International Rule of Law
The real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. Statement of 8 European leaders in support of USA 30 Jan The German translation of Rule of Law is Rechtsstaatlichkeit. This suggests a meaning slightly different from the anglo-Saxon common law tradition, and one that poses the question of the state as central. So the present battle over Iraq is also a battle about what the international rule of law means. Especially when there is no global state. In disputed borderline cases like this, should the Security Council vote on the balance of probabilities or on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. Most states dissemble and conceal their secrets. Israel did in getting nuclear weapons. The UK fooled the Americans into sharing their hydrogen bomb technology by faking a hydrogen bomb explosion. On the other hand in a world in which there is not an existing global state, is 'might is right' not an indispensible part of realpolitik? The US is being a bully, but after Sept 11 will inevitably have a new agenda which will not tolerate any suspicion of a threat to its safety. A Security Council resolution will be a fig leaf for the much vautned inevitability of Bush's intentions. But the wording may be quoted in decades to come as significant in shaping the drive to a world state. A Google search shows that the Rule of Law is being used as a concept both by lawyers opposed to US arbitrary hegemonism and by right wing libertarians, eager to roll out an agenda of liberal democracy not just in Iraq but the whole of the middle east. This is a highly significant arena of struggle. Most of the population of the world are unconvinced of the clear justice of an attack on Iraq. It looks like the Security Council will decline to veto the US action on evaluation of evidence on the balance of probabilities. That is very different from beyond reasonable doubt. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shock and Awe: Guernica Revisited
The trauma and awe of war is already having an economic impact on egypt where poverty levels are of concern. the devaluation of 15% in anticipation of the war raised the price level by about 15% and cut real wages. the IMF welcomed that. the impact of that on the poor in this period of transition is but a daunting event.war kills by all means even before it actually happen. The reports I read indicated that it was anti-army, but that may just beBS to cover up impending war crimes.On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 01:31:28PM -0800, joanna bujes wrote: It's not an anti army thing; it's an anti population thing. It is meant to traumatize to the point of unfeeling/unreaction. Joanna At 01:30 PM 02/03/2003 -0800, you wrote: Shock and awe would work if the Iraqis had their troops lined up in batallions or whatever. Supposedly, they are dispersing the troops, so the effort to isolate the army would not work. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChi! co, CA 95929Tel. 530-898-5321E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
hang together
February 2, 2003 Saddam's Arab 'brothers' desert Iraq Their chronic disunity, backstabbing and petty tribalism is once more on display By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor Never has the old maxim "hang together or be hanged separately" been more fitting than for the Arab states now quailing before U.S. President George W. Bush's evangelical crusade against Iraq. The Arab world's startling weakness and subservience to the West has never been more evident than in its open or discreet co-operation with Bush's plans to invade "brother" Iraq. Though 99.99% of Arabs bitterly oppose an American-British attack on Iraq, their authoritarian regimes, which rely on th! e U.S. for protection from their own people and their neighbours, are quietly digging Iraq's grave. Every Arab leader knows the U.S. will crush Iraq, so none will support unloved megalomaniac Saddam Hussein and risk ending up on Washington's hit list. In order to deflect the coming fury of their people over the almost certain invasion of Iraq (barring a last-minute coup against Saddam Hussein), Arab rulers have ordered their tame media to launch broadsides against Iraq and lay blame for the impending Gulf War II on Saddam. Never has the Arab world's chronic disunity, backstabbing and petty tribalism been more pathetically on display. Particularly so because Arab leaders are keenly aware the strategy for the U.S. attack on Iraq, and attendant propaganda campaign - the biggest since World War II - were drawn up in 1998 by American neo-conservatives supportive of Israel's rightist Likud government. The plan was then made Bush administration polic! y by its three champions, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby. Earlier this month, the establishment Washington Post published a remarkable article revealing how a cabal of neo-conservative hawks within the Bush administration had stealthily engineered a war against Iraq. "Many (neo-conservatives) were also strong supporters of Israel," wrote the Post's Glenn Kessler, "and they saw ousting Hussein as key to changing the political dynamics of the Middle East." Translation: The war on Iraq was designed to leave Israel dominant and unchallenged in the Mideast, put an end to Palestinian resistance, exact revenge on Hezbollah and ensure Arab regimes would be subservient to Israel and control of Iraqi and Saudi oil by the U.S., Israel and Turkey might follow. Rulers paralyzed Yet in spite of knowing full well that their bitter enemy, Israel, was pressing the Bush administration into a war against one of their "brothers," a w! ar whose stated objective is to redraw the Mideast map, topple some of its regimes, perhaps even Saudi Arabia, and loot Iraq's oil, Arab rulers and potentates remain paralyzed like deer in the headlights of an Abrams tank. If ever Mideast regimes have shown an utter lack of legitimacy, it is now. Arab governments are ferocious at internal repression, but fainthearted and inept when it comes to facing external threats. In contrast to Israelis, who are clever, organized and determined, Arab rulers appear a frightened, dithering, bunch of handwringers, whose interests rarely transcend personal power, wealth and extended family. What could Arabs do to prevent a war of aggression against Iraq that increasingly resembles a medieval crusade? Form a united diplomatic front that demands UN inspections continue. Stage an oil boycott of the U.S. if Iraq is attacked. Send 250,000 civilians from across the Arab world to form human shields around Baghdad and other Iraqi ci! ties. Boycott Britain, Turkey, Kuwait and the Gulf states that join or abet the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Withdraw all funds on deposit in U.S. and British banks. Accept payment for oil only in Euros, not dollars. Send Arab League troops to Iraq, so an attack on Iraq is an attack on them all. Cancel billions worth of arms contracts with the U.S. and Britain. At least make a token show of male hormones and national pride. But the Arab states won't. They will cringe, temporize, then join the vultures who will feed on Iraq's bleeding carcass, while vying to prove their loyalty to Washington. The brutally efficient Arab security forces will crush popular uprisings caused by the U.S. attack on Iraq, particularly in Egypt, Morocco and Jordan. The Arab states will continue torturing and executing those who protest their craven policies. Self-proclaimed Arab champions, like Libya and Syria, have gone mute. No wonder Osama bin Laden remains so popular. The only Arab lead! er to show any gumption over the past decade is Saddam Hussein. However cruel and disastrous his rule, Saddam alone stood up to the Mideast's modern colonial power, the United States. Continued defiance Saddam's refusal to surrender in 1991, and his continuing defiance of Washington, is why the U.S. and Britain have bombed Iraq for the past 10 years, and why President Bush is so determined to crush Iraq and kill its leader. It's not about weapons of mass
28 articles on Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/0,12811,880735,00.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
The Tragedy
Shuttle Disaster Hurts Retail Sales Tue 10:07am ET - Reuters Nonstop television coverage of the space shuttle Columbia disaster on Saturday kept riveted consumers away from stores, hurting retail demand last week, according to a report released on Tuesday. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
war justifications
Title: war justifications does anyone remember the rationales behind 1. the US conquest of Grenada (under Pres. Reagan)? 2. the US intervention in Lebanon (ditto)? 3. the US invasion of Panama (under Pres. Bush, version 1)? 4. the US intervention in Somalia (under Bush/Clinton)? Jim
Re: war justifications
Devine, James wrote: does anyone remember the rationales behind 1. the US conquest of Grenada (under Pres. Reagan)? Save medical students and prevent the construction of a pro-Soviet military airbase (was actually designed to expand tourism.) 2. the US intervention in Lebanon (ditto)? To help bring peace. Well, that's what they said. 3. the US invasion of Panama (under Pres. Bush, version 1)? Stop cocaine trafficking. 4. the US intervention in Somalia (under Bush/Clinton)? Help poor starving Africans who were being victimized by warlords. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
war justifications
3. the US invasion of Panama (under Pres. Bush, version 1)? Stop cocaine trafficking. Sure it wan't to knock off one of Bush Senior's cocaine trading partners?
space disaster
Title: space disaster THE COLUMBIA DISASTER Top-Level Report Cited Safety Fears Former NASA official who warned of faulty wiring, corrosion says agency didn't follow up. By Ralph Vartabedian and Peter Pae Times Staff Writers February 4 2003 A top-level NASA report three years ago warned that the space shuttle fleet was facing serious safety problems, including faulty wiring on the ill-fated Columbia and corrosion on all the orbiters, but the agency failed to carry out many of the key recommendations, according to a former senior NASA official. The recommendations raised alarms about crucial shuttle safety issues, such as sloppy workmanship, lost paperwork and reduced inspections of heat protection tiles, the component that is a focus of the Columbia crash investigation. The report also cited inadequate inspection staffs and the problem of physically strained workers reporting a high use of hypertension drugs. Several studies critical of shuttle safety have come to light since Saturday's accident, but this March 2000 assessment contains the most detailed documentation of potential problems. It also was produced under the authority of one of NASA's highest-ranking officials. The author of the report, Henry McDonald, former director of NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., said Monday in an interview that the space agency let him go two months ago when top officials elected not to renew his employment contract. He has since returned to the engineering department faculty at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. It is unclear whether his advocacy on shuttle safety led to his dismissal, but the report's criticism of personnel cutbacks on the shuttle program and his advocacy for reforms in shuttle management contradicted the policies of NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, he said. NASA officials said Monday that most of McDonald's findings were put into a so-called action plan, which they said was not immediately available. Nonetheless, they said this action plan has been carried out, though it is unclear to what extent recommended changes occurred. NASA officials said plans include new training for employees to inspect wiring systems and improving the exchange of data with other government agencies. They declined to comment on the reasons for McDonald's departure. But McDonald said other NASA officials had downplayed his findings and acted on only a few of the more than 100 recommendations. The report was sent to various NASA research centers and to the space shuttle office, where staffers argued they had already taken care of issues in McDonald's report or that he did not understand their processes. etc. -- see http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2Dna%2Dnasa4feb04004429=%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
gossip
Title: gossip from SLATE's survey of major US newspapers: The [Washington] Post's Lloyd Grove picks up on an important interview neo-lefty [?!?!?] polemicist Christopher Hitchens gave Doublethink, a conservative magazine. Among the apparent revelations Hitchens makes: 1) His former Oxford buddy, Bill Clinton, was a CIA snitch. I think he was a double, Hitchens says. Somebody was giving information to [the CIA] about the anti-war draft resisters. 2) More importantly, Clinton and I had a girlfriend in common--I didn't know then--who's since become a very famous radical lesbian. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
meanwhile back in Colombia
To crush the poorFirst it was Reds, then drugs, then terror. So who have the US really been fighting in Colombia?George MonbiotTuesday February 4, 2003The GuardianLast week, on the day George Bush delivered his state of the union address, the Pentagon received a visitor. A few hours before the president told the American people that "we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men", General Carlos Ospina, head of the Colombian army, was shaking hands with his American counterpart. He had come to discuss the latest instalment of US military aid.General Ospina has done well. Just four years ago he was a lieutenant-colonel in command of the army's fourth brigade. He was promoted first to divisional commander, then, in August last year, to chief of the army. But let us dwell for a moment on his career as a brigadier, and his impressive contribution to the war against terror.According to Human Rights Watch, the fourth brigade, under Ospina's command, worked alongside the death squads controlled by the paramilitary leader Carlos Castao. In a report published three years ago, it summarises the results of an investigation carried out by the attorney general's office in Colombia. On October 25 1997, a force composed of Ospina's regulars and Castao's paramilitaries surrounded a village called El Aro, in a region considered sympathetic to the country's leftwing guerrillas. The soldiers cordoned off the village while Castao's men moved in. They captured a shopkeeper, tied him to a tree, gouged out his eyes, cut off his tongue and castrated him. The other residents tried to flee, but were turned back by Ospina's troops. The paramilitaries then mutilated and beheaded 11 of the villagers, including three children, burned the church, the pharmacy and most of the houses and smashed the water pipes. When they left, they took 30 people with them, who are now listed among Colombia's disappeared.This operation was unusual only in that it has been so well-documented: among other sources, the investigators interviewed one Francisco Enrique Villalba, who was a member of the death squad that carried out the massacre, and who had witnessed the prior co-ordination of the raid between the army and Castao's lieutenants. The attack on El Aro was one of dozens of atrocities which Human Rights Watch alleges were assisted by the fourth brigade. Villalba testified that the brigade would "legalise" the killings his squad carried out: the paramilitaries would hand the corpses of the civilians they had murdered to the soldiers, and in return the soldiers would give them grenades and munitions. The brigade would then dress the corpses in army uniforms and claim them as the bodies of rebels it had shot.A separate investigation by the Colombian internal affairs agency documented hundreds of mobile phone and pager communications between the death squads and the officers of the fourth brigade, among them Lieutenant-Colonel Ospina. On Tuesday, Ospina fiercely denied the allegations, claiming that they were politically motivated and that "honest people around the world know that we are serving our people well".In same press conference, however, he also revealed that this month the Colombian government will start to deploy a new kind of "self-defence force", composed of armed civilians backed by the army. Human rights groups allege that the government has simply legalised the death squads.Official paramilitary forces of this kind were first mobilised by the current president, Alvaro Uribe, when he was governor of the state of Antioquia in the mid-1990s. The civilian forces he established there, like all the paramilitaries working with the army, carried out massacres, the assassination of peasant and trade union leaders and what Colombians call "social cleansing": the killing of homeless people, drug addicts and petty criminals. They joined forces with the unofficial death squads and began to profit from drugs trafficking. They were banned after Uribe ceased to be governor. One of his first acts when he became president in August last year was to promote General Ospina, and instruct him to develop similar networks throughout the contested regions of Colombia.Uribe, a landowner with major business interests, was the US government's favoured candidate. After he was elected, but before he assumed the presidency, it granted Colombia a special package of military aid worth $80m. Its military funding, through the programmes it calls Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative, now amounts to $2bn over the past four years. At the beginning of last month, US special forces arrived in Colombia to help train General Ospina's troops. One of the two brigades they are assisting - the 5th - has also been named by Human Rights Watch for alleged involvement in paramilitary killings. It has been equipped with helicopters by the US army.The United States has been at war in
Turkey: War protocol
Below is a summary translation of an article that appeared in the Turkish daily Hurriyet yesterday. The original article also mentions the ongoing bargaining on the compansation of the economic losses Turkey will suffer from the Iraq war without giving any details. WAR PROTOCOL HURRIYET, February 4, 2003 Turkey and the United States have taken three significant steps about a possible war in Iraq: 1. Prime Minister Abdullah Gul paid a visit to Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal yesterday. Speaking at the meeting, Prime Minister Gul said that they had reached an agreement with the United States about deployment of 350 war planes and 40 thousand U.S. soldiers in Turkey. 3 thousand 500 U.S. soldier will be charged in modernization of military bases in Turkey. 2. Turkey and Kurdish groups will not enter Mousul and Kirkuk in a possible war. The United States will be responsible for security of Mousul and Kirkuk. If Kurdish groups attempt to claim Mousul and Kirkuk, Turkey will have the right to intervene in the region. 3. Turkish and U.S. delegations have begun holding official consultations about military cooperation in a possible war in Iraq.
Re: Turkey: War protocol
So what was Turkey's price? Debt forgiveness? Or just another IMF program? Doug
Re: Turkey: War protocol
So what was Turkey's price? Debt forgiveness? Or just another IMF program? Doug Who knows? But I don't think the reason behind this is money. They are doing it out of fear. Sabri
The Istanbul conference: a post mortem
Keep in mind that this fellow is a Jordanian, so he has incentive to defend Jordan's position, which is not very different than that of Turkey. Sabri +++ The Istanbul conference: a post mortem Daily Star, 02/03/2003 While each of the six Middle Eastern states Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Turkey that met in Istanbul on Jan. 23 to discuss ways to prevent a US war on Iraq has its own fears and concerns, they all agree on one thing: opposition to Americas plan to target Iraq. They realize all too well that they would lose out economically if war breaks out. This is especially true of Turkey and Jordan. Each of the participating countries have their own economic worries which make them unprepared and unwilling to have to withstand the consequences of a new crisis. They also realize that attacking a country with the express purpose of overthrowing its government in the absence of conclusive proof that it possesses weapons of mass destruction would set a dangerous precedent. They know that in the context of Americas declared war on terror, any nation can become a target. All it needs for a country to be attacked would be for the US to feel threatened. No proof is necessary. This caused all nations that feel threatened to oppose a war on Iraq. Besides damaging economies and development programs, a new war would also destabilize the Middle East because of the expected increase in terrorist acts and regional tensions resulting from competing interests. War will play havoc with security in an already unstable region. Americas agenda for change in the Middle East is as hostile as it is radical. Among Washingtons objectives are changing the Baghdad regime, seizing control of Iraqs oil wealth, confronting religious-based political systems (even targeting Islam per se) and introducing democratic change by external means. With such a vast array of objectives, it is no wonder that regional countries fear that the impending war on Iraq would only be a prelude to profound changes that would serve the interests of external forces at the expense of their own. But what can Middle East countries do to avert war? The diplomatic influence wielded by any country is necessarily a function of the political clout it exercises in its regional environment. The nations that assembled in Istanbul vary in their political influence as well as in their relations with both Baghdad and Washington. Moreover, they dont share a common political outlook and direction. With the exception of Iran (and Syria to a lesser extent), all are allies of the United States, which puts them under Washingtons influence and not the other way round. The countries that participated in the Istanbul meeting cannot therefore exercise any appreciable influence on American policy, despite their influence on Arab affairs (Saudi Arabia) and regional conflicts (such as Egypt in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Iran and Syria in the case of Lebanon). Turkey therefore knew beforehand that its initiative in calling the meeting would not have a profound effect. Leaders of participating nations, for their part, realize that they lack the political clout necessary to reverse the American drive to war. That was why they decided not to elevate the Istanbul meeting to summit level. The communique issued at the end of the meeting mirrored the weakness and vacuousness of the Turkish initiative. It called on the Iraqi leadership to honestly assume its responsibilities for upholding peace and security in the region, take concrete and sincere steps to achieve national reconciliation in order to preserve Iraqs sovereignty and territorial integrity, pursue confidence-building policies vis-a-vis its neighbors, respect international borders and boundaries and cooperate with UN weapons inspections. The responsibility of the UN Security Council in preserving international peace and security and its role in determining the degree of Iraqs cooperation were only mentioned in passing. As a matter of fact, there was nothing of significance in the closing communique save that it absolved the US of responsibility for starting the coming war and laying the blame for any conflict firmly at Iraqs feet which reflects an unprecedented degree of political and diplomatic bankruptcy. It is obvious that attempts made by Middle Eastern nations to avert a war are directly linked to their foreign policies. We have to remind ourselves, for example, that before it announced its initiative, Turkey was negotiating with Washington about the number of American troops it would allow to cross over into Iraq from its territory. We must also keep in mind that Saudi Arabia officially announced that it would not oppose a UN-sanctioned war on Iraq. After bitterly opposing American attempts to persuade the Security Council to issue a new resolution concerning Iraq, the Syrians finally voted in favor of Resolution 1441. The problem with the Istanbul
Re: The Istanbul conference: a post mortem
At 05:05 PM 02/04/2003 -0800, you wrote: The post-war era will reveal that Iraq was only a prelude for a widespread process of change designed to eradicate the sources of terrorism, and targeting most of the countries of the Middle East. Well targeting most of the countries of the Middle East is true, but eradicating the sources of terrorism is ridiculous. Joanna
Turkey And The U.S., Talking War
Columnists like the one below are the fucking war party in Turkey. Who knows where the so-claimed $200 million the US distributed to the columnists/anchormen in the Middle East went? Sabri + Turkey And The U.S., Talking War BYEGM: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 HURRIYET- Columnist Sedat Ergin writes about negotiations on US requests of Turkey ahead of a possible war against Iraq. A summary of his column is as follows: Yesterday, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government took a major step towards meeting US requests for a possible war against Iraq by officially beginning negotiations on details of cooperation between our two countries. Under the 1980 Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries, the US is allowed to use its military bases in Turkey only within the framework of NATO objectives, as both countries are members of the alliance. Thus there is now a legal vacuum regarding US use of these bases for a possible Iraq offensive, as NATO has yet to take an official stance on the issue. Under these circumstances, it is up to Parliament to pass a resolution allowing American troops to be stationed in our country, and a series of agreements is needed to clarify the scope of cooperation between Turkey and the US. First of all, a protocol has to be drawn up regarding proposed upgrading and construction at Turkish airbases and ports the US wants to use. Moreover, another protocol is needed to regulate the legal status of some 4,000 American personnel made up of engineers and logistics experts who will carry through the construction. These two problems await urgent solution, as the US is planning to start an operation by the end of this month. Yet, there is more. At least 10 different agreements have to be drawn up concerning the legal status of US troops and their role in a war. For instance, two separate protocols are needed for those who will fight on the frontlines in Iraq and those who stay in Turkey and provide logistic support. Several other legal documents have to be drawn up to establish the ground rules for US troops entries and exits into and out of our country, planes takeoffs and landings, and ships that will use Turkish ports. However, the most important issue of all is that Turkey must pressure the US to sign a binding agreement to compensate our countrys possible economic losses in case of a conflict. SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE
Re: The Istanbul conference: a post mortem
The post-war era will reveal that Iraq was only a prelude for a widespread process of change designed to eradicate the sources of terrorism, and targeting most of the countries of the Middle East. Well targeting most of the countries of the Middle East is true, but eradicating the sources of terrorism is ridiculous. Joanna I agree. Although not a fan of theirs, I happen to have read some of these World Systems guys. By the way, as with the rest of us theorists, they are also very entertaining. Best, Sabri
sticky wages
American Airlines Ask Labor for Cost Cuts By BRAD FOSS The Associated Press Tuesday, February 4, 2003; 2:22 PM American Airlines pleaded with employees Tuesday to accept steep cuts in wages, benefits and work rules that would save $1.8 billion annually, stressing that the company's livelihood was at stake. Our financial results make it abundantly clear that American's future cannot be assured until ways are found to significantly lower our labor and other costs, the company said in statement issued after a private meeting with labor leaders. As losses pile up, a number of analysts have speculated in recent weeks that American is increasingly at risk of becoming the next major carrier to file for bankruptcy, joining United Airlines and US Airways, unless it can dramatically reduce costs. The Fort Worth, Texas-based company is working to cut annual non-labor expenses by $2 billion, mostly through changes to its flight schedules and fleet. But executives have repeatedly said that it would take a total of $4 billion in costs in order to regain profitability. In 2002, labor expenses totaled $8.4 billion. Late last month American's parent company, AMR Corp., reported a loss of $3.5 billion for the year, the industry's largest annual loss ever. It is currently burning through $5 million a day and has roughly $2 billion in unrestricted cash on hand. American, the world's largest airline, said Tuesday it is under unrelenting pressure from low-cost carriers and larger rivals that are currently shrinking costs under the protection of bankruptcy courts. American called the request a last resort but stopped short of saying that bankruptcy loomed. The company also announced that it would close two of its 10 domestic reservation centers, affecting more than 900 jobs in Norfolk, Va. and Las Vegas. The $1.8 billion in cost cuts being sought would come as follows: $660 million from pilots, $350 million from flight attendants, $620 million from mechanics and ground workers, $80 million from ticket agents and $100 million from management. Labor leaders were not immediately available for comment. Shares of AMR fell 15 cents, or 5 percent, to $2.80 _ a new 52-week low _ in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
law and economics
[New York Times] February 5, 2003 Economic Woes Hit Law Firms By JONATHAN D. GLATER Law firms, commonly seen as islands of security and stability to their employees, are proving vulnerable to the turbulence in the economy. Squeezed between their clients and their own lawyers' wage demands in tough times, some firms are collapsing under the pressure. Big corporate clients are battling to keep costs down, while the firms' costs for lawyers, staff and technology are rising. At the same time, partners are often unwilling to accept declining pay, and they defect. There are more firms working on radically restructuring, said Lisa Smith, who leads the merger and consolidation practice at the consulting firm Hildebrandt International. She said her business was busier than ever advising law firms trying to avoid collapse, adding that there had recently been a number of desperate last-ditch efforts at mergers intended to stave off law firm implosions. We're seeing a rash of them right now, she said. The most spectacular collapse came last week, when partners at Brobeck, Phleger Harrison, a prominent San Francisco Bay Area firm, decided to wind down the firm's business. On Monday, Skjerven Morrill, a 67-lawyer firm in San Jose, Calif., specializing in intellectual property law, announced that it would dissolve. In December, Hill Barlow, a 107-year-old Boston law firm, said it would dissolve after a group of real estate partners indicated that they planned to defect. This is not the first time that lucrative work for big companies and investment banks has dried up. But gradual changes in the practice of law have made law firms more vulnerable today than they have been in years, according to lawyers and their consultants. Many firms have become highly specialized and do not have, for example, the bankruptcy business to carry them until the economy picks up again. Law firms' problems generally become evident early in the year as partners learn how much money they made the previous year and how much they will probably make in the coming year. If both figures are declining, some partners invariably begin to look for greener pastures; several partners jumped ship from Brobeck over the last year after the firm's decline became apparent during 2002. They'll jump for money, said Ward Bower, a principal at Altman Weil, a consulting firm that advises law firms. Twenty years ago, they wouldn't. That injects volatility into the marketplace. At Hill Barlow, a group of real estate lawyers announced their intention late last year to join another firm, said Robert A. Bertsche, a former partner. There have been times when one department has been stronger and another department has been weaker, he said, but partners would remain loyal. They were different times. And maybe they were different people. When partners defect, Mr. Bower said, the firm still faces leasing and personnel costs, but with fewer lawyers to bring in revenue, squeezing profits. The weak economy has the same effect, driving down compensation and leading more partners to abandon ship, Mr. Bower said. Firms that relied heavily on slipping sectors of the economy - technology companies, in Brobeck's case - have found the climate particularly harsh. Brobeck shed nearly a third of its lawyers last year, before deciding last week to cease operating as a single firm. Conventional wisdom held that law firms could weather economic downturns by relying on business lines like bankruptcy and civil litigation that tend to increase in bad times. But in the late 1990's, not all firms kept their staffs or their clientele balanced, leaving them without bankruptcy lawyers to subsidize the stock-offering gurus whose work is now less in demand. The countercyclical practices for the most part are not evenly distributed, Mr. Bower said. Firms with big bankruptcy practices, like Weil, Gotshal Manges of New York - which is representing Enron, among others - are very busy. But other firms with little bankruptcy expertise are experiencing a tough year, he said. Law firms generally carry more debt today as well. Brobeck, for example, is reported to have had tens of millions of dollars in debt, and that obligation was a significant factor in the decision to wind down, partners said last week. In statements, Brobeck's lawyers also attributed the firm's demise to the failure of merger negotiations with a larger firm, Morgan, Lewis Bockius, which has big offices in New York, Philadelphia and Washington. Such merger efforts are more often evidence of a firm in trouble than the cause of its difficulties, Ms. Smith, the consultant, said. A more likely culprit is the steady increase in law firms' costs. The prices of long-term leases have increased, and some firms, like Brobeck, planned on space for many more lawyers than they have. Brobeck shrank to about 500 lawyers last week from 900 lawyers in 2000. In addition, the cost of computers and other technology used by firms has
RE: Re: Turkey: War protocol
So what was Turkey's price? Debt forgiveness? Or just another IMF program? Doug Hey! Just read it in an article by Korkut Boratav, a member of the Independent Social Scientists- Economists group Ahmet Tonak mentioned a while ago. That is, he is one of us. Quoting from the corporate media, he says: $14,000,000,000 in return for the passage of 50,000 US troops from Turkey. Whether this is what is on the table and whether the US will pay it or not is not known. I did not know that the rulers of my country were this cheap. Shame on these fucking cowards, shame on them. Sabri +++ It's This Way I stand in the advancing light, my hands hungry, the world beautiful. My eyes can't get enough of the trees they're so hopeful, so green. A sunny road runs through the mulberries, I'm at the window of the prison infirmary. I can't smell the medicines carnations must be blooming nearby. It's this way: being captured is beside the point, the point is not to surrender Nazim Hikmet
Re: RE: Re: Turkey: War protocol
Almost $300,000 per soldier. On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:47:12PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote: $14,000,000,000 in return for the passage of 50,000 US troops from Turkey. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
