By Li Onesto
20 May, 2008
Countercurrents.org
On May 2, 2008, Cyclone Nargis swept through the country of Myanmar, leaving in its wake a catastrophic human disaster. Deaths are estimated as high as 100,000 people, and at least one million are now homeless. Entire towns and villages have been washed away. 10,000 people died in one coastal town alone.
The densely populated Irawaddy Delta of 6 million people, with many fishing communities, was hit hard. Yangon (the former capital) on the edge of the Delta, where another 6.5 million people lived, was completely flooded. Flimsy houses in the poor shantytowns around cities were demolished. Some 24 million people in the five disaster-hit states—almost half of Myanmar’s population of 57 million—were affected by the cyclone with its 120 mph winds and 12-foot waves that surged up to seven miles inland.
Even areas not hit as hard are now running out of food and water. Crops, livestock, and fish have been ruined, along with irrigation systems, rice mills, and storage barns. The areas hit by the cyclone make up half of the irrigated farmland in Myanmar—which had produced 65 percent of Myanmar's rice. Millions of people who survived are now facing hunger, disease and lack of shelter.
*****
People around the world are witnessing the terrible plight of the Myanmar people unfold before their eyes. In the face of such immense human tragedy, there is hope that everything possible will be done to provide aid and relieve the terrible suffering.
There is tremendous wealth, resources, and technology in the world that could be used to respond to this disaster. There is no shortage of people with skills and compassion that could be mobilized to help. But clearly, this is not happening.
The Western mainstream media says this is because: The U.S. and other countries are trying to help but a despotic regime in Myanmar is refusing to cooperate and is therefore to blame for the high death toll and continuing suffering.
This article will break down this storyline, look at what’s behind it and compare it to reality.
To understand the situation in Myanmar today you have to examine two interpenetrating contradictions. One is the relations between the world imperialist system and Myanmar as a poor country oppressed and dominated by global capitalism. The other dynamic is the geostrategic importance of Myanmar to imperialism and the rivalry between different capitalist countries in the region. These larger factors have deeply influenced the extent and character of the destruction caused by the cyclone, as well as the rescue and relief efforts.
Natural Disasters and Man-Made Conditions
The official storyline argues: In the face of natural disasters like Cyclone Nargis, humanitarian aid trumps everything. Condoleezza Rice says: “What remains is for the Burmese government to allow the international community to help its people. It should be a simple matter. It is not a matter of politics.”
In reality: There are terrible natural disasters human beings have little control over. But what happens in the face of such catastrophes is profoundly affected by the organization of human society. So, to answer Condoleezza Rice: It is NOT a “simple matter” of relief efforts. It IS very much a matter of politics, economic relations, and power relations, from beginning to end.
Disaster relief and aid—both within a particular country, and between particular countries—doesn’t take place in a vacuum.
We live on a planet where human life is susceptible to tornados, tsunamis, cyclones, and earthquakes. Scientific understanding exists to predict and prepare, to a certain degree, for such acts of nature. But whether and how this works and what happens in the wake of such disasters is profoundly imprinted with and goes through the workings of the world capitalist system.
Look what did and did not happen before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina. Everyone saw how power relations in society, poverty, and the oppression of Black people affected who got out and who didn’t; who died and who survived. Everyone saw how all the inequalities that already existed affected what happened as the floodwaters rose.
Natural disasters do not “discriminate”—people all over the world are hit by tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes. But different people and different countries are not affected equally.
We live in a hugely lopsided world where a handful of rich, imperialist countries dominates the rest of the planet. The U.S. sits at the top of a global capitalist system driven and shaped by the maximization of profit. The majority of people live in poor countries oppressed and dominated by imperialism and by social-economic structures that reflect and reinforce the interests of local elites who are subordinate to imperialism. Development of these countries has been stunted and distorted by imperialism. And all this profoundly affects the capacity and ability of governments and people to respond to a natural disaster.
Myanmar already faced rising costs for basic foods, commodities, and especially fuel. 10 percent of the population did not receive enough food to meet its basic daily needs. In many rural areas 70 percent lived under the absolute poverty line. Shantytowns surrounded the cities.
What we see now is a vivid example of how the poverty and distorted development that comes from being dominated and oppressed by foreign powers can turn a natural disaster into catastrophic human tragedy. As Debarati Guha-Sapir, Director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, said: “The villages are in such levels of desperation — housing quality, nutritional status, roads, bridges, dams — that losses were more determined by their condition rather than the force of the cyclone.”
It is also the case that international political relations—where Western imperial powers are generally hostile to the military regime in Myanmar—are behind the contentiousness over aid getting into Myanmar. China’s economic interests and political relationship with Myanmar have factored into international relief efforts. And Myanmar’s economic and political relationships with other countries in South Asia have also figured into what aid has been offered.
“Isolated” from the World?
The official storyline says: Myanmar is run by a bunch of dictators who chose to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.
Reality: Myanmar society is repressive and relatively closed off from the outside world. The reactionary military regime seeks to maintain power and control society through brutal force and by limiting contact with the rest of the world. But this is not why the U.S. criticizes Myanmar.
What the U.S. really means when it says Myanmar has “isolated” itself is that Myanmar has not fully opened its doors to U.S. imperialism. The military regime has not been completely pliable, compliant, and subservient to the United States. And now it has refused to accept aid from the U.S. that has all kinds of conditions and potential “strings attached”—such as Bush’s insistence that Myanmar open its borders to U.S. officials, aid workers and military personnel.
It is not surprising that Myanmar hesitated to accept U.S. help, given there is open speculation and discussion about the use of U.S. military aircraft, troops, and warships to deliver aid. A Time magazine headline read: “Is It Time to Invade Burma?” And France is pushing to invoke a UN “responsibility to protect” doctrine to deliver aid without Myanmar’s permission.
U.S. sanctions on Myanmar (that began in 1997 and have since been extended) ban new investments in the country and prohibit imports into the U.S. from Myanmar. The U.S. says it maintains these sanctions because of human rights abuses. But in fact, this U.S. “isolation” of Myanmar is aimed at undermining and destabilizing the government and creating conditions to bring to power a regime more subservient to the United States.
Reality: In fact, Myanmar is not “isolated” and cut off from the rest of the world. Historically and up to today, Myanmar’s development has been conditioned by its integration into and subordination tothe global system of imperialism.
Burma (which changed its name to Myanmar in 1989) was a colony of British imperialism for over 60 years. In fact the commercial production of oil in Myanmar dates back to 1871 when British colonialists set up the Rangoon Oil Company.
Since formal independence in 1948, different imperialist powers have exploited the country’s people and plundered its resources. It is beyond the scope of this article to review this history. But an example of imperialist control and development of Myanmar’s energy resources provides a picture of the country’s relationship to the world capitalist system.
Myanmar has the world's tenth largest gas reserves. It has been producing natural gas since the 1970s. Today, gas exports are Myanmar's most important source of national income.
In the 1990s Myanmar granted gas concessions to foreign companies from France and Great Britain. Later Texaco and Unocal (now absorbed into ChevronTexaco) gained rights to Myanmar’s gas as well.
In 2005 other countries in the region, including China, Thailand, and South Korea invested in Myanmar’s oil and gas industry.
What did this mean for the masses of people in Myanmar?
In 1996 a human rights suit was filed against the American-based Unocal Corp. A group of villagers accused Unocal of using forced labor conscripted by Myanmar soldiers. Villagers were raped, murdered, and brutally relocated during the construction of a $1.2 billion gas pipeline to Thailand, started in 1990.
The suit, which Unocal settled in 2004, brought to light the kind of horrible crimes that were being committed by a consortium of foreign companies, including Unocal, all of which were receiving support and protection from the military regime.
One woman testified how soldiers came to her home, shot her husband, and killed her baby. Other villagers recounted how their neighbors were executed because they refused to leave the area Unocal wanted. Two girls said soldiers raped them at knifepoint (The Nation, June 30, 2003). Human Rights Watch interviewed hundreds of villagers who were driven from their homes and farms, many forced to work at gunpoint and beaten by guards.
The UN issued warnings of serious human rights abuses in 1995. After such embarrassing evidence came out, Texaco left the country in 1997. But Unocal retained 28 percent interest in the pipeline.
The U.S. State Department even acknowledged forced labor was being used. But still the U.S. government openly defended Unocal in this suit. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft filed a brief denouncing the villagers' attempt to sue Unocal, arguing that the suit (and similar suits) should be dismissed because they interfere with U.S. foreign policy and undermine the U.S. “war on terrorism.”
Today, on the blood and bones of the Myanmar people, the Unocal pipeline transports some 700 million cubic feet of gas per day.
This story provides a window into Myanmar’s relationship to world imperialism – how the development of Myanmar has been conditioned by its integration into and subordination tothe global system of imperialism.
*****
Beyond the interest of imperialism in profiting off the resources and people in Myanmar there is the geostrategic importance of this in the world. And this is a big factor in how the U.S. and various international forces look at their relationship with Myanmar and how they have responded to the current disaster.
U.S. Geostrategic Interests in Myanmar
The official storyline: Laura Bush joined the chorus of U.S. critics calling the Myanmar government “inept” for failing to alert people about the cyclone and standing in the way of getting humanitarian aid to people.
Reality: It is shameless and utter hypocrisy for the U.S. to be criticizing any government for not helping people in the face of a natural disaster. The U.S. has more money and resources than any other country in the world—many, many times those of a poor country like Myanmar. But when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the Bush regime was responsible for horrible humanitarian crimes. It failed to evacuate people to safety, abandoned thousands to die in the rising floodwaters and then subjected tens of thousands, overwhelmingly African-Americans, to the most inhuman and degrading treatment.
The inadequacies and failures of the Myanmar government in responding to the cyclone disaster have everything to do with two defining facts: its reactionary nature, and larger geo-political dynamics.
The military regime in Myanmar is an oppressive and corrupt force that has ruled the country since 1962. It has not hesitated to use the most brutal methods to crush any popular resistance and is widely hated by the people.
The military dominates and administers major aspects of the country’s economy. Only military personnel are allowed to own shares in the military-run corporations that form a significant part of the economy. Military officials occupy top positions in almost every government agency. It oversees a society and economy of great inequality and savage capitalist and semi-feudal exploitation.
In the last 15 years, the economy has in fact become more integrated with the world capitalist economy, especially through the development of the country’s oil and natural gas industries. The military has entered into various kinds of joint ventures with foreign energy companies—and, as in the case of Unocal [[see Part 1]], even provided these companies with brutally conscripted forced labor.
The reality is: The US criticism of the Myanmar government has nothing to do with concern for the victims of the cyclone. It has everything to do with cold calculations about how to use this disaster to further U.S. interests—to pry open the country, to weaken the military regime, and to create more favorable conditions for a full-out regime change. The U.S. wants to bring to power a government in Myanmar that more fully serves U.S. economic and political interests, including in relationship to U.S. contention with other capitalist powers. To understand this, we need to first of all look at the geostrategic interests the U.S. is pursuing in Myanmar.
Three great regions of Asia come together where Myanmar sits on the planet—China in the north, Southeast Asia in the south, and India in the west. Looking at a map, it becomes clear how Myanmar is key to establishing land-links between Central Asia in the west, Japan in the east and Russia in the north.
Off the coast of Myanmar is the Strait of Malacca. This waterway between Malaysia and Indonesia is one of the world’s most strategic water passages. It links the Indian and Pacific Oceans and is the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. Each and every day, supertankers carrying more than 12 million barrels of oil pass through this strait. More than 80% of all China's oil imports are shipped through this waterway.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has been trying to strengthen its military influence in this region—arguing that this is part of the “war on terror.” The U.S. has set out to further and deepen its empire in the world. The focus of the U.S. right now is dominating and controlling the Middle East. At the same time there is a whole complex of world contradictions in which control in Southeast Asia is highly important.
The U.S. has been virulently critical of the military government in Myanmar—not because of the regime’s reactionary nature. The real reason for U.S. hostility towards Myanmar is because its government is not the kind of pliant pro-U.S. neo-colonial state the United States wants and needs in the region.
It is no secret that the U.S. wants a “regime change” in Myanmar. It plays the “human rights card,” backs pro-U.S. anti-government movements, and aims to demonize and strangle the regime through sanctions and other measures. The military regime in turn has responded by seeking closer ties with China and other countries in the region. And part of the reason the U.S. wants greater influence and control in Southeast Asia (including in Myanmar) is that it wants to counter China’s growing regional strength.
Capitalist China has invested heavily in countries in Southeast Asia and has looked to profit off of Myanmar’s timber, minerals and natural gas. Myanmar provides an overland route for Chinese goods to the Indian Ocean. Trade between the two countries has grown. Since 1989 China has given the Myanmar regime some $1.5 billion worth of military hardware.
For the U.S., Myanmar is a strategically important choke point in relationship to economic and geo-strategic interests. And now the U.S. is looking for ways to exploit the devastating tragedy in Myanmar to step up its maneuverings for a “regime change” in Myanmar. Bush stated: “We're prepared to move U.S. Navy assets to help find those who have lost their lives, to help find the missing, to help stabilize the situation. But in order to do so, the military junta must allow our disaster assessment teams into the country.”
Economist and author F. William Engdahl has written about U.S. efforts to bring about “regime change” in Myanmar and the particular role of the National Endowment for Democracy, an entity funded by the U.S. government and designed to support U.S. foreign policy objectives. Engdahl says:
“The U.S. State Department has recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar. Since 2003, the U.S. has provided the NED with more than $2.5 million a year for activities that promote a regime change in Myanmar. The NED funds key opposition media including the New Era Journal, Irrawaddy and the Democratic Voice of Burma radio... In reality the U.S. State Department has recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar. It has poured the relatively huge sum (for Myanmar) of more than $2.5 million annually into NED activities in promoting regime change in Myanmar since at least 2003.”
All this is behind the scenes and clearly at play now as the U.S. offers assistance and aid to Myanmar in the wake of Cyclone Nargis. Such “humanitarian help” comes with political strings and a whole imperialist agenda. The Bush administration says a condition for aid is that U.S. officials, aid workers and military personnel be allowed to come into Myanmar and directly handle emergency relief operations—rather than let the authorities in Myanmar administer and deliver the aid.
In 1997 the U.S. imposed sanctions against Myanmar, which prohibited new investments in the country. In 2003 the U.S. banned Myanmar imports into the U.S. and restricted financial transactions with named government officials. In 2007 Bush imposed new financial sanctions against Myanmar, freezing U.S. assets of additional members of the military government. One week before the cyclone hit Myanmar, the U.S. ban on trade and investment and the freezing of assets for the country was strengthened even further. Then on May 17, two weeks after the cyclone, Bush ordered the sanctions to remain in effect. This has only further exacerbated the economic plight of the people in Myanmar. Meanwhile ChevronTexaco continues to operate its gas pipeline project in Myanmar, which is the single largest foreign investment project in the country and the single largest source of income for the military regime.
*****
When a terrible natural disaster strikes a country like Myanmar, millions of people are affected; many lives hang in the balance. Humanity’s knowledge and resources need to be brought together. People need to be mobilized to save lives, provide medical care and deliver food. But in the world today—dominated by the global system of capitalism—the driving interests of profit, not the needs of the people, are put first and foremost.
Today in such human catastrophes, the outmoded economic, political and social relations of imperialism stand out in stark relief. The world needs revolution, and things could be a different way. In a whole new socialist society power would be in the hands of the people. Society’s resources and knowledge and, most especially, the compassion, creativity, and political consciousness of the masses, could and would be fully mobilized to build a whole new emancipating society that will be able to figure out and solve all kinds of problems, including how to deal with natural disasters.
Li Onesto is a writer for Revolution and author of the book, Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal, (Pluto Press and Insight Press, 2004)
'People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right - especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.' Thomas Sowell
Search This Blog
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Monday, 19 May 2008
Cricket's Corporate Crackdown
Game Theory? Zero Sum
A corporate stranglehold over cricket may mean that no one wins. Star players in the IPL can only chafe at the new rulebook.
ROHIT MAHAJAN
At the end of the day, people need to understand that the IPL has a corporate side to it, and a very definite corporate side. It's not at all cricket in the traditional sense.
—Vijay Mallya, owner of Bangalore Royal Challengers
Pundits say the Indian Premier League is not cricket at all, and that's debatable. But one thing's certain—it certainly doesn't answer to tradition. IPL is an unprecedented, brazen marriage of money and cricket, pitting corporate values against those that define cricket. The cold pursuit of profit plays by a logic that demands predictability, and on the cricket field it's often luck that decides if a snick would go for a four or result in a dismissal. Worse, T20 is cricket's most perilous form, with suicidal batsmen and scapegoat bowlers. Ironically, it's bankrolled by corporate czars who make money out of industrial and market certitudes. It's this world of certainties they want to recreate on the cricket ground, a place that derives its buzz and drama from the very mercurial nature of sport. But they believe it's their right to expect returns on their investments. It's a clash of cultures that's becoming overt: in the form of marketing men officiously proffering knowledge of cricket basics to grizzled professionals in team meetings.
But this has become rampant in the IPL, most conspicuously in the Bangalore Royal Challengers team. Its owner, Vijay Mallya, is a man nurtured on success. Much he's touched has turned into gold, except in big sport. His Force India team is an also-ran in Formula One, but because F1 isn't a big draw in India, the ignominy is not crushing. In contrast, cricket is stronger than faith in India. And the Challengers' poor show—seven defeats in nine games so far—has hurt Mallya's ego; his bouquet of spirits was to suffer the scorn that's the lot of a loser whose bark is worse than the bite.
Mallya then made the first corporate-style intervention, pulling out the pink slip on team CEO Charu Sharma. They said he resigned due to personal reasons; Sharma insisted he was fired. Bowling coach Venkatesh Prasad was also in the line of fire, but was reportedly spared by captain Rahul Dravid interceding on his behalf. But long before the hire and fire syndrome hit home, over-enthusiastic executives of Mallya's UB Group had descended on the team. Dravid and Martin Crowe, the chief cricket officer, had to reluctantly put up with it.
Insiders say meddling in the Bangalore team has reached ridiculous proportions. "They join the team meetings and point out mistakes to the coach and players," a Royal Challengers source told Outlook . "They even berate the video and statistics analyst for not providing enough data to the team to form its plans." Besides this piecemeal cricket analysis, the corporate minders even insisted players must double their practice time, arguing that "when we fail to meet our targets, we work doubly hard".
Even before the team began to stumble during its campaign, Mallya treated the players as he would treat staff. For instance, he expected them to grace his parties late into the night. "They'd say these guys (cricketers) have a good time at our expense and don't do enough on the field," says another source.
Pounded by rivals onfield and besieged by UB executives off it, the embattled team thought it fit to take a break. The wilds of Ranthambhore was elected as an escape from the cricket. Hotel bookings were done. Then the omnipotent bosses stepped in. They decided the team hadn't earned the right to a holiday and cancelled the bookings. (An ITC Welcomgroup source confirmed this to Outlook.) A punitive approach reminiscent of a stern parent taking away candy from an errant child—is it appropriate for a team of high-profile cricketers?
After Charu's exit, Mallya turned the heat on Dravid."I want from Rahul Dravid to do the best for the team and to produce good results for us because I don't think Rahul Dravid enjoys being at the bottom of the league tables, and certainly I don't," he said. Mallya regretted not playing a bigger role during the player auctions. "I was tempted to bid for players I wanted but they (Dravid and Sharma) held me back.... When Rahul Dravid was not present at the second auction, I wanted to get some players but Charu Sharma was tentative about them. I mean I bought Misbah-ul-Haq because I was determined to do it. There were other players I was discouraged about."
But team insiders say Misbah was never an issue and Mallya's wishlist couldn't be purchased because of the cap ($5 million) on the amount an owner could spend at the auction. Cricket requires a team of at least 11 players; one expensive player has to be at the expense of a few. Nor was the selection of the team without logic. A source familiar with the thought behind the choice says, "The idea was to shore up the bowling; the logic was that batsmen would be likely to perish at the first mistake, but bowlers would have 24 balls to bowl. The team was thus packed with top bowlers." Unfortunately, problems cropped up. Nathan Bracken got injured, ditto Anil Kumble, and Dale Steyn was not released by Cricket South Africa for the first three games. And Jacques Kallis, among the world's best allrounders, performed below par. This source says Mallya was indeed keen on some other players. "Obviously, in an auction, you cannot always get the players you want," he added.
Firm grip: Unlike Dravid, Warne is firmly in control in Jaipur
But men with fat wallets and fatter egos want their money's worth. "IPL is cricket, but the foundation of this is money," says a senior Delhi Daredevils official. "The owners spent millions of dollars on teams, and they want to have their say. And whether you like it or not, you have to listen." Having bought a 'commodity', they're stomping with self-importance on turfs where the game's biggest administrators tread softly. "Even Sharad Pawar has never attended a team meeting," says a Daredevils insider. "But these corporate people attend meetings, and fools among them even try to tell players and coaches how to play!"
Corporate interference is, understandably, less when the team is racking up victories. For instance, when there were attempts to include the son of a powerful bcci administrator in Shane Warne's Rajasthan Royals, Warne put his foot down. The young man would never have made it to the playing XI, but could have been richer by Rs 1.8 lakh through daily allowance. "Warne said he was not good enough to be even among the irregulars," says a Royals source. "Warne had to warn them off, saying, 'You handle the administration and we handle the cricket,'" says the source. "Else, he said, he and other Australians in the team would walk away."
Another team with minimal meddling is Mumbai Indians. "That's because of two factors—Mukesh Ambani's restrained style and the presence of Sachin Tendulkar," says a source. "No one would dare try to tell Tendulkar how to play cricket!" Mumbai's coach, Lalchand Rajput, confirmed this to Outlook: "Even after four defeats, we were not put under pressure. Even I was a bit surprised by this, but they only said as long as you put in your best efforts, it is fine."
Likewise with Kolkata Knight Riders. Co-owner Shahrukh Khan, who dons the mantle of a cheerleader, works the fans to a frenzy but when it comes to the cricket, he keeps out. Being a filmstar helps, for he's aware of the capricious nature of the nation's two obsessions, cricket and cinema.
On the face of it, sport lends itself beautifully to some of the basic tenets of corporate culture—dispassionate evaluation, for instance.Who could argue against tons of runs or wickets? Corporate culture has also helped market cricket and earn big bucks for players. But it can also be a bane. Cold corporate logic cannot comprehend a perfect outswinger from an opponent, an umpiring error or a stunning catch. There are also excessive checks and balances. "I'm tired of the red-tape involved, the need to keep a 100 people in the loop on every small decision or action I take," an official of the Jaipur team told Outlook.
From the corporate world has also come the dreaded trait of layoffs. Kolkata released five of their players since they had little chance of playing the remaining six games; they remain contracted, though, and would not lose monetarily. But Ranadeb Bose, the most prominent of the five, declared he was disappointed. The decision to release the five was taken by coach John Buchanan, insisted Joy Bhattacharya, the team director. He claimed it was not an exercise in cost-cutting—it would have cost the team about Rs 70,000 a day to keep the five. But others say that with profits still very far in the horizon, IPL teams are under pressure because of the billions invested in the game.
IPL has turned sport into a commodity. And though its votaries cite European football leagues as their model, there's a crucial difference, say critics. Unlike IPL, massive salaries in English football are for a game that's very serious: football, not a crossbreed—not, say, a 20-minute game that's played by five people with a goal double the actual size. "The owners must understand the nature of the beast," says a Bangalore insider. "You might be a champion parrot trainer, but that doesn't make you a champion lion trainer. You must understand the nature of the beast, else the lion will eat you."
But, for now, it's the game that's changing its colour in the face of a predator.
Get Started!
A corporate stranglehold over cricket may mean that no one wins. Star players in the IPL can only chafe at the new rulebook.
ROHIT MAHAJAN
At the end of the day, people need to understand that the IPL has a corporate side to it, and a very definite corporate side. It's not at all cricket in the traditional sense.
—Vijay Mallya, owner of Bangalore Royal Challengers
Pundits say the Indian Premier League is not cricket at all, and that's debatable. But one thing's certain—it certainly doesn't answer to tradition. IPL is an unprecedented, brazen marriage of money and cricket, pitting corporate values against those that define cricket. The cold pursuit of profit plays by a logic that demands predictability, and on the cricket field it's often luck that decides if a snick would go for a four or result in a dismissal. Worse, T20 is cricket's most perilous form, with suicidal batsmen and scapegoat bowlers. Ironically, it's bankrolled by corporate czars who make money out of industrial and market certitudes. It's this world of certainties they want to recreate on the cricket ground, a place that derives its buzz and drama from the very mercurial nature of sport. But they believe it's their right to expect returns on their investments. It's a clash of cultures that's becoming overt: in the form of marketing men officiously proffering knowledge of cricket basics to grizzled professionals in team meetings.
But this has become rampant in the IPL, most conspicuously in the Bangalore Royal Challengers team. Its owner, Vijay Mallya, is a man nurtured on success. Much he's touched has turned into gold, except in big sport. His Force India team is an also-ran in Formula One, but because F1 isn't a big draw in India, the ignominy is not crushing. In contrast, cricket is stronger than faith in India. And the Challengers' poor show—seven defeats in nine games so far—has hurt Mallya's ego; his bouquet of spirits was to suffer the scorn that's the lot of a loser whose bark is worse than the bite.
Mallya then made the first corporate-style intervention, pulling out the pink slip on team CEO Charu Sharma. They said he resigned due to personal reasons; Sharma insisted he was fired. Bowling coach Venkatesh Prasad was also in the line of fire, but was reportedly spared by captain Rahul Dravid interceding on his behalf. But long before the hire and fire syndrome hit home, over-enthusiastic executives of Mallya's UB Group had descended on the team. Dravid and Martin Crowe, the chief cricket officer, had to reluctantly put up with it.
Insiders say meddling in the Bangalore team has reached ridiculous proportions. "They join the team meetings and point out mistakes to the coach and players," a Royal Challengers source told Outlook . "They even berate the video and statistics analyst for not providing enough data to the team to form its plans." Besides this piecemeal cricket analysis, the corporate minders even insisted players must double their practice time, arguing that "when we fail to meet our targets, we work doubly hard".
Even before the team began to stumble during its campaign, Mallya treated the players as he would treat staff. For instance, he expected them to grace his parties late into the night. "They'd say these guys (cricketers) have a good time at our expense and don't do enough on the field," says another source.
Pounded by rivals onfield and besieged by UB executives off it, the embattled team thought it fit to take a break. The wilds of Ranthambhore was elected as an escape from the cricket. Hotel bookings were done. Then the omnipotent bosses stepped in. They decided the team hadn't earned the right to a holiday and cancelled the bookings. (An ITC Welcomgroup source confirmed this to Outlook.) A punitive approach reminiscent of a stern parent taking away candy from an errant child—is it appropriate for a team of high-profile cricketers?
After Charu's exit, Mallya turned the heat on Dravid."I want from Rahul Dravid to do the best for the team and to produce good results for us because I don't think Rahul Dravid enjoys being at the bottom of the league tables, and certainly I don't," he said. Mallya regretted not playing a bigger role during the player auctions. "I was tempted to bid for players I wanted but they (Dravid and Sharma) held me back.... When Rahul Dravid was not present at the second auction, I wanted to get some players but Charu Sharma was tentative about them. I mean I bought Misbah-ul-Haq because I was determined to do it. There were other players I was discouraged about."
But team insiders say Misbah was never an issue and Mallya's wishlist couldn't be purchased because of the cap ($5 million) on the amount an owner could spend at the auction. Cricket requires a team of at least 11 players; one expensive player has to be at the expense of a few. Nor was the selection of the team without logic. A source familiar with the thought behind the choice says, "The idea was to shore up the bowling; the logic was that batsmen would be likely to perish at the first mistake, but bowlers would have 24 balls to bowl. The team was thus packed with top bowlers." Unfortunately, problems cropped up. Nathan Bracken got injured, ditto Anil Kumble, and Dale Steyn was not released by Cricket South Africa for the first three games. And Jacques Kallis, among the world's best allrounders, performed below par. This source says Mallya was indeed keen on some other players. "Obviously, in an auction, you cannot always get the players you want," he added.
Firm grip: Unlike Dravid, Warne is firmly in control in Jaipur
But men with fat wallets and fatter egos want their money's worth. "IPL is cricket, but the foundation of this is money," says a senior Delhi Daredevils official. "The owners spent millions of dollars on teams, and they want to have their say. And whether you like it or not, you have to listen." Having bought a 'commodity', they're stomping with self-importance on turfs where the game's biggest administrators tread softly. "Even Sharad Pawar has never attended a team meeting," says a Daredevils insider. "But these corporate people attend meetings, and fools among them even try to tell players and coaches how to play!"
Corporate interference is, understandably, less when the team is racking up victories. For instance, when there were attempts to include the son of a powerful bcci administrator in Shane Warne's Rajasthan Royals, Warne put his foot down. The young man would never have made it to the playing XI, but could have been richer by Rs 1.8 lakh through daily allowance. "Warne said he was not good enough to be even among the irregulars," says a Royals source. "Warne had to warn them off, saying, 'You handle the administration and we handle the cricket,'" says the source. "Else, he said, he and other Australians in the team would walk away."
Another team with minimal meddling is Mumbai Indians. "That's because of two factors—Mukesh Ambani's restrained style and the presence of Sachin Tendulkar," says a source. "No one would dare try to tell Tendulkar how to play cricket!" Mumbai's coach, Lalchand Rajput, confirmed this to Outlook: "Even after four defeats, we were not put under pressure. Even I was a bit surprised by this, but they only said as long as you put in your best efforts, it is fine."
Likewise with Kolkata Knight Riders. Co-owner Shahrukh Khan, who dons the mantle of a cheerleader, works the fans to a frenzy but when it comes to the cricket, he keeps out. Being a filmstar helps, for he's aware of the capricious nature of the nation's two obsessions, cricket and cinema.
On the face of it, sport lends itself beautifully to some of the basic tenets of corporate culture—dispassionate evaluation, for instance.Who could argue against tons of runs or wickets? Corporate culture has also helped market cricket and earn big bucks for players. But it can also be a bane. Cold corporate logic cannot comprehend a perfect outswinger from an opponent, an umpiring error or a stunning catch. There are also excessive checks and balances. "I'm tired of the red-tape involved, the need to keep a 100 people in the loop on every small decision or action I take," an official of the Jaipur team told Outlook.
From the corporate world has also come the dreaded trait of layoffs. Kolkata released five of their players since they had little chance of playing the remaining six games; they remain contracted, though, and would not lose monetarily. But Ranadeb Bose, the most prominent of the five, declared he was disappointed. The decision to release the five was taken by coach John Buchanan, insisted Joy Bhattacharya, the team director. He claimed it was not an exercise in cost-cutting—it would have cost the team about Rs 70,000 a day to keep the five. But others say that with profits still very far in the horizon, IPL teams are under pressure because of the billions invested in the game.
IPL has turned sport into a commodity. And though its votaries cite European football leagues as their model, there's a crucial difference, say critics. Unlike IPL, massive salaries in English football are for a game that's very serious: football, not a crossbreed—not, say, a 20-minute game that's played by five people with a goal double the actual size. "The owners must understand the nature of the beast," says a Bangalore insider. "You might be a champion parrot trainer, but that doesn't make you a champion lion trainer. You must understand the nature of the beast, else the lion will eat you."
But, for now, it's the game that's changing its colour in the face of a predator.
| Sharda Ugra | ||
| May 15, 2008 | ||
| Trust the compulsive showman to trump it all: Shah Rukh Khan's Pied Piper act, Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje Scindia's custommade leheriya sari with Jaipur's IPL colours and Preity Zinta's wide-eyed enthusiasm. With a spectacular display of toy-flinging petulance, Vijay Mallya, beer baron, airline magnate, tycoon-atlarge, F-1 team owner, managed to turn the spotlight onto himself. As his Rs 445-crore Bangalore Royal Challengers Indian Premier League (IPL) team hit the rock bottom, Mallya sacked his CEO Charu Sharma and then distanced himself from the team selection, dishing out low blows to captain Rahul Dravid in the bargain. The Challengers have lost seven matches out of nine and have little to play for now other than Mallya's ire and the increasing amusement of his sniggering social set. For Indian cricket, this has been an illuminating episode. After all, even before the IPL, the corporate world was its most snuggly bedfellow. Mallya's swift abandonment of his struggling team has shown just how far big business' attachmentto cricket goes—only until the next victory, exactly like the fickle, effigy-burning fan. Except that this fan wields a fat cheque book that few inside Indian cricket have been able to resist. The Challengers and their soreloser boss may be at the extreme end of this phenomenon, but IPL's cricketers have all felt the heavy breath of corporate impatience after a few defeats. In his newspaper column, M.S. Dhoni noted how supportive his management at the Chennai Super Kings was. Even so, after Kings lost three in a row, sources say the team received a firm speech to remind them of just what the stakes were and how there were investors to answer to. As the Delhi Daredevils slid down the points table, its directors looked through the team personnel they had engulfed in bear hugs after victory. "A message has been sent out to the team, you can sense the nervous edge," said a Delhi Daredevils squad member. With every reverse, franchises see their operational expenses of anything between Rs 30-50-crore this season going down the tube, taking their brand value with it. To them, leaning on players is like cracking down on underperforming departments. Mallya's sacking of CEO Sharma certainly cranked up the anxiety levels. As Bangalore lost, Sharma had become the buffer between the increasingly badtempered "Company" and the players. With Mallya turning the heat on his subordinates, executives began to sit in on Challengers team meetings, once reportedly button-holing the team data analyst to crunch numbers for them. Challengers' Chief Cricketing Officer Martin Crowe then presented the executives' statistical theories to flummoxed players. The next day, the batting collapsed and the team lost again. A Challengers insider says, "Corporate guys think if you practice four hours instead of having the normal two-hour net, you will play twice as well." Coach Venkatesh Prasad only narrowly saved his job when Dravid hinted he too would walk out if Prasad was removed. Not everyone's public facade has cracked as openly as Mallya's but in private the franchise business has shown up its less attractive face. One boss demanded an explanation from a cricketer as to why their team was dropping catches. When a captain tried to assuage an angry management man by saying that the players were trying their damnedest, he had his head bitten off. The cricketers are not amused. An India player says, "The franchises are being obnoxious. We wouldn't dream of telling them how to run their businesses. The last thing you need is them telling you how to play cricket." The freemarket cheerleaders claim that corporate accountability is IPL's biggest gift to Indian cricket. It could have been had those making calls on cricketers been experts or master practitioners of the sport they now own. A Mumbai Indians senior executive sat up in panic during a game, saying he thought his team were a man short. Quickly, two minions launched on a panicky head-count to reassure the boss. When rousing cheers for Lasith Malinga rang out, it was pointed out that the man being cheered was not the unmistakable Malinga with the curly bottle-blond tints, but Dilhara Fernando. The end of IPL on June 1 will signal the beginning of the franchise's own financial reckoning. Already there are rumblings about cutbacks: Delhi has got rid of its cheerleading squad saying they were no longer needed. Two teams—the King's XI Punjab and the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR)—'released' their contracted players, on grounds that they needed to concentrate on the core team as the semi-finals drew close. KKR team director Joy Bhattacharjya denied cost-cutting. Keeping six more players on the squad until the end of IPL he said, would have amounted to an expense of Rs 1.2 lakh more. "That's peanuts. Why would we do something that would cause a major PR issue in order to save peanuts? That would not be ruthless, that would be stupid." King's XI CEO Neil Maxwell said his team had taken on an extended player pool to give locals a chance to work with the world's leading cricketers for a specific period. "We were trying to do the right thing and had to deal with a backlash instead." For overseas players—and the vast cast of foreign coaches—IPL is just an opportunity to swirl right in with India's cricketing circus, earn generous pay packets and enjoy the late-night postgame parties. India's stars, though, feel the change in temperatures acutely. When Sourav Ganguly's KKR lost three matches in a row, a teammate watching him in his next game remarked, "The only time I've seen Sourav so much under pressure was in the World Cup final." Indian cricket's biggest names are feeling the weight of their enormous salaries, dealing with bean counters rather than selectors as judges and playing the fastest and least familiar format of the game, with its low comeback rate. A franchise executive says, "It's almost as if the players are more tense in IPL than with India— this is cricket at its most commercial and every one is feeling jumpy." Inadvertently, Vijay Mallya's I-was-robbed routine has put the franchise's alter ego on mainstage. Cricketers are discovering that the smiling fan with the fat cheque book can also become the cry-baby boss with the pink slip. | ||
Get Started!
Sunday, 18 May 2008
Twenty Nine Reasons People Need To Pull Their Heads Out Of The Sand
By Wanda Marie Woodward
17 May, 2008
Countercurrents.org
When money speaks, the truth keeps silent.
Russian Proverb
All it takes for evil to exist is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Corporations have been enthroned…An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people…until wealth is aggregated in a few hands…and the Republic is destroyed.
Abraham Lincoln
Less than two years ago, I sent an email to an acquaintance regarding some pressing topic like global environmental degradation, erosion of habeas corpus in America, or the millions of women and girls around the world who are being sold as sex slaves, victims of female genital mutilation, raped, beaten, and murdered. The response from the acquaintance shocked me, especially since she was highly educated, is a mental health professional (supposedly with lots of compassion), and has two small children who will, of course, inherit the legacy of the condition in which she and I and 6.6 billion others will leave this world. To paraphrase, she said: "Oh, I can't read this stuff. I bury my head in the sand because there is so much and I can't do anything about it."
I read an article recently by a gentleman who has proposed a new diagnostic label for people who are apathetic, indifferent, or otherwise not predisposed to engage in some kind of activity to assist others who are suffering, disadvantaged, unempowered, and/or oppressed (White, 2004). The diagnosis is called "Political Apathy Disorder" and it is defined as "failure to develop a social conscience" and its "essential feature is a pervasive pattern of failing to help reduce human suffering in the world combined with overconsumption of society's limited resources" (p. 47). Being a psychotherapist and someone who stays informed about the overwhelming challenges and dangers which are facing our planet, I was unsure whether to laugh or cry. Actually, I did both.
This acquaintance that dismissed my email was using the common defense mechanism called denial as a way to avoid the threats to her sense of well-being as well as her relatively comfortable lifestyle. It is something that people all over the world do and, while it is an understandable desire to want to avoid pain and suffering and to seek comfort, safety, and happiness, in today's world to do so without also simultaneously helping others less fortunate will have dire effects on the entire globe. A hundred years ago, when nations were fairly isolated from each other, the consequences of indifference and inaction towards helping disadvantaged people were minimal to the person who responded with disregard. Life could go on as usual, maintaining the status quo, ignoring the long-term effects. In Buddhist lingo, the karma would take a long time to rebound. Today, that karma due to apathy and indifference is swiftly reverberating all around us, like a boomerang that just whizzes around and comes back to hit us before we can escape it. There will always be those whose very nature is to reach out to help others. We call these people altruistic. They want to help others merely for the sake of helping others, nothing else to be gained from it other than it is inherent in the nature of that person's being to want to alleviate another person's suffering.
It is a moral and existential imperative that we unite to overcome the greatest adversaries which confront us: ignorance, apathy, hatred, prejudice, greed, and evil. In fact, with the current state of the world, greed is synonymous with evil. There are three essential areas that I refer to as the Triad of Destruction: 1. overpopulation, 2. consumerism, and 3. capitalism. This triad is the genesis of global warming. Undergirding this triangle is a duality of avarice and ignorance. Capitalists fall into the camp of unbridled greed, some of whom are ignorant, but many are fully aware of the deleterious effects that consumerism has upon the Common Good. Most people fall into the camp of the uninformed, many of whom are so physically and psychologically drained by the day-to-day burdens of earning a dwindling living just to pay for the essentials that they either lack the time to stay educated on current events, they avoid reading more depressing news because it is too emotionally and mentally taxing or, like the acquaintance at the beginning of the article, they feel helpless and hopeless.
Voluntary avoidance is an option, but below is a list of 29 good reasons that people need to be informed and unite to act for the Common Good. While it is not exhaustive by any means, and others could provide additional reasons, these are a good start. Time is running out and using denial to escape these harsh realities is no longer an option.
1. According to a Washington Post article in 1998, a poll was conducted by the New York Museum of Natural History which found that seven out of ten scientists from the American Institute of Biological Sciences are convinced that a mass extinction is underway and that within 30 years, one fifth of all living species could become extinct (Warrick, 1998). In 2005, respected scientist Professor Peter Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, stated that, unless humankind changes behaviors, as many as two-thirds of world species could be extinct by 2100 (Collins, 2005).
2. According to World Wildlife Fund Director-General, James Leape, we would need a total of five planets to sustain the world's population if everyone on the planet had the same consumption rate as America. This finding was reported in the 2006 Living Planet Report which is the outcome of an annual study that has been conducted since 1998 to determine the rate of change in global biodiversity and the pressure on the biosphere which manifests from the human consumption of natural resources (World Wildlife Federation, 2006a). The 2006 Report also noted that in 2003, the world exceeded biocapacity by 25%. This means that with a global population of 6.6 billion people, the world is currently consuming at a rate of 25% more than what the earth is capable of regenerating. What will that rate be when the world has 10 billion people?
3. The world's population in 1600 was at 500 million (Leakey & Lewin, 1995). Two hundred years later in the year 1800, it had doubled to one billion. By 1940, another 140 years, the global population tripled to 3 billion. From 1940 to present day, 66 years later, the world's population has more than doubled to 6.6 billion. It is projected to be around ten billion by 2050.
4. Global greenhouse gases due to anthropogenic causes have increased 70% between 1970 and 2004 with carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas, having increased 80% between the same 34 year period. Two other green house gases, methane and nitrous oxide, have also increased substantially and rank high in terms of a negative affect on the environment. If global average temperature exceeds 3.5 degrees Celsius, it is projected that between 40-70% of species will be at risk for extinction. Eleven of the past twelve years (1995-2006) have been the warmest years of record for global surface temperature since 1850 (IPCC, 2007, p. 1). Global warming is creating changes in the migratory patterns of animals, altering the timing of plant flowerings, causing changes in the flow of the Gulfstream, and creating changes in the ocean and the atmosphere which increase the occurrence of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes. The primary causes are fossil fuel use (gasoline to power cars, boats, etc.) and agricultural and land use changes (deforestation, multinational farming methods, soil erosion, etc.).
5. The IPCC report says that, by 2080, 1.1 to 3.2 billion people will experience water scarcity, 200-600 million will be starving, and 2 to 7 million people each year will experience coastal flooding (cited in Vidal, 2007). As many as one billion people, or 17% of the world's population, may be forced to abandon their homes over the next 50 years and migrate to another more habitable geographical area. Most of these people will be from poor and undeveloped countries. A combination of social, civil and military conflicts, large-scale development projects, and global environmental decline will make life inhabitable for hundreds of millions of people, mostly from Africa, south Asia, and the Middle East where, ironically, the least amount of consumption takes place.
6. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading science-based non-profit organization working for a healthier environment, reports that America has 5% of the world's population, but emits 25% of the world's carbon dioxide (UCS, 2006). The Union of Concerned Scientists' web site also exposes the efforts of ExxonMobil which spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 hiring advocacy organizations that intentionally discredit the overwhelming evidence pointing to global warming (UCS, 2006).
7. When oil and gas senior executives speak to lawmakers and the public, they report smaller profit margins (around 8 to 10 percent) than when they speak to Wall Street analysts and shareholders (Slocum, 2006).
8. On a global scale, there was an average species decline between 1970 and 2000 of 40% with species in rivers, lakes and marshlands having declined by 50% during the same period (Global Biodiversity Outlook 2, 2006). Research points to declines in amphibians, African mammals, birds in agricultural lands, corals, and common fish species. The World Conservation Union, or IUCN, Red List of Threatened Species is recognized as the most reliable evaluation of the world's species. According to the 2007 Red List, life on earth is disappearing fast and the extinction process will continue unless urgent action is taken. There is a total of 41,415 species on the Red list (IUCN, 2007). Last year, 16,118 were facing extinction and now 16,306 are threatened. The aggregate number of extinct species is 785. The Red List reports that 25% of mammals, 13% of all birds, 33% of all amphibians, and 70% of the world's assessed plants are now threatened with extinction. One of the most disturbing statistics is that of the vertebrate family which includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. The entire vertebrate family saw an increase in threatened species jump from 3,314 in 1996 to 5,742 in 2007. Life in the ocean is in peril. According to the 2007 IUCN Red List, there are some 41, 415 species of marine life listed and, out of that, 30% are at risk for extinction. Some other vertebrates facing extinction are the tigers in India which are now thought to total no more than 1,500. In 2002, there were 3,642. Of particular concern is the rapid loss of plant species. From 1996 to 2007, the number of critically endangered plant species jumped from 909 to 1,569 and the number of endangered during the same period rose from 1,197 to 2, 278. The number of vulnerable plants during that period rose from 3,222 to 4,600. Altogether, the number of plant species that are threatened jumped from 5,328 in 1996 to 8,447 in 2007. Twenty percent (20%) of the earth's reefs have been destroyed over the past thirty years and another 50% are endangered by human activity.
9. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, electric power plants caused 67% of the total sulfur dioxide, more than 25% of the nitrogen oxides, 33% of the mercury, and 40% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States in 1998 (Natural Defense Resources Council, 2003). Approximately 120 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air.
10. The use of toxins, pesticides, and chemicals over the past sixty years has posed a substantial problem for wildlife and humans. Between 1930 and 2000, the global production of man-made chemicals skyrocketed from 1 million to 400 million tons per year (World Wildlife Federation, 2006b). Since the middle of the 20th century, the amount of pesticides sprayed on crops has increased by 26%. Because these pesticides seep into the soil, the crops that are grown absorb it. Humans eat the crops which are absorbed in the body.
11. Factory farms in the United States produce 500 million tons of manure each year which is three times the amount of human sanitary waste (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). This poses serious threats to the water we drink and the oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams. Large multimillion dollar corporations own many of the farms that generate pollution in the large lagoons that collect the urine and manure from the animals. Because lagoons have broken, failed, or overflowed, these leakages cause fish to be killed and the people living near the lagoons to report higher incidences of illnesses (Marks, 2001). Gases such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and methane are emitted from the lagoons and the irrigation pivots. These gases are toxic, consume oxygen, and are even potentially explosive. People residing near the lagoons have reported a host of physical ailments including headaches, excessive coughing, respiration problems, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, depression, and fatigue. Also hazardous are the pathogenic microbes in the animal waste that can infect humans. The amount of meat production in 2006 hit a record 276 million tons which results in greater amounts of sludge from these farms. According to the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy organization, millions of tons of potentially toxic sewage sludge has been used as crop fertilizer to millions of acres of farmland in America (Center for Food Safety, n.d.). Municipal governments sell sewage sludge to farmers as a way to dispose of unwanted byproducts from the municipal wastewater treatment plants. Sewage sludge contains anything that is flushed in a toilet or put down a kitchen sink. Many people have become ill from the heavy metals, industrial compounds, viruses, bacteria, drug residues, and radioactive materials which are found within the sewage sludge which is, as mentioned, put on the crops. Government monitoring of this hazardous waste is lax.
12. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Americans discarded 246 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2005 and businesses threw away 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste in the same year (EPA, 2007). This is an increase of 60% since 1980. Municipal residential waste includes items such as paper, yard trimmings, food scraps, plastics, metals, rubber, leather, wood, glass, sofas, computers, and refrigerators. It excludes industrial and hazardous waste. About 11% of landfills are made of plastic waste, a total of 26.7 million tons. Thirty five percent (35%) is made of paper, a total of 83 million tons. The amount of plastic thrown away increased from less than 1% in 1960 to 11.3% in 2003. The amount of paper discarded increased three fold between 1960 and 2003. The majority of municipal solid waste is comprised of containers and packaging followed by nondurable goods such as clothing, shoes, and other textiles. Globally, humans use 1.5 million tons of petroleum-based plastic to make bottles on an annual basis. It takes one million years for glass bottles to decompose. For aluminum cans, it takes 80 to 100 years while tin cans take 50 to 100 years. It takes a plastic coated milk carton five years to decompose and cigarette butts take anywhere from one to 12 years to degrade. It is a 25 to 40 year decomposition process for leather shoes and a 30 to 40 year process for nylon fabric. Environmentalists say that it will take 50 years for all the oil from the Exxon Valdez spill to finally degrade.
13. The World Wildlife Federation (2007) reports that the use of toxic man-made chemicals has increased from 1 million to 400 million tons between 1930 and 2000. They are seeping into the soil and into the food chain of all animals which, ultimately, ends up in the human body.
14. The tropical rainforest is a rich biosystem and contains the greatest diversity of species of biomes on earth which is why there is so much attention given to its preservation. This system is a home for 50-90% of all living organisms and to 90% of primates. It provides home and sanctuary to 50 million creatures that are unable to survive anywhere other than in the tropical rainforest. Serious threats from deforestation, road construction, clearing the land for agricultural purposes, and climate change are decimating it and its flora of animal wildlife. The logging industry needs the wood from forests to provide products such as paper, wood for home and commercial construction, packaging, and a host of others.
McDonald's needs 800 square miles of trees to make the amount of paper that they need solely for their packaging of products. As more and more people eat hamburgers and steaks, factory farms are necessary to grow the livestock. In the South American Amazon region, there are 100,000 beef ranchers. Norman Myers, the Oxford University environmentalist and expert on biodiversity, was the first to bring widespread attention to deforestation when he wrote The Sinking Ark in 1979 in which he estimated that more than 80,000 square miles per year of forests are being felled. This amounts to one acre per second being cut down. In the Amazon, there is an average of 1,500 acres of forest cut down each day.
15. Today, 50% of the forests that originally covered 48% of the earth are gone (NRDC, 2004). Americans use 27% of the worldwide consumption of commercially harvested wood yet only 5% of the world' population is in the United States. The United States is the largest consumer and producer of industrial wood and the world's largest importer of wood (Shugart, Sedjo, & Sohngen, 2003). In the construction industry, approximately 1/6 of the wood that is delivered is never used. It is predicted that, by the year 2050, global wood consumption will increase by 50%. In the U.S., more than 50% of the coastal temperate rainforests that once covered areas from California to Alaska have been destroyed. Mexico is losing an estimated 600,000 to 2.5 million acres of forests each year. Most of the mahogany exported from Peru is illegally logged by corporations, a major threat to forests all over the world. Canada provides 80% of their forest products to U.S. consumers. Only 8% of Canada's valuable boreal forest is sufficiently protected.
16. The United States has lost over 50% of the wetlands in the lower 48 states. The rate of loss is predicted at 60,000 acres per year. Louisiana has lost 500,000 acres of wetlands since the 1950s (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003).
17. Humans have wiped out 90% of the ocean's large fish (World Wildlife Federation, 2006) and exploited 52% of the world's fish populations. Of the remaining fish population, 24% are overexploited, depleted or making a recovery from collapse. The world now has only 17% of the ocean fish that it had 100 years ago. In 2004, 156 million tons of seafood was consumed, three times the average amount of per person seafood eaten in 1950 (Worldwatch Institute, 2007). During the 1980s and early 1990s, scientists estimated that 25% of the fish that were caught (60 billion pounds each year) were discarded (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). It is clear that the 19th century biologist, Thomas Huxley, was mistaken when he made the statement that all the sea fisheries were inexhaustible. The global industrialized fishing fleet is currently 2.5 times larger than what the ocean can sustain. What that means is that humans are consuming 2.5 times more than what the oceans can regenerate.
18. Invasive species is largely a man-made act in which one species is purposely moved from its natural environment and transported to another environment resulting in the extinction of species. Few people are aware that invasive species is one of the most serious global environmental challenges that we face today. Hundreds of extinctions have resulted from invasive species. The impact of alien invasive species is immediate and, in most cases, irreversible. Some species relocate unintentionally, but it is still through man-made intervention such as when a species attaches itself to the bottom of ships and is transported to another area. When foreign species are imported into the U.S., it does generate billions of dollars for the economy, but it also poses threats to agriculture and the environment (Schmitz & Simberloff, 2005). Global trade is a direct contributor to this threat to nature.
19. CEOs are now earning $10,000 to $12,000 per hour while the average salary increase for the average American worker is less than two percent (Democracy Now, 2007). If we pause briefly to compare work hours and wages between the average CEO and the average American worker, we see an egregious disparity. Ninety percent (90%) of Americans earn less than $100,000 per year, thus, the year of labor that it takes 90% of Americans to earn $100,000, it only takes the average CEO a total of 10 hours to earn. Sixty six percent (66%) of Americans earn less than $50,000 per year, thus, the year of labor it takes 66% of Americans to earn $50,000, it only takes the average CEO a total of five hours to earn. Fifty percent (50%) of Americans make less than 30,000 per year, so the average CEO makes that in less than three hours. The CEO does not even have labor for an entire day. According to the Drum Major Institute (2006), a non-partisan, non-profit think tank, their 2006 Injustice Index finds that the ratio of the average U.S. CEO annual pay to minimum wage worker's is 821:1 whereas twenty years ago the ratio was 40:1. According to Kevin Murphy of the University of Southern California, the average U.S. CEO pay rose 369 times that of the average worker in 2005 while it was 191 times in 1993 and 36 times in 1976 (Krugman, 2002). Compare the 1993 ratio of U.S. CEO pay to the average American worker of 191:1 to the same ratio in Germany which was 23:1 and Japan which was 17:1 (Clinton, 1992). In 2006, the top 20 CEOs of U.S. companies made three times more than the top 20 CEOs of European companies that had higher sales profits than their U.S. counterparts (Sahadi, 2007). In August 2007, the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy published their joint study on the wage gap between average American workers versus CEOs, private equity managers and hedge fund managers. Private equity and hedge fund managers' pay averaged $657.5 million in 2006 which is 16,000 times more than the average full-time worker and it is 61 times larger than the average CEO pay (Sahadi, 2007).
20. Paul Krugman (2002), an economist at MIT and regular columnist for The New York Times, reports that in a 29 year period between 1970 and 1999, the average annual salary in America rose ten percent (10%) whereas, during the same period, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top CEOs in America rose more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary American workers and, according to a 2001 Congressional Budget Office study, between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent of American families rose 157 percent (157%). Krugman (2005) reports that the average income of the top one percent (1%) of Americans has doubled since 1973 and the income of the top 0.1% has tripled. According to the United Nations Development Report (United Nations, 1999), the net wealth of the ten wealthiest billionaires is $133,000,000,000 (133 billion dollars), more than 1.5 times the total national income of the least developed countries. Doug Henwood (1998), in Wall Street: How It Works and for Whom, writes that the richest 5% of Americans own 95% of all stock shares and the top 1% of the population owns 25% of the productive capital and future profits of corporate America. In Henwood's (2003) After the New Economy, he exposes that the richest 10% of Americans possess over ¾ of all the wealth in America and the bottom 50% has almost none of the wealth, but notes that they do have substantial debt. In a government study, the group which had the largest growth in total income between 2000 and 2005 was the top 0.001% individuals who make $1 million or more and which grew by more than 26% during these five years (Johnston, 2007). In the recent government report of the top 0.001% who make $1 million+, that group not only walked away with almost 47% of the total income gains in 2005 compared to 2000, but, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, they captured 62% of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends for the wealthy that President Bush signed into law in 2003 (Johnston, 2007). If the richest 5% of Americans own 95% of all stock shares and the top 1% of the population owns 25% of the productive capital and future profits of corporate America, it does not take a math genius to deduce that President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have overwhelmingly benefited 5% of Americans and have resulted in vastly deteriorated economic outlooks for the other 95%. The Citizens for Tax Justice reports that out of 134 million American taxpayers, those who make $10 million or more—a total of 11,433 taxpayers---saved almost $1.9 million each and reaped 28% of the investment tax cut savings. As an aggregate, these 11,433 Americans saved $21.7 billion in taxes on their investments as a direct result of President Bush's tax cuts for the top wealthiest in America while the other 90% of American who make less than $100,000 a year saved an average of $318 on each investment.
21. One investment bank has commented that the current period for corporations is "the golden era of profitability" (Greenhouse & Leonhardt, 2006, p. A.1) with corporate profits climbing to the highest amount since the 1960s. Even though productivity levels have risen by double digits in the past decade, American workers' pay increases have risen by less than 2%. As Herbert (2007) describes it this way: "If your productivity increases by 18% and your pay goes up 1%, you've been dealt a hand full of jokers in which jokers aren't wild" (p. A.19). Most productivity gains have gone straight into the pockets of corporate executives. The savings rate for middle and poor class is now negative and more Americans are filing for bankruptcy than they are for divorce (Herbert, 2007). Moreover, 30 million Americans, or 25% of the U.S. workforce, make less than $9.00 per hour, or just $17,280 per year and, according to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 37 million Americans now live in poverty (Hartmann, 2006).
22. Multinational corporations own animal patents to clone animals. The first animal patent that was issued was in 1988 for the "Oncomouse," a genetically manipulated mouse to develop cancers that mirror human diseases. The research was conducted at Harvard University, but it was DuPont that was awarded the European Patent 169672 on the mouse in 1992. More than 660 animal patents have been issued in the United States since 1988. This means corporations have power over the DNA structure if cloning is not banned. If there is no ethical and moral line to be drawn with cloning of animals, how long will it take until humans are cloned? What happens if another Hitler or Stalin assume power?
23. More than 75 percent of workers in most of the industrial nations are performing work that is primarily simple and repetitive (Rifkin, 2004). In the United States, out of 124 million workers, more than 90 million jobs are at risk for replacement by machines. Currently, 3.6 billion out of 5.4 billion people in the world lack adequate cash or credit to purchase goods and services (Barnet & Cavanagh, 1994). Human androids are being made that will, one day, be indiscernible to a real human being (Whitehouse, 2005). Will they have a conscience? Not only will these androids take over work because of their slavish, blind obedience to authority and the wealthy capitalists, how will billions of unemployed real human beings survive and how will a real human being know if they are marrying a human being or an android? Will androids have legal and political rights? If so, without a conscience, how will they vote and what will they demand? If they become leaders, what will become of the world?
24. Corporations and individuals now own patents on 20 human pathogens (Crichton, 2007). This allows the owner of the patents to halt research, prevent medical testing, and to withhold vital information from a patient or doctor. A corporation can charge any amount for tests related to that disease. The owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions of dollars by researchers to study the disease. Not surprisingly, researchers turn to studying other less expensive diseases. When SARS was spreading around the world, medical researchers were reticent to study it because of the patent concerns behind it. The inhibition of innovation and research makes the patenting of human genes particularly insidious. Corporations literally have the power to prevent the finding of cures for disease. Perhaps the most disturbing patent is that of U.S. patent 5,476,995 on Tracey the sheep. Tracey had human genes injected into her mammary glands to produce a certain protein. The alteration of her genetic make-up allows the two companies which own her, Pharmaceutical Proteins Ltd. and Bayer, to describe her as a human invention. This takes the concept of Orwellian doublespeak and turns it into the more accurate phrase: diabolical deception.
25. Millions of birds, cats, dogs, farm animals, fish, mice, monkeys, rats, rabbits and a host of other domestic and wild animals are subjected to animal testing by psychologists, biologists, biochemists, physiologists, and geneticists. In a 2005 study, it was reported that the United States used 1.14 million animals (excluding rats, mice, birds and cold-blooded species), and an estimated 100 million mice for research (PETA, 2006a). Of these, it is known that 84, 662 animals suffered pain without pain relief. In the same study, it was found that Canada used 2.32 million animals for research and 167,000 animals were subjected to experiments that cause severe pain. In Great Britain, a total of 2.45 million animal experiments were conducted.
26. The military testing of weapons in which they use animals as subjects is a particularly horrible practice, but the public remains largely uninformed about it. According to PETA (2006b), the U.S. military uses AK-47 rifles, biological and chemical weapons, and nuclear blasts to test on animals. In 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported that more than 330,000 dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates, rats, mice, dolphins, fish, and other animals had been subjects in their military tests. This excludes the experiments conducted by nongovernmental organizations in which sheep, goats, and pigs are shot in wound experiments, so the aggregate number of military tests in which animals are used is likely underreported.
27. President George W. Bush has backed out of important treaties since gaining power. He backed out of the Kyoto Treaty after assuming office in 2001 which meant he refused to honor commitments to work with over 100 other countries who had signed the treaty in addressing global warming. That was troubling enough. Then in December 2001 Bush announced that the United States would no longer honor the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the U.S. signed with Russia in which there was a sort of balance of powers established. This withdrawal marked the first formal unilateral withdrawal of a major power from a nuclear arms treaty and it also triggered Russia to withdraw from its commitments under the START II arms reduction treaty. If that wasn't alarming enough, in 2002, the Department of Defense presented the Nuclear Posture Review to Congress which expanded the range of situations in which the U.S. could use nuclear weapons allowing the option of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. This was another withdrawal from an agreement the U.S. had made in 1995 when it said it would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon parties unless they attacked the U.S. while allied with another nuclear-weapon country. The Nuclear Posture Review to Congress also allowed pre-emptive attacks and permitted the development of nuclear warheads. In November 2006, Bush posted plans on a public website stating intentions to build nuclear weapons. Immediately following, six Arab nations made formal announcements that they were launching nuclear programs of their own. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Saudia Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, the United Arab of Emirates, and Egypt had revealed their nuclear ambitions the prior month and were giving formal notice of those plans. Arms experts called this announcement a "stunning reversal of policy" in the Arab world because of a long past of commitments to a nuclear free Middle East. While the six countries told the IAEA that their intention was the pursuit of nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons, it is clear that nuclear energy technology can be turned into weaponry. Then in mid 2007, Bush announced he was going to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe. Vladimir Putin responded by notifying NATO governments that Russia would suspend its obligations under the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a cold war treaty that limited arms proliferation. Putin said that the bullying of President Bush was forcing Russia to make this move particularly with two major moves: the combination of the U.S. backing away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and its intention to rearm Eastern Europe.
28. There are currently (as of April 2008) nine countries that have nuclear weapons: United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, North Korea, China, India, Pakistan and Israel.
29. Following the bombing of Japan, a group of American atomic scientists published an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) establishing the Doomsday Clock and set it at 7 minutes before the close of midnight. It was intended to be a stark symbol of how close the world was approaching total obliteration. In 2006, the BAS directors and affiliated scientists met to reassess what the most grievous threats to life on the planet are today. The decision was made that global warming is second only to nuclear annihilation and so the Doomsday clock was moved up by two minutes. It is now set at five minutes before midnight.
The informed, compassionate, and active are tasked with daunting and overwhelming challenges. It is imperative for us to build bridges and remain connected during these profoundly troubling times. Let us persevere, stay informed, remain sober and realistic, and act with moral conscience on the scientific information that is available to us. And let us keep hope alive.
Wanda is a psychotherapist and author of The Anatomy of the Soul: An Authentic Psychology published in 2004 which posits an original theoretical model of the Soul, or Transcendent Psyche. Her second book, Malignant Masculine Power: The Narcissistic Consciousness of Deceit, Exploitation, Domination, and Destruction That is Leading the World Toward Annihilation, posits an original theoretical model of masculine psychosocial pathology and will be published later in 2008. She is currently pursuing a doctorate in psychology and enjoys reading, writing, listening to classical and easy listening music, meditating, and gardening. She is interested in issues pertaining to gender psychology, philosophy, spirituality, socioeconomic justice, and peace.
Get 5GB of online storage for free! Get it Now!
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Anarchism
May, 13 2008
By Howard Zinn and Ziga Vodovnik
"History shows that whenever people have been living under tyranny,
people would rebel against that."
Howard Zinn, 85, is a Professor Emeritus of political science at Boston University. He was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1922 to a poor immigrant family. He realized early in his youth that the promise of the „American Dream", that will come true to all hard-working and diligent people, is just that - a promise and a dream. During World War II he joined US Air Force and served as a bombardier in the „European Theatre". This proved to be a formative experience that only strengthened his convictions that there is no such thing as a just war. It also revealed, once again, the real face of the socio-economic order, where the suffering and sacrifice of the ordinary people is always used only to higher the profits of the privileged few. Although he spent his youthful years helping his parents support the family by working in the shipyards, he started with studies at Columbia University after WWII, where he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation in 1958. Later he was appointed as a chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Spelman College, an all-black women's college in Atlanta, GA, where he actively participated in the Civil Rights Movement. From the onset of the Vietnam War he was active within the emerging anti-war movement, and in the following years only stepped up his involvement in movements aspiring towards another, better world. Zinn is the author of more than 20 books, including A People's History of the United States that is "a brilliant and moving history of the American people from the point of view of those who have been exploited politically and economically and whose plight has been largely omitted from most histories..." (Library Journal) His most recent book is entitled A Power Governments Cannot Suppress, and is a fascinating collection of essays that Zinn wrote in the last couple of years. Beloved radical historian is still lecturing across the US and around the world, and is, with active participation and support of various progressive social movements continuing his struggle for free and just society.
Ziga Vodovnik is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, where his teaching and research is focused on anarchist theory/praxis and social movements in the Americas. His new book Anarchy of Everyday Life - Notes on anarchism and its Forgotten Confluences will be released in late 2008.
Ziga Vodovnik:From the 1980s onwards we are witnessing the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day. Many on the Left are now caught between a "dilemma" - either to work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital; or to strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What's your opinion about this?
Howard Zinn: I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization. In a certain sense the movement towards globalization where capitalists are trying to leap over nation state barriers, creates a kind of opportunity for movement to ignore national barriers, and to bring people together globally, across national lines in opposition to globalization of capital, to create globalization of people, opposed to traditional notion of globalization. In other words to use globalization - it is nothing wrong with idea of globalization - in a way that bypasses national boundaries and of course that there is not involved corporate control of the economic decisions that are made about people all over the world.
ZV: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once wrote that: "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order." Where do you see life after or beyond (nation) states?
HZ: Beyond the nation states? (laughter) I think what lies beyond the nation states is a world without national boundaries, but also with people organized. But not organized as nations, but people organized as groups, as collectives, without national and any kind of boundaries. Without any kind of borders, passports, visas. None of that! Of collectives of different sizes, depending on the function of the collective, having contacts with one another. You cannot have self-sufficient little collectives, because these collectives have different resources available to them. This is something anarchist theory has not worked out and maybe cannot possibly work out in advance, because it would have to work itself out in practice.
ZV: Do you think that a change can be achieved through institutionalized party politics, or only through alternative means - with disobedience, building parallel frameworks, establishing alternative media, etc.
HZ: If you work through the existing structures you are going to be corrupted. By working through political system that poisons the atmosphere, even the progressive organizations, you can see it even now in the US, where people on the "Left" are all caught in the electoral campaign and get into fierce arguments about should we support this third party candidate or that third party candidate. This is a sort of little piece of evidence that suggests that when you get into working through electoral politics you begin to corrupt your ideals. So I think a way to behave is to think not in terms of representative government, not in terms of voting, not in terms of electoral politics, but thinking in terms of organizing social movements, organizing in the work place, organizing in the neighborhood, organizing collectives that can become strong enough to eventually take over - first to become strong enough to resist what has been done to them by authority, and second, later, to become strong enough to actually take over the institutions.
ZV: One personal question. Do you go to the polls? Do you vote?
HZ: I do. Sometimes, not always. It depends. But I believe that it is preferable sometimes to have one candidate rather another candidate, while you understand that that is not the solution. Sometimes the lesser evil is not so lesser, so you want to ignore that, and you either do not vote or vote for third party as a protest against the party system. Sometimes the difference between two candidates is an important one in the immediate sense, and then I believe trying to get somebody into office, who is a little better, who is less dangerous, is understandable. But never forgetting that no matter who gets into office, the crucial question is not who is in office, but what kind of social movement do you have. Because we have seen historically that if you have a powerful social movement, it doesn't matter who is in office. Whoever is in office, they could be Republican or Democrat, if you have a powerful social movement, the person in office will have to yield, will have to in some ways respect the power of social movements.
We saw this in the 1960s. Richard Nixon was not the lesser evil, he was the greater evil, but in his administration the war was finally brought to an end, because he had to deal with the power of the anti-war movement as well as the power of the Vietnamese movement. I will vote, but always with a caution that voting is not crucial, and organizing is the important thing.
When some people ask me about voting, they would say will you support this candidate or that candidate? I say: 'I will support this candidate for one minute that I am in the voting booth. At that moment I will support A versus B, but before I am going to the voting booth, and after I leave the voting booth, I am going to concentrate on organizing people and not organizing electoral campaign.'
ZV: Anarchism is in this respect rightly opposing representative democracy since it is still form of tyranny - tyranny of majority. They object to the notion of majority vote, noting that the views of the majority do not always coincide with the morally right one. Thoreau once wrote that we have an obligation to act according to the dictates of our conscience, even if the latter goes against the majority opinion or the laws of the society. Do you agree with this?
HZ: Absolutely. Rousseau once said, if I am part of a group of 100 people, do 99 people have the right to sentence me to death, just because they are majority? No, majorities can be wrong, majorities can overrule rights of minorities. If majorities ruled, we could still have slavery. 80% of the population once enslaved 20% of the population. While run by majority rule that is ok. That is very flawed notion of what democracy is. Democracy has to take into account several things - proportionate requirements of people, not just needs of the majority, but also needs of the minority. And also has to take into account that majority, especially in societies where the media manipulates public opinion, can be totally wrong and evil. So yes, people have to act according to conscience and not by majority vote.
ZV: Where do you see the historical origins of anarchism in the United States?
HZ: One of the problems with dealing with anarchism is that there are many people whose ideas are anarchist, but who do not necessarily call themselves anarchists. The word was first used by Proudhon in the middle of the 19th century, but actually there were anarchist ideas that proceeded Proudhon, those in Europe and also in the United States. For instance, there are some ideas of Thomas Paine, who was not an anarchist, who would not call himself an anarchist, but he was suspicious of government. Also Henry David Thoreau. He does not know the word anarchism, and does not use the word anarchism, but Thoreau's ideas are very close to anarchism. He is very hostile to all forms of government. If we trace origins of anarchism in the United States, then probably Thoreau is the closest you can come to an early American anarchist. You do not really encounter anarchism until after the Civil War, when you have European anarchists, especially German anarchists, coming to the United States. They actually begin to organize. The first time that anarchism has an organized force and becomes publicly known in the United States is in Chicago at the time of Haymarket Affair.
ZV: Where do you see the main inspiration of contemporary anarchism in the United States? What is your opinion about the Transcendentalism - i.e., Henry D. Thoreau, Ralph W. Emerson, Walt Whitman, Margaret Fuller, et al. - as an inspiration in this perspective?
HZ: Well, the Transcendentalism is, we might say, an early form of anarchism. The Transcendentalists also did not call themselves anarchists, but there are anarchist ideas in their thinking and in their literature. In many ways Herman Melville shows some of those anarchist ideas. They were all suspicious of authority. We might say that the Transcendentalism played a role in creating an atmosphere of skepticism towards authority, towards government.
Unfortunately, today there is no real organized anarchist movement in the United States. There are many important groups or collectives that call themselves anarchist, but they are small. I remember that in 1960s there was an anarchist collective here in Boston that consisted of fifteen (sic!) people, but then they split. But in 1960s the idea of anarchism became more important in connection with the movements of 1960s.
ZV: Most of the creative energy for radical politics is nowadays coming from anarchism, but only few of the people involved in the movement actually call themselves "anarchists". Where do you see the main reason for this? Are activists ashamed to identify themselves with this intellectual tradition, or rather they are true to the commitment that real emancipation needs emancipation from any label?
HZ: The term anarchism has become associated with two phenomena with which real anarchist don't want to associate themselves with. One is violence, and the other is disorder or chaos. The popular conception of anarchism is on the one hand bomb-throwing and terrorism, and on the other hand no rules, no regulations, no discipline, everybody does what they want, confusion, etc. That is why there is a reluctance to use the term anarchism. But actually the ideas of anarchism are incorporated in the way the movements of the 1960s began to think.
I think that probably the best manifestation of that was in the civil rights movement with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee - SNCC. SNCC without knowing about anarchism as philosophy embodied the characteristics of anarchism. They were decentralized. Other civil rights organizations, for example Seven Christian Leadership Conference, were centralized organizations with a leader - Martin Luther King. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) were based in New York, and also had some kind of centralized organization. SNCC, on the other hand, was totally decentralized. It had what they called field secretaries, who worked in little towns all over the South, with great deal of autonomy. They had an office in Atlanta, Georgia, but the office was not a strong centralized authority. The people who were working out in the field - in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi - they were very much on their own. They were working together with local people, with grassroots people. And so there is no one leader for SNCC, and also great suspicion of government, because of experience of SNCC. They could not depend on government to help them, to support them, even though the government of the time, in the early 1960s, was considered to be progressive, liberal. John F. Kennedy especially. But they looked at John F. Kennedy, they saw how he behaved. John F. Kennedy was not supporting the Southern movement for equal rights for Black people. He was appointing the segregationists judges in the South, he was allowing southern segregationists to do whatever they wanted to do. So SNCC was decentralized, anti-government, without leadership, but they did not have a vision of a future society like the anarchists. They were not thinking long term, they were not asking what kind of society shall we have in the future. They were really concentrated on immediate problem of racial segregation. But their attitude, the way they worked, the way they were organized, was along, you might say, anarchist lines.
ZV: Do you thing that pejorative (mis)usage of the word anarchism is direct consequence of the fact that the ideas that people can be free, was and is very frightening to those in power?
HZ: No doubt! No doubt that anarchist ideas are frightening to those in power. People in power can tolerate liberal ideas. They can tolerate ideas that call for reforms, but they cannot tolerate the idea that there will be no state, no central authority. So it is very important for them to ridicule the idea of anarchism to create this impression of anarchism as violent and chaotic. It is useful for them, yes.
ZV: In theoretical political science we can analytically identify two main conceptions of anarchism - a so-called collectivist anarchism limited to Europe, and on another hand individualist anarchism limited to US. Do you agree with this analytical separation?
HZ: To me this is an artificial separation. As so often happens analysts can make things easier for themselves, like to create categories and fit movements into categories, but I don't think you can do that. Here in the United States, sure there have been people who believed in individualist anarchism, but in the United States have also been organized anarchists of Chicago in 1880s or SNCC. I guess in both instances, in Europe and in the United States, you find both manifestations, except that maybe in Europe the idea of anarcho-syndicalism become stronger in Europe than in the US. While in the US you have the IWW, which is an anarcho-sindicalist organization and certainly not in keeping with individualist anarchism.
ZV: What is your opinion about the "dilemma" of means - revolution versus social and cultural evolution?
HZ: I think here are several different questions. One of them is the issue of violence, and I think here anarchists have disagreed. Here in the US you find a disagreement, and you can find this disagreement within one person. Emma Goldman, you might say she brought anarchism, after she was dead, to the forefront in the US in the 1960s, when she suddenly became an important figure. But Emma Goldman was in favor of the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, but then she decided that this is not the way. Her friend and comrade, Alexander Berkman, he did not give up totally the idea of violence. On the other hand, you have people who were anarchistic in way like Tolstoy and also Gandhi, who believed in nonviolence.
There is one central characteristic of anarchism on the matter of means, and that central principle is a principle of direct action - of not going through the forms that the society offers you, of representative government, of voting, of legislation, but directly taking power. In case of trade unions, in case of anarcho-syndicalism, it means workers going on strike, and not just that, but actually also taking hold of industries in which they work and managing them. What is direct action? In the South when black people were organizing against racial segregation, they did not wait for the government to give them a signal, or to go through the courts, to file lawsuits, wait for Congress to pass the legislation. They took direct action; they went into restaurants, were sitting down there and wouldn'tmove. They got on those busses and acted out the situation that they wanted to exist.
Of course, strike is always a form of direct action. With the strike, too, you are not asking government to make things easier for you by passing legislation, you are taking a direct action against the employer. I would say, as far as means go, the idea of direct action against the evil that you want to overcome is a kind of common denominator for anarchist ideas, anarchist movements. I still think one of the most important principles of anarchism is that you cannot separate means and ends. And that is, if your end is egalitarian society you have to use egalitarian means, if your end is non-violent society without war, you cannot use war to achieve your end. I think anarchism requires means and ends to be in line with one another. I think this is in fact one of the distinguishing characteristics of anarchism.
ZV: On one occasion Noam Chomsky has been asked about his specific vision of anarchist society and about his very detailed plan to get there. He answered that "we can not figure out what problems are going to arise unless you experiment with them." Do you also have a feeling that many left intellectuals are loosing too much energy with their theoretical disputes about the proper means and ends, to even start "experimenting" in practice?
HZ: I think it is worth presenting ideas, like Michael Albert did with Parecon for instance, even though if you maintain flexibility. We cannot create blueprint for future society now, but I think it is good to think about that. I think it is good to have in mind a goal. It is constructive, it is helpful, it is healthy, to think about what future society might be like, because then it guides you somewhat what you are doing today, but only so long as this discussions about future society don't become obstacles to working towards this future society. Otherwise you can spend discussing this utopian possibility versus that utopian possibility, and in the mean time you are not acting in a way that would bring you closer to that.
ZV: In your A People's History of the United States you show us that our freedom, rights, environmental standards, etc., have never been given to us from the wealthy and influential few, but have always been fought out by ordinary people - with civil disobedience. What should be in this respect our first steps toward another, better world?
HZ: I think our first step is to organize ourselves and protest against existing order - against war, against economic and sexual exploitation, against racism, etc. But to organize ourselves in such a way that means correspond to the ends, and to organize ourselves in such a way as to create kind of human relationship that should exist in future society. That would mean to organize ourselves without centralize authority, without charismatic leader, in a way that represents in miniature the ideal of the future egalitarian society. So that even if you don't win some victory tomorrow or next year in the meantime you have created a model. You have acted out how future society should be and you created immediate satisfaction, even if you have not achieved your ultimate goal.
ZV: What is your opinion about different attempts to scientifically prove Bakunin's ontological assumption that human beings have "instinct for freedom", not just will but also biological need?
HZ: Actually I believe in this idea, but I think that you cannot have biological evidence for this. You would have to find a gene for freedom? No. I think the other possible way is to go by history of human behavior. History of human behavior shows this desire for freedom, shows that whenever people have been living under tyranny, people would rebel against that.
Invite your Facebook friends to Messenger! Get Started!
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Dubious company
Ending poverty and winning human rights can't be left to voluntary initiatives of corporations
- John Hilary
- The Guardian,
- Tuesday May 6 2008
- Article history
About this article
CloseThis article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday May 06 2008 on p27 of the Comment & debate section. It was last updated at 00:03 on May 06 2008.
For an event aimed at convincing the public that multinational corporations have a positive contribution to make, the line-up is likely to raise a few eyebrows. UK mining giant Anglo American, one of the first to come on board, has been widely criticised for profiting from human rights abuses against local communities in the developing world.
Fellow participant Wal-Mart, savagely opposed to trade unions, has built its global empire on relentless cutting of costs in retail stores and supply chains, including ever-lower wages for factory workers in China and Bangladesh. This downwards pressure on earnings prevents people from working their way out of poverty, in complete contrast to the stated aims of Brown's initiative.
Other companies are the subject of similar criticisms. Coca-Cola has long been the target of legal action in India for taking communal water resources from poor farmers, and for its pollution of agricultural land. Bechtel attained notoriety over the failed privatisation of water in the Bolivian town of Cochabamba. Other participating companies have also come in for criticism.
The government unit responsible for today's event classifies complicity in human rights abuses, labour rights violations and pollution as "unacceptable" corporate behaviour. On that basis alone, several of the multinationals lining up alongside Gordon Brown today are less than appropriate for an anti-poverty event. When we raised this, the civil servant in charge said "some of the companies might seem a bit unusual", but added cheerily: "Isn't that great?"
It would indeed be great if the initiative had been designed to challenge the companies' behaviour and bring them into line with international standards. Yet the government has made clear there is no such intention and insists the initiative will not be used to challenge poor business practices when companies are found to have strayed from the path of righteousness.
Moreover, the government has admitted that there is no mechanism in place to measure whether any of the products and services to be launched by the companies will actually make a difference to poverty levels in the developing world. Without such checks the event looks suspiciously like a PR exercise designed to allow a few questionable multinationals to talk up their credentials without altering their behaviour in any way.
In his new report on business and human rights, UN special representative John Ruggie attacks the "permissive environment for wrongful acts by companies of all kinds" which has been fostered as a result of government reliance on voluntary initiatives rather than regulation of business. He also laments government failure to take action in defence of the victims of corporate abuse. When the UN human rights council convenes to debate his recommendations, Ruggie will call on world leaders to introduce a proper framework of regulation and accountability to restore some balance between the interests of big business and the needs of working people.
The battle to end poverty and win human rights is too important to be left to voluntary initiatives of corporations. The mantra that "enlightened self-interest" will lead business to behave responsibly has been exposed as a myth by the very companies that have signed up to Brown's initiative. Only by ensuring that corporations can be held accountable can we stop the abuses and make progress towards a better world.
· The writer is executive director of War on Want
jhilary@waronwant.org
Invite your Facebook friends to Messenger! Get Started!
Monday, 5 May 2008
The magic of Shane
Richie Benaud said Keith Miller was the best captain Australia never had. The same can be said about Warne
May 4, 2008
I first met Everton Valentine on the 1973 tour of the Caribbean and he now lives in Notting Hill Gate, London. We continue to communicate on cricket matters in general and the West Indies in particular
'If a team under Warne pulls off a stunning victory or two, the players start to believe that it wasn't a miracle, just an everyday occurrence' © Getty Images
Dear Everton
Well, mate, you never cease to amaze. After telling me Twenty20 was "like drinking punch without the rum", I get an email from Hyderabad saying you've flown there to watch an IPL game.
Still, I can't fault your reasoning; a desire to see if all this talk about Shane Warne's captaincy was true. I guess I no longer have to try and convince you he would've been a great Australian captain. He makes the game exciting for his team-mates, which is part of the secret to successful captaincy. Keep them involved in an absorbing contest and the really competitive players will regularly produce their best.
Also, his captaincy creed, "We can win from any position," is like the common cold - it's contagious. If a team under Warne pulls off a stunning victory or two, the players start to believe that it wasn't a miracle, just an everyday occurrence.
Everton, what you witnessed in Hyderabad, where Warne captained like a chess master and conjured up a remarkable last-gasp victory against the Deccan Chargers, is exactly what I saw in 1996 when I phoned Richie Benaud in England. I'd just seen Warne captain Victoria in a Super Eights tournament played in northern Australia during the winter. His captaincy was aggressive and there was a vibrancy to his leadership that inspired the players around him to perform at their best. I told Benaud, "I've just seen a brilliant natural leader. We could have another aggressive legspinning captain of Australia."
Even from 16,000 kilometres away you could hear the excitement in Benaud's voice. My prediction had rekindled memories of his own exploits as an aggressive Australian captain who was prepared to take risks.
What you said about Warne, "that he takes his gambling instincts on to the field" was one of the things that impressed me about his captaincy in 1996. Everton, what you and the Indian public are now seeing is what the people of Hampshire have been raving about for a few seasons: how as captain, Warne makes the game interesting for everybody to watch. What a pity we didn't see more of it in Australia.
Just 11 one-day internationals as captain in the late 1990s and Australia won ten of those matches. No wonder Steve Waugh was in a hurry to return from injury to reclaim the job; the team responded brilliantly to Warne's leadership and there was a mystical quality about what might unfold that had the public constantly on the edge of their seats.
He also captained Victoria a few times but that would have been wasted on their fans; they've been subjected to so much pedestrian leadership over the years, they've probably forgotten what good captaincy looks like. Yes, Everton, I know, there's an exception to every rule. My grandfather, and former Australia captain Vic Richardson advised me, "If you ever captain Australia, don't do it like a Victorian."
Anyway, what's happened to the old devil-may-care Everton now you've retired? You're becoming conservative in your old age, agreeing with the "do gooders" (as you once described them), that it was probably just as well Warne didn't captain Australia because he would've embarrassed the country with his off-field antics.
What the Indian public are now seeing is what the people of Hampshire have been raving about for a few seasons: how as captain, Warne makes the game interesting for everybody to watch. What a pity we didn't see more of it in Australia
Remember what you said, Everton, "Larrikins make good captains because they are risk-takers." And anyway, I told you if he'd been appointed captain following Mark Taylor's retirement, I doubt he would have got into so much hot water that it ensured he would never captain Australia again. He's made some stupid mistakes but he's not naive.
I think it was Eric Idle, the comic from Monty Python, who said of the male of the species: "Man has two major organs, brain and penis, but only blood enough to run one at a time." That probably best summed up Warnie.
Anyway, we agree on one thing, Everton. Warne has one of the most vibrant cricket brains in the business and there can be no disputing he's a very good captain. Benaud often says the great allrounder Keith Miller was the best skipper he's seen never to captain Australia. I'd say the same about Warne in regard to Test cricket.
Hey, mate, you've really succumbed to the Warne magic. You followed him to Jaipur to watch him out-manoeuvre his old foe Sourav Ganguly and make it four wins in a row against the Knight Riders, and now you're planning a trip to Las Vegas to watch him play in a poker tournament.
If you want some spending money for Vegas, have a little wager on the Royals winning the IPL. There's one thing for sure about taking a punt on Warnie. He always gives you a good run for your money.
May 4, 2008
I first met Everton Valentine on the 1973 tour of the Caribbean and he now lives in Notting Hill Gate, London. We continue to communicate on cricket matters in general and the West Indies in particular
'If a team under Warne pulls off a stunning victory or two, the players start to believe that it wasn't a miracle, just an everyday occurrence' © Getty Images
Dear Everton
Well, mate, you never cease to amaze. After telling me Twenty20 was "like drinking punch without the rum", I get an email from Hyderabad saying you've flown there to watch an IPL game.
Still, I can't fault your reasoning; a desire to see if all this talk about Shane Warne's captaincy was true. I guess I no longer have to try and convince you he would've been a great Australian captain. He makes the game exciting for his team-mates, which is part of the secret to successful captaincy. Keep them involved in an absorbing contest and the really competitive players will regularly produce their best.
Also, his captaincy creed, "We can win from any position," is like the common cold - it's contagious. If a team under Warne pulls off a stunning victory or two, the players start to believe that it wasn't a miracle, just an everyday occurrence.
Everton, what you witnessed in Hyderabad, where Warne captained like a chess master and conjured up a remarkable last-gasp victory against the Deccan Chargers, is exactly what I saw in 1996 when I phoned Richie Benaud in England. I'd just seen Warne captain Victoria in a Super Eights tournament played in northern Australia during the winter. His captaincy was aggressive and there was a vibrancy to his leadership that inspired the players around him to perform at their best. I told Benaud, "I've just seen a brilliant natural leader. We could have another aggressive legspinning captain of Australia."
Even from 16,000 kilometres away you could hear the excitement in Benaud's voice. My prediction had rekindled memories of his own exploits as an aggressive Australian captain who was prepared to take risks.
What you said about Warne, "that he takes his gambling instincts on to the field" was one of the things that impressed me about his captaincy in 1996. Everton, what you and the Indian public are now seeing is what the people of Hampshire have been raving about for a few seasons: how as captain, Warne makes the game interesting for everybody to watch. What a pity we didn't see more of it in Australia.
Just 11 one-day internationals as captain in the late 1990s and Australia won ten of those matches. No wonder Steve Waugh was in a hurry to return from injury to reclaim the job; the team responded brilliantly to Warne's leadership and there was a mystical quality about what might unfold that had the public constantly on the edge of their seats.
He also captained Victoria a few times but that would have been wasted on their fans; they've been subjected to so much pedestrian leadership over the years, they've probably forgotten what good captaincy looks like. Yes, Everton, I know, there's an exception to every rule. My grandfather, and former Australia captain Vic Richardson advised me, "If you ever captain Australia, don't do it like a Victorian."
Anyway, what's happened to the old devil-may-care Everton now you've retired? You're becoming conservative in your old age, agreeing with the "do gooders" (as you once described them), that it was probably just as well Warne didn't captain Australia because he would've embarrassed the country with his off-field antics.
What the Indian public are now seeing is what the people of Hampshire have been raving about for a few seasons: how as captain, Warne makes the game interesting for everybody to watch. What a pity we didn't see more of it in Australia
Remember what you said, Everton, "Larrikins make good captains because they are risk-takers." And anyway, I told you if he'd been appointed captain following Mark Taylor's retirement, I doubt he would have got into so much hot water that it ensured he would never captain Australia again. He's made some stupid mistakes but he's not naive.
I think it was Eric Idle, the comic from Monty Python, who said of the male of the species: "Man has two major organs, brain and penis, but only blood enough to run one at a time." That probably best summed up Warnie.
Anyway, we agree on one thing, Everton. Warne has one of the most vibrant cricket brains in the business and there can be no disputing he's a very good captain. Benaud often says the great allrounder Keith Miller was the best skipper he's seen never to captain Australia. I'd say the same about Warne in regard to Test cricket.
Hey, mate, you've really succumbed to the Warne magic. You followed him to Jaipur to watch him out-manoeuvre his old foe Sourav Ganguly and make it four wins in a row against the Knight Riders, and now you're planning a trip to Las Vegas to watch him play in a poker tournament.
If you want some spending money for Vegas, have a little wager on the Royals winning the IPL. There's one thing for sure about taking a punt on Warnie. He always gives you a good run for your money.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)