Just Focus » corporations

Posts Tagged ‘corporations’

NZ trying to force GE on the world?

Friday, June 2nd, 2006

Cameron Walker

New Zealand nearly became the only country of the 132 nations who are party to the Cartagena Protocol to block an agreement on labeling GE organisms traded between nations. The Protocol is an international agreement that allows nations to decide whether to regulate the introduction and trade of genetically engineered (GE) crops or seed if they believe it will endanger traditional crops, biodiversity or indigenous farming communities.

Should we have labels for Genetically Engineered food?
At the Second Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol’ in May 2005 in Montreal, New Zealand and Brazil vetoed any decision on labeling traded GE seed and crops. Every other country at the meeting supported clearly labeling imports of crops or seeds that are known to be GE “Does Contain GMO” (genetically modified organisms). NZ and Brazil insisted on a much weaker and vague label “May Contain GMO”. At the Third Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol’ Brazil completely dropped its opposition to the proposals. Brazil’s Environment Ministry even declared that within four years they would have the proper procedures to test all exports for GE content and then label them as so. Only after rather tense pressure from other nations, and an international email protest campaign, did the New Zealand delegation change their stand on the final day of the conference.

Why do people oppose GE?
Many farmers around the world, especially in developing nations, oppose the introduction of GE crops because the technology will give multinational chemical companies, such as the USA’s Monsanto, immense power over their livelihoods. Monsanto, which produces the majority of the World’s GE crops, has strict global patent protection over its products. Farmers are strictly prohibited from saving seeds from year to year, and must pay a large license fee for use of the seeds. Furthermore, Monsanto has developed GE technologies, such as the infamous “Terminator” seed that do not reproduce, thus saving seeds is made impossible. Most of the World’s farmers (who make up half of the World’s population) rely on saving seeds from year to year in order to afford to grow food.

An example of transnational corporations against local farmers
In 1998 Monsanto launched court proceedings against the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser for breaching copyright of their patented canola seed. Unbeknown to Schmeiser, GE canola seeds from a neighbouring farm had blown onto his land and contaminated his crop. Neighbouring farmers rang Monsanto’s special toll-free snitch line when they noticed Schmeiser’s canola did not wither when he sprayed it with Monsanto’s Roundup spray. The seeds were specifically engineered to be resistant to Roundup. After many years of costly legal proceedings Canada’s Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto’s favour. Monsanto’s antics managed to put a farmer from a rich nation under incredible financial strain. Imagine if this happened to a poor peasant in the developing world!

What is the environmental impact?
GE crops have also had a huge environmental impact. The introduction of herbicide resistant crops has come hand in hand with the evolution of noxious herbicide resistant weeds. This has meant farmers have been forced to use greater amounts of herbicide. A hard hitting 2004 investigation in the New Scientist revealed that in parts of rural Argentina herbicide resistant weeds were forcing farmers to use so much herbicide that toxic clouds were drifting over villages and making children terribly ill.

What’s important in NZ politics?
While members of the National Party were holding the government to task over an MP’s alleged behaviour 20 years ago, the Green Party was taking the Labour government to task over its despicable stand against Third World farmers. Green MP Nandor Tanczos said “We have been the object of international condemnation for some time for being one of the only countries to block agreement. Now to our shame we stand alone in wanting to deny developing countries the protection of a robust international standard”.

The involvement of the USA
He also believes New Zealand appears to be a “stalking-horse” for the United States, who is not party to Cartagena, in blocking consensus on the agreement. The US Government has put huge pressure on other nations to allow GE crops through intellectual property rights clauses in trade agreements. Laws pushed through by the US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in the early stages of the occupation of Iraq even specified that Iraqi farmers have no right to save patented seeds. Monsanto and other American biotech corporations are large donors to both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Should we be wary of Terminator Seeds?
Even though New Zealand fortunately changed its position late in the conference our government has also been trying to undermine international controls on “Terminator” seeds. When Monsanto first announced to the World they had developed this technology in the 1990’s Asian and African nations called for an immediate global ban. Not long afterwards in 2000 a de facto moratorium was put in place by nations meeting at a UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference.

NZ support for Terminator seeds?
In February 2005 NZ and Canada caused international outrage when they attempted to overturn the moratorium. Environment Minister, Marion Hobbs said “New Zealand has no firm view on the merits of new organisms involving seed sterilisation [Terminator] technology but supports their case-by-case assessment rather than a blanket ban”. In January 2006, at a preliminary meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Spain, New Zealand and Australia repeated the idea that there should be a case by case’ assessment of Terminator technology.

NZ Parliament debate on GE issues
In Parliament Nandor Tanczos asked Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters:

“Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not regard genetically engineered terminator technology as either good or bad, even though it is specifically designed to make plants sterile so that farmers cannot replant their seeds; and hence will jeopardise food security for millions of people?”

Peters responded:

“I am aware of what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s policy is. I am also very much aware that when such conventions or other agreements and treaties apply, and in fact exist—unlike the question’s imputation—then those matters will be decided by domestic policy, at which point I say that the Minister for the Environment and Minister of Agriculture should have been asked the question in the first place.”

Winston Peters’ avoidance of The Green MP’s questions was so bad that Act leader Rodney Hide (hardly a Green fan) raised a point of order with Parliament’s Speaker. The next day in Parliament Peters once again showed he did not take the extremely important issue of Terminator technology when fellow NZ First MP Doug Woolerton asked him if he was aware of any other substances that effect sterility. Peters answered “The answer is yes, for it is generally accepted that smoking cannabis has an impact on driving capacity, on mental capacity, on social capacity, and on the issue of sterility, which was the primary question asked yesterday. It can be a real terminator.”

Can we be proud of the NZ government’s international profile?
Some members of the Labour Party at university I’ve met claim that under the Labour led Government NZ has been a good international citizen, especially for standing up to the US by keeping out of the Iraq invasion. Unfortunately our government seems just as happy to undermine international agreements as the Bush Administration. We have a government in power that seems to not care about the majority of the World’s population.

LEARN MORE

The New Scientist magazine has many articles on this subject
The Green Party campaigns against the use of GE

Apple photo by Holly Greening, others from stock.xchng

Tags: agriculture, biodiversity, corporations, Environment, food, genetic engineering, international law, Politics
Posted in Articles, Economics & Trade, Environment, Human Rights & Social Justice | No Comments »

The bitter side of chocolate

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

Eva Lawrence, Just Focus Coordinator

Whether you are a whitey, darkie, nutty or gooey on the inside what we all have in common is that we love chocolate. Oh chocolate, it is one of those rare pleasures that releases endorphins and keeps us coming back for more… well enough on that.

When you find out about where chocolate comes from and the unfair conditions that people experience to bring us that magic bar, it can leave a nasty bitter taste in your mouth.

Chocolate comes from the cocoa bean and is produced tropical countries. Most of the world’s cocoa is grown in West Africa — the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria and the Cameroon. Almost half of the cocoa worldwide comes from the Ivory Coast.

Conditions for people working on cocoa farms are often terrible. Poverty is extreme, hours long and tasks unsafe. Child labour is common on cocoa farms, and these children often lack any chance of gaining an education as they are working from a young age.

In the Ivory Coast slavery is also occurring. Children and young men, many from neighbouring Mali are being sold or tricked into slavery. Child slaves are forced to work long hours, are underfed and of course, not paid. They are kept in inhuman conditions — often locked in at night so they can’t run away. Those that do try to escape are physically punished.

Chocolate in New Zealand

Cadburys claim to source their cocoa from Ghana and Malaysia
Whittakers claim to source their cocoa from Ghana
Nestle source their cocoa from a number of countries including the Ivory Coast.

(Source: Oxfam)

Bitter Ingredients
Cocoa prices are unfair and unstable on the international market. A small number of multinational corporations control the market and exploit the need of poor farmers to have an income — once the crop is grown a low price is better that no price. Therefore exporters are competing for sales by offering the lowest prices. This means that farmers have few options other than paying their workers low wages.

Cocoa makes up a significant part of the income of some West African Countries. For the Ivory Coast for example, approximately one third of the national income comes from cocoa. Cash cropping has replaced the diverse and locally sustaining farming of the past. This means that the population is dependent on earning money from international markets to earn money to be able to buy food. Cash cropping, as well and removing the independence of communities, also creates vulnerability of economic collapse due to natural disasters, pests and crop disease.

Poverty, as always, is a huge factor in the unfair conditions. Most of the enslaved workers come from Mali, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. Young people hoping for work in neighbouring countries have been easy prey for child traffickers.

The sweeter side - Fairtrade
There is a positive side to this story though. Fairtrade cooperatives have been set up for cocoa growing in a number of countries. With fairtrade, farms are guaranteed a fair price for their cocoa and the workers receive a fair wage. Fairtrade certification forbids the use of slave labour or children working if it interferes with their education or in dangerous conditions. Furthermore, money is paid to invest in developing the community and schools

Global Links
Chocolate, which is so associated with positive stuff here in Aotearoa New Zealand, is directly linked with a whole lot of very negative stuff in some poor countries. It is a clear illustration of the link between us all in this globalised world. As is the case in many trade situations, we in the west gain goods from the labour of those in developing countries The good thing about this link is that we can do something about it.

There is no need to give up your chocolate addiction, but there are a number of things you can do to make chocolate sweeter for everyone.

TAKE ACTION!

Join the fair-trade chocolate campaign!
Fairtrade Fortnight goes from April 29 to May 13 2006— Get involved
Write to your favourite chocolate company and tell them you want them to use fair-trade cocoa
Buy fair-trade chocolate — available from Trade Aid and some health food stores.

LEARN MORE

Oxfam
Fairtrade Association of Australia and New Zealand
Trade Aid
globalexchange
divinechocolate
fairtrade.org.uk
antislavery.org

This article was originally published in Jet magazine in the Focus column. All photos courtesy of Oxfam.

Tags: Africa, agriculture, child labour, chocolate, corporations, education and training, fair trade, poverty, slavery, sustainability, Trade Aid, trafficking
Posted in Articles, Culture & Society, Economics & Trade, Global Headlines, Human Rights & Social Justice, News, Take Action | No Comments »

¡Ya basta! Enough is enough!

Thursday, April 27th, 2006

Grace Leung

Zapatista beginnings
On the 1 January 1994, two things happened that shook Mexican society and resounded around the world. zapatista wall mural The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, devastating small producers and workers with policies that allow cheaper, heavily subsidised US and Canadian goods to flood into the Mexican market. On the same day, 3000 members of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) seized six towns and hundreds of ranches in the Southern state of Chiapas, Mexico as an action of resistance against the imposition of neoliberal policies that favour already powerful multinational corporations. For two weeks, the state of Chiapas resounded with the chant “’¡Ya Basta! Enough is enough!” as the people called for an end to five centuries of indigenous repression and exploitation and of the encroaching globalisation of corporate hegemony and cultural homogenisation. The Mexican army responded with bombs and bullets, killing at least 145 indigenous people. Mexican civil society responded with massive demonstrations across the country calling for an end to the military repression, and a ceasefire was called on the 12th of January.

From the ceasefire to now
Peace talks began in February 1994 and continued until February 1996 when an agreement, called the San Andrés Accords, was signed by the Zapatistas and the Mexican government, outlining a program of indigenous autonomy, land reform and cultural rights. In December of that same year, newly elected president, Ernesto Zedillo, officially turned his back on the San Andres Accords. The Zapatistas, and sympathising communities, have since endured continual persecution from the Mexican military and paramilitaries and have been singled out as a threat from multinational corporations such as the Chase Manhattan Bank.
This has resulted in tragedies such as the Acteal massacre of December 1997, where 45 Zapatista sympathising civilians in the community of Acteal, mostly women and children, were gunned down in a church by paramilitaries with the aid of the Mexican military. Despite this, the Zapatistas refuse to tolerate any more oppression, be it physical, economic or cultural. The resistance continues and grows until this day.

What do the Zapatistas stand for?
The Zapatista movement is rooted in the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920), an uprising for land reform, communal land rights for the indigenous and freedom from imperialist repression. Named after one of Mexico’s great revolutionaries, Emiliano Zapata, the movement strives to break through the neoliberal mode of profit over people and a government seeped in corruption, to create a space for justice, equitable public participation and respect for Mother Earth. zapatista meeting Indeed, the leaders of the movement famously mask their faces with balaclavas or bandanas to symbolise their anonymity and equality with the suffering indigenous, peasants and workers. The movement has organised countless consultations and meetings at community, national and international levels, but always prioritising the voice of the people. As a result, they have established strong, autonomous communities with health clinics, schools and cooperatives producing various goods as deemed suitable for the communities by the communities. A dynamic form of government, (el Buen Gobierno, the good government) modelled on traditional indigenous frameworks, has been established, where leaders are seen as servants of the people and extensive community involvement occurs.

Do people support the Zapatista movement?
The rebellious dignity of the Zapatistas, coupled with their savvy use of the media, has inspired civil society worldwide and international solidarity has been proliferating over the years. In 2001, a Zapatista caravan, lead by the charismatic spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos, completed a three week long March from Chiapas to the capital, Mexico City to demand that the government honours the San Andrés Accords. As they marched into the city plaza, they were greeted with 250,000 supporters from a colourful cross-section of Mexican and international society.

Are they winning?
Despite the strength and successes of the Zapatista movement, many communities still suffer from extreme poverty, exacerbated by the fact that many of them are situated in remote mountainous regions. Access to potable water and medicine remains a leading cause of illness and fatalities in the communities, especially for children and women. To epitomise the gravity of the situation, Subcomandante Ramona, one of the EZLN’s most loved leaders and a beacon of equality for women in the movement, died of a curable kidney condition whilst en route to a health clinic from an isolated mountain community.

Problems facing the Zapatistas
While the movement is steeled by its uncompromising principles and integrity, it is hindered by a lack of resources and infrastructure. Currently there are only a handful of facilities in Chiapas that train young indigenous people vocational skills to bring valuable skills back to their communities. There has also been support from international solidarity groups. However, since the Zapatistas are autonomous, external aid is accepted only from non-governmental sources. In spite of the death of Ramona and the continuing poverty of communities, the movement has been growing stronger in spirit, especially in recent months.

candle lit shrine

“The Other Campaign”
As a response to the opaque processes and mudslinging of the looming Mexican presidential elections, the Zapatistas have launched “The Other Campaign”. The comandancia are currently touring Mexico to educate and empower civilians about the alternatives for the corrupt government that serves the insatiable capitalist machine that is currently in power. Although primarily an indigenous rights movement, the Zapatistas embrace all peoples fighting towards democracy, justice and liberty. They are part of a global wave of people standing up against a system that values profit over people and nature and striving for a global citizenry of dignity, democracy, freedom and justice.

TAKE ACTION!

Learn more about the Zapatistas from www.ezln.org.mx, indymedia or from a range of publications at the Freedom Shop on Cuba Mall (I recommend the book “Our Word is Our Weapon, by Subcomdante Marcos)
Support international solidarity programs
Visit Chiapas and work with some of the communities. Organisations like Chiapas Peace House (www.chiapaspeacehouse.org) act as centres to support and delegate overseas volunteers in Chiapas.
Learn more about the state of indigenous peoples and their rights in your area.
Learn more about the negative impacts of corporate globalisation and the effect of multilateral free trade agreements like NAFTA

Tags: Activism, community development, conflict, corporations, democracy, education and training, government, health, indigenous rights, justice, Media, Mexico, poverty, schools, sovereignty, Zapatista
Posted in Activism, Aid & Development, Articles, Economics & Trade, Indigenous Issues, Peace and Conflict, Politics, Take Action | No Comments »

Save happy valley

Monday, March 27th, 2006

Hannah Newport

view of happy valley
Ok, so we all like a nice toasty fire in the winter - “put your feet up dear, there’s a good lass”. But that’s no reason to go around killing native animals, now… is it?

Almost a decade ago now, somebody thought so. Travel, if you will, your mind to the West Coast of the South Island. Picture a remote red tussock wetland, pristine and ecologically unique. Imagine this place: an almost predator-free home to thirteen threatened species. This lovely image of nature you hold is a reality; it is Happy Valley.

However, mining company, “Solid Energy”, are not tempted by the view. Nor by the excitement of kiwi-spotting opportunities. Beneath the surface is what draws their gaze. Since 1998 Solid Energy has had their eye upon the coal that lies underneath Happy Valley, and have been taking steps to plunder this resource. As those of you who know about mining ambitions will know, the resource consent process is a long and tiresome one. Yet Solid Energy, to their credit, dear souls, has persevered.

Fear not, people said to each other; most felt confident that the sheer stupidity of the corporation’s plans would result in rejection. It soon became clear, however, that the five million tons of coal — over $950 million in value — lying beneath Happy Valley was pretty persuasive.

Happy Valley is a state owned area, but Solid Energy’s promise of funding for future conservation projects has put a stop to any objection that the Department of Conservation may or may not have made. A long and lengthy court case did not result in a good outlook for the delicate ecosystem that is Happy Valley.

Solid Energy has cleared all the legal barriers and is going full steam ahead with its plans.

But how can this be? I hear you ask. The Valley is home to thirteen endangered species. Thirteen!

Included in the long list of native species living in the Valley is the endangered carnivorous land snail Powilliphanta patrickensis, a beautiful and ancient creature. It is said to date back to Gondwanaland, making it older than the very coal it now lives above.

The Great Spotted Kiwi, one of the rarest varieties of our shy friend, faces a similar risk. Forest & Bird warn that kiwi may be extinct on the mainland in 15 years, while Solid Energy continues to threaten its sanctuary in Happy Valley. The sad fact is that the delicate wildlife balance held in Happy Valley cannot be “restored” after mining, as Solid Energy intends.

To many across Aotearoa, it is absurd that such an important wildlife area could be forsaken. And, most infuriatingly, all for yet more climate-destroying fuel! Fuel which is not, in fact, intended for keeping us toasty in the winter. Rather, the coal under Happy Valley is destined for steel production in China and will ultimately pump into the atmosphere 12 million tons of carbon dioxide.
campaign banner
Something must be done, you may well cry! It is this very anger and outrage at Solid Energy’s plans that has led to an uprising of environmentally-minded folk across our country. The ingeniously named Save Happy Valley Coalition was established in April 2004; a combination of members of every major environmental organisation in New Zealand, including Forest & Bird, Greenpeace and even the Department of Conservation, as well as other individuals who care.

And care they do! The campaign effort has been present in almost every part of Aotearoa, including posters, postcards and demos. More recently, direct action has been taking place in Happy Valley itself, with an occupation planned to last indefinitely.
The theory behind this is that if Solid Energy really wants the coal, they’re going to have to face some very strong-minded people before they can get to it.

So despair not! And if you think it’s important to speak out against Solid Energy, join the voice that is doing just that.

More information can be found at www.savehappyvalley.org.nz

Tags: Activism, Aotearoa New Zealand, biodiversity, corporations, energy, Environment, government, pollution, wildlife
Posted in Activism, Articles, Environment, Take Action | No Comments »

Rupert Murdoch

Monday, March 6th, 2006

By Thomas Harris rupert headshot

It is fair to say that Australian born Rupert Murdoch made his own fortune. Murdoch returned to Australia in 1952 after the death of his father Keith, who was said to have been Australia’s most influential newspaper executive of his time. After death duties and tax, his father’s legacy, his businesses and considerable fortune was reduced to one newspaper The Adelaide News.

Over the next 20 years, Murdoch expanded his businesses hugely, buying more Australian newspapers such as The Daily Mirror, The Australian and The Daily Telegraph, and record label, Festival Records.

Murdoch was fast to earn a competitive and ruthless name for himself while creating his “mother-company” News Corporation. He was also a vocal and active objector to the Australian law that you could not own both a newspaper and a television station in the same city.

Murdoch expanded into Britain in the mid 60’s, becoming a major media force with the The Times and The Sun.

In 1973 he bought his first American newspaper, The San Antonio News. Soon afterwards, he founded the National Star, three years later he bought the New York Post.

During the 1980’s, he created Sky Television, a British satellite network.

He became a citizen of the United States in 1985 which satisfied the legal requirement, that one must be a U S citizen to own an American TV station, he then created the Fox Network.

By 1991, News Corp. had amassed huge debts, mostly from Murdoch’s British Sky Television; this forced him to sell many of his American magazine interests. Eventually he forced a merger between Sky TV and opposing network British Satellite Broadcasting, on his own terms he created BSkyB, which has dominated the British pay-TV market ever since.

Murdoch has been married three times. He married first in 1956, then 1967, and lastly in 1999, with children resulting from each marriage. It is interesting to note that, while he claims to despise nepotism (perhaps because of the fact that he inherited comparatively little from his father) he has shamelessly promoted three of his four children to run his companies.

Clearly, Rupert Murdoch is a very gifted entrepreneur, making huge amounts out of very little. Starting with a local newspaper, The Adelaide News’, and expanding over 60 years into the massive media empire he controls today (total value $30b US).

News Corp’s. holdings now include a ‘lion’s share’ of the Australian newspaper industry and about one-third of Britian’s. His personal fortune amounts to US$5.5b, making him the 54th richest man in the world. He holds a 28.5% stake in his company, News Corporation.

So what does he have to do with poverty?

“His many detractors would say Murdoch’s success has resulted in the dumbing-down of the media, with quality entertainment and journalism replaced by mindless vulgarity”. (Walker:BBC)

While at first this may not seem connected to poverty, it gains a certain logic when you link it up with the fact that newspapers, TV and other media sources are where most people find out about world events.

“The 1990s have witnessed the decline of the press as a public forum. This can be attributed largely to the relentless corporate takeover of the Indian press and the concentration of ownership in a few hands. Around seven major companies account for the bulk of circulation in the powerful English language press… ‘The Times’ is clear and unequivocal in its priorities. Beauty contests make the front page. Farmers’ suicides don’t. Sometimes reality forces changes, but this is the exception, not the rule,” says Indian author and journalist P. Sainath.

He continues to say that the idea traces back to Rupert Murdoch and the capitalist’s overwhelming desire for profit — “A business like any other, not a public forum”, says Sainath. This style’ is being pursued by many other large newspapers in India.

How can people find out about problems in other countries (e.g. poverty) to provide their support or aid, let alone rationalise how important the issue on a larger scale, when such articles are placed next to sport or fashion etc.

When you consider Murdoch’s personal fortune of $5.5b, one realises just how much power this man has compared to a whole country. East Timor, for example, one of the world’s poorest countries, has an annual estimated GDP of $370m (CIA Fact-book, 2004).

The annual worldwide cost of giving children a basic education is around $10 billion. Murdoch, a single man, could supply half of that money himself. If he is (as he says) earnestly in support of meritocracy (the idea that one gets to where they are through their own achievements), then surely he would be happy to supply others with their own chance to succeed. If not, and he feels no such responsibility, then it becomes clear why he doesn’t feel guilty about publishing newspapers with a motto that is money-making, instead of using the power at his disposal to diminish poverty and other world issues, making the world a better place.

References:

Wikipedia: Murdoch

P, Sainath: ‘None So Blind as Those Who Will Not See’

Walker, A: ‘Rupert Murdoch: Bigger Than Kane’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2162658.stm

Tags: communication, corporations, Media, poverty, tv
Posted in Economics & Trade, Media | No Comments »

Selling out our neighbours and serving the empire

Monday, February 27th, 2006

Omar Hamed

There was something quite insidious in the way Winston Peters’ worded his comments about the direction of New Zealand foreign policy for the next five years. His speech on Tuesday seemed to hint at unspeakable things and those who listened to it must have left the room feeling as though only half the puzzle pieces had been given to them. The rhetoric that Peters delivered veiled the truth behind our government’s foreign policy, a policy that is set to cast a heavy shadow across the Pacific.

One of the trends Peters identified, as part of our foreign policy, is globalisation which he said, “Has had a demonstrable effect on our economy, our standard of living and the make up of our society.” Yes, we have become a much more diverse and multi-cultural nation and the better for it. On the other hand the demonstrable effect on our standard of living and the state of the economy is not something the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be particularly proud of.

Globalisation should be understood in the framework that it depresses the most vulnerable sectors of our society while strengthening trans-national corporations that externalise their social and environmental costs onto the communities they plunder. As the age of the corporation ascended from1980-2001, real wages dropped in New Zealand by 6.5%, yet in the same two decades corporate profits went from 34% of GDP to 46%. Wages as a share of GDP fell from 57% to 42%. However, the low paid workers of Aotearoa, overwhelmingly migrants, women and young people, from the care-givers in rest homes to the staff at the multinational fast food franchises have not seen the last of what Peters calls the, “well-documented downside to globalisation.” With the government refusing to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of twelve dollars an hour it condemns those who make up the working poor to subsistence, not knowing whether or not they can make ends meet and put food for their children on the table.

The twenty-first century will surely be the century of globalisation for the Pacific island countries and their “deeply concerning poverty” needs to be addressed. Peters, puts his faith in the New Zealand government instituted Pacific Plan’ to take care of “economic growth and social development”. The plan although widely promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a blueprint for development was condemned in late 2005 by a network of South Pacific NGOs “as a flawed document that ignores the real needs of island peoples…There has been a glaring lack of attention given to critical areas such as water and sanitation, literacy and access to employment and other income generating opportunities.”

In a statement Orwell himself would be proud of Peters labelled the plan part of a move towards “regional cooperation in the Pacific.” It would be much fairer to label our role as regional extortion; Oxfam New Zealand described the plan as, “locking Pacific island nations into unfair, inappropriate and damaging trade deals.” On top of this the Pacific region has been at the receiving end of our governments efforts to liberalise their trade through a raft of free trade agreements and to the particularly damaging accession of a number of islands to the World Trade Organisation including Tonga which joined on what Oxfam called, “the worst terms ever offered to any country.” Jane Kelsey reported in 2004 the comments of one New Zealand consultant at the trade negotiations for one of these agreements, “The whole experience was stressful and demoralizing for me, let alone for the Pacific Islands negotiators. There were times that I felt ashamed to be a New Zealander”.

All this leads one to wonder, is this part of the, “progress being made in addressing the challenges facing Pacific island countries”? Or is it time New Zealand took a good hard look at our foreign policy and fronted up to the fact that we are part of the problem in the Pacific?

There has been little research done into the social costs of the trade agreements like the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) that form cornerstones of our foreign policy in the Pacific, but what has been done supports the conclusion that it will do more harm than good in an area that is one of only two regions (the other is sub-Saharan Africa) that lack furthest behind in their achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. As a result of our policy of trade liberalisation Fiji’s vulnerable garment sector faces “potentially huge social costs and political consequences of large scale unemployment among the predominantly Indo-Fijian women workers at a time when men are losing jobs on sugar plantations and their families squat in urban slums.”

Possibly the best paragraph in Peters speech was when he said, “It is in our interests, and theirs, to see that our Pacific neighbours are well educated, healthy, able to earn a living, and can embrace the values underpinning a well-governed democratic society.”

Why though do we act so often as if the above was of no concern to us?

Tags: Aotearoa New Zealand, corporations, Environment, government, Pacific, poverty, trade
Posted in Aid & Development, Articles, Economics & Trade, Human Rights & Social Justice, Politics | No Comments »

Taking back their rights

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

Omar Hamed

“SHE
Works her hands
On the factory floor.
Sweat pours down her body.
Airtight suffocation.
Clock in clock out.
Spasmodic moments
of freedom.
Wage packet goal of survival.”

Rapped the middle aged Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua to an audience of about six hundred, mostly young people, at the Auckland Town Hall. The occasion was a public rally against youth rates and low wages, and in support of the Unite! Unions workers mostly young and mostly Polynesian who will be taking strike action in the coming months to end youth rates and gain a $12 minimum wage and secure hours in their contracts.

The concert was part of the supersizemypay.com campaign, which aims to bring together a broad coalition of social justice groups and the labour movement to put public and political pressure on the government and employers to live up to three demands-a $12 minimum wage, an end to youth rates and secure hours.

It must have been one of the most diverse line-ups ever to grace the town halls stage in a long time. Speakers like the Green Party’s Sue Bradford and the Maori Party’s Pita Sharples alternated with musical acts like Olmecha Supreme, NZ Idol Rosita Vai and Auckland Ska Band Geneva.

The concert proved that the campaign for workers rights in the fast food industry had come along way from International Workers Day, when Radical Youth stormed Starbucks and then occupied McDonalds, shutting down Queen Street and resulting in twenty arrests, including of Tearaway Journalist Cameron Walker, for taking photos of police making brutal arrests. The occupation and subsequent arrests proved the inspiration for a public rally against youth rates in the weeks before the election, which brought together the Green Party, Unite! Union and Child Poverty Action Group, three of the main participants in the supersizemypay.com campaign against youth rates. The supersizemypay.com campaign has gone from strength to strength, with many strikes, pickets and a media conference raising the issue in the national arena.

It was inspiring to see so many young people involved in taking back their rights at work. Firstly, there were the Unite! members, like Nick, the worlds first Starbucks worker to go on strike, who were taking back their rights to a living wage and freedom from age discrimination in youth rates. Secondly, there were the McDonalds workers like Mele and Meleane Manumoa who were taking back their rights to fight for a fair wage even after they were threatened with legal action from one of the world’s biggest corporations.

The public rally showed that youth do have rights and if they join together and fight for them they can win. One Starbucks worker told the crowd that they were fighting a culture of apathy, but said she believed that together we could overcome that apathy. And she’s right, because if we want to make poverty history we first need to do it in our own backyard. Possibly the most pressing reminder from the concert was Sharples reminding the crowd of Nelson Mandela’s words, “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.”

Check out Unite and their campaign website for Supersizemypay.com

Tags: corporations, Media, music, Politics, poverty, unions, youth activism
Posted in Activism, Articles, Human Rights & Social Justice | No Comments »

Identity and advertising

Thursday, January 26th, 2006

Eva Lawrence

Identity — it’s so hot right now! No, but really, it’s huge, especially in the teen years as you develop a sense of who you are, what is important and where you belong.

But what is identity?
Identity is what makes you the fabulous unique person that you are! It’s the combination of lots of influences like: cultural and national identity, friends and whanau, values and religion, discrimination and stereotyping; gender and sexual preference and the influences of society, the media and advertising.

Most of these influences make sense, but one that we don’t often think about is how the media and advertising influence global youth culture’.

Branded Identity

While situations for young people around the world are very different, there is one dominant youth culture. That culture is created, presented and sold to us every day. It’s the one you see in ads, music clips and in heaps of images.

This is a culture presented by marketers. It is inaccurate, it is often negative and it keeps changing. You need to keep your finger on the pulse, keep doing new things and buying new things to keep up with it.

Ponder these stats:
US teens spend US$100B a year, and their parents spend another US$50B a year on them.

The average young person in Aotearoa New Zealand sees 20,000 TV ads a year!

That means youth markets are worth big bucks and companies need to be able to see to you. But that’s hard! You are so damn cool and what is cool changes all the time.

An effective technique used by advertisers is to combine products with image so you are not just buying a drink or phone, you’re buying an identity.
“Boost understands that brands are an integral part of today’s youth identity. Boost customers purchase more than pay-as-you-go mobile phones and services; they buy an experience. Everything we do is purposeful, meaningful and consistent with the aspirations of young people.” — from Boost Mobile site:
Brands are mentioned by artists in heaps of songs — to show wealth or poverty or just to express the things that are part of people’s everyday reality or desires.
According to US company American Brandstand there has been a rise in the mention of not only clothing labels but cars, soft drinks and weapons.
The winner of most brand-dropping in 2004 was Kayne West, who mentioned 19 brands in his 4 singles of 2004. He beat 2003 winner 50 CENT.
Record labels often charge to have brands appear in Music Clips but up til now artists haven’t been paid when they mention a product in the lyrics of their songs. That has changed though.
In 2005, McDonalds offered to pay MCs between US$1-$5 each time a song which mentions Big Macs is on the radio!

Seagrams Gin got put into 5 raps in 2004 the same way. This included Petey Pablo’s “Freek-a-leek” with the lyrics: “Now I got to give a shout out to Seagram’s Gin/Cause I’m drinkin’ it and they payin’ me for it.”

So, what impact does it have?
Scary but true: brands and advertising help to define us. While it’s not the only thing that affects us, it does affect us all.

Advertising is based on the desire to be something you are not and something that is probably not real. These false images can cause:

Low self esteem
Eating disorders
Extreme stereotypes
Confused images of people in different countries
Spending cash you just don’t have!
Being defined by someone else!

What Can I do?
We have a responsibility to look critically and redefine ourselves.
You don’t have to reject everything that is cool and buy everything from the op-shop to fight against this influence.

You can start by being aware: of what is being pushed and of your own consumption. See the image of youth that is being packaged and sold to you and choose for yourself how you define your identity: individually, as a community and globally…

LEARN MORE

Adbusters
Media Watch
Merchants of Cool (online doco)

No Logo — Naomi Klein
Branded: The Buying and Selling of Teenagers — Alissa Quart

This article was originally published in Jet Magazine’s World View column and is published here with their permission.

Tags: consumerism, corporations, identity, Media, music, tv, youth
Posted in Articles, Culture & Society, Media | No Comments »

Two faced land of the free

Thursday, January 12th, 2006

Cameron Walker

Members of the Bush Administration regularly claim that the aim of American foreign policy is to spread ideals of democracy, freedom and liberty around the world. However, the actions of the US Government in its dealings with other nations regularly seem to contradict this.

We were all told the war on Iraq was to bring democracy to a nation suffering under Saddam Hussein. In the first year of the American occupation of Iraq, the nation came under the authority of the Coalition Provisional Authority and its American head Paul Bremer. During this time Bremer decreed 100 orders or changes Iraq had to make to its’ economy.

Instead of helping Iraqi people rebuild from decades of war these changes all strengthen American corporations at the expense of ordinary Iraqis. For example, Order 39 allows for 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories and also decrees that corporations may take 100% of their profit out of Iraq, instead of investing it in the local economy, which is in dire need of development. (Palast Greg Adventure Capitalism’)

Order 81 prohibits Iraqi farmers from saving seed from year to year. Instead they must fork out large amounts of money to buy new seed from American agribusiness corporations, such as Cargill. According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in 2002 97% of Iraqi wheat farmers saved their seeds. This process helped avert famine during the harsh sanctions on Iraq in the 1990’s. As the British magazine the Ecologist points out:

“The US, however, has decided that, despite 10,000 years practice, Iraqis don’t know which wheat works best in their own conditions, and would be better off with some new, imported American varieties. Under the guise, therefore, of helping get Iraq back on its feet, the US is setting out to totally reengineer the country’s traditional farming systems into a US-style corporate agribusiness.” (Smith Jeremy Order 81’)

No Iraqis were involved in making these decisions. They were forced on the war-wrecked nation in such an un-democratic way it would have made Saddam Hussein proud. An insider implementing the US government’s economic policies in Iraq told the American journalist Greg Palast: “They have [Deputy Defence Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz coming out saying it’s going to be a democratic country … but we’re going to do something that 99 percent of the people of Iraq wouldn’t vote for.”

The one of the few Saddam era laws retained by the American occupation forces in Iraq is the law that restricts union organising in public sector industries. Since 2003 Iraqi unionists have been busy actively opposing American moves to sell Iraqi industries to American corporations. As Hassan Juma’a Awad, a leading member of Iraq’s General Union of Oil Workers says:
“It was our duty as Iraqi workers to protect the oil installations since they are the property of the Iraqi people and we are sure that the US and the international companies have come here to put their hands on the country’s oil reserves”.

Iraqi unionists have had some big victories but also have had to suffer great costs. A general strike broke out in Basra when the British tried to install a notorious mayor who was a member of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party. Oil workers forced US Vice President Dick Cheney’s company Halliburton to employ Iraqis to complete reconstruction work in one city where unemployment was as high as 70%, instead of importing Kuwaiti oil workers. (Bacon David Interview with Hassan Juma’a Awad’)

Unions suffered persecution under Saddam. Today they face repression by both the American occupying forces and the remnants of Saddam’s regime that make up part of the murderous insurgency’. Some unionists have been kidnapped and murdered.

While the US is bringing democracy’ and free market capitalism to Iraq at gunpoint, it is also using huge amounts of effort to undermine the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Chavez, described by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice as “a negative force in the region [South America]”, won a landslide election victory in 1998 and was again popularly re-elected in 2000. In 2004 he won a recall referendum on his rule with 58% of the vote, which was declared free and fair by foreign observers including former US President Jimmy Carter.

In 2002 opponents of Hugo Chavez launched a coup in which the president was briefly overthrown and held under house arrest. The head of the Venezuelan Federation of Business, Pedro Carmona Estranga, appointed himself President.

Most nations around the world condemned the coup as anti-democratic and called for Chavez to be released and returned to office. The USA failed to condemn the coup and became one of the few nations in the whole world to recognise the coup government of Carmona. After a huge public outcry on the streets of Venezuela Chavez was returned to power.

In 2005 the pro-Bush US evangelist minister Pat Robertson said on his TV program, The 700 Club’ that the US should assassinate Chavez.

Why do the US government and its allies hate Chavez so much when he is a seemingly popular democratic leader? Well he has raised taxes on US oil companies and increased the price of oil exports to pay for large social programmes for the poor in urban slums, known as barrios. He vocally criticises US “free trade agreements” in Latin America as new world imperialism and also criticised the war on Iraq.

Despite its rhetoric the US government is quite happy to put corporate profit ahead of democracy.

SOURCES

Bacon David (September 2005) Interview with Hassan Juma’a Awad’ The New Internationalist, p33, issue 382

Hari Johann (August 26, 2005) Awaiting the hit’ in oil rich rogue state’, The New Zealand Herald, pB4

Palast Greg (October 26, 2004) Adventure Capitalism’

Smith Jeremy (February 2005), Order 81’, The Ecologist

MORE ARTICLES ON CHAVEZ

The Rise of America’s New Enemy by John Pilger

White House and Media Escalate War of Words Against Hugo Chavez by Scott Harris

Tags: agriculture, capitalism, corporations, democracy, economy, free trade, Iraq, sovereignty, unions, United States of America, Venezuela, war
Posted in Articles, Economics & Trade, Human Rights & Social Justice, Peace and Conflict, Politics | No Comments »

My school the corporation

Thursday, December 15th, 2005

Omar Hamed

As I walked up the tree lined driveway to school one morning I was confronted by an interesting juxtaposition. A large Document Destruction Service truck pulled up next to the schools offices. What was the DDS doing outside Senior Management’s offices? Were they getting rid of unfavourable Education Review Office reports or the expenses lists for the Principals recent excursion to Wellington? The answer will doubtless remain a mystery thanks to a tax-payer funded document destruction. The truck drove away and suddenly the ironic site of the DDS outside an education institution was gone.

I suppose my judgement is unfair. As one Senior Manager of my school casually remarked to me the other day, “the school is basically a company”. Companies must protect their financial secrets at all costs and my school, which is “basically a company” seemed to be no exception. Companies are also designed to make money, lots of money. My school again seems to be no exception. The school in order to increase its revenue has even let some large multi-national American corporations use it wall space for advertising.

The school owned tuckshop proudly displays an advertisement for Coca-Cola opposite where hungry and thirsty students queue for overpriced junk food. A student can not help but notice this advert. The school is openly endorsing the products of Coca-Cola, actively encouraging students to buy from a corporation guilty of, “Complicity in the murder and torture of workers in Colombia” and “Depriving communities of water, poisoning land and water and selling poisoned drinks in India”. (Killercoke.org)

In response to Coca-Cola’s labour violations and the presence of pesticides in their products six Universities in the United States have dropped contracts with Coke. In Auckland, New Zealand, my high school, oblivious to the concerns of independent human rights organisations continues to sell the products of a corporation which sponsored the murder of eight union leaders.

The school which is you remember “basically a company” has to make money somehow and these days student donations just wont make ends meet. You just cant afford the swanky “achievers breakfasts” and a glossy prospectus that students need these days without selling at least some of your walls as billboard space for fast-food giant McDonalds. As the schools conservation committee meets to discuss environmental issues the logo of a corporation that uses over a million tonnes of unnecessary plastic waste each year shines over the school. McDonalds, a company with a track record of working to undermine unions and one which has sued (unsuccessfully) people in England who distributed information about the health, environmental and social effects of McDonalds is given advertising space by my school.

Another example of a company advertised at my school is Compaq, a multinational computer producer whose large red billboard is attached to the wall in the library. Compaq uses American prison labour to make computers. “For private business prison labor is like a pot of gold. No strikes. No union organizing. No health benefits, unemployment insurance, or workers’ compensation to pay. “ says Linda Evans, a prisoner in California.

Compaq uses what has been described as “the next best thing to slavery” to produce computers. It does not have to worry about maintaining decent standards for health or safety and the workforce can be beaten when they refuse to work, Lee Swepston, Senior Adviser for Human Rights to a United Nations organisation commented that these prison factories fall outside international law and are therefore open to exploitation of inmates. (Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex by Angela Y. Davis)

So the three corporations that endorse themselves through my school are in fact corporations with histories of murder, bullying and questionable ethics. These companies are designed to make money and inevitably put profits above human lives and dignity. My school as a public institution can refuse the in school advertisements of those who use forced labour or aggressive advertising practices. That’s the difference between corporations and public institutions, one is accountable to its members the other is not. Then again why would the school refuse money because if it is “basically a company’ it should basically not care?

We however should.

For more information about corporate crimes check out Corpwatch.

Tags: capitalism, corporations, human rights, international law, prision, schools, sweat shops, unions
Posted in Articles, Economics & Trade, Human Rights & Social Justice, Media | No Comments »