of the most vulnerable people in society; they also highlight failures to fulfil the state’s duty to protect life. Inquests repeatedly identify the failure to implement existing guidelines on the care of ‘at risk’ detainees. It is clear from INQUEST’s monitoring and analysis of deaths in custody that understanding why these deaths occur requires an examination of their broader social and political context. No discussion of self-inflicted deaths in prison can ignore the regimes and conditions operating in prisons, criminal justice policies that imprison the mentally ill and vulnerable or the institutional culture of violence and racism that exists there. Deborah Coles and Helen Shaw are co-directors of INQUEST. http://www.inquest.org.uk

Iran’s Struggle for a More Equitable World Order
17 Apr 2008
Iran does not deserve the hostility of, and is no threat to, the United States. In fact, the West’s current obsession with Iran is fueled by little more than Iran’s rejection of double standards in international relations. Accusations that Iran will develop nuclear weapons come most forcefully from sources that lied about Iraq. Even the US intelligence agencies’ claim that Iran had a clandestine nuclear weapons project until 2003 fails for lack of evidence. Despite years of arm-twisting by Washington, UN inspectors on the ground have found no trace of nuclear weapons intentions in Iran. The accusers, on the other hand, have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by rejecting Iran’s invitation to participate in Iran’s nonmilitary nuclear sector and by refusing to eliminate their massive stockpiles. Worse yet, the US is designing small “tactical” nuclear weapons for use against non-nuclear states. Among the accusers, Israel has, with US approval, built a nuclear arsenal but refuses to join the Treaty or allow inspections. Another nuclear outlaw, India, has been promised American nuclear technology assistance. Based on known facts, then, the US is the world’s leading proliferator. Iran’s nuclear program was in fact prompted in the 1950s by Washington, shortly after the CIA overthrew the country’s revered secular prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. During the 70s Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz led a Ford administration drive to sell Iran a half-dozen reactors. Iran’s electricity needs were a quarter of what they are today, but they did not insist then as they do today that Iran has enough oil and gas to generate power. Iran has not attacked another country in more than two centuries, and it developed powerful missiles only after the US banned the sale of air force jets to Iran by all suppliers. Harsh rhetoric aside, Iran spends less per capita on its military than