WW News Service Digest #224
1) DaimlerChrysler Zaps 26,000 Jobs
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) Ashcroft: He Can Be Fought
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3) Corporate Media Try to Bleep Out J20 Protests
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4) Davos, Switzerland: Angry Protests at Summit
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5) Earthquakes: Just How Natural the Disaster?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 8, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
TIME TO FIGHT BACK: DAIMLERCHRYSLER ZAPS 26,000 JOBS
By Martha Grevatt
The writer has worked at the Twinsburg, Ohio stamping plant
of the DaimlerChrysler corporation for 13 years and is an
active member of UAW Local 122.
Jan. 29 should have been like any other "blue Monday" in the
life of an auto worker. For DaimlerChrysler workers in North
and South America it was anything but ordinary.
On that day management informed the work force that it plans
to cut 26,000 jobs--20 percent of the work force of the
former Chrysler Corp.--by the end of February.
While DaimlerChrysler's was the biggest layoff, it was only
one of many throughout the U.S. economy. Seven steel
companies, including Cleveland-based LTV steel have filed
for chapter 11 bankruptcy, and LTV nearly shut down all
operations in December.
The slowdown is not limited to the industrial sector.
Amazon.com announced 1,300 layoffs on Jan. 30.
DaimlerChrysler Management immediately tried to minimize
worker response by promising early retirement buyouts to
reduce the number of layoffs. But the bosses stated
unequivocally that the cuts are "absolutely necessary" and
that permanent layoffs would begin Feb. 28.
DaimlerChrysler plans to close six plants. The company says
it will eliminate an entire work shift at seven more.
These layoffs and plant closings will have the deepest
impact on oppressed workers of color worldwide. Of the six
plant closings, three will be in Mexico, one in Argentina,
and one in Brazil.
These workers will be left penniless--with no unemployment
benefits, no pension, no lump-sum buyouts, nothing to show
for their years of super-exploitation.
The sixth, Mound Road Engine, is just outside the
predominantly African American city of Detroit, which has
suffered deeply as a result of previous auto plant closings.
All the U.S. layoffs will disproportionately hit workers of
color and women. They are among the workers with lower
seniority. And they are underrepresented in the less
vulnerable skilled-trades positions.
The impact of these job reductions on currently employed
workers will be lessened by the Supplementary Unemployment
Benefits that the United Auto Workers negotiated decades
ago. After 42 weeks of layoff, workers must be either called
back or placed in a "job bank" where they receive 40 hours
pay while doing "nontraditional" work.
However, workers with less than three years seniority are
not eligible for the job bank. Workers with less than one
year of seniority do not receive SUB.
And funding for both the job bank and SUB could run out
before the contract expires in 2003.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER PROMISED NO LAYOFFS
At the time of the merger between Chrysler and Daimler-Benz,
workers were promised that there would be no job cuts.
The Detroit-based Job Is a Right Campaign pointed out in a
leaflet issued after this latest announcement: "Two years
ago, Daimler-Benz, AG, bought out Chrysler Corporation in
the biggest industrial merger ever. In order to get U.S.
government approval for this buyout from the Federal Trade
Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission, and to
mute opposition from the UAW and the public, Daimler-Benz
promised that this would be a merger of equals.
"DaimlerChrysler Chief Executive Officer Schremp now says
that this talk of a merger of equals was simply a public-
relations ploy to get U.S. government approval for the
buyout of Chrysler.
"Chrysler built up a $9 billion reserve for future product
development off the backs of its workers through its lean
production techniques. Now Daimler has taken this fund to
acquire a controlling interest in Mitsubishi, buy Detroit
Diesel, start a sizable joint venture with Caterpillar, buy
into more commercial truck ventures, and make numerous other
purchases in the last two years."
Yet the bosses have the nerve to cry poverty when it comes
to paying workers' wages.
There is no reason to assume that these already drastic cuts
will not be followed by another wave of cuts down the road.
The entire auto industry is heading into a recession, as are
the steel industry and other sectors of the economy. These
immediate effects of capitalist overproduction are coming in
just the earliest stages of a worldwide economic slowdown.
Now, not later, is the time for the auto unions in both
North and South America to launch a struggle to defend their
right to their jobs. If there is less work to perform,
whether it is due to automation or capitalist
overproduction, let there be a shorter work week with no cut
in pay.
>From Canada to Argentina, workers need a united campaign for
a moratorium on layoffs and plant closings. If the bosses
won't keep the plants open, then let the workers take over
and run them themselves.
DaimlerChrysler workers would do well to follow the example
of General Motors workers across the ocean. 40,000 GM
workers throughout Europe simultaneously laid down their
tools Jan. 25 in solidarity with workers whose plants were
scheduled to be closed.
>From the AJRC leaflet: "Only the DaimlerChrysler workers can
protect their own jobs and livelihoods! With a recession
looming, launching a struggle to protect the jobs of the
Chrysler workers can set the tone for the coming battles
against the plant and office closings and layoffs which will
be affecting millions of workers in the next period."
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 8, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
HE CAN BE DEFEATED: JOHN ASHCROFT: A RECORD OF
RACISM, WOMAN-HATING AND GAY BASHING
By Monica Moorehead
President George W. Bush's nomination of John Ashcroft for
attorney general has created an unprecedented firestorm of
protest, including groups representing women's reproductive
rights, civil rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans
rights.
If Ashcroft is confirmed by a majority of the Senate--which
seems likely--he will hold one of the most influential
positions in the capitalist government. The attorney general
is the top prosecutor in the country and heads the U.S.
Justice Department.
All Senate Republicans support Ashcroft. Their Democratic
counterparts aren't mounting any real opposition. This
should come as no surprise to anyone who knows the history
of Democratic leaders caving in to the reactionary wing of
the U.S. ruling class.
It would be hard to argue that Ashcroft is not a woman-
hating, patriarchal, medieval, right-wing monster. His
reactionary record speaks for itself.
It's important to know exactly what Ashcroft's real record
is--especially when he has obscured it in his testimony
before the Senate.
But he isn't riding into office on a strong base of popular
support. He's not invincible. So the most important question
is: What kind of movement will it take to stop Ashcroft's
appointment?
OPPONENT OF WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE
Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women and
others report that as Missouri's governor, Ashcroft did
everything he could to amend the state constitution and pass
legislation banning women's right to terminate a pregnancy
by safe, legal abortion. This included cases where a woman
became pregnant through rape or incest.
In 1998, as a U.S. senator, Ashcroft sponsored an amendment
that would have banned common methods of birth control for
women--including contraceptive pills and IUDs.
The same year Ashcroft was one of eight senators who opposed
legislation requiring that health insurance plans for
federal employees cover the cost of prescription
contraceptives. He also voted to ban the use of tax funds
for emergency contraceptives.
Ashcroft has called for overturning the Supreme Court's 1973
Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
Ashcroft opposed the surgeon general nominations of Dr.
Henry Foster in 1995 and Dr. David Satcher in 1998. Besides
being African Americans, both nominees supported women's
right to choose.
Ashcroft has also advocated legislation that would justify
murdering doctors who perform abortions as "justifiable
homicide." He wanted to fire publicly employed nurses who
provided contraceptives in Missouri.
As Missouri's attorney general, Ashcroft sued NOW for
calling a boycott of the state after it defeated
ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
He has also opposed legislation calling for equal pay for
equal work.
A far-right religious fanatic, Ashcroft opposes the
separation of church and state. As governor he opposed
legislation requiring church-run day-care centers to meet
state health and safety regulations.
Missouri was the only state to exempt religious day-care
centers from these stipulations.
ENEMY OF LESBIAN, GAY, BI AND TRANS RIGHTS
If Ashcroft wants to turn back women's social status by
hundreds of years, his view of lesbian, gay, bi and trans
people runs a close second.
In 1982, while speaking in opposition to the ERA, he said
that "homosexuality is abnormal." He also called same-sex
love "a sin."
In 1995 Ashcroft backed an amendment to the Ryan White bill
to authorize the cut-off of funds to community-health
centers providing services to those living with HIV and
AIDS. The ammendment's sponsor was Jesse Helms.
In 1996, Ashcroft voted against the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act, which called for a ban against workplace
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Last year, he
voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
He has voted to eliminate federal funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts because of its support for gay-themed
art and gay artists.
Ashcroft, along with Helms, opposed the confirmation of an
openly gay capita list, James Hormel, to be U.S. ambassador
to Luxembourg under Bill Clinton.
KLANSMAN IN THREE-PIECE SUIT
Ashcroft would like to see people of color back in chains
and the back of the bus. He's a Ku Klux Klansman in a three-
piece suit.
In the Southern Partisan Quarterly Review--a publication
that glorifies slavery and the old slave-owning class--
Ashcroft publicly defended the views of Confederate leaders
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis.
In 1999, Ashcroft received an honorary degree from South
Carolina's Bob Jones University and delivered the
commencement address. Until recently this "university"
outlawed interracial dating.
Ashcroft opposes all affirmative-action programs. For
instance, he voted to dilute the effectiveness of the
Community Reinvestment Act, a federal law that prohibits
banks from "redlining" minority areas in the inner cities.
He opposed the nomination of Asian American Bill Lann Lee to
head the civil-rights division of the Justice Department.
As Missouri attorney general and governor, Ashcroft opposed
federal-court-ordered desegregation for schools in St. Louis
and Kansas City. He went so far as to oppose a voluntary
city/suburb desegregation program in St. Louis.
Ashcroft led a virulent campaign against the federal
nomination of Judge Ronnie White, who was to become the
first African American judge on the Missouri State Supreme
Court.
ASHCROFT CAN BE FOUGHT!
A united and militant grassroots movement can defeat the
Ashcroft nomination and win. But the movement cannot view
the Ashcroft development as an isolated matter.
It's true that Bush is hand-picking nominations from the
Republican party that push his administration to the right
of Clinton's. But what is the legacy of eight years of a
Democrat in the White House?
The Clinton years saw a wave of terror assaults on women's
clinics and doctors who provide abortions. Black churches
torched at a rate not seen since the overturning of Black
Reconstruction. Stepped-up demonization of immigrants of
color. Anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic attacks. A rise in
violent assaults against lesbian, gay, bi and trans people.
There were even issues where a Democratic administration
made it easier to introduce reactionary policies. For
example, Clinton eliminated welfare in 1996, something that
a Republican could have never done without a storm of
protest.
An "anyone-but-Ashcroft" campaign won't advance the
movement. But an independent mass movement in the streets--a
movement that doesn't look to leadership from either party
of big business--can defeat Ashcroft's nomination and fight
for the interests of poor and working people.
Anti-inaugural protests on Jan. 20 by tens of thousands in
the streets of Washington, Tallahassee, Fla., San Francisco
and San Diego created the basis for just this kind of
movement.
The anger over Bush's theft of this election by
disenfranchising millions of Black voters in Florida and
elsewhere--along with his reactionary program--has already
provided a catalyst that can help build this new movement
for revolutionary change.
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 8, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
BEFORE, DURING & AFTER J20: CORPORATE MEDIA TRY TO
BLEEP OUT PROTESTS
By Gery Armsby
Thousands of print, TV, radio and Internet media personnel
were on hand for the inauguration of President George W.
Bush on Jan. 20. How could this massive media presence have
failed to cover the huge anti-Bush protests all over
Washington and in many other U.S. cities?
Didn't they see the demonstrations? Was there confusion over
what the protests were about? Was it a collective but benign
error of omission?
Or was it a highly coordinated effort between the corporate-
dominated media and the government, including multiple
police agencies, to spare the new administration the
embarrassment of reporting the presence of tens of thousands
of angry, often militant protesters who far outnumbered
Bush's supporters along the parade route?
On Jan. 21, the front pages of every major newspaper
published in North America were filled with pictures and
words glorifying and legitimizing Bush's foul ascendancy to
the White House. Yet news of the mass protests was relegated
to the back pages or, presumably, the editors' wastebaskets.
Cable and broadcast TV networks like CNN, MSNBC, Fox and
ABC
carried live coverage of the inauguration. Each repeated the
same bare minimum of information about protests, dismissing
them as "not causing the security problems that were
expected" or "loud but well contained."
This type of reporting along the parade route was a pitiful
substitute for any substantive commentary about the
predominance of anti-Bush protesters clearly visible on
camera and audible on tape.
FLURRY OF MEDIA INTEREST BEFORE PROTESTS
In the days and weeks before the inauguration, reporters
constantly pursued protest organizers for information about
demonstration plans. Many attended pre-inaugural news
conferences held by organizers from the International Action
Center and other groups and lawyers from the Partnership for
Civil Justice. At these well-attended news conferences,
organizers explained protest plans and disseminated
information about the status of protest permits and the
legality of security checkpoints.
Some reporters asked permission to follow organizers around
for periods of time to observe them in action in the days
before Jan. 20.
C-SPAN aired two of the news conferences in their entirety,
and then repeated them.
One result of the exposure was that organizers received an
enormous response from the public.
Another development that may have resulted from the exposure
was a media pullback several days before the protests.
Stories filed for the Washington Post and ABC World News
Tonight, based on reporters' extensive interviews with IAC
leaders, were mysteriously put on hold. This was done at the
very time that a groundswell of organizing activity was
building the protests.
Rather than carrying the stories that more or less presented
the protesters' point of view of the Post and ABC instead
presented stories that hyped up the Secret Service's
ostensible notions about the inauguration coming under
missile attack, the need for unprecedented high-security
measures, description of security checkpoints and so on.
Imani Henry, an IAC organizer who staffed the mobilzation's
offices in Washington, said he thought that "this was a
relentless, targeted attempt to frighten Washington's large
Black and Latina/o population away from the Saturday
demonstrations, much as Bush forces tried to harass Black
voters away from the polls in Florida.
"The story about our protest was finally aired on World News
Tonight the next evening, but the scare tactic was already
out there in the community from the newspapers and TV the
day before."
'WE'RE NOT COVERING THE PROTESTS'
On Jan. 20, C-SPAN covered one-and-a-half hours of the
inaugural parade without commentary. This allowed viewers to
clearly hear the thunderous cacophony of the dissenting
protesters on TV and on C-SPAN's Web site.
However, C-SPAN was the exception rather than the rule.
During MSNBC's inaugural coverage, one commentator could be
heard saying, "We're not covering the protests, you know
that?" just before a commercial break. The comment was made
into a live microphone when the announcer apparently thought
he had gone off the air.
CNN and MSNBC repeatedly claimed they were unable to show
footage of the protests because demonstrators were "making
gestures too obscene to broadcast." Finally, CNN managed to
edit a five-minute report by correspondent Kate Snow that
aired several times after 10 p.m.
In a Jan. 22 story the Washington Post article admitted that
"demonstrators were evident on every block of the 1.6-mile
[inaugural parade] route, and on some blocks on the north
side of Pennsylvania Avenue, they outnumbered other parade-
goers."
Due to the location of 12 of the 16 security checkpoints,
many more people were concentrated on the north side of
Pennsylvania Avenue than on the south. Yet, despite limited
access to the south side of the avenue, many anti-Bush
protesters massed there between 12th and 14th streets,
creating an overwhelming protestor majority among the crowd
on both sides.
Protesters observed several trucks transporting TV cameras
and news photographers along the parade route speed up as
they passed these blocks. That's why most TV viewers never
got a clear view of the crowds at Freedom Plaza.
In the days since the installation of the Bush
administration, much has been written about Bush's every
move during the inauguration.
The New York Times has published barely over 500 words about
the protests. A political feature story about TV coverage of
the inauguration in the Jan. 21 edition noted: "You didn't
have to be a cynic to see reality creeping in, with comments
on the rancorous post-election recount and the divided
Congress, and eventually with visible evidence of furious
protesters along the parade route. The anchors' inability to
stay inside their illusory bubble sent a strong message to
viewers: the country is living on a split screen."
The New York Times article reduced the protests to a mere
symptom of divisions between Democrats and Republicans.
INDEPENDENT MEDIA PICK UP THE BANNER
Where can someone go to find out what really happened during
the Jan. 20 counter-inaugural protest? How can one get a
sense of its significance?
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (fair.org), a national
media watchdog group, issued an action alert urging a
campaign to tell the New York Times to provide better
coverage of the protests. The alert sharply criticized
several recent Times articles that called the inauguration a
"vision of unity" and made no mention of angry protests.
The Independent Media Center (indymedia.org) has been a
repository of reportage, pictures, sound and video clips
from many demonstrations since Seattle protests against the
World Trade Organization in November-December 1999.
That Web site features excerpts of live radio broadcast on
Jan. 20, including a recording of organizer Larry Holmes
speaking to a fired-up crowd barricaded by police just north
of Freedom Plaza in the early hours of the protests: "They
don't want anybody who's got a sign that says 'Bush: free
Mumia!' or 'Bush equals President Death' or ... a big,
black, beautiful sign that just says 'NO!'
"They want us to be invisible. That's the real reason behind
all this security."
At this Web site, Jan Schmidt from the Arctic Avengers tells
an Indymedia reporter why she came all the way from
California to protest the "Bush-Cheney-Norton oil-industry
dream team that wants to drill in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge."
There is also a short interview with Njeri Shakur of the
Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement, live coverage from
the scene at Navy Memorial Plaza where cops tried to beat up
several protesters, and excerpts from the 'shadow
inauguration' rally at the Supreme Court.
Also, many of the organizations that sponsored
demonstrations have regular meetings and maintain mailing
lists and E-mail lists, which are useful sources of first-
hand information.
Other independent working-class news is available from
Workers World newspaper (workers.org) and Peoples Video
Network (peoplesvideo.org). These media have helped rescue
the Jan. 20 demonstration from the big-media whiteout.
At a Jan. 23 meeting of IAC volunteers in New York, a brief
PVN video of the Freedom Plaza protest was screened.
These independent media are vital to the growing movement.
Aside from the lack of objective coverage of progressive
causes by the major media, there is another factor to keep
in mind. Brian Becker of the IAC pointed out, "The same
corporations that own the media fear the rebirth of a mass
movement for social justice."
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 8, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND: CLASS STRUGGLE COMES TO THE
MOUNTAIN TOP
By Leslie Feinberg
The determined and developing anti-capitalist movement that
first emerged at the Battle of Seattle in 1999 appears
irrepressible. Recent protests in and around Davos,
Switzerland, prove it.
The world's leading tycoons, corporate executives and
political leaders hoped this year's World Economic Forum
would avoid protests like those that rocked the event last
year.
Davos--the highest city in Europe--is a tactical nightmare
for protesters. One single road leads to the posh,
picturesque ski resort perched atop the Swiss Alps.
Police cut off access to it with a roadblock. All incoming
vehicles were inspected.
Immigration officials at Switzerland's borders and airports
were armed with a list of activists to be barred from
entering the country. Police officials announced that 104
from that list had been refused entry; another 14 were
deported after they were inside Switzerland.
Police and soldiers reportedly roamed through trains headed
toward Davos. They stopped, searched and detained people
wearing jeans, a young woman with dreadlocks and males with
long hair.
Pamphlets, megaphones and computers were reportedly
confiscated, mug shots snapped.
Authorities in Davos and nearby cantons halted all train
service on Jan. 27, the day of the slated protest. Early on
Jan. 26, Swiss cops had used big steel gates to block the
roads near the Davos Dorf railway station.
Swiss authorities denied permits for any Davos
demonstrations. On Jan. 26 four members of Friends of the
Earth International dressed as tycoons were arrested and
whisked away merely for handing out anti-globalization
leaflets in town.
Some 3,000 police and army troops were deployed at an
estimated cost of $5.5 million. Cops were armed with riot
gear and shields. Water cannons and helicopters sat readied.
Police prepared to spray tons of liquid cow manure mixed
with freezing water on demonstrators.
Beefed-up security forces guarded entrances to the upscale
hotels. The Congress Center--site of the five-day WEF--was
as tightly guarded as a fortress, and encircled with coils
of barbed wire. WEF participants wore computer-coded badges
to track their access.
Everything was in place to suppress the activists' right to
denounce the WEF for what it is: a forum to promote
globalized corporate economic interests at the expense of
the world's impoverished and working people.
PROTESTS ERUPT
But all the king's horses and men--and a heavy snowstorm--
could not stop anti-capitalist activists from making their
voices heard.
Protests erupted in Davos and in towns where protesters were
stranded.
Hundreds managed to make their way into Davos through the
supposedly airtight police cordon. Some got in disguised as
skiers on vacation.
Demonstrators tried to march on the WEF meeting. They
managed to get within 500 yards of the Congress Center. Many
held signs read: "Justice, not profits!"
Cops dragged steel barriers from the train station to
surround the protest. They blasted activists with water
cannons in freezing temperatures. Protesters, some with
snowballs, fought back against police.
Many demonstrators never made it to Davos. In a Jan. 27
report, Reuters quoted a police spokesperson who said
hundreds of people had been turned back, "creating a traffic
jam at the bottom of the road leading up to Davos." Students
and journalists also complained of being barred entry by
cops.
Landquart is a city in the flatlands below Davos where rail
passengers transfer to the train to Davos. There, police
fired teargas into the crowd of hundreds of protesters
barred from travel to Davos. Some reports said police used
rubber bullets.
Activists blocked train tracks. Others held a sit-down
strike on a local highway.
The same day, demonstrators fought pitched battles with
police 90 miles away in Zurich. Cops fired tear gas and
water cannons into the crowd to disperse activists trying to
reach Davos.
Police, who officially estimated the demonstration at 1,000,
reported 121 arrests--mostly Swiss and German activists.
Protesters fought back in this heart of the Swiss financial
capital. Stones reportedly injured two police officers. One
soldier was knocked to the ground and disarmed by activists.
Demonstrators tried to take over Zurich's main railway
station. Hundreds of railway passengers were trapped as
police filled the station with teargas.
Activists then took to the streets of the nearby
Bahnhofstrasse, one of the world's most opulent shopping
districts. They reportedly set fire to cars, smashed windows
of exclusive stores and spray-painted political slogans on
buildings.
THIS IS WHAT CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE
The next day, the Associated Press reported, "Swiss Sunday
newspapers largely blamed the authorities." And the Swiss
Trade Union Federation charged authorities with "violating
basic principles of democracy."
Inside the WEF, at a late-night soiree on Jan. 27, the tony
crowd in black tie nervously sipped Moet-Chandon Champagne,
nibbled sushi and watched tango dancers and synchronized
swimmers.
The real topic of the WEF, according to an indymedia.org
report, was "widening the corporate social agenda." The
power players included Microsoft mogul Bill Gates, Goldman
Sachs Managing Director Abby Joseph Cohen and Accel Partners
managing partner Jim Breyer.
Discussions included whether the U.S. economy is headed for
a soft or a hard landing. The Bush-Pentagon "National
Missile Defense" system was a point of controversy in
hallways. So were Bush's anticipated positions on trade, his
attitude to Europe and Asia, and his reputation as an
executioner of prisoners.
Representatives of developing countries were invited to
discuss a subject near and dear to the hearts of imperialist
bankers and industrialists: how to best privatize state-
owned factories.
WEF organizers tried to mute what they termed "globalization
backlash" by inviting some 40 non-governmental agencies and
36 organizations like Greenpeace and Amnesty International
this year. U.S. Sen. John Kerry tried to take the steam out
of scheduled protests by suggesting a multi-billion-dollar
environmental fund.
Lip service was paid to bridging the divide between the
imperialist Goliath and the countries it has kept
technologically underdeveloped.
"Touchy-feely" Davos--that's how one senior World Bank
official described this year's WEF. But few were taken in.
An "anti-Davos" forum was held concurrently in Porto Alegre,
Brazil. This "World Social Forum" was organized by the
Public Media Center, a U.S. research organization, and
joined by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Green
Party.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a Davos participant, sent a
sympathetic message to the WSF. The French sent two
government ministers to Porto Alegre and two others to
Davos.
On the opening day of the World Social Forum, some 10,000
protesters marched in Porto Alegre. One contingent of
students carried a banner reading "Scrap Plan Colombia,
Yankees out of Latin America" to denounce U.S. intervention
against the Colombian popular insurgencies.
A counter-WEF event was also held just a few hundred yards
away from the Davos proceedings. "Public Eye on Davos,"
sponsored by the World Development Movement, was created by
those who eschewed the protests at the barricades.
However, many who planned to participate never got through
the police checkpoints. Swiss police deported one speaker
scheduled to deliver a keynote address to the event,
according to organizers.
Many who addressed the Public Eye forum stressed that
corporations left to their own designs harm the environment
and human rights. Speakers called for government regulation
to police global corporations.
Douglas McLarren, of the worldwide BGO Friends of the Earth,
said that he and other members of non-governmental
organizations had drafted a report spelling out requirements
for corporate accountability. As if to illustrate the
limitations of this idea that governments will advance the
interests of the people against the corporations, copies of
that report never arrived in Davos.
Swiss authorities confiscated them.
Jessica Woodroffe of the World Development Movement, an NGO
based in England, said the transnational corporations at the
WEF across the road were "making a mockery of democracy and
plotting with governments to figure out rules to regulate
themselves."
But riot-clad cops and army troops, bales of barbed wire,
and fumes of teargas and manure wafting through the air is
what democracy looks like--democracy of, by and for the
wealthy and powerful.
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 8, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
EARTHQUAKES IN EL SALVAOR & INDIA: JUST HOW NATURAL
IS THE DISASTER?
By Greg Butterfield
In January powerful earthquakes ripped through two of the
world's poorest countries: El Salvador and India.
An earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale struck 50
miles off the coast of El Salvador Jan. 13. Seven hundred
twenty-six Salvadorans were confirmed dead by Jan. 26.
A million were homeless. Property damage was estimated at $1
billion.
A magnitude 7.9 quake hit India's western state of Gujarat
on Jan. 26. The government there had confirmed 6,444 deaths
by Jan. 30.
Defense Minister George Fernandez told CBS News that the
toll could reach 100,000. Damage was estimated at $5.5
billion.
Ten people were also killed in neighboring Pakistan.
Left and revolutionary movements in both countries, along
with solidarity groups in the United States and elsewhere,
are organizing material aid campaigns. These efforts aim to
extend support to the working class and poor, whose needs
are often overlooked by governments and private charities.
At first glance it might appear that a natural disaster like
an earthquake is not a class issue.
But how a society prepares for an emergency, who is
affected, and how the country is rebuilt has everything to
do with the distribution of wealth and power.
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
In imperialist countries like the United States, and in
Third World nations under the heel of banks and
corporations, the poor and the workers suffer most in a
disaster. They lose their lives, their families, their homes
and their livelihoods--something the super-rich never need
fear.
Washington and other imperialist governments always make a
big noise about their generosity when a disaster strikes.
But it's sound and fury signifying little.
The ARENA party government in El Salvador is a close U.S.
ally. Washington armed and funded its counter-revolutionary
war against the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Movement
in the 1980s.
Yet by Jan. 19, Washington had given a bare $800,000 to the
relief effort there. Even then, most of the "aid" was
directed at shoring up U.S. military and agribusiness
interests, not helping the people--more than half of whom
live in extreme poverty.
President Francisco Flores was forced to make another appeal
for aid on Jan. 24. According to the BBC, Flores said the
international relief pledged so far would cover barely one-
quarter of the country's immediate needs.
He asked the World Bank and other lending institutions to
restructure the country's debt to stave off total economic
collapse.
By Jan. 26 El Salvador had received just $1.2 million of the
meager $17.2 million in pledged aid.
Even the Washington Post was moved to contrast the relief
effort with the multi-million-dollar inauguration
festivities for George W. Bush.
India faces similarly dire straits. Britain, the former
colonial power that robbed the country and drove millions of
workers and peasants to their deaths through poverty, war
and disease, said it would give just $21.5 million in aid.
Japan pledged $1.5 million and Canada $1 million.
Indian Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha appealed to the World
Bank on Jan. 29 for $1 billion in emergency assistance. In
reply, bank President James D. Wolfensohn offered $300
million.
WHO'S TO BLAME?
In both countries, profiteering construction companies are
being blamed for much of the death toll.
In India, construction firms are accused of using shoddy
materials and building unstable structures that were
susceptible to quakes.
In El Salvador, landslides killed many people in places like
Las Colinas, a neighborhood in Santa Tecla.
"The landslide was the product of the greed and ambition of
the construction companies and government functionaries,"
charged the Organizations of the Civil Society, a coalition
of progressive and labor groups, in a Jan. 19 report.
The firms and the government "continued to deforest and
develop housing projects on the slope even though ecological
organizations warned them of the danger."
A statement issued by members of New York's Salvadoran
community and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of
El Salvador honed in on others responsible for the loss of
life.
"We ... hold responsible officials of the Salvadoran and
U.S. governments and of financial institutions, such as the
World Bank, that have promoted policies over the last
several years that have left the majority of Salvadoran
people, especially the poorest of the poor, even more
vulnerable to these tragedies."
RESCUE TEAM NEEDED
The FMLN, the former guerrilla movement, is now a legal
political party. It holds one-third of the seats in
parliament and controls 60 percent of municipal governments.
Yet the Salvadoran government has excluded the FMLN from the
official body set up to coordinate the relief effort.
ARENA officials lined their own pockets with disaster aid
after an earthquake in 1986 and a hurricane in 1998,
according to the FMLN. The government failed to plan or
train emergency personnel, even though the country sits on a
major fault line.
This is in stark contrast with a socialist country like
Cuba. When Hurricane Georges hit Cuba in 1998, the
revolutionary government mobilized the whole nation to
ensure a minimal loss of life. A well-planned evacuation and
reconstruction effort minimized the storm's damage to the
economy.
What's needed immediately is a worldwide rescue team under
the control of the oppressed nations, labor and community
organizations and people's movements.
The imperialist powers should pay for all the necessary
training and equipment--out of the vast monies they owe to
those countries they've colonized, enslaved and robbed for
centuries.
