[PEN-L:1373] Re: FW: Murder in Nigeria (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Murder in Nigeria Dehai members: I have just read Debrai Haile's eloquent eulogy for Ke Sara Wiwi, murdered Friday in Nigeria. While it may be comforting to think about the actions of the US or South Africa, or to expect other governments to respond to the the transparent political murder, it is interesting that no one in any circle I have heard from expects anything from Shell Oil, the real culprit in Mr. Wiwi's homeland. What could Shell have done? Anyone who watches international politics in the 1990's knows that in many cases, transnational corporations have more resources at their disposal, more economic power, and more consequent political clout than the governments in their host countries. Shell could have simply told Abacha to leave Wiwi alone; barring that, they could have offered him a legitimate lawyer; they could have behind the scenes helped Wiwi get out of the country, although I doubt Mr. Sara WiWi would have accepted this offer. You may be saying: Doesn't she know it is Shell he was protesting? Of course, I know that. Shell Oil has a responsibility to listen to its own rhetoric in other places and to protect democracy and the rights of the people in the countries where it does business. If we, the people of the world, do not expect and demand this of transnational corporations, we will find any hope for human rights in any country that allows international capital to flow across its borders will never be established. What should we do? Write to Shell's board of directors stating your outrage at their inaction. Refuse to buy Shell oil and tell them why. Expect the companies you give your money to to behave as ethically as you do. Or better--they have more power. Again, while we expect certain actiion from our governments, we rarely expect anything from the Corporate world. That's where the real power lies. As Eritrea moves toward economic independence and growth, many difficult choices must be made about international capital and foreign investment. The government will have to find money. All of us must be vigilant in assuring that international investment does not mean a dissolution of human rights. -- Janice Windborne PhD candidate Telecommunications Dept Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 USA
[PEN-L:1374] REVOKE SHELL OIL'S CHARTER! (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 16:22:20 -0800 Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: REVOKE SHELL OIL'S CHARTER! The following message has been sent by email fax to every member of the Canadian parliament: On the murder of Ken Saro-wiwa and eight other environmental and human rights activists: Shell Oil, particularly, has been a target of Mr. Saro Wiwa's movement, MOSOP. "We deeply regret that the major corporate players, especially Shell Oil -- which might have been able to use their influence to save the lives of these courageous activists -- did virtually nothing. Capital punishment for Capital crimes! "The danger is that we're going to see pro forma expressions of outrage by Clinton, Major, and so forth and very little effective action." A corporation is a "person" by legal fiction. Corporations routinely evade accountability for their actions through a complex web of subsidiary legal fictions and arms-length surrogates, just as military mobsters invoke transparently bogus "legal proceedings" to legitimize the execution of political dissidents. Meanwhile, corporate spin doctors plead "non-interference" in the political affairs of their host countries (all the while lobbying obsessively for tax concessions, subsidies, lax regulation of their activities, restrictions on labour organizing, a "healthy investment climate" etc. etc. etc.) Are the so-called leaders of the Commonwealth nations, the European Community and the United States so naive and stupid that they cannot imagine an appropriate response to such a charade? If so, these "emperors" have no clothes. Alexander the Great cut the Gordian knot; why not cut the corporate Gordian knot? Chretien, Clinton, Major et. al. _could_ act decisively by declaring a state of national emergency, revoking corporate charters of the Shell Oil Company and its subsidiaries, and seizing -- _without compensation_ -- all its assets and holdings. * Amnesty International USA 322 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10001 November 10, 1995 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AIUSA EXPRESSES SHOCK AND OUTRAGE AT KILLINGS OF NIGERIAN ACTIVISTS WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Amnesty International USA today expressed shock and outrage over the executions of environmentalist and human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others who were convicted after an unfair trial because of their peaceful activism. "We condemn this brutal action by a regime that consistently refuses to respect fundamental rights to due process and freedom of expression," said AIUSA Executive Director William F. Schulz. For the past year since Mr. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues have been imprisoned, the worldwide human rights community has called on the Nigerian government for their unconditional release. In additon, AIUSA has prevailed upon multi-national oil companies, which produce up to 80 percent of Nigeria's revenues, to use their influence to obtain the release of peaceful activists. Shell Oil, particularly, has been a target of Mr. Saro Wiwa's movement, MOSOP. "We deeply regret that the major corporate players, especially Shell Oil -- which might have been able to use their influence to save the lives of these courageous activists -- did virtually nothing. We call on them now to help keep alive Mr. Saro Wiwa's dream and to speak out against any further human rights abuses," Dr. Schulz said. In addition, AIUSA urged the U.S. government and the international community to reassess its relationship to Nigeria. "The U.S. government must demonstrate that it is unwilling to tolerate this kind of behavior on the part of an outlaw state. The U.S must evaluate what steps it can take through international bodies, including the World Bank, to express our outrage at this cruel action," Dr. Schulz said. Amnesty International sections around the world are committed to redoubling their efforts to seek the release of all prisoners of conscience in Nigeria and to return to the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. ### * For information on the murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa: http://www.gem.co.za/ELA/ken.html * Tell Shell to rot in Hell: http://www.shellus.com/ * Shalom, Tom Walker knoW Ware Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mindlink.net/knoWWare/
[PEN-L:1376] Re: Fed tightness
To Doug: This is a brief response to your November 9th mail. First, I would like to correct an error in first column (error was due to Excel's calculations). Correct table appears below with real minimum wage added. Variable: 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-94 X1 2.062.367.085.553.64 X2 4.514.786.217.276.50 X3 233.70 284.7 301.7 270.4 256.00 X5 4.886.246.125.004.67* X1 = Inflation rate, average annual X2 = Unemployment rate, average annual X3 = Weekly earnings in 1982 dollars, average annual X5 = Minimum wage in 1995 dollars, average annual (*) 1990-95 average I couldn't make much sense out of part of your comments. Especially the part, "If you want to use a martial analogy, it's like the seemingly gratuitous massacre the US conducted during the Gulf War, incinerating everyone on the road out of Kuwait. Completely unnecessary in military terms perhaps, but from the warriors' point of view, an emphatic way of saying 'you lose!'" As for the substance of your comment, I disagree strongly with it. You say, "I said 'total' victory, i.e. the complete humiliation of your opponents. There are still unions; there are still minimum wage laws; there are still AFDC and Medicaid." Yes there are still minimum wage laws, but do they protect those workers (there are millions of them) who earn the lowest wage? Above table, variable X5, average minimum wage with 1995 purchasing power is lower than the 1950s amount. Actually this aggregate table is misleading a little bit. Minimum wage reached the highest level in 1968, $7.15, and the lowest in 1989, $4.20. As for your other points, the welfare reform in the Congress shows us that there will be AFDC only in name, and that goes for "Medicaid" too. Who are going to defend the interests of these groups in Congress against the Republican onslaught supported by some Democrats? My main contention was that the victory of capital over labor is fait accompli. I tried to give a theoretical reason and empirical evidence. A conciliatory politics by the US labor through accommodation (a policy is best described the philosophy of one-half of a loaf of bread is better than none, a quarter... is better than none, a tenth is better than none,..., and finally the crumbs are better than none. Such logic takes us nowhere.) prepared the present situations. You seem to endorse that by saying that we still have unions, minimum wage laws, AFDC, Medicaid, etc. even though those programs have been cut, and labor unions are no longer as powerful as they once used to be. Capital is now after labor's fringe benefits (i.e., retirement, health care, etc.). How the unions are going to defend themselves? With what weapon? Do they expect support from the congress? From the people? Weakened by numbers (10-12 million union members) and economic and political power the unions are no match for the capital who is well-organized politically and economically. Capital understands the importance of politics in their struggle over the labor. But does the labor understand and organize accordingly? I wish we have a debate on these questions rather than "Shalom" debate, a debate that has not advanced a theory of our understanding of the problem in the region and therefore provided a solution to it. It was a sterile and emotional debate, which regurgitated the known facts. Can any participant of that debate offer a reasonble solution to Palestenian/Israeli conflict, a solution that is just and durable peace between them? The two quotes from Marx below are important, because, I believe, radicals in general and Marxists in particular, follow a tradition which is based on class analysis of events. We use this methodology (wherever possible we try to improve it) to analyze economic-political-social events. I offer these quotes for elaboration of my view. "The task of philosophy is to apprehend and comprehend what is, rather than what ought to be." "Since it is not for us to create a plan for the future that will hold for all time, all the more surely what we contemporaries have to do is the uncompromising critical evaluation of all that exists, uncompromising in the sense that our criticism fears neither its own results nor the conflict with the powers that be." By the way, class-struggle does not seem to be popular among liberals and among some radicals too. I notice, our PEN writers (most of them) are not signing with an ending clich of "In struggle." I do not know whether or not this shows that they don't believe in class struggle any more. In struggle, Fikret Ceyhun Dept. of Economics e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Univ. of North Dakota voice:
[PEN-L:1377] Chart Question
Sometime ago I saw a chart in a publication (might be THE ECONOMIST) and sources of the data in chart were "WORLD BANK OECD." I am going to try to reproduce the chart below. TITLE: INEQUALITY AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY: 1979 TO 1990 Labor productivity growth 4.0 | | +Finland 3.0 | | 3.0 +Japan | | 2.5 | +France | +Belgium +Denmark 2.0 +UK | +Italy |+Germany 1.5 + + +Norway +New Zeland | Sweden Netherlands | Switzerland 1.0 + + Australia | Canada + | USA 0.5 + | | 0*_*_*_*_*_*_**_ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Income inequality c. 1980 (top 20%/bottom 20%) My questions: 1) Is there inherent theoretical relationship (or is it just empirical relationship) between income inequality and productivity growth? 2) Does growth reduce income inequality or increase it? Why? 3) As you know, the conservatives tend to contend that the high rates of growth lessen income inequality. Since the chart empirically shows the relationship between income inequality and labor productivity growth, does income inequality retard labor productivity? Why? Thoughts on these questions are much appreciated. In struggle, Fikret Ceyhun Dept. of Economics e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Univ. of North Dakota voice: (701)777-3348 office University Station, Box 8369(701)772-5135 home Grand Forks, ND 58202 fax:(701)777-5099
