adobe indesign database Buy Adobe Illustrator CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe creative suite 3 contents adobe photoshop cs upgrade windows Buy Adobe Illustrator CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe indesign cs2 warez adobe indesign free downloads Buy Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection OEM - Online Software Downloads Center open sourc corel draw adobe illustrator adobe photoshop free online tutorial Buy Adobe Flash Professional CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center fonts for adobe photoshop cs adobe creative suite 2 Buy Adobe Flash Professional CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center purchase adobe photoshop cs2 transparent colour gif in adobe photoshop Buy Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe indesign cs palettes adobe photoshop and not elements cs Buy Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center oem adobe photoshop cs2 download adobe photoshop 7.01 Buy Adobe InDesign CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe indesign xml adobe photoshop 6 upgrade Buy Adobe InDesign CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe cs3 keygenerator dreamweaver adobe illustrator tutorials post cards Buy Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe photoshop black and white images adobe creative free photo suite Buy Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe illustrator course outline adobe photoshop elements 5.0 photo editing Buy Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe cs3 photoshop oem

Posts Tagged ‘international law’

In any way: Closing the door on munitions manufacturers

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008

By Elliot Taylor

In May 2008, much of the world will join together in Dublin to formally negotiate a treaty to ban the use, development, production, trade, and stockpiling of cluster munitions The finer details — like who’s providing lunch and whether or not U2 will be at the mayoral reception — are still to be confirmed. What remains to be seen, however, is what effect this has, not only on manufacturers, but also on those that finance them.

dollar signYou could be forgiven for thinking that, walking into a Barclays Bank on the Rue Turenne in Paris, you’re the furthest away possible from the cluster munitions that rained down on Lebanon in 2006. It certainly doesn’t cross my mind when I stroll into a New Zealand National Bank - whose owner, ANZ, was part of an international syndicate providing weapons manufacturer Raytheon with a US$2.2 billion five-year revolving credit facility in 2005. Sure, it’s an easy mistake to make, but the fact is that all around the world, banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and other financial institutions are investing in the arms race. A race the Wellington Cluster Munitions Conference in February 2008 helped provide a much needed handbrake to.
Cluster Munition Conference
Admittedly, during a lunchtime talk on cluster bomb manufacturers and surrounding issues at the conference last month (Feb 08), Mark Hiznay helped shine the light on these issues. The senior researcher of the Human Rights Watch Arms Division pointed out to me his concern over a certain phrase that has seemed to have fallen off the page of Article 1 of the current treaty text: “In any way.”

“It’s been dropped,” Mark said, as he carefully wrote it in on my copy so that I didn’t forget. “This is in the Mine Ban Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. This ‘in any way’, has been interpreted by legislatures to mean financial investment; direct or indirect financial investment. That’s been their hook into it.”

And it’s a hook that makes a world of sense. If a government, on humanitarian grounds, is willing to legislate against the use of cluster munitions, it’s only logical for them to also legislate against investment in any company that is involved in the manufacturing of such weapons. Any honourable government would not continue to allow local financial institutions to invest in industries that stand in stark contrast to its own policies.

Not surprisingly, Norway has again led the way on this issue with its Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund. Worth more than $300 billion, this is one of the largest pension funds in the world, so a little ethics is deemed appropriate. The role of the council is to “provide evaluation on whether or not investment in specified companies is inconsistent with the established ethical guidelines.” And from the presentation at the conference by Gro Nystuen, Chair of that Council, it sounds like it’s doing a pretty sterling job.

Belgium has also legislated against investment in companies producing cluster munitions, and according to Mark Hiznay, “the attitude of the Belgium banks shifted overnight. They realised that there’s going to be a new financial regulation that they have to comply with and they were falling over themselves to do it, because they didn’t want to be on the wrong side of their law.”

Similarly, Miriam Struyk of Pax Christi Netherlands has been making some noise on the issue in her home country. After a documentary highlighting the issue was aired on TV, the media latched on to the story, resulting in many pension funds withdrawing their unethical investments — even without government legislation.

These are promising developments. Sure, these may be examples of countries that have achieved certain levels of divestment without international legislation, but they are few and far between. There are also few positive examples yet here in New Zealand. Like Mark Hiznay, I hope the Oslo Process results in a treaty that will raise the call to never assist in any way those that manufacturer these deadly weapons. We need to close the door on assistance and throw away the key.


This article originally appeared in Cluster Ban News, Vol 1 Issue 3, 20 February 2008.

TAKE ACTION


LEARN MORE

Websites:
Oxfam campaigns against Cluster Bombs
Aotearoa New Zealand Stop Cluster Munition Coalition site
Wikipedia entry on Cluster bombs
Human Right Watch collection of documents on Cluster bombs
Heaps of info on http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/
Factsheet on cluster bombs on BBC news site

Videos:
Cluster Bombs: A Weapon out of Control - Human Rights Watch video on YouTube
A short film documenting the lethal effects of the use of cluster munitions worldwide, with commentary, new statistics and analysis from military experts at Human Rights Watch. The footage shows how cluster munitions have endangered civilian populations from the Vietnam era through current conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon.
Watch a video report on how thousands of unexploded cluster munitions still cover the battlefields and are wounding many unintended victims (civilians) in Lebanon.

Ugdana’s Invisible Children

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

Hanna Butler

buvuunya kidsWhile I sit at a desk and swivel on an office chair, a little known phenomena has begun on the other side of the world where night is falling and children should be getting ready for bed. Instead, tens of thousands of Ugandan children begin what has now become termed as a “night commute”. Every night, children who live in dangerous rural areas where a militant rebel group have stronghold, walk up to 20km just to be able to sleep in the safety of the city. Fear of being abducted by rebels in their sleep, and being kept as soldiers or sex slaves, easily justifies a nightly marathon. And as thousands of eyes close to go to sleep, dreaming is not likely in a world where nightmares are a reality in more ways than one.

20 years ago, a self proclaimed prophet and spirit medium started a rebellion against the Ugandan government. The Lords Resistance Army (LRA) headed by Joseph Kony began a rebellion of terror without clear reasons or intentions and until recently never made a clear statement of its political aims. The current situation in Northern Uganda - of a cultish fanaticism, ruthless military might, complimented global attention or concern- has produced one of the most evil situations in the world.

Since 1987, 95% of the population has been displaced due to the LRA. 1000 people die every week from disease, the poor living conditions and violence. There are 300,000 child soldiers in the world, and 30,000 of these are in Uganda, and they make up 80% of the LRA. Imagine an unknown town destroyed by war and populated by children turned into killing machines and sex slaves. Recruits as young as 8 are subjected to a form of warfare involving more than just guns and bombs. The LRA have become known for their atrocious style of attack, and can be seen on the faces of the people of northern Uganda who now smile without lips, hear without ears and smell without noses. Children are taught to perform terrible atrocities — including killing their families and other children — or face death themselves. Forgetting the conflict however does not deny nor discredit what has happened. The facts are shocking, hard to believe and, what is even worse, these facts very rarely known.

In a competition where war, death, horror, and exploitation are the criteria for winning, the LRA can justifiably accept second place for their 20 year war without a reason in Northern Uganda. Last year 100 international experts launched a poll on which of the world’s “forgotten” emergencies they wanted the world to focus and act on. United Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland stated, “I cannot find any other part of the world that is having an emergency on the scale of Uganda, that is getting such little international attention.” Adding that it is worse than Iraq’, and a moral outrage.

Last month the elusive Kony broke his silence and very unconvincingly blamed the atrocities of the last twenty years on groups trying to frame him, and the use of propaganda for creating his monster image. He explains that he was just trying to do as the voices had told him, and enforce the 10 commandments. Kony is now top of the International Criminal Courts warrant list and alone is wanted for 33 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I have a message to give you, while you sit on your office chair, from a 15-year-old girl who escaped from the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, who now makes the nightly commute while you and I swivel on our chairs.

“I would like to give you a message. Please do your best to tell the world what is happening to us, the children. So that other children don’t have to pass through this violence.”

References:
Guluwalk site
Night Commuters in Northern Uganda by Rebecca Czarnecki

LEARN MORE

Movie: The Invisible Children and the media kit you can download
Lira: Uganda’s Child Soldiers
Wikipedia

    TAKE ACTION!

    • Watch the movie Uganda Rising - screening free at the Southern Cross, Abel Smith St, Wellington on November 13 and 20 2006
    • Join Hanna in Wellington 25 November 2006 in giving the message of this girl to New Zealand. GuluWalk is an international event that replicates the walks of the children in order to raise awareness and support for this crisis. Be that message of hope for the children of northern Uganda, and walk to tell their story. Northern Uganda is not the only place in the world where children live amongst war and poverty, it is unfortunately far too common, and more often that not we are in positions where there is not much that we can do. GuluWalk is an opportunity where you can “do more than just watch”.
    • For more info visit the GuluWalk site or email hanna@volunteer.org.nz

    The Pharmaceutical drugs industry: TRIPSy!

    Monday, September 18th, 2006

    Mariana Gledhill
    assorted pillsEveryone in the world desires good health, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives everyone in the world the right to have access to medical care that allows them to have adequate health and wellbeing. Pharmaceutical drugs are often able to help provide this, and help people live longer lives. However, not everyone is able to afford the drugs that they need to take in order to live.

    “Big Pharma”
    The “Big Pharma”, which make up the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, set prices high in order to make big profits (Robinson, 2001). Patents are put on drugs in order to stop other companies making cheaper copies of them. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) aspects of intellectual property agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) backs these companies up. The WTO aims that by 2016, all countries in the world will have laws that will restrict companies from making drugs when they do not have a patent that will allow them to do so (Legrain, 2002).

    The power of patents
    The Big Pharma argue that honouring of patents is necessary, because they say that Research and Development is expensive. Without the honouring of patents, drug companies will not want to make new drugs. This claim has been disputed. The largest drug companies are the most profitable in the world and they only spend 15% of their budgets on Research and Development, which mostly involves the testing of the drugs.(Angell, 2004)

    Where do the drugs come from?
    bottle of pillsThe drug companies do not actually discover the new drugs; chemists who are based in universities and other training institutions do. Drug companies merely buy the compounds off these developers. Some of these compounds are existent in nature, but residents of the areas where they have been found do not usually benefit from them.

    One example is the Neem tree, which is found in India. This tree is known in Sanskrit as Sarva Roga Nivarini, ‘the curer of all ailments’ and it has been used by Indians for thousands of years in various medicines and fertilizers (Davis, 1998). However, the rights to this tree were sold to W. R. Grace & Co. in 1988. Patenting of natural products by companies for the sake of profit is common, and existing intellectual property laws do not give indigenous people much room to claim the knowledge that their ancestors bequeathed to them (Davis, 1998).

    Where is the money in pharmaceuticals?
    Drug companies spend most of their budgets on the marketing of drugs, rather than research and development. Big sellers are drugs that are popular in the global North: drugs for conditions such as hay fever, and impotency. There is not much money in drugs for the diseases that attack the populations of the South, and even when there is, drugs are not often made available to these people.

    When they are, drug companies milk a lot of publicity from them. This is not to say that they do not make huge differences to people’s lives. Onchoceriasis, also known as river blindness, was a disease that made everyone in Fougadougou, Mali, blind. Now Merek and Co. distribute a drug in this village that prevents onchoceriasis . This has given Fougadougou new life (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2006).

    A personal example
    Millions of people in the South are affected by AIDS and HIV. I know one of them. She is a girl whom I will call Juanita*. Juanita is barely ten years old and she has recently developed AIDS. She is a bright girl, who is ahead of the other girls in her class, despite having to take lots of time off school due to her condition. She is an affectionate girl who loves playing with dolls. She probably won’t have a 15th birthday. This girl comes from Peru, where the generic drugs that the big Pharma demonise cost about one US dollar a day. This is too expensive for many people in Peru. AIDS drugs made by the big Pharma, with their patents, cost tens of thousands of dollars a year.

    Drug companies say that cheap drugs in the South will cut their profits. That is not true. Drug companies are not going to profit from poor people who often earn a fraction of what the drugs they need cost each year (Legrain, 2002). Drug companies provide drugs that often save lives, but that purpose seems to be in second place to making money, and agreements such as the TRIPS ones are encouraging this trend.
    hands holding pills
    So what is the answer?
    Some people say the answer to the problem is greater regulation, (Angell, 2004) and others think that drug companies should be owned by governments, who can be voted out when they do not what is best for the voters. Drug companies are controversial at the moment. Award winning books have been written about their mistakes and an Oscar winning film has been made about the corruption that exists within them. If they are to improve the health of the world’s people, something needs to change.

    * Her real name is not Juanita. I have changed it out of respect for her privacy.

    LEARN MORE

    Books

    Angell, Marcia (2004) The truth about the drug companies : how they deceive us and what to do about it New York: Random House

    Marcia Angell is a doctor who thinks that drug companies need saving from themselves. Her argument is very persuasive, and her insider status in the medical profession is valuable.

    Legrain, Philippe (2002) Open World:/ The Truth About Globalisation London: Abacus

    Philippe LeGrain has written a book defending free trade. I do not agree with much of what he writes, but the chapter that he is written on the drugs industry (Patently Wrong) disagrees with the TRIPS agreement and sets out a number of reasons why TRIPS is not only immoral but anti free trade’.

    Robinson, Jeffrey (2001) Prescription games : money, ego and power inside the global pharmaceutical industry London : Simon & Schuster

    Jeffery Robinson’s book is an attack on Big Pharma, and is easy to read. It makes for compelling and chilling reading. Warning: it might make you get quite angry!

    Novels

    Atwood, Margaret (2003) Oryx and Crake London: Bloomsbury

    Margaret Atwood is a prizewinning author. Oryx and Crake is a book about what happens when drug companies have too much power and are not regulated. Although this book is set in the future, it touches on many of the ethical problems that the world currently faces with drug companies.

    Le Carre, John (2002) The Constant Gardiner London: Sceptre

    This book is a murder mystery that ends up being related to corrupt drug companies testing their drugs on unsuspecting people in Africa. In the course of these tests, many people die. An award-winning movie has been made of this book, which Roger Ebert has called the movie of the year for 2005 (I have not seen it).

    Other Cited Resources:

    British Broadcasting Corporation Miracle Village

    This photo journal is about the village of Fougadougou the problems with Onchoceriasis and how the village has changed with the arrival of a preventative drug.

    Davis, Michael Biological Diversity and Indigenous Knowledge Research Paper 17 1997-98
    This is about how patents on natural substances impact badly on indigenous peoples.

    United Nations (1948) “Universal Declaration on Human Rights”

    New Internationalist Issue on Big Pharma, Issue 32 in November 2003

    TAKE ACTION!

    • Yuck, No Thanks in Big Pharma, New Internationalist, has some really ideas about taking action globally.
    • New Zealand is a very small slice of the Big Pharma market, and compared to other countries, we have easy access to the drugs we need. The government subsidises many high cost drugs and people on low incomes can get their prescriptions for reduced prices. However, there are some drugs that are still not sold in New Zealand due to the regulation industry, Pharmac, not allowing them to be sold or subsidised. Lobbying of Pharmac might give some people access to the drugs that can save their lives.
    • Advertising for drugs is currently legal in New Zealand. Now I have nothing against Jude Dobson, but I think that it is a real shame that Drug companies can advertise their products under the pretense of educating people. Maybe you can write a letter to the Health minister calling for the abolishment of advertising by drug companies.
    • Find some isolated areas where injustice is happening in relation to this area. Then talk to the media, find the drug that will help the people and lobby the company(ies) that supply it. If anything happens, it will not change the roots of the injustice, but it will change the lives of some people.

    NZ trying to force GE on the world?

    Friday, June 2nd, 2006

    Cameron Walker

    barley fieldNew 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.
    rice farmer
    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.
    corn
    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.”
    yellow crop in field
    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

    Apple photo by Holly Greening, others from stock.xchng

    My school the corporation

    Thursday, December 15th, 2005

    Omar Hamed coke

    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.

    Hunger, poverty and the real agenda of the IMF and world bank

    Tuesday, October 18th, 2005

    Cameron Walker

    Created out of the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) claim to have the noble aims of helping third world nations to finance the building of infrastructure and to bridge balance of payments difficulties. However, many claim both institutions help ruin the economies of Third World nations through forced structural adjustment programmes, which are a condition to any loans or aid from them. Many also claim that the policies of both institutions directly benefit powerful multi-national corporations.

    IMF logoThe draconian terms of the structural adjustment programmes often include the elimination of tariffs on imports, the forced privatisation of state owned assets, the removal of subsidies to local producers, the reduction of crop diversity and the forced export of crops to a small number of foreign buyers. These policies often lead to much poverty and injustice.

    In 1999 the Bolivian city of Cochabamba privatised its public water supply under the intense pressure of the World Bank. The citizens of Cochabamba then as a result faced water bill price hikes of $20 a month. In a nation where the minimum wage is under $100 a month this was absolutely disastrous. What is even more shocking is that after privatisation the citizens of Cochabamba ended up paying more a month for water than people who live in the wealthiest suburbs of Washington D.C.

    The policies of the World Bank and IMF are largely blamed for causing Malawi’s 2002 famine. The strings which were attached to an IMF loan package to Malawi included the privatisation of the Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation, removal of agricultural subsidies to small farmers and the deregulation of price controls on staple foods such as maize. Between October 2001 and March 2002 the price of maize increased by 400 percent as a result of these policies. In 2002 Malawi spent 20 percent of its national budget on debt repayment to Western creditors. This is more than Malawi spent on health, education and agriculture combined.

    The foreign debt of many Third World nations will literally take hundreds of years to pay off. Indonesia’s foreign debt for example is $262 billion. This is 170 percent of Indonesia’s gross domestic product. Every day poor nations pay $100 million to Western creditors in debt repayment, mainly to institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Since the 1980’s the policies of these institutions have led to developing nations paying out five times as much capital to rich industrialised nations as they have received in aid.

    Decisions at the World Bank and the IMF are made by a vote of the board of executive directors, which represent member states. The voting process does not reflect proper democracy because voting power is determined by the amount a member state contributes to the institutions. This means the U.S.A has roughly 17 percent of the vote and has a dominant voice on policy and at times has exercised the power of veto. The World’s seven largest industrialised nations have 45 percent of the vote at the World Bank and IMF. As a result of this the policies of the World Bank and IMF often directly benefit industries based in Western industrialised nations. The company which bought Cochabamba’s water supply after it was privatised was Aguas del Tunari, part of International Water Limited, a British based company half owned by the American engineering giant, Bechtel. U.S. treasury officials have estimated that for every $1 the United States contributes to International development banks, U.S. exporters win more than U.S. $2 in bank financed procurement contracts.

    It would seem to be common sense for poor nations to be encouraged to be self sufficient in food production; common sense seems to be contrary to World Bank and IMF policy. Some poor nations have had to endure having their crop diversity limited and then being forced to export the few crops produced to Western Nations. In the early 1990’s the famous investigative journalist John Pilger pointed out that forty percent of arable land in Senegal is used for growing peanuts for Western margarine and in Ghana fifty percent of arable land is used for growing cocoa for export to make Western chocolate bars. Both of these nations suffer malnutrition yet export most of their crops; a scene reminiscent of Ireland under British Imperialism during the potato famine of the 1840’s.

    It is easy to come to the conclusion that the World Bank and IMF’s true agenda is very different than the one they sell to the public. They claim to help poor nations but really aid multinational corporations at the expense of Third World nations. These two institutions need to be greatly reformed to be any use in helping tackle one of the greatest problems of the early 21st Century, poverty.

    References

    Burgo, Ezequiel and Stewart, Heather ( 29/10/2002) The Guardian

    Pilger, John (1994) Distant Voices London: Vintage

    Pilger, John (2002) The New Rulers Of The World London: Verso

    LEARN MORE

    World Bank/IMF Factsheet

    Oxfam’s campaign for fair trade

    Thursday, September 22nd, 2005

    Nicole Mathewson

    What do Chris Martin (Coldplay), Thom Yorke (Radiohead), Antonio Banderas and Alanis Morrisette have in common with a sack of corn? Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign. Corn is one of the exports being dumped on celebrities’ heads to draw attention to the unfair trade practices of rich countries.

    What’s It All About? corn feild
    The campaign by Oxfam International and it’s twelve associate agencies calls on governments, institutions and multinational companies to change their rules so trade can become part of the solution to poverty, not part of the problem.

    Farmers in developing countries could work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to wealthy countries at a reasonable price.

    So what’s stopping them?
    The appalling unfairness of the current world trade system.

    Legislation regarding trade follows the idea that one size fits all. Unfortunately many farmers in developing countries are smallholders - struggling to earn a living with unstable ecological conditions, high transport costs and little government support. They also have to compete with subsidised farmers from places like the U.S. and the European Union dumping surplus crops in their countries.

    So Why Are Celebrities Involved?
    The point of using celebrities in the campaign is to attract people’s attention, says Oxfam New Zealand’s advocacy and campaigns manager Shuna Lennon. “[It's] like a giant billboard. If Chris Martin says look at this’ you’re more likely to than if I said it.”

    In the photo shoot Chris Martin is covered in rice, representing the surplus dumping on poor countries by the United States. The U.S. government pays it’s farmers $1billion a year to over-produce rice and dump the surplus at extremely low prices in poor countries. One fifth of the population of Haiti has been driven out of business and into poverty as a result.

    Ms Lennon says the United States hasn’t stopped unfair trade, but is under enormous pressure to make a change for the better. So we’re just keeping the pressure on and hoping there will be a breakthrough, she said.

    Oxfam’s next big protest will be targeting the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Hong Kong in December. Oxfam would like to see the WTO deliver a pro-development plan as an outcome of the meeting. This would ensure wealthy countries stop export dumping and remove barriers to trade to allow developing countries to decide their own trade policies that will work for them.

    According to Oxfam, New Zealand has a potentially important role, as Kiwi, Tim Grosser, is the Chair of the WTO agriculture negotiations. However, our influence may not be good for poorer countries, as the New Zealand government’s view has typically been in favour of the one-size fits all trade liberalisation

    TAKE ACTION!

    Those interested in making a difference can help in a variety of ways, firstly by signing the Big Noise petition . There are seven million signatures already and they’re hoping to reach ten million by December, Ms Lennon said.

    Fair trade items, such as coffee, chocolate and tea, are available in New Zealand at Trade Aid outlets and participating supermarkets. You can help the fight by buying fair trade products and asking retailers to stock them, this will show them the demand is there.

    You can also check out Oxfam New Zealand and sign up for their e-newsletter to receive updates on Oxfam’s campaigns.

    LEARN MORE

    Oxfam New Zealand
    Make Trade Fair
    Trade Aid

    The treaty of Waitangi and Māori-Pākehā relations in Aotearoa New Zealand

    Tuesday, August 9th, 2005

    Nicole Matthewson, age 17, offers her opinion on race relations in New Zealand and National party Don Brash’s controversial Orewa Speech

    Race relations have been in need of improvement throughout the history of our country. Since Europeans first began to colonise New Zealand, links between Māori and Pākehā have often been the topic of national debate. National party leader Dr Don Brash asked voters in Feb 2004 — What sort of nation do we want to build’? What we want to build is a society that is fused as one while respecting the unique cultures that it comprises of; a nation with equal responsibilities, rights and opportunities for all. Before we can reach that unity however, we need to explore how we can improve our race relations.

    The Treaty of Waitangi
    The first step in solving predicaments between Māori and Pākehā is to work out why they have occurred in the first place. One reason for conflict is the Treaty of Waitangi. Two main versions of the Treaty were created in 1840 — a Māori version and an English version (there were a number of Māori versions created all with slight variations). When translated accurately the versions show obvious differences. This creates confusion and conflict to this very day. Confusion reigns over what rights people of both cultures actually have, as both versions are deemed legal in the eyes of the law. However, under International law it is the treaty in the language of the indigenous people that takes precedence (this is called “contra preferentem”).

    The Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 officially recognised the Treaty in law. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up to investigate Māori grievances, but some people believe this has created tension in New Zealand. Others believe the root cause of conflict was the fact it took so long before anything was done to try solve the complaints. Yet as the government’s Treaty of Waitangi website (www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz) says, “In a small society with many links between Māori and Pākehā, the Treaty debate inevitably reverberates through the entire community.”

    RESPECT!
    While it is possible to live harmoniously in a land where two or more cultures are present, conflict does arise when certain ideas or values clash. Recognising that mistakes have taken place in the past is vital. Identifying mistakes and injustices, and showing remorse, would hopefully begin to close rifts between Māori and Pākehā. It is important to remedy those errors in the best way possible, to help both parties heal their wounds and move on. Historian Michael King said in an article from The Press, A Vision for New Zealand, “the position we must grow towards, if we are to achieve social harmony and national stability, is one of a mutuality of respect between the two major cultures”. Respect for each other’s culture is a must if we are to fix past mistakes and light the way for a brighter future together.

    Fixing mistakes that have already occurred is important, but preventing problems that might come about in the future is another issue that should be looked at. We need to prevent mix-ups like the Treaty of Waitangi from happening in later years. If we can do that, our nation will be a peaceful one. Dr Brash said earlier this year that he believes we should create equal rights for all in New Zealand - no special treatment for any one particular race. Things such as scholarships for Māori and Pacific Island students only are the kind of thing Dr Brash meant by “special treatment”. If we want to improve relations in our country then shouldn’t we all be equal?

    People will always strive for a peaceful, amicable land. No one wants a nation divided, fighting among each other. We all need to work together to improve our relationships. Not just the relationship between Māori and Pākehā, but between all cultures residing in New Zealand as well. Together we stand, divided we fall.

    LEARN MORE

    The Treaty of Waitangi Government Website
    A vision for New Zealand, by Michael King, The Press (article)
    Don Brash’s Orewa speech transcription 2004 (PDF, 148KB)
    Perspectives from Mana Māori
    Mason Durie’s response to Don Brash’s Speech
    Kim Hill interviews Michael King on Race Relations
    Māori Independence site
    All things Māori
    The Encyclopedia of New Zealand
    Race Relations Day site

    EXPRESS YOUR OPINION!

    • What is your opinion of this article?
    • Does treating people equally create equality?
    • If the Treaty of Waitangi is one cause of cultural conflict in New Zealand, what are some others?

    This illustration was first published in Tearaway magazine and is reprinted here with their permission

    Illustrator: Gavin Mouldey

    Why are we living in a state of Global Injustice?

    Tuesday, August 9th, 2005

    Geoff Cooper

    Ever get the feeling that the more you find out about your world, the less you wish you knew? Is it simply that the human race is incompetent at managing the planet and people? Or perhaps that our attempts at global euphoria have just gone badly astray?

    Injustices have existed since the beginning of time, and this is often used to justify a certain level of it in our modern world. But just how much are we willing to accept?

    • 1.2 billion people live without access to safe drinking water while the 3 richest people in the world earn the equivalent of the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the 37 poorest countries
    • every 10 seconds someone in the world dies from HIV/AIDS
    • it is estimated that around 300,000 children around the world are exploited as child soldiers

    The figures are endless, and after a while it is easy to become immune to their impact. But before we agree to put these down to inevitability, lets look at where we spend our resources that could overcome such problems:

    • the U.S spends $8bn/year on cosmetics
    • basic education for all children would cost $6bn/year
    • the cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income
    • Europeans spend $11bn/year on ice cream
    • while clean water and safe sewers for all would cost $9bn/year

    With statistics such as these we can logically prove that these problems are very much a human construction. To believe that they are an inevitable part of society represents a lack of understanding of the ideology behind such phenomena.

    The Ideological and Institutional Bases of Global Injustice
    When we trace the causes of poverty, it is not uncommon to end up on the doorsteps of the institutions that make the rules of international trade - in particular the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It seems whenever leaders of these institutions meet, there are mass protests. Seattle, Washington, Prague, Geneva are just a few examples of the protests that have arisen over the past 20 years at such conferences. There is a common belief that these organisations are to blame for much of the poverty we see in developing countries It is one of the great ironies of world institutions that the World Bank actually claims to be alleviating mass poverty (check out what the World Bank claims it does.).

    So what is it that these institutions are doing wrong? With the best academic scholars the world has to offer at their side it is hard to imagine that they are incompetent at their job. Rather, we must recognise what fundamental rationale exists behind the array of questionable decisions that they continue to put into global effect.

    What these institutions honestly believe is that what is good for business and large corporations will be good for everybody… eventually. Extending this rationale, it becomes clear that when the rules of trade are written, they should be written in the interests of these corporations. If the conditions are good enough for these corporations, we will eventually all reap the benefits. If discrepancies exist between reality and what the Neoliberal institutions claim to be working towards (essentially a stable society), their excuse is simply that more time is needed for the copious benefits to be actually realised. But just how long must we wait before we can formally conclude that this system will never work in consideration of the world’s poor?

    LEARN MORE

    American Christian Organisation seeking justice for the world’s hungry people BREAD
    Guide to Free Trade history, theory and ideology
    Neoliberalism explained
    The Impact of the WTO

    TAKE ACTION!

    Make Poverty History
    Bono’s organisation (lead singer of U2)
    NZ initiative by World Vision to get involved in