The American engineering giant General Electric (GE) is looking to site a £200m industrial plant to build wind turbines in Britain.

By Kamal AhmedPublished: 7:41PM BST 17 Oct 2009
A GE briefing note seen by The Sunday Telegraph says that the firm is now looking for “targeted financial support for the development” and is in discussions with the Department of Business, Innovations and Skills and the Department for Energy and Climate Change. It is also considering sites in Germany and Scandinavia, and will make a decision on where to build the new plant by the end of the year.
GE officials have also met Greg Barker, shadow climate change minister, who has assured the firm that any future Tory government would be committed to offshore marine technology, which could be a £20bn market by 2020.

“GE is now developing its growth plan for the new offshore wind business, which will include a new global centre of excellence for offshore wind turbine technology that would be sited in Europe,” the briefing says. It adds that the complex would “generate new engineering jobs”.

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe had been attempting to create a government of national unity since September of 2008. The western-backed opposition MDC-T had refused to implement a power-sharing agreement. The agreement went into effect on Feb 13.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

US admits funding PM’s office

Zimbabwe Sunday Mail Reporter

THE US government, through its Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Mr Johnnie Carson, has openly admitted that it is funding the MDC-T’s parallel government by providing funds to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Even the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), through its acting assistant administrator for Africa, Mr Earl Gast, confirmed that the US government has been funding the PM’s Office.

In his testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Sub-committee on Africa on September 30 2009, Mr Carson pledged his support to advance US interests in Zimbabwe.

“Our assistance to Zimbabwe seeks to lay the groundwork for a return to democracy and prosperity by supporting democratic voices and civil society, including support to the Prime Minister’s Office for communications and other capacity building,” said Mr Carson.

In his paper entitled “Exploring US Policy Options Towards Zimbabwe’s Transition” that he presented to the same sub-committee, Mr Gast said: “In addition, funding has included support for civil society strengthening, support to help fulfill the terms of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) (eg resources for the constitution-making process); programmes to demonstrate responsible governance (eg improving the public outreach capacity of the Office of the Prime Minister); assistance to non-governmental monitoring of compliance of all parties to the GPA; and support for independent media”.

It is understood that NANGO (National Association of Non-Govermental Organisations) has already lined up seminars where it will start the process to monitor all the parties in the GPA.

Mr Gast added: “The US$73 million in funding for Zimbabwe pledged by President Obama during Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s recent visit to the US includes significant inter-agency funding for HIV and Aids programmes in: parliamentary strengthening, (US$2,4 million); elections and constitution making (3,2 million); rule of law (3,8 million); consensus-building (2,7 million); media (1,5 million); victims of torture (1,9 million); civil society/local government capacity building (5,8 million); maternal and child health, including tuberculosis ($4,1 million); and family planning (1,2 million).”

These revelations are set to shame the PM’s Office which has been refuting allegations that funding for its parallel government has been coming from the US government through USAID.

In addition to running the parallel government, the PM’s Office is publishing a newsletter that is under the charge of Andrew Chadwick and is receiving funding from the USAID.

An African diplomat privy to the presentations that were made by the International Crisis Group, the Mercy Corps group, the US Treasury Department and the USAID to the Subcommittee on African Affairs showed that US policy towards Zimbabwe is in a quandary.

The diplomat said under the George Bush administration, US policy towards Zimbabwe was shaped by ZIDERA whose main thrust was to attack President Mugabe, attack the economy through sanctions and create and fund subversive organizations.

“But now with the MDC in Government, clearly that template is falling short because a continued attack on Zimbabwe through sanctions would mean that in the event of failure, the MDC would also be blamed.

“Presentations made to the subcommittee clearly show that the US is trying to adjust, in a fundamental way, its policy towards Zimbabwe,” said the diplomat.

The diplomat said the shift in policy was necessitated by the creation of the inclusive Government, the stabilization of the economy following measures announced in Minister Patrick Chinamasa’s budget, the re-engagement of Zimbabwe, the mounting campaign against sanctions and the fact that America “now has a listening post in Government through the MDC.”

Said the diplomat: “They want to fine tune the sanctions to make them targeted but also fine tune assistance to make it targeted. They want to have a target of destruction and a target of mitigation.

“The US will use the MDC as its listening post in Government and through the Multi Donor Trust Fund they will fund seminars that they will use to source data about the goings on in Government.”

The diplomat said the US government was now trying to enter into the Zanu-PF stronghold – the farmers by providing funding for agriculture.

In recent weeks, farmers have been promised lots of funding from some NGOs raising suspicion that this was a ploy to “buy farmers and deliver them to the MDC in preparation for elections.”

In his presentation, Mr Carson spoke about “our recent notification and consultation on new targeted programmes in the agriculture and education sectors.”

‘Independent’ judiciary, commissions: Whose independence?

AFRICAN FOCUS By Tafataona P. Mahoso
Zimbabwe Sunday Mail

Those who have followed demands for “reform” by the MDC formations in Zimbabwe will notice that if these political formations were to be allowed to put their programmes into practice this country would end up with the following commissions:

Independent Land Commission, Independent Anti-Corruption Commission, Independent Media Commission, Independent Planning Commission, Independent Broadcasting Commission, Independent Judicial Appointments Commission, Independent Public Service Commission, Independent Gender Commission and so on. . . .

Given the extreme partisanship and sectarianism which the MDC formations have imported with their foreign sponsorship into Zimbabwean politics, the first question which arises is: From which planet do the MDC formations intend to import enough “independent” persons, let alone resources, to build so many independent commissions?

Citizens can get some idea of the “independence” meant by the MDC formations if they examine the lists of candidates these parties have been presenting to the Standing Rules and Orders Committee (SROC) of Parliament for nomination to the various “independent” bodies. There is a high representation of former white Rhodesians being imported back into Zimbabwe via South Africa, to take up positions on these “independent” commissions.

It is also important to remember that in her encounter with President Robert Mugabe on CNN on September 24 2009, “independent” journalist Christiane Amanpour indicated clearly and openly that Roy Bennett was the only definitely “independent” source of evidence which CNN should consult in order to determine whether President Robert Mugabe’s account of the quarrel between Zimbabwe and Britain was true! She, like MDC-T, also demanded to know why the same Roy Bennett had not been sworn in as Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

Perhaps our readers may wonder why we keep insisting that we are dealing with ideology and propaganda rather than independence or law. Just think of the concept of independent commission as language. Try to put it into any one of our national languages. Does it make sense? Even in English, does it make sense?

A commission has to be commissioned in order to have validity and authority. To commission means: an act of committing or giving authority to carry out a particular task or duty; the act of giving certain powers to a person or body; the act of entrusting someone with particular responsibilities; the state of being authorised to perform certain functions.

As a noun, a commission is a group of people lawfully authorised to perform certain duties or functions as a government agency. An “independent” commission in the normal world is a contradiction. Its independence exists as ideology or propaganda, not as reality. Before we explain the meaning of the demand by the MDC formations to set up unwieldy and expensive commissions in almost every sector, it might help to look at recent history. When the myth of willing-buyer-willing-seller in the 1979 Lancaster House Constitution failed to provide enough land to satisfy the dispossessed African majority by 1990, two views became prominent on how the land issue was to be resolved.

One view said that “the independent judiciary” would resolve the issue through the courts.

The other view said the judiciary, the courts and the law at that time (1990-1992) were part of the problem and had been part of the problem since the days of Cecil John Rhodes and the British South African Company. Africans had to wage the First Chimurenga and Second Chimurenga precisely because the judiciary, the law and the courts were the colonial instruments for the permanent racist dispossession of the African majority.

When the white Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay prepared to hear one of the land cases in early November 2000, the State asked him to remove himself from hearing the case because in many previous utterances he had already judged the African land reclamation movement and method to be illegal and criminal. The white Chief Justice went ahead to hear the case and on January 10 2001 he condemned widespread criticism of his conduct as an “onslaught” on the judiciary, an erosion of judicial independence.

Denmark, Britain, the Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU), the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), leaders of the Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ) and the International Bar Association (IBA) came out on the side of white settler farmers against the African land reclamation movement.

This line-up of views proved correct President Robert Mugabe’s statement on December 13 2000 that the courts and the law at that stage could not resolve the Zimbabwean land question.

But that was only the beginning of the struggle which we see being re-staged again in the form of “independent commissions”.

So, on February 6 2001 Chief Justice Gubbay came out politically and openly in support of the white settler farmers and attacked the leaders of the country, through the Press, for failure to arrest and lock up the land-hungry masses.

The white Chief Justice also openly attacked the African Judge President of the High Court at that time for admitting that the effect of the position taken by the Supreme Court against the African land reclamation movement had been to compromise the dignity and authority of the entire judiciary in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the people, especially because the African land movement was a popular mass movement with organic community resonance.

The white Chief Justice later resigned and the African Judge President Godfrey Chidyausiku became Chief Justice.

Automatically, the replacement of a white Chief Justice by an African Chief Justice in the middle of the African land revolution was condemned as blatant patronage which destroyed the independence of the courts! The International Bar Association sent a delegation biased in favour of the white settler farmers and the former white Chief Justice.

The delegation also helped the settlers to incite the NCA, LCZ, CFU, MDC, Legal Resources Foundation and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights to come out openly on the side of the white settlers and against the dispossessed povo. The Financial Gazette openly declared on December 6 2001: “Zanu-PF takes over Zimbabwe’s courts: law experts say land judgment political.”

This was in response to a new judgment on new land cases in which compulsory land acquisition, land redistribution and land resettlement were declared to be constitutional. Immediately, on April 17 2002, the illegal regime change lobby demanded constitutional reforms for the purpose of reversing land reform on behalf of the white settlers.

So, from this history and from the lists of persons submitted by the MDC formations for nomination to independent commissions, we get the message that white Rhodesians are “independent” and most capable of making “independent” judgments about the future of Zimbabwe! Any replacement of whites by Africans destroys the rule of law and undermines independence.

Moving further, the MDC formations’ logic becomes even more revealing. The very same illegal regime change lobby which says white Rhodesians are independent judges of their own dispute with Zimbabwe is demanding that Zimbabwe’s war veterans and retired soldiers should never be allowed anywhere near these “independent” commissions.

Why? Well, because, although the war veterans brought about Zimbabwe’s independence, they cannot themselves be independent! Instead, the appointment of any one or more of these people who brought independence must be condemned as undermining the independence of these commissions. In fact, it is a militarisation of these supposedly independent bodies.

After white Rhodesians, the other breed of persons the MDC formations favour for nomination and appointment are lawyers. These are to be preferred to any other discipline.

The Regime Change Strategy behind the Proliferation of “Independent Commissions”

The idea that a judiciary headed by a white Rhodesian in Zimbabwe is independent while one headed by an African is not independent; the idea that a commission including retired Rhodesian security officers is democratic and independent while one including retired war veterans of the Second Chimurenga is “militarised” — has already been established and understood through the examples cited. Readers should see the Zimbabwe Independent of October 2 2009 and internet sites and Misa Press statements in the same week.

But our readers should not end there. There is still the problem of British, US and EU sponsorship, endorsement and funding attracted by the campaign for “independent commissions”. Why is there so much Anglo-Saxon interest and support for such a campaign? There were commissions long before the regime change onslaught against Zimbabwe. But if our readers check their old newspapers, there were no strenuous efforts to call them “independent” and there were no campaigns to have them sponsored by foreign governments through the NGO sector.

What is new? What is new is the failure of the regime change onslaught, which started in 1997, to achieve its objectives of removing and destroying the African liberation movement. What is new is the failure to reverse the African land reclamation movement to date. What is new is the determination still to overcome that failure.

This failure means that some of the methods of regime change, such as violence and military invasion, have now been abandoned. This means that a combination of instruments of “soft power” is now preferred.

One of those ever-present instruments is the Western media. In “Violence in and by the media”, George Gerbner explained this role.

“They (the media) serve as projective devices that isolate acts and people from meaningful contexts and set them up to be stigmatised . . . Stigma is a mark of disgrace that evokes disgraceful behaviour. Labelling some people barbarians makes it easier to treat them as barbarians would (treat them) . . . classifying some people as criminals permits dealing with them in ways otherwise criminal; it makes it legitimate to attack and kill them . . . Stigmatisation and demonising isolate their targets and set them up to be victimised.”

But the media alone cannot successfully destabilise Zimbabwe without credible individuals, NGOs and institutions to generate ready-framed events, stories and reports which fit the regime change agenda and language. In other words, the media war on Zimbabwe has no effect unless the catchment area for ready-framed events, stories and reports is increased. BBC, CNN, Aljazeera and other propaganda channels will have a hard time meeting the mission stated by Gerbner without sponsored individuals, NGOs and neoliberal institutions which can be primed to set off the spiral and orchestration of pseudo-events which can be used to fuel the regime change onslaught.

If we step back and look at the timing of the Nobel Prize for Peace which was given to US President Barrack Obama, we can see that the Nobel Committee played a role for imperialism and Nato which some of our commissions and proposed commissions are expected to play for the yet unsuccessful regime change forces.

Obama was given a prize, which event has been globalised through mass media, not for any achievement but for a wishful (even dishonest) statement of intentions.

The purpose is to boost Obama’s image at home at a time when there is a rising backlash against him, a backlash even within the African-American community, a backlash on the diplomatic front because of failure to dismantle George W. Bush’s global terror machine.

In the Financial Gazette for October 15 2009, Professor Ken Mafuka reports that Obama is being challenged on “all fronts”. So imperialism used the Nobel Prize for Peace as a timely means of shoring up his media image. This is done by using the prize to confirm that his good intentions are well meant. It has nothing to do with work achieved.

Likewise, the dozen or so commissions demanded by the MDC formations are also meant to boost the false democratic credentials of these foreign-funded impositions as well-meaning “democrats”.

Zim’s chance to make or break

By Jonathan Kadzura
Zimbabwe Sunday Mail

THE issue of regime change is not a thing of the past.

This phenomenon will hang on us like an albatross on our national neck for as long as Zimbos will like to retain their identity and national sovereignty.

Some Western governments have taken it upon themselves that if Zimbabweans cannot remove President Mugabe and his Zanu-PF from power, then they will do it. The easiest way of achieving this agenda is through creating social unrest, which can easily be created in a country where people are hungry and cannot understand why they are going without jobs and food.

These are the hidden tools of the West when they plan regime change. It is not about democracy, comrades and friends, it is about “OUR ECONOMIC INTERESTS”. In other words, the West is saying “for as long as ‘WE’ have control of their raw materials, they will remain our friends and in fact we can move on to honour their leaders with knighthoods, so they can become Sir Mugabes”.

It is important that we all get very clear about one thing and one thing only. The Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, President Mugabe, and his country are under illegal and lethal sanctions because he only said rova hako, ndinofira vana vangu!

This, I am sure, was an easy decision to make on the part of the President but unheard of on the part of the West. Comrades and friends, our charge is that we took back our God-given capital resource — land.

Therefore the whole regime change agenda is based on the far-fetched dream that one day Zimbos will fail to feed themselves and yield to the pressure of the West to restore land to them by proxy.

Again, we are in that season when we have a chance to make or break. We are in that season when every Zimbabwean and every Zimbabwean corporate or institution must stand by the simple fact of reason that “ZIMBABWE WILL NEVER BE A COLONY AGAIN”.

The good Lord, as usual, will bless this country with enough seasonal rains to provide us with a good harvest.

The question that will hang over us is whether we are ready for the season or not. The failure of agriculture this season can only work to strengthen the agenda of those who are pushing for regime change.

Let us be clear that our bone of contention with the West arises from the land redistribution exercise. Should farmers fail to produce food and raw materials this season they will only be arming those who are pushing for regime change.

The first democratic Government of this country was very clear in that the whole essence of going to war was to recover our land.

We have succeeded in doing this to a great extent but much more still has to be done. A lot of new farmers are still holding on to their offer letters but have not been given the opportunity to settle on the allocated farms.

We urge Government to quickly move to correct this anomaly. It is also important to note that these are the farms we read about in our media as being portals of “fresh invasions” when in fact new farmers have been patient to allow for orderly transfer of ownership.

In my view, a cut-off date must be set when everyone holding on to an offer letter must have moved onto their prescribed piece of land.

It will not benefit Zimbabwe to continue arguing in the administrative courts where political decisions have been taken.

It would be a pity if we are going to lose another season because nobody is farming but arguing.

Remember the more time we spend upping and downing with pieces of paper in our hands is opportunity lost and never to be regained. Those who were told to move must move.

Those who were told to settle on the new farms must also go on and ensure they grow food and raw materials for the country.

May I hazard to say that the formation of the inclusive Government has also created a new demand for land.

Some deserving Zimbos did not get a chance because they were unsure of the complexion of the new Government, but now that all the three principals have made it very clear that land reform is irreversible and was right in the first place.

There is now a bigger demand and hunger for more land kuvana vevhu. In my view, it is only necessary for the inclusive Government to ensure fresh applications from these “Thomases” are invited and that more land must be acquired.

Tanaiwa kudhara, kusi kutota ngekupi? Let us move quickly so we can dry our clothes. Makadya imbwa, idyai hono yacho.

A number of us are already on these farms, but chepamawoko hapana. Fellow Zimbabweans, even in the most developed economies like the United States of America, Germany and France, agriculture is subsidised.

In our country, agriculture is only at the formative stage. If those of us who are on these farms fail to produce food and raw materials we will be seen as pushing the wrong agenda of regime change because we will have become a failed state.

All those who hate us are waiting for us to fail. I have a lot of confidence in our farmers but may it be understood that we are grateful for all the efforts demonstrated by the central bank in supporting agriculture but this effort must not be seen as being outside the ambit of Government.

Surely there has to be imagination enough in the Ministry of Finance to come up with a financing model for agriculture.

We understand banks are not accepting offer letters as collateral, yet those who gave us the offer letters have confidence in our ability to produce raw materials and food.

What is so difficult in giving a blanket guarantee to individual banks through the Reserve Bank so that high street banks can on-lend to farmers? Why would anybody have the confidence to give me a piece of land if they were sure that the land would be left to waste?

Should this season fail because of financing problems, the Ministry of Finance must take full responsibility.

After we fail to produce food, the same good ministry will find money to import food.

The same responsible authorities will reduce us to beggars who will receive food from non-governmental organisations. Hunger and social unrest will have been created, and whose agenda would we be pushing?

This is not and can never be fair. Our farmers must be given a fair chance and Government must play its role in ensuring that farmers have access to proper financing.

Remember, if agriculture fails, industry will also fail, and we will only be playing into the hands of those who think our meltdown is a result of the land redistribution programme.

It will be easy for them to say we told you when in fact the real problem is a lack of proper financing structures which structures they have largely destroyed.

After we have all heard about the US$510 million and the US$3 million, we will not accept that Government could not help because they did not have the money.

No. As a farmer I would hate to bring the land reform programme into disrepute by failing to produce.

Worse still be classified as pushing the agenda of the West by helping to create social unrest because of a shortage of food.

May I conclude by saying that those entrusted with the powers to manage public funds must be responsive to the wishes of the nation.

As farmers, we do not want to be helping to push the wrong agenda. Producing raw materials for our industry and food for our nation is our only goal.

As usual, sharing ideas at a national level can only be good for our nation. Today is a Sunday, take some rest.

Success in the 2010 Sunday Times Green List will come if bosses and staff work as a team

Zoe Thomas

For the bosses of Britain’s companies, the ticket to green credibility comes only if the staff are included on the journey.
That is the conclusion from two years of The Sunday Times Green List, the benchmark against which businesses can test their green credentials. Organisations can register for the 2010 contest from today.
The contest not only measures efforts to cut the corporate carbon footprint, it also seeks employees’ views on how green their company is.
The top 60 green companies of 2009 ranged from blue-chip multinationals such as BT and Tesco to construction companies with a high environmental impact, including Willmott Dixon, Carillion and Skanska — and not to forget small marketing businesses such as the current champion, Forster, with only 51 staff.
They may differ in size and environmental impact, but what they share is a genuine commitment to putting green issues high up the agenda. They have the strategies and staff input to make it happen.
Our methodology allows companies to compete on a level playing field. Our top 20 this year featured eight companies with fewer than 250 employees, six mid-sized organisations and six with more than 5,000 staff. Eight had an environmental impact classified as low, six were medium and six high.
Will Ullstein, director of innovation at Munro Global, a market-research group and a partner in compiling the Green List, expects competition for a place on the 2010 list to be heated. “Organisations are increasingly understanding and reaping the benefits of running green operations. Media attention is propelling environmental issues up the agenda, and the countdown to the Copenhagen climate-change conference will only focus attention further,” he said.
With the benefit of two years’ data, companies can see the key trends that lead to success on the Green List. Genuine leadership on all things green is vital, as is getting the message across to the workforce.
Of the 52 questions on this year’s employee questionnaire, 13 test employees’ feelings about their bosses’ green credentials. Employees rate from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” their response to statements such as:
- My boss is open to suggestions for environmental improvements;
- My boss encourages me to recycle at work;
- My boss expects me to save the environment while he/she drives a gas-guzzling company car.
For companies, there is a close relationship between achieving high scores on the My Boss questions and doing well in the employee survey overall.
Sarah Davidson, technical director at Bureau Veritas, the environmental consultancy and our other partner in producing the Green List, said leadership is the place where the employer and staff surveys meet.
“This is where we get the connection between the employer and the employee responses,” said Davidson. “Leading by example in senior management is the key to linking the corporate programmes with the performance of the general workforce in the employee survey.”
Rick Willmott, chief executive of Willmott Dixon, the construction company that finished third in 2009, knows he has to lead from the front. “You have to set the agenda. You have to nail your colours to the mast,” he said.
Even though the building trade has by its nature a high environmental impact, Willmott thinks entrants should not be deterred.
“If we can make differences, they tend to be big differences. So that’s the very positive upside for us — we only have to flex a few things very gradually and gently and we can make some significant inroads,” he said.
Analysis of 2009’s results shows that about half of Willmott Dixon’s staff fell into the “pragmatic green” category of employee, one of four broad clusters of staff identified from the responses of 20,000 employees. The other categories were “true green”, “sceptical green” and “least green”.
Most staff in small organisations (38.7%) could be classed as “true green”. In mid-sized firms most were “pragmatic green” (33.3%), while in large businesses most fell into the “sceptical green” category (33.8%).
Where employees can make a difference, there is a green dividend. Among statements where strong agreement is closely correlated with a high ranking are knowing where to put waste for recycling at work, being kept informed of company environmental policies and having a boss open to suggestions for making environmental improvements.
Jilly Forster, chief executive of the 2009 winner, said: “Once you find there’s engagement, you start having people coming up with their own ideas.”
Davidson said: “It’s the staff on the shop floor or at the construction site or in the factory who probably have the greatest influence over the environmental impact of the organisation. So getting them engaged is key. It’s never one fantastic light-bulb moment from the top; it’s lots of gradual changes generally that make a difference.”

Tuna popular in sushi, colorful corals used in jewelry and sharks whose fins make soup have been proposed for international trade restrictions overseen by the United Nations, a spokesman for the treaty said on Thursday.

Juan-Carlos Vasquez of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) said countries had submitted 40 requests for trade curbs and controls that will be reviewed at a conference in Qatar in March.

African elephants, some plants from Madagascar, the skins of certain snakes and crocodiles, and a range of waxes and oils used in cosmetics were also suggested for the regulation which aims to encourage conservation, Vasquez said.

“We check that the trade is sustainable, is legal and is traceable,” he explained. CITES registration gives protection to endangered species carrying high economic or commercial value.

Most of the plants and animals proposed for the 2010 Doha conference would, if approved by CITES‘ 175 member states, be regulated in a government permit system certifying their trade.

But Monaco proposed that Atlantic bluefin tuna be subjected to a full ban, which could cause big losses for Mediterranean countries who have resisted European Union calls to stop fishing the over-exploited population.

PRIZED

Atlantic bluefin commands high prices in Asia, particularly in Japan where it is prized for sushi. A single fish can weigh more than 600 kg (1,300 pounds) and fetch up to $100,000.

“This would be a huge change for that industry,” Vasquez said of the proposed “Appendix I” listing, which is more strict than the standard “Appendix II” registration. “You will see meetings taking place on this from now until March.”

Conservation campaigners with the slogan “Too Precious To Wear” celebrated the request from Washington and Brussels to protect red and pink coral through the CITES convention.

A finished necklace made from the corals can fetch up to tens of thousands of dollars, and they are also increasingly used in home decor. Some leading retailers including Tiffany & Co. and Pottery Barn have stopped using them due to sustainability concerns.

“An Appendix II listing for red and pink coral would not prohibit trade, but would ensure international trade in these long-lived, slow-growing species is carefully monitored via a system of export permits, which will help to reduce trade in illegally fished coral,” the group SeaWeb said in a statement.

The fisheries conservation group Oceana said the proposals to shield eight species of sharks — entered by the United States and European Union — represented “a huge victory” that may help change consumption patterns in Asia where shark fins are in worryingly high demand.

“An Appendix II listing would limit trade to sustainable levels by requiring export permits, thus protecting the future health of the species,” said Courtney Sakai, Oceana’s senior campaign director who said “shark fins are today’s ivory tusks.”

“If countries join together now we can promote the sustainable trade of sharks worldwide,” she said.

The full listing of species proposed for CITES consideration in March will be posted within several days on www.cites.org.

Source:
Reuters, “Trade curbs sought for sharks, corals, bluefin tuna“, accessed October 15, 2009

Live in Small Bitescopyright Annie Kate2008

Bail Out of the People Movement marching on Wall Street, April 3, 2009.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Havana. October 1, 2009

Controversial economic recovery in the United States

Osvaldo Martínez, director of the Center for Research into the World Economy

ONE year has gone by since the current economic crisis began its cycle of destruction; however, its duration could already have extended to two years, given that it was in the summer of 2007 that signs of the real estate crisis, the prelude to this global crisis, became apparent in the United States.

A controversy is underway in the rich countries hit by the crisis over the much-desired recovery, in relation to certain quarterly indicators that have displayed a slight upturn or whose rate of descent has slowed. Some economists are affirming that the crisis is over and joyfully announcing an imminent and energetic recovery.

However, the most objective analyses indicate that these are desires converted into predictions with a scientific appearance and that this global crisis – the most profound since the 1930s – cannot be declared a thing of the past, as it still retains the potential to produce greater destruction and to take many by surprise on account of its unprecedented characteristics.

This crisis cannot be seen as a repetition of that of 1929, as this one is an unique organism containing a mix of various crises (food, energy, ecological, social and financial) in the midst of a high rate of globalization with toxic assets (those lacking real backing) disseminated throughout the world economy, combined with incredibly complex finances (investment banks, tax havens, high-risk funds, insurance companies, etc.) in a context where the real sum of those “assets” is unknown, and there is no international regulation for containing the movements of that enormous financial mass considered by some to be no less than $600 trillion.

Within the controversy, the positions among those hoping for a vigorous recovery in the United States can be summed up as follows: those who believe that the recovery will be anemic and will probably tend to reproduce the virtual stagnation of the Japanese economy from 1990 to 2005; those who are pointing to the existence of other financial bubbles about to burst and for that and other reasons are talking about a “double-dip” downturn, anticipating another dramatic fall in 2010, accompanied by high inflation due to the massive injection of dollars in the form of rescue packages by the Bush and Obama administrations, the huge growth of the budget deficit and in general, of a public debt that is reaching a total of $12.5 trillion, almost equivalent to the U.S. gross domestic product.

But, before advancing within that controversy, it is worth paying attention to the social cost accumulated to date by the global crisis, because this is not about a technical exercise correlating variables in a theoretical model, but the destructive effect on persons and social wealth provoked by capitalist crises every so often.

Higher food prices – one of the ingredients of the current crisis – from 2005 to 2008, have taken approximately 200 million people into extreme poverty, while estimates for 2009 include an additional figure of 55-90 million people pushed into extreme poverty due to the crisis. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO) the unemployment rate is set to increase to 30-50 million due to the effects of the crisis.

Recent data from the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) indicate that in 2009, those suffering from hunger will rise to 1.02 million, 170 million more than in 2007.

Finally, World Bank estimates indicate that the crisis could result in 200,000-400,000 additional infant deaths between 2009 and 2015, implying the enormity of 1.4 to 2.8 million children killed by the capitalist crisis.

On the other hand, according to a 2008 report on world wealth, for the super-rich of the world, some 80,000 people, representing 0.001% of the population and possessing 10% of the planet’s wealth, the impact of the crisis has not provoked much commotion.

While in 2005 they possessed a collective wealth of $33.4 trillion, in 2008, the figure stood at $32.8 trillion, and the most visible signs of “impoverishment” were a drop of $1 billion in auction sales of works of art and a fall of 21% in the sales of Lamborghini luxury automobiles.

Observing the state of the U.S. economy we can appreciate that an end of the recession is arguable, even in the reduced terms in which such a thing is understood in the conventional language of an absence of quarterly growth, and that the road ahead is strewn with obstacles and dangers, in no way indicative of a vigorous recovery.

What can be observed on the horizon is the negative combination of inflation-debt, the danger of other financial bubbles that could burst and the possibility of a double-dip downturn or two falls, with the second occurring in 2010.

One of the possible courses of the crisis is related to the vast mass of dollars being laid out by the U.S. government in the form of rescue packages, combined with those gaily handed out over decades to maintain the loss-making and parasitical functioning of that economy.

The exclusive privilege of acting as the only country that can make imports and diverse payments via the simple procedure of printing dollar bills, is creating a crisis and this is being reinforced by the injection of dollars and the general weakness of the U.S. economy. The point at which the privilege of the dollar becomes unsustainable is not far in the distance.

Another serious obstacle to recovery is that the real estate bubble which burst is not the only one. Uncontrolled speculation, supported by the favorable neoliberal environment has inflated other bubbles that could burst at any moment.

One of them is the real estate bubble in non-residential buildings, i.e. offices, supermarkets and hotels. The crisis has hit all these activities and the bankruptcy of supermarkets occupying large constructive spaces has been reported, as has that of various offices.

At the end of July the Financial Times called attention to this sector and the possibility that it could be the next link in the financial crisis after the real estate disaster in the residential sector. It estimated that $6.7 trillion of assets are compromised in this commercial real estate sector.

Credit cards represent another bubble threat, at an estimated one billion dollars. This so-called plastic money has experienced a lengthy stage of propagandistic saturation by inciting Americans to buy on credit without rational limits, and even encouraging them to have more than one credit card.

Speculation in relation to oil prices is feeding another bubble, given that price movements are strongly influenced by speculation, far beyond the real relationship between supply and demand.

After reaching the extremely high level of $145 per barrel in the summer of 2008, the price of oil fell to $33 in December, but since then it has risen again to more than $70 per barrel, although that increase does not seem to correspond to a real economic recovery that is prompting a substantially higher demand.

The most somber analysis of the crisis comes from U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, who had the merit of being the only one from within the United States to forecast the actual crisis in its real dimensions. This author sustains that recovery is still barely initial and that growth will be anemic for at least two years.

His reasons are various: families are highly indebted and are having to save more, and the financial system (both banks and non-banking entities) is much damaged. We could add that many banks are alive thanks to governmental support, but that they are not providing their essential service, which is to offer credit.

To date this year, 89 banks in the United States have disappeared, brought down by the crisis. Banks considered to be in a dangerous situation increased to 416 by the end of the second quarter; there were 305 at the end of the first quarter.

These banks are ones that have been degraded in their position due to liquidity problems, levels of capital or quality of assets. As a consequence, the lack of credit will hold back consumption and private investment expenditure.

Another reason for anticipating an anemic recovery is the reduction of demand at world level, and which is diminishing in high-spending countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, and thus not increasing sufficiently to compensate that descent in saver countries like China, Japan and Germany.

But the gravest aspect of the crisis is the possibility of two falls (don’t forget that in 1929-33 there were stock market rises of up to 20% on two occasions, only to experience a descent once again) and that there will be a second downturn with its retinue of destruction and poverty in 2010.

A double-dip downturn is possible because the finalization in terms of time of governmental stimulus and the return to a certain normality is proceeding on a knife-edge and requires extremely fine and precise handling. If the U.S. government raises taxes and cuts back on expenditure – an improbable action given growing military costs – and combats excess liquidity, this could abort the weak recovery.

On the other hand, if it continues accumulating deficits by gaily printing bills, inflation will rise, the interest rate will go up and similarly abort the recovery. Here, it should not be overlooked that China is not in favor of continuing to buy U.S. bonds to the same extent as in previous stages and its government is proposing the need the transform the international monetary system based on the dollar.

And moreover, prices of oil and foodstuffs could increase more quickly than those indicated by real demand, due to speculation and a new round of very high oil and food prices in the midst of a weak recovery, which would likewise provoke an abortion.

Those who believe that the 2008-2009 crisis has been left behind could have a painful awakening. This crisis is not the same as previous ones and the capitalism of our days is dragging too heavy a combination of exploitation, inequality, speculation and aggression to the environment that is making such a recovery in economic, social and environmental terms an impossibility.

Cosatu General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi and ANC General Secretary Gwede Mantashe. The trade union federation and the ruling party, along with the SACP, have maintained an alliance since the independence of the Republic of South Africa in 1994.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Cosatu calls for probe into military plane deal

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA Oct 17 2009 06:50

Cosatu has called for a full investigation into the A400M military transport plane deal, which will reportedly cost the taxpayer an extra R30-billion.

Spokesperson Patrick Craven said on Friday the trade union federation was outraged at what he called “another arms-deal scandal” which could cost South Africans R47-billion.

“The deal, negotiated by the Armscor parastatal in 2005, under former defence minister Terror Lekota and former public enterprises minister Alec Erwin, was for eight A400M military transport aircraft from Airbus at the already exorbitant price of R17-billion,” said Craven.

“It has now emerged that no tenders from other companies were sought, and that Armscor has failed to budget for maintenance costs over the life of the aircraft, which have now added R30-billion to
the bill.”

Craven said while Airbus had called these figures, which Armscor CEO Sipho Thomo reported to Parliament, “wildly exaggerated”, the cost was still a vast amount.

“Ndivhuwo Mabaya, spokesperson for the minister of defence, cannot explain why such a huge deal was concluded without a tender process being carried out, as is the normal rule.

“Inevitably this raises suspicions of the same kind of corruption which has been alleged in relation to the earlier arms deal.”

Craven said the new government found itself sabotaged by decisions taken by its predecessor.

“There appears to have been a culture of impunity in government departments in which certain people were untouchable,” he said.

“The Congress of SA Trade Unions demands a full inquiry into every aspect of this A400M deal and all those responsible for it.” - Sapa

Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-17-cosatu-calls-for-probe-into-military-plane-deal

Cosatu calls on mine to ban labour brokers, threatens sit-in

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA Oct 16 2009 15:48

Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) members on Friday threatened a sit-in if the Hernic Ferrochrome mine in North West failed to ban labour brokers.

About 2 000 Cosatu members marched to the Hernic Ferrochrome mine calling for the mine to ban labour brokers.

“We just finished handing over our memorandum and we have given them an ultimatum of Friday next week.

“If our demands are not met, we will stage a sit-in,” said Cosatu North West provincial secretary Solly Phetoe.

In its memorandum Cosatu demanded:

* the banning of labour brokers;

* the reinstatement of 1 600 workers who were dismissed during an underground strike in August;
the permanent employment of contract mine workers; and

* a full investigation into the death of two mine workers who died in a hostel fire on September 2.

“The fire broke out at the mine hostel due to poor electrical wiring,” said Phetoe.

“That hostel is a hok [cage], 13 people live in one room where there are no windows. The hostel was only suitable to house chickens,” he said.

Only 516 of the 2 616 workers, he said, were employed by the mine, while the majority were contract workers.

The memorandum was accepted by representatives from the Hernic Ferrochrome mine, JIC Contractors and the Department of Labour, Phetoe told Sapa. — Sapa

Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-16-cosatu-calls-on-mine-to-ban-labour-brokers-threatens-sitin

A joint satellite project between Venezuela and China has drawn the attention of the international community. Presidents Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales of Bolivia are shown in this photo.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos

Havana, October 16, 2009

Reflections of Fidel: A Nobel Prize for Evo

Taken from CubaDebate

IF Obama was awarded the Prize for winning the elections in a racist society despite being African-American, then Evo deserves it for winning in his country despite being an indigenous man, and moreover for keeping his promises.

It was the first time in the two countries that someone from each of their respective ethnic groups became president.

More than once, I noted that Obama was an intelligent, educated man in a social and political system in which he believes. He aspires to extend health services to almost 50 million U.S. people, to pull the economy out of the profound crisis it is experiencing, and to improve the image of the United States, deteriorated due to its genocidal wars and torture. He does not conceive of or desire, nor can he change, his country’s political and economic system.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to three U.S. presidents, a former president and a presidential candidate.

The first was Theodore Roosevelt, elected in 1901, the man of the Rough Riders that landed their riders – without their horses — in Cuba for the U.S. intervention in 1898 to prevent our country’s independence.

The second was Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who took the United States into the first war to divvy up the world. In the Treaty of Versailles, he imposed such harsh conditions on defeated Germany, that it laid the foundations for the emergence of fascism and the breakout of World War II.

The third is Barack Obama.

Carter was the former president who, several years after ending his mandate, was awarded the Nobel Prize. Without a doubt, one of the few presidents of that country incapable of ordering the assassination of an adversary, as others did; he returned the Canal to Panama, created the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and avoided falling into large budget deficits or squandering money for the benefit of the military-industrial complex like Reagan did.

The candidate was Al Gore when he was already vice president, the U.S. politician who knew the most about the terrible consequences of climate change. He was the victim of electoral fraud when he was a presidential candidate and had victory snatched away from him by W. Bush.

Opinions about the awarding of this prize have been very much divided. Many are based on ethical concepts or reflect evident contradictions in the surprising decision.

They would have preferred that prize to be the fruit of a task fulfilled. The Nobel Peace Prize is not always awarded to people who deserve that distinction. Sometimes individuals have received it who are resentful, arrogant or even worse. Lech Walesa, upon hearing the news, said disdainfully, “Who, Obama? It’s too fast. He hasn’t had time to do anything.”

In our press and on CubaDebate, honest and revolutionary comrades have been critical. One of them said, “In the same week that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the U.S. Senate passed the largest military budget in history: $626 billion”. During the television newscast, another journalist commented, “What has Obama done to achieve such a distinction?” Others asked, “And what about the war in Afghanistan and the increase in bombings?” Those are viewpoints based on reality.

In Rome, the filmmaker Michael Moore made a lapidary statement: “Congratulations, President Obama, on the Nobel Peace Prize; now, please, earn it.”

I am sure that Obama would agree with Moore’s statement. He possesses sufficient intelligence to understand the circumstances surrounding the case. He knows that he has not yet earned that prize. That morning, he stated, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize.”

It is said that there are five members on the famous committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize, all of them members of the Swedish Parliament. A spokesperson said that it was unanimous. One question fits here: did they or did they not consult the winner? Can a decision of this type be made without first notifying the winning individual? This cannot be judged morally in the same way if the person knew or did not know beforehand about the awarding of the prize. It is also fitting to affirm that about those who decided to award it to him.

Perhaps it is necessary to create a Nobel Prize for Transparency.

Bolivia has major gas and oil deposits and holds the largest known reserves of lithium, a mineral greatly needed in our era for storing and using energy.

Evo Morales, a very poor indigenous farmer, traveled throughout the Andes, together with his father, before he was six years old, shepherding the llamas of an indigenous group. They led them for 15 days to reach the market where they sold them to buy food for the community. Responding to a question of mine about that unique experience, Evo told me that at the time, “they stayed in the 1,000-star hotel,” a beautiful way of referring to the clear skies of the mountains where telescopes are sometimes placed.

During those hard years of his childhood, the alternative for the farmers in the community where he was born was to cut sugar cane in the Argentine province of Jujuy, where part of the Aymara community sometimes took refuge during the sugar cane harvest.

Not very far from La Higuera, where Che, wounded and disarmed, was murdered on October 9, 1967, was Evo, who was born on the 26th of that same month in 1959, not yet 8 years old. He learned to read and write in Spanish, walking to a little public school five kilometers from the hut where, in a rustic room, he lived with his brothers and sisters and parents.

During his eventful childhood, wherever there was a teacher, Evo was there. From his race, he acquired three ethical principles: not to lie, not to steal, and not to be weak.

When he was 13, his father permitted him to move to San Pedro de Oruro to go to high school. One of his biographers tells how he was better in geography, history and philosophy than in physics and mathematics. The most important thing is that Evo, to pay for his studies, would wake up at 2 a.m. to work as a baker, construction worker, or in other physical labor. He attended classes in the afternoon. His classmates admired him and helped him. From the very start, he learned to play wind instruments and was a trumpet player in a prestigious band in Oruro.

When he was still an adolescent, he organized his community’s soccer team, and was its captain.

Access to the university was not within his reach, being an Aymara Indian and poor.

After his last year of high school, he served his mandatory military term and returned to his community, located high up in the mountains. Poverty and natural disasters forced his family to migrate to the subtropical region of El Chapare, where they were able to obtain a small land parcel. His father died in 1983 when he was 23 years old. He worked hard on the land, but he was a born fighter; he organized all of the workers, created labor unions and with them filled the vacuums to which that the state was not paying attention.

The conditions for a social revolution in Bolivia had been created over the last 50 years. On April 9, 1952, before the start of our armed struggle, the revolution broke out in that country with the Nationalist Revolutionary Movement of Víctor Paz Estenssoro. The revolutionary miners defeated the forces of repression and the MNR took power.

Revolutionary objectives in Bolivia were far from being met. In 1956, according to well-informed people, the process began to fall apart. On January 1, 1959, the Revolution was victorious in Cuba. Three years later, in January 1962, our country was expelled from the OAS. Bolivia abstained. Later, all of the governments except for Mexico broke off relations with Cuba.

Divisions in the international revolutionary movement made themselves felt in Bolivia. Still to come were 40 years more of blockading Cuba, neoliberalism and its disastrous consequences, The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and the ALBA; still to come, above all, were Evo and the MAS in Bolivia.

It would take to long to sum up that rich history on a few pages.

All I will say is that Evo was able to overcome the terrible and slanderous campaigns of imperialism, its coups d’état and interference in internal affairs, and to defend Bolivia’s sovereignty and the right of its millenary people to have respect for their customs. “Coca is not cocaine,” he exclaimed to the largest marijuana producer and largest consumer of drugs in the world, whose market has maintained the organized crime that costs thousands of lives every year in Mexico. Two of the countries where the yanki troops and their military bases are located are the largest producers of drugs on the planet.

Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador are not falling into the deadly trap of drug trafficking; they are revolutionary countries that, like Cuba, are members of the ALBA. They know what they can and should do to bring health, education and well-being to their peoples. They do not need foreign troops to combat drug trafficking.

Bolivia is going forward with a program of its dreams under the leadership of an Aymara president who has his people’s support.

In less than three years, he eradicated illiteracy: 824,101 Bolivians learned to read and write; 24,699 did so in the Aymara language and 13,599 in Quechua; it is the third country to be free of illiteracy after Cuba and Venezuela.

Free medical attention is provided to millions of people who had never received it. It is one of seven countries in the world that in the last five years has most reduced its infant mortality rate, with the possibility of reaching the Millennium Goals before 2015, and it is the same case with maternal deaths, in a similar proportion. Restorative eye surgery has been performed on 454,161 people, 75,974 of them Brazilians, Argentines, Peruvians and Paraguayans.

An ambitious social program has been established in Bolivia: all of the children in public schools from first to eighth grade receive an annual donation to help pay for their school materials, benefiting almost two million students.

More than 700,000 people over the age of 60 receive a voucher for the equivalent of some $342 annually.

All pregnant women and children under the age of 2 receive assistance of approximately $257.

Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, has placed under state control the country’s principal energy and mineral resources, respecting and compensating each one of the interests affected. It marches along carefully, because it does not wish to retreat a single step. Its hard currency reserves have been growing. Evo has no less than three times what the country had at the beginning of his administration. It is one of the countries that makes the best use of foreign cooperation and firmly defends the environment.

In a very short time, he has been able to establish the Biometric Electoral Register, and approximately 4.7 million voters have been registered, almost one million more than on the last electoral register, which in January 2009 had 3.8 million.

On December 6, there will be elections. It is a sure thing that the people’s support for their president will grow. Nothing has been able to stop his growing prestige and popularity.

Why isn’t he awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

I understand his big disadvantage: he is not a U.S. president.

Fidel Castro Ruz
October 15, 2009
4:25 p.m.