Be sure to read to the end. Forwarded message: Subject: ip: "Bolivia Vanishes: See Style Section" Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:17:46 -0500 From: David & Linda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (by way of Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) To: (Recipient list suppressed) [The formatting on this was completely wacked so I've redone the lines and inserted paragraph changes but I don't know where they would have been in the original -- just guessing. There is also an article about World Bank water policy at bottom following this story. I have not inserted any personal comments -- all comments were in the article I received.] Bolivia Vanishes: See Style Section by Gregory Palast* - Gregory Palast, an award-winning investigative journalist, writes a fortnightly column, "Inside Corporate America," for The Observer of London, the Sunday paper of the Guardian Media Group. In April, five people were shot dead in Bolivia, a military policeman was lynched and the president declared a state of siege following a general strike that shut down much of the nation. At the end of it all, for the first time in a decade anywhere in the world, American and British corporate giants, the targets of the protest, were booted out of the Andean nation, a stunning reversal of the march of globalization. You didn't read the story? Come now, it was right there in the Washington Post ... in paragraph 10 of the story, on page 13 of the Style section. I kid you not: the STYLE section. It dangled from the bottom of a cute little story on the lifestyle of some local anti-WTO protesters. And so, one of the most extraordinary international stories of the year just went PFZZZT!!! and disappeared from sight. Here's what you didn't hear. In the1990s, Bolivia became the World Bank's South American poster child for neo-liberal "reform" by following with pathologic care all the Bank's dicta. This included the forced sale of all the nation's public water systems. But when the new Anglo-American owners of one city's water company hiked prices 35 percent to 150 percent per World Bank orders, a general strike shut the town. The government's bloody reaction helped spread the protests nationwide. After 13 days, Bolivia's president, in fear of the strengthening protests, took back the water company from the U.S.-British operators and canceled the price hikes. Some vital stories get buried because they fail the "sex" test of hot photos, or they have no domestic news hook. But Bolivia had it all. Networks could obtain high-quality video footage of the military gunning down civilians. At the center of the story were huge American and British multinationals, including Bechtel of San Francisco and Britain's United Utilities. Most importantly, this general strike in South America offered a dramatic and bloody parallel to protests in Washington against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which were occurring that very week. By any normal news measure, this was a helluva story of globalization stopped dead in its tracks ... all while McDonald's burned in Washington. James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, was so shaken by events in Bolivia that on April 12, in the midst of responding to the Washington demonstrations against the Bank, he took time to denounce the Bolivian protesters as "rioters." Wolfensohn's wild statement (the rioters were peaceful demonstrators led by the town's archbishop) was meant to discourage the press from writing sympathetically about the Bolivians. He need not have worried. There was nothing on the tube; and aside from the mention in the Post's Style section and a few news wire paragraphs in The New York Times, for the mainstream media, the Bolivians simply vanished. I can't say there were NO reports. The Financial Times sent a reporter to Bolivia. The lead paragraph of his April 26 report informed us that on the wall of the protesters' headquarters hung "faded portraits of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro." There was no mention at all that five civilians and a policeman had died. The FT reporter, who should have known better, picked up the line that drug traffickers were somehow behind the water protests. This fanciful accusation originated in a Bechtel news release. (As one Bolivian told me, deadpan: "Traficantes don't care about their water bill.") Bolivians themselves were also denied the full story, but by more direct means. The courageous editor of the Bolivian newspaper Gente (People) published an investigative series exposing the sweetheart deals between the U.S.-European investors and politically connected Bolivians. At the end of April, Gente's publishers, admitting to threats of financial ruin by the water system's Bolivian partners, demanded that the editor, Luis Bredow, print a retraction of his reports. Bredow printed the paper's retraction ... and his resignation in protest. ====================== *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the source. *** Thanks to Robert Rodvik for this post. (and to Roger Lagass�, a bilingual educator and activist from BC. Jeunes �crivains du Canada / Young Writers of Canada <http://www.schoolnet.ca/vp-pv/jec/>http://www.schoolnet.ca/vp- pv/jec<http://www.schoolnet.ca/vp-pv/jec/>/) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: renaissance-network- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: renaissance-network- [EMAIL PROTECTED] DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMIT� de la LIBERT� CANADIENNE C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B1H7 Tel: (604)687-0588; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604)688-0550;cellular(604) 202 7334; E-MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]; www.canadianliberty.bc.ca �The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled� Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- An Analysis of THE WORLD BANK* WATER POLICY *(International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) which was originally set up to rebuild Europe after the devastation of World War II. Why does the World Bank have its hands in everybody's business and personal life around the world? Remember George Orwell's warning when reading any document: "You can read people's intentions by their use of the language. If the words are so long and fuzzy that we cannot understand what is being said, or if we can surmise that they are saying nothing at all . . . we can be fairly sum the speaker is trying to swindle us!" Well folks, the international elitists are calling for what they say is a new approach to how they manage your water. In fact their plan calls for managing your water, your land, and you! The WORLD BANK "claims" that their overall objective is to reduce poverty. Now that's very interesting. Why is the WORLD BANK involved in "social engineering"? In fact, all of the WORLD BANK programs are involved in redistribution of land, resources and wealth! It would appear that the wonderful folks at the WORLD BANK are ignoring the truism -- "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day ... teach him how to fish and he will learn to feed himself." Of course if their real objective is to starve all of us, they're on the right track to: Land starvation, Resources starvation, and Wealth starvation! Who does the WORLD BANK blame for all this poverty and starvation? Why, all the current governments of course. The WORLD BANK specifically points out the total mismanagement of water by all the governments. Explaining of course that the BANK is destined to be the savior of the water. . All the water ... Everywhere! The WORLD BANK will use "Estimated Opportunity Costs"(EOC)* to set the price for water! *The WORLD BANK defines EOC as "the value of goods or services forgone, including goods and services, when a scarce resource is used for one purpose instead of for its next best alternative use" How's that for a mouthful of fuzzy words? .... Heed George Orwell's warning! The WORLD BANK "claims" that all the current. Governments have the following faults: 1 . Mis-allocate and waste water. [page 9] 2. Permit damage to the environment due to weak and distorted policies. 3. Neglect financial accountability. [page27] 4. Neglect user participation. 5. Charge too low a price for water. (They aren't charging for "Estimated Opportunity Costs.") 6. Ineffective delivery of water to users, especially the poor. [page 12] 7. Operate under centralized structure. The WORLD BANK then makes the following proclamations: 1 . Water is essential for life. (Now here's a bold statement of the obvious!) 2. Water has an Economic Value and is recognized as an Economic Good. (p. 24] 3. Water is a scarce natural resource. [page 21] (I believe the old saying is: "Figures don't lie but LIARS figure." i.e. using half truths.) Get ready for all kind of "fees" regarding water ... Especially since the WORLD BANK will be certain to charge a "high enough proper" price for water. (And you thought Perrier was expensive!) 1. SOCIAL FEES: Those who have worked hard to better themselves will have to come up with subsidies for the poor. [pages 15, 72] 2 BENEFIT TAXES: If you receive any benefit whatsoever from your land, you will be taxed on that "benefit." [page 85] 3. POLLUTION CHARGES: You will be charged a pollution tax for any pollution on your land. [page 16] [The poop left by your pet on your land is going to cost you big time!] The WORLD BANK wants to terminate, (with extreme prejudice), the federal structure in all countries. The WORLD BANK will not permit sovereign states within a "Federal Structure" to have any authority over the water. The WORLD BANK plans to do this by replacing all country and state political boundaries with geographical RIVER BASINS BOUNDARIES. [page 28,71] The WORLD BANK plan calls for the transfer by contract of all water jurisdiction by governments to Private Corporations and "User Associations" These corporations and user associations will of course be mandated to meet all WORLD BANK regulations and prohibitions. [page 11] These "Private" entities will operate at the River Basin level. States will NOT have any control. Please note that a "river basin" includes all surface and underground water flowing into a common area. They simply march from the wetlands, up the river, up the streams, to the headwaters which are typically runoff or springs. This includes any water in the ground along the way, and any land which would allow water to run into the river basin "area". By the way, the WORLD BANK requires an environmental impact and assessment of the entire river basin system. The "river basin" organizations will be assisted by the Global Environmental Facility in collaboration with UNDP, the United Nations Development Program. [page 14,19] These WORLD BANK contracts will comply with each country's national objectives which are of course the objectives of the WORLD BANK. The WORLD BANK "objectives" are stipulated in the water project loan agreements for country. The WORLD BANK water projects loans clearly spell out that-- "In acceptance of the monies of the WORLD BANK, the countries MUST participate in the international initiatives": i.e. United Nation's Conventions, Treaties, Agreements, and they MUST implement the WORLD BANK Policies on WATER and LAND USE!!!!!! [page 13] The WORLD BANK Water Resources Management Program is structured similar to a Medieval Feudal system. The WORLD BANK is at the top of the pyramid as the Lord and Master dictating how the water will be used through "Demand Management." Demand Management consists of: 1. Price-based incentives to enforce low water usage. (How's that for a fancy way to say raise the price to whatever level it takes to achieve the WORLD BANK goals.) 2. Water Rationing. 3. Water restrictions on specific usage. (Determined by the WORLD BANK of course). Beijing, China is given as an example: 1. Quotas on water consumption 2. Fines on excessive water use As outrageous as the following may sound, it is a quote by David Rockefeller: "Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high moral and community of purpose. The SOCIAL EXPERIMENT in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." [Quote after visiting Mao Tse-Tung. . . ."From a China Traveler," New York Times August 10, 1973] Please read David Rockefeller's quote once more just to get a glimpse into the distorted mind of a true elitist. One wonders how the dead or jailed victims of Tiananmen Square would evaluate Chairman Mao's Social Experiment? The Framework for the WORLD BANK Water Resource Management is consistent with two documents. 1. The 1992 Dublin, Ireland statement from the International Conference on Water and the Environment (UN). [page 10] This insidious but "friendly sounding" document has four guiding principles: A. The Holistic approach tying social and economic development with Protection of Natural Ecosystems including Land and Water LINKAGES across catchment areas or groundwater aquifers. B. Use of a "participatory approach" with users, planners, and policy- makers input. (Please be aware that they are talking about the "consensus" method where the final decision has already been decided by the "facilitator" and the participants only function is to be led by the facilitator to say yes to the pre-determined "decision") C. The women in each community are to be given the "responsibility" for providing, managing, and safeguarding the water according to the WORLD BANK policy. [page 16] [The WORLD BANK is using the "empowerment of women" as their carrot on a stick to entice the women of the world to go along with the WORLD BANK scheme. The WORLD BANK is using the standard Sun Tzu tactic of "divide and conquer." This can be seen in many areas where a wedge is being driven between men and women] D. Water has an economic value and is an economic good. (How much water would you use at $ 1.00 per gallon?) .... and if that's not high enough to reduce your total water usage, the WORLD BANK will raise the price to what ever it takes to reduce your water usage to their preset level of 40 liters/person/day. That's 10.57 gallons/person/day for ALL water usage. (from Agenda 21, "Fresh Water") "Full cost recovery" is mandated by the WORLD BANK to properly compensate the "Water Agencies" 2. AGENDA 21 from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit 11) is using the guiding principle of Demand Management to control the use and distribution of water by: The use of Price, Volume Restrictions, and (Invasive) Regulations. The WORLD BANK supports land use policies that restore and "protect" the quality of ground water, E.D.I., the Economic Development Institute division of the WORLD BANK, will train and supply the planners, managers, technicians, and country policy analysis. This of course means that "Resettlement of People" will be required. [page 17] Although the WORLD BANK tries to soft peddle this feature of their plan, it is occurring around the globe. The WORLD BANK works with the following U.N. Organizations (page 22] UNDP The UN Development Program. RE: Water Resource Management FAO Thee Food & Agricultural Organization. RE: Sustainable Agriculture WHO The World Health Organization RE: Quality of Water UNICF The UN International Children's Fund. RE: Rural Communities WMO The World Meteorological Organization. RE: Hydro Assessment UNESCO The UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Org RE: Protected Land UNEP The UN Environmental Program RE: Protected Ecosystems UNDESD The UN Dept. of Economic & Social Development RE: Its Science, Technology, Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Division formulates policies and projects including RURAL WATER SUPPLY, RIVER BASINS, POLLUTION CONTROL, and hosts the Intersecretariat Group for water resources. The largest users of water ---- Agriculture 69% (Worldwide) [page 26] Agriculture 80% (Third World Countries) Industry 23% Household 8% The WORLD BANK states that Agriculture uses too much water. They also claim that cattle (in fact all gazing animals), are the leading cause of desertification. i.e. turning the land into a desert! (Now this is the largest load of cow pie I've heard in a long time. The "cubicle freaks" who live in the dark bowels of the WORLD BANK and come up with nonsense like this have obviously never been past the city limits. Cow manure is fertilizer. The land grows better with fertilizer. People in the city are more than happy to bring home several bags of this "fertilizer" for their home lawns, flower & vegetable gardens.) The WORLD BANK claims that farmers & ranchers do not pay enough for water. The most water intensive crops are alfalfa, rice, sugarcane, and corn for silage (livestock feed). [page 301 The WORLD BANK feels that farmers & ranchers should be charged 300% to 500% more! In addition, the WORLD BANK states that when water is diverted upstream for irrigation and other uses, downstream areas that support "sensitive water dependent ecosystems, including wetlands, become less able to fulfill these valuable biodiversity functions. [page 34] That's right folks, all you humans are in the way of the grand plan of the WORLD BANK The WORLD BANK calls for the DE-CENTRALIZATION of water management. They claim that the problem is that each different water use is managed by a separate department i.e. irrigation, municipal, power & transportation. Then, in classic "fuzzy" worded language, they call for ecological, social, and economic water system policy & regulations to be dictated by the WORLD BANK. [page 27] (Gee, that sure sounds like central planning to me!) The WORLD BANK claims that it is difficult to solve water problems when state or local governments have authority over the water. [page 28] (Those darn constitutional folks are always getting in the way of a tyrant on the march.) The WORLD BANK feels it would be a lot easier to achieve its goals if a national water agency following the WORLD BANK plan were to run the water policy through lower levels of government, community organizations, private sector units and NGO's. [page 28,30] I know its hard to wade through the fuzzy language but here we go again.... [page 42] Per the WORLD BANK; within a decentralized central system, adequate charges ($) would endow the WORLD BANK water entities with operational and financial ($) independence. (It's real easy folks, we pay the water entity for Whatever water they will sell us at whatever price they choose. They operate in collaboration with the IUCN with complete impunity.... On January 18, 1996, by Executive Order # 12986, President Clinton gave diplomatic immunity to IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and its umbrella land & water organizations..... CAN YOU SPELL TYRANNY ?) The WORLD BANK wants Institutional Reform. [page 14, 44] They want to ensure that their rules and regulations are coordinated and ENFORCED! They state that historical private and local water rights need to be brought into compliance. (In other words, the WORLD BANK doesn't believe that you know how to use your water properly) The WORLD BANK states that the rights to water need to be clearly defined, with due concern shown for the interests of indigenous people, the poor, and other disadvantaged groups. (Now that's more fuzzy, snake-tongue talk. Our wonderful Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbett tried to buy the water rights of the Ute Indian Nation for $272 Million! Fortunately the Indians learned their lesson after the beads-for-land-deal. The Ute Indians just said NO!) The WORLD BANK then goes on to say that they need to be in charge of the water because otherwise, bad people might try to form a water monopoly! (And exactly what would you call what the WORLD BANK is trying to do .... ?) Then the WORLD BANK goes on to repeat that the "River Basin Organizations" need to have"dictatorial" water policy power! The WORLD BANK points to the French Water System which has been in place for 25 years. There are 6 river basin financial agencies which collect fees, implement policy, and make grants and loans. The 1st fee is based on the amount of water use . The 2nd fee is based on the level of pollution at each point source. The regulation & enforcement is done by National Ministries. [page 46] (This is supposed to be an example of de- centralization???) Water is rated according to its "usage value". [Page 31, 48] Highest Value Water Usage: Wetlands, Ecosystems, River Fisheries, Deltas [page34] High Value Water Usage: Domestic, Industrial [page 48] Low Value Water Usage: Agriculture [page 31] Of course the WORLD BANK determines what is high or low value water usage. In order to save water for the wetlands, the WORLD BANK suggests that people, (just us common folks of course), drink processed toilet & sewer water. The WORLD BANK euphemistically refers to this activity as "water reuse in various economic activities." [page73] The WORLD BANK states that they have increased their focus on issues such as poverty alleviation, resettlement, and women's roles in development. [page 131] (This sure is a massive departure from their initial stated role as rebuilder of war damaged Europe. Again, their actual name is INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT) The WORLD BANK, using their standard "smoke & mirrors" technique, is promoting women's traditional role in securing water, and their potential role in "educational training" and informed participation in planning development projects. [page 62] (Remember the "retraining" camps in Laos, Cambodia, Viet Nam, and China.) On page 121 of the WORLD BANK water policy manual they state that their policy is to be open about its activities. (This is totally inconsistent with their actual policy. One is faced with the no admittance statement "FORBIDDEN" when trying to retrieve the WORLD BANK water policy manual on their internet site. After reading their water policy manual I understand why!) In order to create the illusion that the local or federal government is in charge of the water, the WORLD BANK Water Policy has a section entitled: "The Case for Government Involvement in Water Management" [Page 28] In regards to River Basins, the WORLD BANK states that 7 The uses of H2O within a river basin or aquifer are interdependent. Pollution by one user affects others in the basin, especially located downstream. All users of H2O are to agree to the 'rules of the game' (i.e. User Associations). " (At first glance this sounds like it makes sense. i.e. everybody working together to have clean water etc. However, remember that, the WORLD BANK creates the rules. And like the satirical version of the "Golden Rule" motto "He who has the gold, makes the rules." In this case, "He who has the water makes the rules", and rules your life ... That is unless you've discovered a way to get along without water!) "If the land owners will not join a User Association, then the government WILL impose REGULATIONS, TAXES, or BOTH. This would improve the social value of H20 resources" In other words, The WORLD BANK will use the government as its POLICE FORCE! (Once again, remember George Orwell's warning) The following is a quote by Carl Bloice, a close friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, and a leading U.S. Communist. He was the Associate Editor and Moscow correspondent for the People's Daily World. "The Environmental Movement promises to bring greater numbers into our orbit than the 'Peace Movement' ever did." To obtain a copy of the insidious World Bank Water Policy: The World Bank "Water Policy Paper" 1993 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. First printing September 1993 Third printing August 1995 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN 0-8213-2636-8ISSN 1014-8124
