Weekly News Review Archive
|
24th May, 2002 The big news
of the Irish general election was that the most Europhile of
the Irish political parties, Fine Gael, saw a dramatic fall
in its vote and suffered the loss of nearly half its parliamentary
seats, including those of several former Ministers. Fine Gael
is the Irish element of the People's Party (Christian Democrats)
in the European Parliament. Mr Alan Dukes, another former leader
of Fine Gael and perhaps Ireland's best-known Europhile after
former Prime Dutch elections: spectacular
success for Socialists while Labour collapses
and Green Left flounder Last week’s elections in the
Netherlands, which came just too late to be reported in Spectre’s
weekly news update, saw the Socialist Party, Spectre’s
main sponsors, enjoy a near-doubling of its vote, winning the
support of over half a million Dutch citizens for a radical
left programme. The Blairite Labour Party saw its support almost
halved, on the other hand, while the other governmental parties,
the Thatcherite VVD and the centre-left D66, also lost support,
with D66 continuing its Cheshire Cat-like disappearing act,
though there were few grins to be spotted at the Democrats’
HQ when the results came in. Other losers including the small
religious parties and the pro-EU, pro-NATO, misnamed “Green
Left”, who fell from 11 to 10. (Dutch election rules are
strictly proportional, so with 150 MPs percentages are roughly
two-thirds of these figures.) The big winners were the murdered Pim Fortuyn’s
right-wing populists, who went from no seats to 29, and the
centre-right Christian Democrats, who are now by far the biggest
party. Latest reports suggests that these two, together with
the VVD, will now form a government. After the elections, the SP issued the following statement: The parliamentary group of the SP in the Tweede Kamer now
consists of five men and four women, of whom four were members
before the election and five are new to parliament: Jan Marijnissen,
Agnes Kant, Harry van Bommel, Jan de Wit, Krista van Velzen,
Piet de Ruiter, Ali Lazrak, Fenna Vergeer en Arda Gerkens. Remi
Poppe, MP left the Tweede Kamer at his own request after eight
years as a member, but his extra-parliamentary activities around
environmental and food issues will continue. The election campaign of 2002 vividly demonstrated the
existence of mass anger with the governing coalition and growing
support, on the right, for the new list Pim Fortuyn and, in
recent weeks, the Christian Democrats of the CDA; on the left,
support grew (initially) for the Green Left, and the SP. The
cowardly murder on the 6th May of the right-wing populist Pim
Fortuyn led to a huge outburst of disgust with the governing
parties. The election result represented a political earthquake
of unprecedented scale. The ruling coalition of social democrats
(PvdA), right- and left-wing liberals (VVD, D66) lost in the
end half of its support (PvdA from 45 to 23, VVD from 38 to
24, D66 from 14 to 7). Gains went to the opposition Christian
Democrats (CDA, from 29 to 43), the new right-populist LPF (from
0 to 26!), and, on the left, the SP (from 5 to 9). The opposition
party Green Left, which was originally riding high in the opinion
polls, lost one seat and now has 10 seats. During the campaign the SP, and above all its leader and
Number 1 on its list, Jan Marijnissen, who was the SP's first
MP in 1994,won more and more support. The combination of vigorous
opposition, both inside and outside parliament, to the "purple"
neoliberal governing coalition, with a point-by-point critique
of the solutions offered by the right-populist Fortuyn for rebuilding
the "purple ruins", seems to have been appreciated
by numerous voters. The SP advocated massive investment in the public sector.
The party had its election programme, Eerste Weg Links (First
Way Left), assessed by the Central Planning Bureau, which also
passed judgement on the manifestos of the other parties. The
Planning Bureau considered (to the astonishment of the other
parties) that the SP's proposals were achievable and affordable,
and that they would not lead to a budget shortfall or an increase
in the national debt. Central to this election programme was the reconstruction
of the public sector, a redistribution of knowledge, income
and power and the prioritisation of ecology over economy. The
SP put forward proposals for a moratorium on plans to privatise,
amongst other things, the energy sector; for the introduction
of a national sickness insurance scheme; for far-reaching investment
at all levels of education; for the furthering of the integration
of people of foreign origin through a better spread of immigrants
and non-immigrants in residential areas, schools and jobs; and
for the maintenance of the social security law. The SP also
proposed that the Netherlands leave NATO and that no new powers
be handed over from national authorities to the European Union.
Finally, the contribution to development co-operation should,
according to the SP, be raised from 0.7% to 1% of GDP. SP support, which was previously concentrated in a limited
number of districts, can now be found throughout the country.
In the capital, Amsterdam, almost 11% voted SP. In Oss, the
home of Jan Marijnissen, the figure was 19%. Support amongst low- and middle-income voters was respectively
9% and 7%, average (5.9%) amongst high income groups and 3%
amongst those on the highest incomes. Above average support
also came from the youngest voters (7%), whilst it was average
amongst 25-44-year-olds, 8% in the overlapping category of 35-64
year-olds, and 3% amongst the oldest voters, those over 65.
New SP voters had previously supported the PvdA (social
democrats), Green Left, D66 (left-leaning liberals) and support
also came from people who had not voted last time. During the campaign potential voters were continually informed
of the possibility of becoming members, and with success: total
membership grew from 27,000 in January to a current total of
more than 30,000. In comparison, the PvdA now has 58,000 members
and the Green Left 17,000. European Parliament calls for speedy ratification of
GMO trade protocol Jonas Sjöstedt, Swedish member of the United Left Group
(GUE-NGL) in the European Parliament, welcomed this week's Environment
Committee decision to approve without amendment the Commission's
proposal to conclude the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Although the Parliament can only approve or reject the
biosafety rules negotiated internationally, Mr. Sjöstedt, charged
with leading the approval of the proposal through the European
Parliament, believes that speedy ratification by the EU sends
the correct political message to Member States and other countries.
EU ratification in advance of the next World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg, which starts at end of August,
should boost the ratification process internationally, according
to Mr Sjöstedt. The Protocol provides a framework for international trade
in genetically modified organisms and was agreed in Montreal
in January 2000. As the Protocol imposes obligations on the
both the Community and the Member States, each has to ratify
separately. All EU Member States have signed the Protocol; however,
it will not enter into force until fifty countries have ratified
it. The total as of 13 May 2002, stood at nineteen. Of the EU
Member States, only Spain and the Netherlands have ratified,
with the Czech Republic and Bulgaria being the only applicant
countries as yet to have done so. Mr. Sjöstedt urged the other
Member States to ratify the Protocol as speedily as possible
and requests the European Commission to raise the matter during
accession negotiations. The Parliament is expected to approve the Commission's
proposal without debate at its next plenary session. The Council
intends to complete the process of approval at the next meeting
of EU Environment Ministers on 24-25 June 2002. While the Environment Committee's decision today was non-contentious,
Mr. Sjöstedt warned that the next phase of the process will
not be so straightforward. The Commission has proposed another
piece of legislation to adapt Community law to the demands of
the Protocol. Mr. Sjöstedt said that he was disappointed with
the Commission's proposal and intends to propose toughening
up its proposal. A
secret EU study leaked to Greenpeace states that all farmers
would face high additional, in some cases unsustainable costs
of production if genetically engineered (GE) crops were commercially
grown on a large scale in Europe. The study predicts that the
situation would become particularly critical for organic farming
of oilseed rape (canola) as well as for intensive production
of conventional maize. The
EU Commission ordered the study on the co-existence of GE and
non-GE crops in May 2000 from the Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, of the EU Joint Research Centre. The
study was delivered to the EU Commission in January 2002 with
the recommendation that “given the sensitive nature of
the issue” it not be made public.
"The
European Commission has tried to keep this study secret",
said Lorenzo Consoli, Greenpeace EU policy advisor, "because
it was afraid of its political implications. The question is,
if the introduction of GE crops on a commercial scale in Europe
increases costs of production for all farmers, makes them more
dependent on the big seed companies, and require complicated
and costly measures to avoid contamination, why should we accept
GE cultivation in the first place?"
The
EU study states that in oilseed rape production the co-existence
of GE and non-GE crops in a same region, even when "technically
possible", would be "economically difficult"
because of the additional costs and complexity of changes required
in farming practices in order to avoid genetic contamination.
Both, organic and conventional farmers "would probably
be forced to stop saving seed and instead buy certified seed",
because of the increased risk of GE impurity for seeds that
have been exposed to field contamination. The study predicts
that smaller farms would face relatively higher costs compared
to larger entities, and that cultivation of GE and non-GE crops
in the same farm "might be an unrealistic scenario, even
for larger farms".
Coexistence
of GE farming and organic farming would be actually impossible
in many cases. Generally, coexistence would only be possible
with massive changes in farming practices, especially for conventional
farmers; it would also require co-operation
between farmers in a region and the willingness of
all farmers concerned to participate in such co-operation;
it is not clear who would implement these changes, who would
be responsible for controlling their correct implementation,
who would shoulder their costs.
A
copy of a summary and the conclusions of the study are available
from Lorenzo Consoli, email: lorenzo.consoli@diala.greenpeace.org
Denmark:
Echoes of colonial past in new right-wing government policies Danish Left Member of the European Parliament, Ms Pernille
Frahm of the Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti)
has accused Defence Minister Mr Svend Aage Jensby of “blatantly
breaking his promises to the peopleof Greenland” in welcoming
an American initiative on a missile defence shield and supporting
the use of the Thule radar station in its construction. Danish
governments have always stated that Greenlanders would be part
of any discussion on the future use of the Thule Radar. “Mr Jensby also breaks the line that Danish governments
have followed previously, that no comment on the use of Thule
Radar would be made until the US made a specific proposal,”
Ms Frahm said. “This was already a cowardly way of treating
the future of the aboriginal people in Greenland, but it has
been accepted until now. However, welcoming American plans before
they are actually put on the table for discussion is absolutely
unacceptable. “The Conservative-Liberal
government has, in a little more than 100 days, managed to raise
the international profile of Denmark quite significantly. Sadly,
this has not been to the benefit of the reputation of the Danish
people, in fact, quite the reverse. “First came a new line in aid to the Third World with
a massive reduction, then a disastrous new environment policy
which is hardly worthy of that title. Later came the shock that
Denmark will make rules on refugees and immigration significantly
tougher. And now we hear the echoes of a colonial past in the
treatment of Greenlanders on the question of the Thule Radar. “The new Danish government – the incoming president
of the EU – has set a worrying trend. This does not bode
well for upcoming international negotiations on sustainable
development. Denmark will lead the EU at a very important UN
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg at end
of August.” New publication
lifts lid on energy privatisation
Liberalisation
of the electricity sector is on the increase on a global scale.
Corporate driven reforms are portrayed by international financial
institutions and multilateral development banks as means of
improving efficiency and attracting foreign investment for national
economic growth. Most countries across the world are taking
steps towards privatisation and deregulation of the electricity
sector, often to meet the conditions imposed by international
donors to comply with regional or global trade agreements.
If the aim
were really to improve the living conditions of ordinary people
by lowering the cost or increasing the quality of power provision,
privatisation and deregulation would have evidently failed.
During the past five years, from New Zealand to California and
from India to Brazil, the world has witnessed a series of catastrophic
blackouts, skyrocketing tariffs, growing corruption, environmental
disasters and the collapse of the Enron Corporation, a veritable
icon of liberalisation. As
the real aim of energy liberalisation is to enrich the corporate
backers of Bush, Blair and their rich friends, it can probably
be counted a huge success. This first
issue of Power and Society attempts to look beyond the promised
benefits of liberalisation and debunk some myths about power
deregulation and privatisation worldwide. Lights
off! Debunking the Myths of Power Liberalisation The Green Party
of the USA and other radical groups are pushing hard for an
independent enquiry into the terrible events of last September
11. At the same time, the idea that the Bush regime’s account
of events leading up to and accompanying the terrorist attack
stretches credibility to breaking point has, in the space of
a few months, moved from the outer left of US politics, through
the left of its mainstream and on into the very heart of the
establishment. "While
the White House tries to downplay the news, it's becoming clear
that this is even more gravely serious than the Enron debacle,”
said Green Party New Jersey candidate (and occasional contributor
to this website) Ted Glick. “An investigation needs to
be directed by those whose only interest is in finding the truth,
and who have the courage and resolve to seek the truth regardless
of political or criminal implications. Relatives of the victims
should play a major role in the committee overseeing the investigation." Not only Greens
and other activist groups and individuals, but an increasing
number of Americans who do not think of themselves as in any
way radical, have called for an independent investigation. Even elements in the Land
of the Free’s notoriously lapdog-like media have begun
to take an interest in questions such as why the Bush junta,
possibly with the compliance of leading Congressmen and –women
from both major parties, failed for nine months after September
11th to disclose its knowledge of intelligence warnings from
as early as May, 2001. Why
did Bush and “Vice President” Cheney, the latter repeatedly,
contact Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to urge the Senate
not to conduct a full investigation into September 11? If
suspicions of an attack came in part from intelligence warnings
about questionable enrolments in flight training schools (August
6, 2001 secret memo to the President, "Bin Laden Determined
to Strike in U.S."), why does the White House say it expected
a conventional hijacking? Since when are years of pilot training
part of the preparation for what Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
called a "traditional" hijacking? Did insider trading
occur on Wall Street based on knowledge of an impending attack?
Did U.S. intelligence, which tracks trading patterns, detect
the jump in United Airlines put options (90 times above normal)
between September 6 and 10, 2001, and 285 times higher than
average on September 7; or the jump in American Airlines put
options (60 times above normal) on September 10? (Put options
are leveraged bets that a stock's price will fall.) This was
reported on CBS News on September 26, 2001; no similar trading
patterns occurred for other airlines. "The Attorney General
John Ashcroft stopped using ordinary commercial jets in early
summer after an internal security warning." (The Independent, May 17, 2001) Why did the FBI advise Ashcroft, as
later reported by CBS News on July 26, 2001, to avoid commercial
flights for the remainder of his term? Did it occur to Ashcroft
(and Bush) to ask what the threat was? Should other Americans
have been warned? Did plans for the trans-Afghanistan pipeline
to transport oil from Turkmenistan motivate Bush to block intelligence
gathering on al Qaeda in early and mid 2001? According to CNN,
this obstruction drove FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill to resign
two weeks before September 11. (After leaving the FBI, O'Neill
became security director at the World Trade Center, where he
died on September 11.) The revival of pipeline plans after September
11 was denied by the White House in late 2001, but confirmed
in a February 8, 2002 joint declaration by Afghan interim Prime
Minister Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
and more recently by World Bank chief James Wolfensohn. What
kind of influence did oil interests have over Bush intelligence
policy before and after September 11? What elementary precautions
could airlines, the FAA, and the U.S. military have taken to
improve security on commercial flights and at major landmarks
known to be vulnerable? Why didn't U.S. intelligence agencies
compile, compare, and analyse numerous intelligence reports,
such as the e-mail from a Minneapolis FBI agent suggesting that
Zaccarias Moussaoui might fly a jumbo jet into the World Trade
Center? Could the attacks have been prevented? Thanks to the Green Party of the United States for much
of the information in this report. Go to http://gpus.org
or http://www.greenpartyus.org
for more on the party, and to http://www.greens.org/elections
for a list of its candidates in elections to be held this year. “When
people first raised questions about President Bush's scared-chicken
behavior on September 11, they were buried in patriotic abuse.
But think about it. Consider the bare facts: The attacks happened
on George Bush's watch. He was in charge. And he now admits
to having known in general what was going to happen. Terrorists
were slipping into the country. They were studying at American
flight schools. They intended to hijack planes. They were financed
by Osama bin Laden. Knowing all of this, Bush still left us
totally undefended. And for this performance, his approval ratings
soared......Bush protected himself and his friends. What he
left uncovered was the rest of us.” Go to this
website to read the rest. “Some
months ago, a book was published in France entitled 'Osama bin
Laden: The Forbidden Truth.' The authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume
Dasique, described a connection between the September 11th terrorist
attacks and a stalled plan to build a pipeline to exploit the
vast natural gas fields along the Caspian Sea in Turkmenistan.
Their story pointed damning Brisard and
Dasique were paid little mind by the American news media. Many
of their allegations were based upon conjecture, circumstantial
evidence, and the words of a dead man named John O'Neill. Their
argument seemed plausible enough - the interests of the Bush
administration and the energy industry are, in essence, one
and the same - but without proper In
Brief EU/Turkey…far
left Turkish group the DHKC-P, as well as the Kurdish PKK have
now been added to the EU’s list “terrorist” organisations.
Given that they are operating in a terrorist state, this is
ironic but not surprising. The Turkish army is able to operate
with impunity, given the country’s status as loyal, reliable,
strategically located and armed-to-the-teeth NATO member and
top customer of western arms traders.
"Is Britain ready for the Euro?"…is the question posed by on BBC Newsnight Click here
to vote. All products with bar code beginning with 729 are Israeli
goods. So please don’t buy ‘em, okay? Know your enemy…papers and presentations from the WTO Public Symposium on the Doha Development
Agenda (29th April - 1st May 2002) are now available on the
WTO More than half of Britons believe they live in a racist
society, a major
survey commissioned by BBC News Online suggests. Presumably
the rest find the tooth fairy a convincing explanation of the
appearance of money under the pillows of those recently having
undergone dental treatment. War Times…the
new US paper, hasn’t gone anywhere. They just had some
technical problems, so their website, www.war-times.org
was down for a few days. Anyone experiencing difficulties getting
through to it in the future is advised to write to wartimes@attbi.com
The paper’s new issue is set to come out on June 1 with
articles on Oil and War, an interview with United Farm Workers
leader Dolores Huerta; Who is John Ashcroft?; the U.S. South
and War; Palestine; and a commentary on Women and the War on
Terrorism. Write to info@war-times.org
to find out how to receive copies, including multiple copies
for distribution. Clones ‘R’ Us…The International Center for Technology Assessment's Patent Watch project
has discovered that a U.S. university holds a patent on human
reproductive cloning and, potentially, clones. Granted on April
3, 2001, the patent appears to give the University of Missouri
intellectual property rights not only to cloning technology,
but on any product -- potentially a human being -- created by
cloning. Read Kristen Philipkoski’s account here Green Left Weekly, Australia's socialist newspaper
provides news, information, opinion and debate from an environmental
and left perspective. This week GLW
focuses on how the right to protest is under threat from new
“anti-terror” laws. Go to http://www.greenleft.org.au
|
SPECTREZINE
Homepage
Weblog
Spectremail
Contact
LATEST
The
European Dream
While
Europe Sleeps
European Expansion
Crisis
of Liberal Democracy
Or does it explode?
Manipulative Conspiracy
The EU and Colombia
Revolt
in Paris
EU in Crisis
Prague and Cuba
SEE
ALSO
Ireland,
peace and neutrality
Europe's
monetary drama
European
division: really over?
Europe's Services Directive
Jan Marijnissen on EU
LATEST
NEWS
Weblog
Budget
talks hit problems
Turkish
human rights
Secret
US detention centres
Dutch
campaigner wins Traesko Prize
Against
the Current
EU
chemicals policy
Australian
workers protest
Statewatch
surveillance observatory
CATEGORIES
Africa
Book Reviews
Corporate Crime
Current Issues
Economy and Society
East Asia
Editorial
Environment
Europe
Global Resistance
Latin America/Caribbean
Middle East
North America
Progressive Press
War
ARCHIVES
News
Review 2001-04
Features
2001
Features 2002
Features 2003-04
