M.I.A Born Free

M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS on Vimeo.

Smash WTO - Geneva, November 28th, 2009

Racism- A history part 2: Fatal Impacts

Series looking at how racism impacts on people's lives. Part Two: Looks at Scientific Racism in the 19th century, which drew on now discredited sciences

Colonialism in 10 Minutes: The Scramble For Africa

Racism - A History part 1 of 3

Part one of a three part BBC series looking at the history of racism

Pacific Islands Bullied by Australian, NZ Trade Officials, Say Experts

By Diane Cordemans

source: Epoch Times

AUCKLAND, N.Z.-Tactics employed by Australia and New Zealand to push Pacific Island countries into signing a free trade agreement are a form of “contemporary colonization,” said academic and respected analyst on Pacific Island affairs, Professor Jane Kelsey at a seminar in Auckland last week.

Pacific Island officials involved in the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) negotiations with Australia and New Zealand are worried that they are being pressured into signing an agreement that they do not fully understand, she said.

PACER is a framework for a free trade deal between Australia, New Zealand, and thirteen Pacific Island nations.

At a Forum Leader’s meeting in Nuie in August 2008, Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean pushed for free trade negotiations (PACER-Plus) to begin at this year’s Pacific Leaders Forum in Cairns. Trade officials were given a mandate to devise a plan for negotiations to begin.

This, experts say, signaled a more aggressive approach.

Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) Coordinator, Maureen Penjueli, and Communications Officer, Westley Morgan, say that Australia and New Zealand are fast tracking the process and ignoring wishes previously expressed by officials in Nuie for Forum Island Countries (FICs) to be well-prepared.

“Academics in the Pacific are predicting that 80 percent of Pacific manufacturing could close down under PACER-Plus,” said PANG last November, “leading to unemployment for thousands of workers.

“Most Pacific countries lack secure social nets, such as state welfare, to assist unemployed workers ... “These expected outcomes of PACER-Plus could leave many Pacific people faced with a bleak future.”

Vanuatu Minister for Internal Affairs, Patrick Crowby, said the issue cannot be fast-tracked if advisory institutions are not set up. “How will the government fund its essential public services if we lose out on vital revenue? Depend on aid donor money? I don’t think so,” he said to the Vanuatu Post recently.

Australia and New Zealand agreed to fund a Trade Advisory Office which could support national consultations and research, but only if the FICs did not seek funding from other quarters.

Professor Kelsey said the funding is inadequate. “It undermines claims that Australia and New Zealand are genuine about helping the Pacific develop trade policy to meet the regions’ development needs.”

“Those national consultations not only aren’t being funded but if Australia and New Zealand have their way there won’t be the time to do them properly anyway,” she said. “What we have seen, is a whole lot of behind the scenes practices that are highly manipulative.”

The FIC’s do not want to go into negotiations while some of their members are still negotiating other free trade deals-the Economic Partnership Agreement that Fiji and Papua New Guinea are involved in, and the World Trade Organization negotiations that Samoa, Vanuatu, and Tonga are involved with.

New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, announced earlier this month that foreign aid would no longer be directed to “poverty elimination” but linked to trade and economic development and should be compatible with New Zealand’s foreign policy.

This sort of pressure, says Professor Kelsey, places the Pacific Island nations in an even more vulnerable position.

The principal reason for Pacific Island nations participating in free trade negotiations is that they are hopeful that it will lead to the opening of more doors into Australia and New Zealand for temporary migrants. “That is seen as a lifeline,” Kelsey said. “It soaks up unemployment, helps the balance of payment, puts money back into villages and households, as well as potentially creating investors.”

“But until you get to the end of the negotiations, you are not going to know what is on the table, and the promises that you made in the process of those negotiations will be very hard to take off the table if you don’t get what you thought you might, at the end,” Professor Kelsey said.

Despicable treatment during free trade negotiations in the past have taught the Pacific Island nations to tread warily, says Professor Kelsey.

Samoa, Vanuatu and Tonga have experienced “unconscionable demands” in their attempt to enter into WTO negotiations-the prospect of unfettered operations by foreign businesses, privatization and big cuts in tariffs that would reduce government revenue, she said.

“To date, only Tonga has agreed to pay that price, although a statement out from Vanuatu suggests that they might actually be getting a bit closer to doing so.”

The Pacific Island Forum’s member states are: Australia, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Since 2006, associate members territories are New Caledonia and French Polynesia. Fiji was suspended on 2 May 2009.

Failed (Settler) States:The Abuse of Power & the Assault on Democracy

Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the foremost critics of U.S. foreign policy. Professor Chomsky discusses "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

He examines how the United States is beginning to resemble a failed state that cannot protect its citizens from violence and has a government that regards itself as beyond the reach of domestic or international law.

Neocolonialism

This is a children's book intended to educate kids about neocolonialism. Read by Karl Langberg

BHP plan controversial West Papua nickel mine

Video

Windows Media	Broadband	Dial-up
Real Player	Broadband	Dial-up

Broadcast: 29/09/2008

Reporter: Geoff Thompson and Tony Jones

BHP Billiton is on the verge of starting one of the most sensitive mining operations it has ever planned.

Transcript

TONY JONES: In West Papua, and after evading questions about the project for years, BHP Billiton is on the verge of starting one of the most sensitive mining operations it has ever planned. Gag Island in West Papua holds one of the world's richest nickel deposits. But it, and the islands around it, are ringed by what UNESCO and many marine scientists believe is the richest and most diverse coral reef system in the world.

Conservationists say BHP's disastrous environmental record at Papua New Guinea’s Ol Tedi mine should rule out any gamble with Gag Island's riches. And it's not just the potential for environmental damage that makes the gag project controversial. The island lies in West Papua, formerly Irian Jaya. The disputed Indonesian province where previous mining concessions like Freeport have become the focus for pro-independence guerrilla attacks and Indonesian human rights abuses.

Indonesia correspondent Geoff Thompson made the difficult journey to Gag Island to file this exclusive report for Lateline.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Off the remote coast of West Papua in eastern Indonesia sprawls the Raja Ampat archipelago. 610 islands spread across 50,000 square kilometres, covering an area 10 times the size of Bali. But its surface beauty simply cannot compete with the untold treasures below.

CHARLIE VERON, MARINE BIOLOGIST: There was once a time when all scientists in fact it was general knowledge, thought that the Great Barrier Reef was the centre of marine diversity. It was a very special place, but it is not the centre of marine diversity. The Raja Ampat islands of eastern Indonesia are.

JAN STEFFEN, UNESCO, JAKARTA OFFICE: If you look at it from the point of view of marine biodiversity it is what people call the bullseye on the planet. There's no richer person in terms of marine biodiversity.

GEOFF THOMPSON: The Raja Ampat archipelago sits atop the planetary short list of marine sites most deserving of World Heritage listing.

JAN STEFFEN: I think now it is basically a technical matter to get everything sorted out and to fulfil all the requirements but personally, I am quite optimistic that will happen.

GEOFF THOMPSON: But marine life isn't the only resource rich in abundance here. The other is nickel. In fact, one of the world's biggest deposits of that crucial stainless steel ingredient is locked inside Gag Island. A 56-square-kilometre land mass smack in the middle of the Raja Ampat archipelago.

And it's here that BHP Billiton has set up base, and is preparing to mine, after signing a 50-50 joint venture agreement in June with the Indonesian-owned company. For years BHP Billiton has been sitting on the controversial concession. Environmental protests saw the island reclassified as protected forest in 1999. Temporarily shelving BHP's mining plans. A regulatory shift in 2004 again cleared the way for Gag's exploitation. BHP's board has not yet approved the deal, but the company is already the best employer in Gag's only village, Gambia.

WAJU HUSEIN, COMMUNITY LEADER (translated): With the company here, even though they're still exploring, there's a huge difference in income already. When the producing starts, the company promises there'll be some sort of share of the production they get out of Gag Island, like in Freeport and such. There'll be money for the village, as well. They promised us that.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Nearly all of Gambia's point are migrants from nearby ma Luku and welcome the economic benefits they think the mine will bring. But Johanes Goram is an activist and among the Papuans disputing traditional ownership of Gag Island. He used to walk for Freeport's giant gold and copper mine, which for decades has been the flashpoint of conflict between pro-independence guerrillas and Indonesia's military.

Johanes Goram thinks stirring up of jealosies will haunt Gag Island, too.

JOHANES GORAM, NAZARETH FOUNDATION PAPUA: I do believe it is a human rights issue, because when the migrant and the local Papuan will fight or will conflict because of the issue, we are afraid that military intervention can be used to stop, to protect the company, to protect the land, to support the government.

GEOFF THOMPSON: It's extremely unlikely that BHP's nickel mine here will somehow sidestep the minefield of Papuan politics. Loud voices on the Papuan Traditional Council are already saying they are happy for the operation to proceed, but only in a Papua independent of Indonesia. But BHP can count on Indonesian Government support says the head of the country's investment board.

MUHAMMAD LUTFI, INVESTMENT BOARD CHIEF: We want to do it responsibly, but my board at least will make sure that it will happen in the near future.

GEOFF THOMPSON: BHP has refused to discuss which options are being considered to minimise the mine's impact on the surrounding reefs. The company first considered pumping hundred of thousands of tonnes of tailings onto the ocean floor, but BHP now says that option has been ruled out.

Todos con Bolivia Everyone with Bolivia

After nearly 516 Years of European Invasion & Genocide in the Americas 12 October 1492 - 2008

International Day of Solidarity with Bolivia Melbourne Australia, October 10 - 2008

Solidarity Night for Bolivian people self-determination and sovereignty

Friday October 10, 6:30pm
New Council Chambers
Victorian Trades Hall Council
Corner of Lygon & Victoria streets, Carlton

Everyone with Bolivia

The process of changes in favour of the Bolivian majority is at risk of being brutally restricted. The rise to government of an Indigenous president with unprecedented support in that country and his programs of popular benefits, the recovery of the natural resources and with the support of the majority of the indigenous and grassroots organisations have had to face the conspiracies of the Bolivian richest sectors, the oligarchy and United States interference from the first day in office.

In recent days the increase in conspiracy, violence and humiliation against indigenous organizations has reached its climax. The subversive, criminal, racist and unconstitutional actions of the oligarchic groups supported by USA during last week and days to try to create insecurity, instability and the conditions for a military coup and the intervention of USA upon the Bolivian nation reflect the racist and elitist minds of these sectors and constitute a very dangerous precedent not only for the country's integrity, but for other countries in Latin America.

History shows with ample eloquence, the terrible consequences that the divisionary and separatist processes supported and induced by foreign interests have had for humanity, just remember the military intervention backed by CIA against Salvador Allende in 1973.

Faced with this situation the Latin American Solidarity Network (LASNET), Friends of the Earth, The Alliance for Indigenous Self Determination and Latin American supporters from a range of Australian and community organisations are calling for an special Public Forum & Documentary Film night on Friday October 10, 6:30pm, at the New Council Chambers, Victorian Trades Hall (corner of Lygon and Victoria streets, Carlton) to express our solidarity and concerns in this difficult situation, at the same time we would like to sign, endorse and support a statement made by Bolivian indigenous and grassroots organisations which will be send to as previous the special Public Forum. The public forum will be addressed by Antonio-Nava Bolivian general consul from Sydney and solidairty activists will proposed different ways of action to support the Bolivian process, all welcome

The supporters of Bolivian people would like to express our support for the democratic and popular government of Evo Morales Ayma , for his policies for change and for the sovereign constituent process of the Bolivian people and the social movements supporting this process. At the same time we reject the antidemocratic attempt of instability leaded by the Bush administration, the Bolivian riches sectors, the reactionary and violent oligarchy in its crimes committed against poor and indigenous people in the lasts days.

All our support to the Bolivian people
Everyone with Bolivia

The International Indigenous Solidarity Gathering - Latin America, Asia & the Pacific support the international day of action with the Bolivian People. www.latinlasnet.org/gathering/freedom.html

Latin American Solidairty Network(LASNET)
Friends of the Earth (FOE)
The Alliance for Indigenous Self Determination

add you name here

More Info: 0400 914 944

Building Solidarity with Latin America... Building Bridges…
Organising Globally… The Power of Grassroots Organisations

lasnet@latinlasnet.org
www.latinlasnet.org
check for more info from indigenous and grassroots organisations from Bolivia at:
http://www.ubnews.org
http://bolivia.indymedia.org/

Viewpoint: Labour mobility deals

Under pressure to sign on to new free trade agreements, Pacific Islands governments interested in securing positive outcomes for their peoples see deals on labour mobility as potential development gains. But is this the right approach? And what are the potential costs?

---

Islands Business (Suva) | August 2008

Viewpoint: LABOUR MOBILITY DEALS

Wesley Morgan

Under pressure to sign on to new free trade agreements, Pacific Islands governments interested in securing positive outcomes for their peoples see deals on labour mobility as potential development gains. But is this the right approach? And what are the potential costs?

For much of the past decade the Pacific Islands Countries have faced pressure from developed-country partners and aid donors to move towards trade liberalisation through new free trade agreements (FTAs).

Free trade agreements involving the region include the Pacific Islands Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union, and the extension of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) with Australia and New Zealand to include deeper “economic integration”.

The move towards free trade is driven largely by the interests of business (exporters, service suppliers and potential new investors) based in the Pacific’s developed-country ‘partners’.

Businesses in Australia and New Zealand, in particular, want to see tariffs reduced on their exports to the Pacific and changes to laws in the region to allow multinational corporations to establish new enterprises and invest (and remove profits) without obligations to the countries in which they invest.

Concerns have been raised by many in the region, particularly civil society and academics, that these free trade deals will lead to rising inequality, dramatic losses in government revenue, de-industrialisation, business closures, job losses, a reduction in the quality and supply of essential services and the closing off of important ‘policy space’ that governments use to stimulate development.

Pacific governments have approached this push towards FTAs from a defensive position-understanding that trade liberalisation with much larger economies will have very real costs for the Pacific Islands, but hoping to win some concessions in areas of key interest to the region.

The link between labour mobility and FTAs

One of the areas Pacific governments have been keen to gain concessions in is in the area of labour mobility. The unique challenges faced by most Pacific Islands (small size, distance from markets, high transport costs, etc.) means that relatively few investors are interested in putting their money into the region.

Understanding that capital is not coming to labour in the region, governments are calling for the introduction of carefully regulated labour movement schemes that would see unskilled and semi-skilled workers temporarily move to developed countries to work-increasing remittance flows to the islands, improving skills for returning workers, and easing economic and social pressures created through unemployment (especially youth unemployment).

The temporary movement of labour (not permanent migration) is linked to FTAs through agreements on trade in services.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) generally forms the basis for bilateral FTAs that include agreements on services-trade.

The ‘temporary movement of natural persons’ (people who travel to another country to deliver a service) is known as Mode 4 under the GATS.

Pacific governments have spent much of the past decade arguing that concessions on Mode 4 labour mobility should be included in any FTAs with the EU, or with Australia and New Zealand-and this has become a central negotiating position for the region.

So important does the Pacific hold temporary labour movement that current negotiations with the EU for a comprehensive FTA (called an Economic Partnership Agreement) have stalled because the EU is refusing to offer any new concessions on Mode 4 labour mobility. This has become the ‘red line’ non-negotiable regional position in the EPA negotiations.

At a recent seminar on EPA negotiations, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea, Pacific trade ministers and regional trade negotiators told EU ambassadors they have “no mandate” to discuss services liberalisation until the EU gives way.

PNG Foreign Minister Sam Abal said the EU was “hearing, but not listening to the Pacific Countries” when it came to their key demand.

The EU forced Fiji and PNG to initial an interim free trade deal (covering goods trade) in late 2007, under threats the EU would raise tariffs on tuna and sugar exports to the EU, and is seeking to conclude a full FTA in 2008 (covering issues like services and investment, government procurement and intellectual property rights. At the time of writing, Pacific states had in fact requested a suspension on EPA Trade in Services negotiations with the EU, with a view to potentially returning to the negotiating table in the future.

An unrealistic option?

The EU has made it clear they will not offer concessions for movement of the categories of workers proposed by the Pacific, largely because immigration is the responsibility of Member States. In a letter from the European Commission’s deputy director for trade, Karl Falkenberg and the director-general for development, Stefano Manservisi, to the (then) Pacific lead negotiator (dated October 20, 2006), the EC stated the Pacific’s “ambitions in this area go far beyond the possible offers we will be able to make in the end”.

Evaluating the costs

The Pacific prepared a raft of proposals for the EPA negotiations to try to blunt some of the more damaging aspects of a free trade agreement with the EU and to argue for movement on issues of key interest to the Pacific (including labour mobility, but also improved Rules of Origin for tuna exports, innovative proposals for targeting investment at small enterprises, and duty/quota free access to EU markets for exports).

Not only have most of the Pacific’s proposals been rejected, but also, by focusing on what ‘concessions’ the Pacific could gain from FTAs (including labour mobility), Pacific governments have been drawn into the notion that FTAs will offer benefits for the region-ignoring the very real costs that will be incurred by signing these deals.

Pacific civil society, church groups and trade unions have all pointed out that FTAs will have negative consequences for Pacific societies that should not be underestimated.

Organisations like the Pacific Council of Churches, the Pacific Network on Globalisation, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM), the Ecumenical Centre for Research, Education, and Advocacy (ECREA) and Oxfam NZ have highlighted the fact that FTAs will lead to dramatic falls in government revenue, business closures, job losses, an undermining of access to health, education and basic services, increased pressure for privatisation, restricted access to medicine and educational materials (through strict intellectual property rules), a reduction in policy options for creating local employment and stimulating local business, and restrictions on the ability of Pacific governments to regulate foreign investment in the social interest. These negative consequences arising from FTAs cannot simply be ignored, while looking for illusive gains-like new labour mobility schemes.

Separating development and free trade

When Pacific governments consider ways relationships with developed countries could be improved with positive development outcomes for the Pacific, it should be noted that there is no need for new proposals to be included within FTAs.

At the moment, Australia and NZ are looking at ways to induce Pacific governments to enter into a new FTA (dubbed ‘PACER+’) and are looking at using seasonal worker programmes as a ‘bargaining chip’ in negotiations set to get underway later this year.

Certainly New Zealand Trade Minister Phil Goff sees New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employment (RSE) scheme, initiated in April 2007 as leverage for the creation of the PACER+ agreement.

In March this year, he explained; “it’s something the Pacific nations have been seeking and would be a major inducement for those countries to become part of an integrated economy in the Pacific region”.

NZ’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sees RSE as “an excellent example of the benefits of regional integration. It may help stimulate deeper economic integration through the Pacific Plan and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations”.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will formally announce a pilot seasonal workers’ scheme (similar to the NZ scheme) at the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Niue in August. Australia can be expected, like NZ, to link this scheme implicitly, if not explicitly, to the PACER negotiations.

Pacific governments should be extremely wary of any such linkage.

The NZ seasonal labour scheme is employer driven - horticulture operators in NZ are struggling to find workers domestically, and are keen to find reliable labour from the Pacific.

In Australia, the National Farmers Federation has come out fully in favour of a similar scheme, anticipating a shortfall of 22,000 unskilled workers in Australia’s $7 billion-a-year horticulture industry as the drought ends.

With farmers in Australia and NZ desperate for workers and Pacific countries keen to supply them, such a scheme is a ‘win-win’. It would be completely cynical for Australia and NZ to use a seasonal workers’ scheme as a bargaining concession in negotiations.

Pacific governments should be asking whether it’s more feasible to pursue labour mobility agreements completely separate from FTAs. New Zealand’s RSE is an example of a temporary labour migration scheme (employing thousands of Pacific Islanders) that is not linked to an FTA.

As the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions explains: “If the seasonal labour development plan is a genuine development opportunity, then it should not be linked to discussion around free trade agreements”.

Some close followers of the labour mobility debate have argued that labour mobility needs to be included within an FTA in order to make any workers scheme binding-and thereby preventing governments in Australia or NZ sending thousands of workers home when unemployment rises, or if political relations sour with a particular country (like Fiji’s exclusion from NZ’s current seasonal workers scheme).

But we know already the EU, Australia and NZ do not believe GATS Mode 4 is supposed to cover workers in seasonal labour schemes, and it seems the binding nature of an agreement is likely to be more apparent than real.

The recent NZ/China FTA relegates short-term access to NZ’s employment market for Chinese on a working holiday to a side-letter with onerous qualifications. NZ can suspend the scheme for political reasons (in the event of a military coup for example) or end it with three months notice if unemployment rises dramatically. The issue here is the separating out of what should be a mutually beneficial labour mobility arrangement that has development benefits from FTAs that could have a whole raft of negative consequences for the Pacific.

Development in the Pacific: new visions required

One advantage of the Pacific’s defensive position in relation to the current free trade agenda is Pacific governments have (to a degree) had to ask what development outcomes can be gained through trade arrangements.

There seems to be a growing acknowledgement that the Pacific’s key offensive priorities, such as setting Rules of Origin for exports, development of regional fisheries, attracting investment, labour mobility, quarantine requirements or regional assistance, are not necessarily best served by FTAs at all.

The insistence of government and trade officials in Australia, NZ and the EU on linking aid with a free trade agenda is a form of neo-colonialism that ignores the Pacific’s right to set its own trade agenda.

Pacific people need a model of development that is sustainable and culturally and environmentally suitable. We need a renewed focus on addressing the real constraints in the Pacific-like access to health and education services, improving key infrastructure (transport, electricity, telecommunications, etc.), building service industry capacity (in tourism for example), supporting niche agricultural and industrial products, developing new markets (and improving market access) for Pacific exports, improving management and local value-adding for Pacific resources (in areas like mining, fishing, and forestry) and targeting investment at small and medium enterprises.

Labour mobility schemes can improve remittance flows, provide skills training, and ease unemployment pressures in the Pacific.

However, addressing the constraints faced by Pacific societies should not be linked with selling our sovereignty and exposing our markets to unequal foreign competition in binding FTAs.

source: Islands Business

see also

Australia Bully of the Pacific

Australia Bullying Pacific Over Free Trade Deal

Race is on for minerals

Collapse of WTO talks: Historic victory over neo-liberalism

The Guardian 6 August, 2008

Anna Pha

After nine days of high pressure negotiations the Doha Round finally collapsed. At previous World Trade Organisation (WTO) conferences and those of its predecessor, GATT, the developing nations were subjected to heavy bullying, all manner of threats and standover tactics. In the end they would capitulate with little more than promises in their hands in return for huge sacrifices.

The tactics were no different in Geneva last week, but on this occasion the Third World countries came well prepared. Under the strong leadership of India and with the weight of China behind them, 100 united and determined developing countries refused to cave in to policies that would only result in greater poverty and add to the millions of undernourished in their countries.

The outcome is a historic victory for the people of the world, in particular the most poverty stricken, and a blow against the neo-liberal policies of US imperialism. Despite not getting everything they were seeking from the Doha round, it is still a huge victory for developing countries. It was a decisive rejection of neo-liberalism that speaks for hundreds of millions of people globally. It is also strikes a blow at the transnational corporations (TNC) whose bidding Western governments were doing.

The US’s chief negotiator, Susan Schwab, blamed China and India for their defeat. She told journalists the dispute with China and India "really wasn’t a political discussion" but one over trade policy. She said the two emerging powers were demanding a "free-for-all" that would regularly allow them to raise tariffs on goods such as soybeans, poultry and palm oil, hurting American exporters.

China and India did play an important leadership role, steadfastly refusing to accept a further opening up of their markets in return for more promises. They did so speaking on behalf of the 100 developing countries which had signed a joint statement which was distributed during negotiations. China was admitted to the WTO at the Ministerial Conference in Doha in November 2001 and up until now had taken a low-key approach.

India’s chief negotiator Kamal Nath received a heroes’ welcome on his return to India. "The vulnerability of poor farmers cannot be traded off against the commercial interests of developed countries", he said having refused to bend to pressure. "I can negotiate commerce but I cannot negotiate livelihood security", said Nath, who laid blame on the intransigence of the US.

In Australia, the President of the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF), David Crombie, lamented the breakdown of talks, saying that it would prevent Australian farmers from selling into new and expanded markets.

"The collapse, caused by hardline demands for unacceptable flexibilities in … market access by countries such as India, has cost Australian farmers the opportunity to export to new and expanded markets", Crombie claimed. Developing countries, he warned, would be the biggest long-term losers. This viewpoint represents the agro-industrial complexes. Smaller family farms would stand to lose a great deal from heavily subsidised imports into Australia. Australian farmers already face stiff competition from cheaper imports.

Bradley S Klapper, writing in the Washington Post (30-7-08) reflected the attitude of the US and other wealthier nations when he said: "… the talks hit a snag over an obscure ‘safeguard’ for protecting agricultural producers in the developing world from a sudden surge in imports or drop in commodity prices."

This so-called "obscure safeguard" is a matter of life and death for millions of people. Developing countries at the UN Food Crisis Summit earlier this year emphasised the importance of re-establishing their agriculture sector as a means of feeding their people.

The free market policies which the developing countries firmly rejected are the very same polices that led to the present global food crisis.

The conference should have been about negotiating developing countries’ access to developed countries’ agricultural markets in return for developing countries opening up to foreign investment and services. Instead it was a very one-sided affair with developed countries expecting everything for peanuts in exchange for more empty promises. The developing countries were also demanding previous promises be included in the agreement.

The developing countries were calling for:

"Policy space" for governments of poor nations to be able to take actions to assist with development, and food security, in particular to have the flexibility to raise tariffs where necessary to protect a fledgling industry.

Recognition of the Doha principle of?"Special and Differential Treatment" for poorer nations, whereby developing countries can take a slower pace in reducing tariffs according their needs.

The roll-back of patent laws that prevent?poorer nations from manufacturing cheaper generic medications.

The exemption of staples such as corn,?rice, and wheat from deregulation in line with the Doha principle of protecting "Special Products".

Technical and financial assistance from?rich nations with the IMF, World Bank, etc, required to develop industrial and agricultural sectors.

The US and EU to honour WTO rules, in?particular WTO rulings that found their subsidies for cotton and sugar to be in violation of exiting trade rules under the prior agreement.

Mutually advantageous trade relations.

Action on the part of developed countries?to reduce their subsidies and other trade barriers and practices.

An end to the double standards practiced by the developed countries. For example, the tariffs collected by the US on US$2 billion worth of imports from Bangladesh are higher than those imposed on US$30 billion of imports from France. The huge subsidies and other assistance given to the agricultural sector enable the US, France and other developed countries to dump products on Third World markets, at prices that put local farmers out of business.

Needless to say such demands fell on deaf ears even though they were consistent with WTO principles.

As at the Food Crisis Summit, developed countries lacked the political will to negotiate an agreement that would assist the development of poorer nations. They expected developing countries to slash tariffs and further open their markets to imports and foreign investment with no restrictions on the operations of TNCs, a recipe for disaster not development.

If the EU and the US redirected some of the billions of dollars they spend every year subsidising their agricultural sectors to the poor nations, those nations would have a chance of developing their agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

The budgets of many developing countries are heavily reliant on tariffs — as much as 40 percent of tax revenue in countries such as Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Swasilan.

The demands of the developed countries were "business as usual", with the expectation that they would be able to force agreement on their agenda in the dying hours of the conference, as in the past. They were in for a shock.

A question of survival

Developing countries have in past rounds reluctantly agreed to tariff reductions on imports. In return they were promised, amongst other things, technical assistance, greater access to developed countries’ markets and flexibility. These promises, repeated yet again have never been honoured while the TNCs and developed nations were yet again demanding further concessions.

It was the same "North-South" divide in Geneva last week. On this occasion the North did not get its own way; even its usual divide and rule tactics failed

Several decades of structural adjustment programs, WTO policies, and IMF conditions and US puppet governments, are largely responsible for the destruction of agricultural sectors in many developing countries. As was reported to the UN Food Crisis Summit, former net exporters of agricultural products have become highly dependent on food imports. Millions of people have been driven off their land and added to the urban poverty of cities.

The Food Crisis Summit heard the same tragic stories repeated one after another from the poorer nations. Their pleas for financial assistance and technical knowledge largely fell on deaf ears. The hunger and malnutrition of more than 350 million people is a direct result of the operations of the TNCs under the umbrella of the WTO and Western governments.

Unity cemented

According to estimates by World Bank researchers, the Doha Development Round of negotiations would lift only 2.5 million people out of extreme poverty from an income of $1 to $1.10 per day by 2015 — not exactly eradicating poverty.

The development of various groupings of developing countries on a regional basis or round an issue at recent WTO ministerial meetings took an important step forward with the presentation by India of the joint statement from the 100 developing countries.

The statement pointed to the shortcomings of the draft text prepared by the Director General of the WTO Pascal Lamy. The statement put forward a very reasonable but firm position as to what was required.

Events in Geneva should act as a warning to the big imperialist powers and the corporate giants that it no longer "business as usual". The small and relatively powerless nations standing hand in hand with the likes of China and India, have gained a voice and power — no doubt their voices will be heard at other international conferences, including on another life and death matter — climate change.

The political change taking place in Asia, Central and South America, amongst African nations, and in the Pacific, together with the closer relations between developing countries are leaving the US behind. China, India, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and other countries are forming closer economic and political ties.

Some of he most reactionary puppets of US imperialism have been thrown out of office and replaced by left and relatively progressive governments. This change for the better in the political landscape reflects the growth of mass movements behind the stand taken in Geneva by Third World governments. More and more people are becoming very conscious of the source of their hardship and expect real change from their governments.

Energy crisis worsens in Marshall Islands

Updated 1 hour 50 minutes ago

The Marshall Islands government is to be urged to declare a state of emergency over the worsening energy crisis.

The Pacific Magazine is reporting the Marshall Islands national disaster committee has approved a report, recommending that cabinet take pre-emptive action before a disaster hits.

Marshalls Energy Company general manager, William Roberts, has told the Pacific News Service if the price of fuel continues to soar, it will put the country back 40 years

He says electricity rates have gone up four times in the past six months and communities are suffering.

A report submitted by two government utility companies says they both expect to face an $US18 million shortfall this year - an amount equal to 15 per cent of the national budget.

see also

http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2007/11/indigenous-rights-in-pacific-basin.html
http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2007/09/nuclear-history-of-micronesia-and.html

Marine battle looms as miners dig deep

From Business Day-Australia
Owen Bowcott
May 18, 2008


THE first deep-sea mining machines — for extracting gold, silver and copper deposited near volcanic fissures on the ocean floor — are being built by a British engineering company. The machines, which will resemble giant, abrasive vacuum cleaners, are at the forefront of an emerging underwater mineral extraction industry that is sounding alarm bells among marine biologists and environmental scientists.

A £33 million ($A68.5 million) contract for two sea-floor mining tools, capable of working at depths of more than 1700 metres, was awarded last December to a Newcastle-upon-Tyne firm, Soil Machine Dynamics. The machines could begin excavation work by 2010 in the Pacific, launching a new era in sub-sea exploration and mining.

Recovering these "poly-metallic" minerals, which are found in far higher concentrations than land-based ores, will generate huge earnings at a time when commodity prices are hitting record levels.

"We are leading the mining industry into the deep oceans," said Scott Trebilcock, vice-president of business development at Nautilus Minerals Inc, the Canadian company that has ordered the machines and whose operational management is based in Brisbane.

"This is as big a change as it was for the oil and gas industry when it went offshore in the 1960s and '70s," he said. "Billions of dollars have been spent over decades developing (underwater) pumps, hydraulics and trench-digging machinery. We can use their technology for new targets: the poly-metallic deposits that contain gold, silver, zinc and copper."

Nautilus' first project, the Solwara 1 field, is within Papua New Guinea's territorial waters, and the firm has also taken up licence options on sites near Tonga, Fiji and New Zealand. Those locations have been chosen because they are close to volcanic activity at the margins of the earth's tectonic plates.

"Deposits are formed from heated sea water," Mr Trebilcock said. "As it filters deeper into cracks, it absorbs sulphur and becomes acidic. It can reach 300 Celsius and dissolves minerals until it bubbles up and hits water on the ocean floor, which is at approximately 2 Celsius."

The metals are deposited on the seabed as massive sulphides that resemble giant "elephant turds", according to one oceanographer.

Nautilus will work on old underwater vents that have cooled, some way back from the super-heated, active plate edges. "Our material is 8%-10% copper," Mr Trebilcock said. "In land mines, the average is 0.59%. So for every tonne of copper produced, we move 40 times less material.

Similar SMS deposits lie on ocean floors around the world, particularly in the Arctic and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Those areas, however, are at far greater depths.

Soil Machine Dynamics is designing and assembling a tool that has a rotating cutting head — like the machines used to hew coal out of underground seams — surrounded by a giant suction pipe. The company describes the equipment as "a novel design for recovering ore which is found in massive sulphide deposits in rugged terrain. It draws on technology developed in recent projects for trenching systems." The two sea-floor mining systems will suck up 1.5 million tonnes of ore annually.

Mr Trebilcock said the operation would cause far less environmental damage than a similar-sized onshore mine. "There's no disturbance to the site around the mine," he said. "We'll have no waste rock. Everything we take up will be smelted.

"We have carried out an environmental impact study, which will be published this year.

"Oil and gas (companies) disturb a far larger area when they open up a new field. The dredging industry takes millions of tonnes off the ocean floor. We have significant (environmental) advantages over land-based companies."

However, some environmental groups, including WWF, are concerned that underwater mining will harm vast tracts of the seabed. "These sites have limited physical integrity and great biodiversity," Simon Cripps, director of WWF's global marine program, told Chemistry World magazine. "We would like to see a thorough, independent impact assessment before any mining work begins."

Catherine Coumans, a co-ordinator at Mining Watch Canada, has been to Papua New Guinea to examine the impact of mining. "I have studied mines … where the tailings (wastes) are flushed out to sea or simply dumped in rivers," she said. "(Papua New Guinea) has, tragically, some of the worst forms of mining and disposal. Now it is going to have experimental undersea mining.

"I would challenge the company to provide an independent scientific study."

Seminar on the Pacific-EU Economic Agreement

May 01, 2008 - Joint Statement.

The following is a joint statement issued by civil society organisations and private sector organisations of the Pacific Island countries, expressing grave concerns about ongoing negotiations between Pacific nations and the European Union for a new free trade agreement, to be known as an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).

We, the undersigned, have four key concerns about the EPAs put forward by the European Commission, including the interim-EPAs already initialed by Papua New Guinea and Fiji, and the comprehensive EPAs the Commission is pushing for all Pacific countries to sign before the end of 2008.

We are concerned that:

1.) The EPAs will reduce government revenue in Pacific countries.

By pushing Pacific governments to sign a free trade agreement on goods, which lowers tariffs on substantially all trade between the Pacific and the EU (instead of unilaterally modifying the EUs preferential market access rules to make them World Trade Organisation compatible) the EU is cutting off an important source of government revenue for many Pacific countries: taxes on imports.

Under the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Australia and New Zealand are going to demand the same market access as granted the EU under any EPA, which could have drastic consequences in terms lost government revenue. Pacific countries will find it extremely difficult to replace this lost revenue, and will have to cut services (like health and education) to their peoples.

2.) The EPAs will undermine the sovereignty of Pacific governments and peoples.

Under the EPAs Pacific governments will have to sell away policy space that allows governments to discriminate in favour of local firms and suppliers. Furthermore, Pacific governments will lose forever tools that could be used to nurture and support the development of their own industries and services sectors. Governments will have to offer national treatment to foreign companies operating in their countries instead of favouring local firms to help grow local industry and service suppliers.

3.) The EPAs will harm development in Pacific countries.

The European Commission is insisting that the EPAs contain a provision to eliminate all export restrictions. This would mean that Pacific countries would not be in a position to limit or tax exports of their natural resources (fish, wood, oil, minerals, raw materials etc.) so as to preserve them for local value added-processing, in order move up from commodity producers to value-added producers.

The interim-EPAs initialed by PNG and Fiji contains clauses preventing export taxes and export restrictions. Fiji has an export ban on unprocessed logs, in place to try and grow local furniture companies and stimulate local value-adding in the timber industry. PNG has an export tax on logs that earns over K100million each year. These export restrictions will have to be removed if PNG and Fiji sign the initialed interim-deals.

The so-called infant industry safeguards in the interim-EPAs actually prevent Pacific governments using tariffs to nurture new industries, making it extremely difficult to develop competitive value-adding processes. This will keep Pacific countries exporting raw commodities, and make it difficult to move up the processing chain.

4.) The EPAs will reduce the ability of Pacific governments to meet their human rights obligations to their people.

We note that the EPA envisaged by the EU has implications for the ability of Pacific governments to meet their human rights obligations to their own peoples particularly the right to the highest attainable standards of health, the right to housing, and access to essential services like water, health, and education.

The stringent intellectual property clauses proposed by the EU will make some medicines more expensive for Pacific people, and an agreement on services may restrict the ability of Pacific governments to provide essential services to all their peoples.

In light of these, and other concerns, and as representatives of Pacific civil society and Pacific businesses, we call for:

Pacific governments not to sign into law any interim-EPA, until independent evaluations and impact assessments of what has been initialed have been completed.

The European Commission to offer Pacific countries long term options for trade in goods that would include:

i)Adapting its unilateral preference scheme so they further open European markets and are made permanent, ensuring no Pacific country would be left worse off it does not conclude a free trade agreement.

ii)Renegotiation of any aspect of the initialed EPAs and a commitment to reduce the deals to the minimum needed for WTO compliance.

The European Commission to allow PNG and Fiji to re-negotiate contentious clauses within the interim-EPAs especially those concerning export restrictions, infant industry safeguards, and Most Favoured Nation provisions.

It is our sincere hope that Pacific governments, and Pacific trade ministries, will be vigilant during the ongoing negotiations and keep the concerns of Pacific peoples at the forefront in those negotiations. We request our leaders to consider Pacific civil-society and private sector organisations concerns and are open to further discussions.

This joint statement is endorsed by the following representatives of Pacific civil society and private sector organisations:

Pacific Islands Association of Non-Government Organisations, Pacific Network on Globalisation, Pacific Concerns Resources Centre, Vanuatu Association of Non-Government Organisations, National Council of Women Fiji and Fiji Chamber of Commerce.

Guest workers are not the answer, training our own is

John Sutton

April 30, 2008

Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit may have hit some sweet notes but it got one issue profoundly wrong. By advocating so-called "labour mobility from the Asia-Pacific" it was embracing a key big-business demand that has the potential to devastate our labour market and open up major social divisions.

The push for the free movement of labour from the Asia-Pacific to Australia comes from the same people who gave us the failed Work Choices policy.

The summit notionally qualified its support for this policy with the proposition that the new guest workers should be paid according to Australian standards. This stipulation is not new. The labour laws were meant to protect 457 visa workers who have been found time and again in the past five years to be underpaid and exploited and deported if they claimed unfair treatment.

Make no mistake - the large movement of guest workers from the Asia-Pacific to our small labour market would have profound effects on the ability of governments or unions to uphold standards. This policy would lead to the "Mexicanisation" of our job market.

This two-track model is playing itself out in the world in Western Europe and the Middle East. Probably nowhere is the social experiment more advanced than in the Gulf states. What one sees around Dubai, for instance, are palaces of opulence rising out of the desert for citizens of the United Arab Emirates - off the back of the vast pool of cheap labour from the Asian subcontinent that lives in enclaves that are out of sight and out of mind.

Having temporary migrant status compared to permanent migrant status is the key difference with guest workers. Traditional migrants' difficulties pale into insignificance when you consider the circumstances of guest workers. Their right to stay in the country is completely dependent on their employer.

More often than not the conversation between an employer and a guest worker with a complaint goes as follows:

Worker: Boss, I'm not getting some rights and entitlements I should be getting under Australian law.

Employer: I'm giving you $10 an hour. If you were at home you'd be getting $2 an hour.

Worker: Boss, I'm working very long hours, I haven't had a day off for months and I'm not getting overtime rates like Australians get.

Employer: You ungrateful sod. Put your head down and keep working or you will be on a plane home.

End of conversation.

It's all very well for the Rudd Government to claim it can redress this situation with changes to the 457 visa regime. While the worker does not have the freedom to stay in the country, there is huge capacity for abuse and exploitation.

At the global level the World Bank advocates the spread of guest worker arrangements. Similarly, countries with vast pools of low-skilled workers are agitating through free trade agreements to place their workers overseas to obtain remittances from the host country.

While one can understand the point of view of these countries, it doesn't mean Australia should rush towards the two-track labour market without fully understanding the consequences.

There is a tried and true nation-building formula that has stood us in good stead and we need to return to it. It's called training our own people, particularly our youth, and committing to a strong permanent migration program.

Those employers who use the constant refrain of "We can't get Australians to do hard and dirty work" ought to stop leaving the last three words off their complaint. Those three words, "at low pay", tell the real story.

John Sutton is national secretary of the CFMEU.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/29/1209234861913.html

Pacific trade ministers slam EU bullying in trade

Saturday, 19 April 2008, 11:45 am

Press Release: Pacific Network on Globalisation

PRESS RELEASE


Pacific trade ministers slam EU bullying in trade deal

Pacific trade ministers have slammed the European Union's approach to negotiating a new trade deal with the Pacific island countries as divisive, harsh and unnecessarily domineering.

A resolution passed at a meeting of Pacific Island trade ministers and officials from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat last month pointed out the "harsh and unnecessarily domineering attitude" of the European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson when Pacific trade ministers met with him to discuss negotiations for a new Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) in late 2007.

The anger of the Pacific Island trade ministers is highlighted in letters between the Cook Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs Wilkie Rasmussen, and the EU's top trade official, Trade Commissioner Mandelson. In those letters, Pacific trade ministers warn that the EU is pursuing a harmful strategy of divide and rule in negotiations for a new EPA with the Pacific Island states. The letters indicate Pacific trade ministers feel the EU forced Papua New Guinea and Fiji to sign an interim-EPA in late 2007 by threatening to raise tariffs on Pacific exports of tuna and sugar.

The concerns of Pacific trade ministers echo those of trade ministers in Africa, where some countries have been forced to initial interim-EPAs with the EU under a threat of tariff increases on key exports, while others have already said they will refuse to sign any EPA, because the deal would be bad for their national development.

Minister Rasmussen, who is also the co-president of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and the EU, first complained about Trade Commissioner Mandelson's "insensitivity" to the Pacific at the most recent ACP-EU Joint Parliament, held in Slovenia last month.

In response, Commissioner Mandelson wrote to Minister Rasmussen suggesting that Rasmussen had been misquoted and that he might consider making a public correction. Mandelson also threatened that if Pacific Ministers made more comments like these they would get less from the EPA negotiations. Mandelson wrote, "you are perfectly entitled to take a different view from me about the conduct and content of these negotiations. But personal and public attacks on your negotiating partner are unlikely to do much to improve the prospects of strengthening our relations looking forward".

In Rasmussen's reply, dated April 11, 2008, the minister re-iterated that comments made at the Joint Parliament "reflected the general feeling of the Pacific region that has dealt with you." In strong diplomatic language, he wrote to Mandelson that "the common impression you left on all of the Pacific Island Trade Ministers and the PACP/Forum Secretariat was that you were insensitive to our protocols and issues, and the result was that division occurred between the Pacific Island Countries. I can assure you that the general feeling is that Papua New Guinea and Fiji initialled the Interim Agreement because of fear that they would lose their preferential trade arrangements with the European Union."

Mr Rasmussen said he was trying to explain "why two countries of the Pacific initialled an agreement that the rest of the Pacific was not ready for". He wrote, "the solidarity of the Pacific was our strength and you have managed to break that with your particular agenda in the negotiations".

The letters, made public today by the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), indicate that Pacific trade ministers have deep concerns about the negotiations for a new EPA between Europe and the Pacific. In November 2007, Papua New Guinea and Fiji initialled interim agreements in order to preserve access for their goods to the EU, but negotiations continue on unresolved issues, with the EU pushing for a comprehensive free trade deal with all Pacific governments by the end of 2008.

PANG coordinator Maureen Penjueli said the EU's proposals for a new EPA meant Pacific governments would have to give away the policy space that allows governments to support local firms and suppliers, and to regulate widely to meet the social and environmental needs of Pacific peoples. She said a new EPA, which was designed to aid European big business and EU exporters, would also have implications for the ability of Pacific governments to meet their human rights obligations – particularly the right to the highest attainable standards of health, the right to housing, and access to essential services like water, health and education.

Mrs Penjueli called upon the EU to allow a re-negotiation of the interim agreements with PNG and Fiji, adding that in forcing PNG and Fiji to sign, the EU had ignored its commitments to the Pacific under the Cotonou Agreement. Ms Penjueli also called on Pacific ministers to listen to the concerns of Pacific civil society, and to refuse to sign any new EPA.

"The Pacific is under no legal obligation to conclude an EPA with the European Union," said Ms Penjueli. "This deal is actually about the EU making sure it still has access to raw materials from all of its ex-colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The Europeans want to make sure raw materials are not diverted to trade rivals like China, or even to value-adding processes in the ACP countries themselves."

She said that if it really was in the Pacific's development interest to reduce trade 'barriers' in particular areas, then Pacific governments "could do so at any time they liked." "A binding agreement designed by a foreign power [the EU], and potentially leading to massive pressure for trade liberalisation from Australia and New Zealand, is frankly unnecessary and detrimental to the realisation of the Pacific's development interests," said Ms Penjueli.

ends

Cook Islands minister criticises EU trade commissioner

The Cook Islands foreign minister has defended his comments about one of the European Union's trade commissioners.

Tense trade negotiations between Pacific Island trade ministers and a European Union trade commissioner have been revealed after a series of letters was leaked to the media.

In his correspondence, European Union Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson asked the Cook Islands foreign minister, Wilkie Rasmussen to publicly correct what he calls "unnecessarily offensive" and personal comments about his negotiation style.

But Mr Rasmussen has defended his comments, and told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat programme, the commissioner took a harsh and unneccessarily domineering approach to the talks.

"We came out of there feeling like we had been totally run over by his team," Mr Rasmussen said.

"You know, there's a style, there's a protocol - I don't think he really gave us the time for that."

The European Commission has declined to comment.

source

ANALYSIS ON THE PICS’ DRAFT TEXT OF PACIFIC EPA

Prepared by Professor Jane Kelsey, School of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand

15 October 2006

This is a preliminary analysis of the Pacific Islands’ draft text of the Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement and the EC’s ‘non-paper’ on services and investment. Legal provisions are paraphrased and not all are covered. The paper does not include the Partnership Agreement on Trade in Goods that only some PICs will negotiate. This analysis is offered as a contribution to ongoing discussion on the EPA. Corrections and comments are welcome.



Draft EU-Pacific EPA (Aug 2007) Submitted to Pacific region August 2007.The draft is missing several sections. The document properties reveal it has been adapted from the West African text.

07.09.2004: Statement of civil society organizations from workshop on negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the Pacific ACP states and the European Union, 7 September 2004, Suva

EPA will open economies of poor countries to European pirates

The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) due to be signed between the European Union (EU) and 110 developing countries this year would open up those countries to European pirates and ultimately increase poverty for less developed countries (LDCs), a new report on the EPA said on Wednesday.

“We are not against trade but we are against the type of rules that the EU imposes on us and that is why we say ‘no’ to European pirates,” the report quoted Ms Norma Maldonado from the Central American-based International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN) as saying.

The report put together by the World Trade Movement (WTM) under the title “Raw Deal”, and launched at the ongoing United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD XII) meeting in Accra, claims the benefits of signing a free trade deal with the EU sat firmly with European businesses, rather the developing countries.

Through the EPA, the EU is seeking to open up the markets of 110 African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP), Latin American, Asian and Mediterranean countries for free trade in spite of the fact that all of those countries do not have strong enough economies to compete fairly with the EU.

Critics maintain that the fact that the EU provided heavy subsidies for its local farmers and multinationals, something that developing countries were being asked not to do, made the playing ground uneven.

The WTM through the report has therefore added its voice to the widespread call for the EPA to be rejected outright.

Meanwhile other organizations, including UK-based international charity, Oxfam, have said that a better deal would be to include some amount of development content in the EPA for less developed countries and for the EU to open up its markets for least developed countries (LDCs) now.

The report captured the development impacts of two existing EU bilateral trade agreements with South Africa and Mexico, saying that in both examples the deals were found to be one-sided in favour of the EU.

The impacts highlighted by the report included balance of payment problems, decreased tax revenue, decreased access to credit for farmers, decreased ability to effectively regulate foreign investors and increased unemployment in those two countries.

“An almost 50 per cent increase in South African food and drink imports from the EU, including diary products, cereals, and processed food and drink, coupled with the reduction of tariffs on European sweets in South Africa has resulted in 25 per cent fall in employment in the sweet making industry in that country.”

It said South Africa’s growing trade deficit with the EU had made that country more vulnerable to international debt, particularly destabilizing short-term capital flow.

In the case of Mexico, the report said that country could no longer regulate the proportion of foreign shareholders in banks.

“Mexico can no longer favour domestic companies for government procurement contracts, which amounts to six per cent of GDP, even though UNCTAD has said that favouring domestic companies is a vital tool of development,” it said.

It also projected government revenue loss to the tune of 7.5 per cent of GDP in Namibia.

Meanwhile Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, who have already initialled an Interim EPA, are expected to lose at least 83 million dollars a year in import tariffs on goods from EU.

Ms Maldonado said the EU wanted to impose things on LDCs which they (EU) did not impose on themselves, such as demanding access to LDCs, even though they had huge subsidies on their own agricultural goods.

Ms. Vicky Cann, Trade Policy Officer of WTM, said EU trade deals were unfair and hurt the poor, adding that the evidence was that the EPA would benefit European multinationals and hinder rather than help the development of poor countries.

“In this time of rocketing world food prices, it is hard to believe that Europe seeks to open up developing countries’ markets to heavily subsidized European exports, putting LDCs farmers out of business and undermining food security,” she said.

Charles Santiago, MP for the Democratic Action Party in Malaysia, described the EPA as a re-write of trade rules in favour of EU corporations, following the thwarting of EU’s plans at the World Trade Organization (WTO) by LDCs.

“EU is now targeting LDCs individually to reap the rewards it couldn’t get at the WTO because countries stood up and said ‘no’ together. To developing countries I say keep away from EU free trade agreements, they do not work in your interest,” he said.

Mr. John Ochola from Econews in Kenya called on European citizens and companies to stand up to their governments and tell them not to make the poor poorer.

Meanwhile 25 individual LDCs, including Ghana, have already initialled an Interim EPA, under which a number of exports between them and EU were under a quota-free, duty free regime, pending the signing of the full EPA this year.

Critics have said if the EPA is signed, people in the 110 targeted countries, 1.47 billion of which lived on less than a dollar a day, stood the risk of even further sinking under the doldrums of poverty.

Source: GNA

Tide is Turning

In 2004, Prime Minister Helen Clark and the New Zealand Labour government passed legislation declaring Crown ownership of the New Zealand foreshore and seabed. The indigenous people of Aotearoa / New Zealand - The Maaori people - having suffered the effects of land confiscation for over 150 years, recognised this legislation for what it was - land confiscation


A nationwide call to action saw 30,000 people from all over the country converging in the parliament grounds to challenge the Prime Minister to reconsider passing the legislation.

She did not. The legislation has since been described as "discriminatory" by the Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - a UN body, and black sand mining for steel on the West Coast of the North Island seems imminent

see also:The Rush to Mine The Pacific Seabed- A Fiji Perspective.

Reports of gold in South Pacific waters are attracting prospectors to the region. Meanwhile, a South Korean company has secured mineral exploration rights in Tonga.

A report by Fiji Broadcasting Corporation Limited states that 'big-time gold prospectors are scouring the seas between Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand after reports of gold deposits in South Pacific waters'.
The report quotes New Zealand's Dominion Post newspaper as reporting that the gold rush has become hi-tech with serious players spending big money.

'At stake in the waters of New Zealand, Tonga and Fiji and around the potentially disputed continental shelf boundaries of the three are high-grade gold, copper, zinc, lead and silver'

.

Māori now terrorists, too?

extract form Against Freedom, written by Valerie Morse

There are many people and organisations willing to challenge the legitimacy of the state to control their lives, their working conditions and their lands. Increasingly, their struggles are interconnected by the common forces of oppression: corporate exploitation and state violence.

Māori have been challenging the political status quo for nearly 200 years. Th ey have always been cast as the enemy by the state and the media. Now, their increasing numbers and willingness to take action disturbs the delicately balanced parliamentary coalition. In 2004 a large number of Māori converged on a fundamental issue — ownership of the seabed and foreshore. A 25000-person hikoi (march) to the steps of parliament was met with a stony response from the Labour-led government. Th e government plan to extinguish customary title to this area would be realised regardless of iwi consultations or international law. Just after the passage of the legislation, applications to mine the seabed of the West Coast for both
gold and iron were received. The timing of these applications, coupled with the work in 2005 by Treasury to determine how to value the seabed and foreshore and thus include it in fi nancial statements, provided hard evidence of the government’s agenda: confi scation of land for corporate profit.

As a result of this new grievance, the Māori party was formed. This political party, led by former Labour member of Parliament
Tariana Turia, has united much of Māoridom. It is a serious challenger for all of the Māori seats in parliament that have been traditionally held by Labour. Th e rise to prominence of the Māori party and the militancy of some voices within Māoridom interested the NZSIS. In a remarkable exposé, the Sunday Star-Times alleged that Sunday Star-Times alleged that Sunday Star-Times NZSIS agents had been conducting ‘Operation Leaf,’ involving surveillance of prominent
Māori, the Māori party and other Māori organisations. When asked in one interview about the risk to national security
posed by the Māori under investigation, one NZSIS agent said that he approaches parliament.
was told that it was to help fi ght the war on terrorism. But he said he knew it was for collecting dirt on the individuals involved, noting that “the government was keen to get any useful nuggets from internal communications be-
tween Maoris … peace groups, academics, activists, politicians, gang leaders.”10 When asked about the timing of the operation — September 2003 — he said that it was not a concern because he knew that “the service could fi nd a way around”the new law prohibiting access to or tampering with computer equipment that was to take eff ect on 1 October.

A subsequent review of the matter by the inspector-general of the Security Intelligence Service could not corroborate these claims and he dismissed the entire matter as a “work of fi ction.”12 Th e sources could not be located and the editor of the Sunday Star-Times has apologised to the NZSIS and the public. Th is elaborate hoax perpetrat-
ed on a major newspaper raises some serious questions. Who would benefit from such a hoax? What were they hoping to achieve?

In an interview immediately after the inspector-general’s report, terrorism expert Dr Paul Buchanan, a lecturer at the University of Auckland, speculated that the hoax could well have been perpetrated by the NZSIS. He outlined four possible scenarios for the hoax and concluded that this was the most likely. Th e sources quoted by the newspaper were described as contract agents of the NZSIS. Dr Buchanan noted that the use of such agents is common in smaller intelligence agencies such as that of New Zealand. The newspaper had been a particularly harsh critic of the service over the handling of the Ahmed Zaoui aff air. The agency would have had strong reason to want to discredit the paper and make its editor reluctant to publish
any more negative articles about the NZSIS. The timing of the aff air and the subsequent inspector-general’s inquiry indicate that those involved were keenly aware of the political processes that would make this issue cleverly disappear before the
2005 election. Th e service’s involvement in both intelligence and counter-intelligence activities suggests that it has the capability to pull off such a caper.

It would hardly be surprising if the NZSIS did orchestrate this hoax in order to silence a newspaper that was critical of it. Intelligence agencies have conducted far more serious operations. It is also not surprising that the review by the inspector-general was a whitewash; he is unable to independently investigate the matter. He is a servant of the state and can look no further than the evidence presented by either side. Th e review process is useless in protecting the public from abuses of power by the service because it is entirely dependent on them. It seems unlikely that the truth about ‘Opera-
tion Leaf’ will ever be known.