Talking Points

The signing of the interim Iraqi "constitution" by the Governing Council represents a significant step in U.S. efforts to legitimize its invasion and occupation of Iraq. By achieving the codification in a U.S.-supervised process of an ostensibly "Iraqi" legal document, the U.S. as occupying power is hoping that its planned June 30th "transfer of power" will be accepted globally as the "restoration of sovereignty to Iraq." In fact, that "transfer of power" will not end the U.S. occupation, will not lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and will not result in any real sovereignty for Iraq. The constitution itself implies recognition of its impotence, as it recognizes that all "laws, regulations, orders, and directives" issued by the U.S. occupation authorities will remain in force.

 

The new Iraqi constitution lacks legitimacy. It was drafted under U.S. supervision by a body hand-chosen by the U.S. military occupation authorities, and subject to final approval by the U.S. proconsul, Paul Bremer. Its acceptance by the Iraqi population remains uncertain; its ability to actually set the terms for laws to govern the country during the interim period after June 30 remains unknown; its relevance to any truly independent government created after the interim period remains in doubt. As a result, any examination of the Constitution must include its legitimacy/illegitimacy, as well as the content of its provisions.

 

The constitution describes only a vague process to select the new transitional government to which the U.S. will "transfer power" on June 30th. It is to be chosen through "a process of extensive deliberations and consultations with cross-sections of the Iraqi people conducted by the Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority and possibly in consultation with the United Nations." No method of conducting such "extensive deliberations" is included, and given the Governing Council's failure so far to have engaged in serious wide-ranging consultations with Iraqi society regarding their own governance, it is unlikely to change any time soon. Crucially, the mandated "consultations" are to be conducted equally between the existing U.S.-appointed Governing Council and the U.S. occupation authority itself - thus insuring that the Governing Council will remain either fully in place or with a self-selected successor body to replace it. The role of the UN is dismissed as "perhaps" being included in consultations.

 

The Iraq Governing Council holds on to power. Since the constitution says nothing about how the interim government will actually be selected, the unspoken understanding is that the Governing Council -perhaps enlarged by additional U.S.-selected individuals, perhaps in its current form-will remain the center of Iraqi authority. Many current members of the Council have made clear their desire to hold on to power, knowing that (since most of them spent the last decade or two or three outside of Iraq) they would be unlikely to win any kind of election. As a result, the United Nations and others have suggested that the interim government operate with a very narrow mandate - essentially "keeping the lights on and paying the bills of the street-sweepers." Specifically, the suggestion was that the interim government make no decisions regarding major economic or foreign policy issues. However, the constitution as drafted provides no limits on what issues the interim government, in whatever form it takes, may decide - including continuing the U.S.-initiated privatization policies, negotiating major replacement oil contracts, and most significantly signing a Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S. to provide an Iraqi "invitation" to the 100,000+ U.S. troops who will remain in Iraq.

 

The constitution calls for a federal system of government, in which despite language to the contrary, the sectors are almost certain to be determined by Iraqis' ethnic and religious identity. The division of Iraqis into Shia', Sunni, Kurdish, Turkoman, Assyrian, Christian identities is the basis for the U.S.-created Iraqi Governing Council, and is the likely basis of the division of power within a "federal" Iraqi system. This causes three major problems: 1) there is no representation for Iraqis who identify first as Iraqi citizens, and only secondarily as Shia'a, Kurds, or whatever. 2) The ethnic/religious quotas assume that all Kurds, Shia'a, Sunni, Assyrians, or others represent monolithic political blocs. 3) A system based on ethnic or religious sectoral interests is inherently unstable, in most cases giving minority and majority populations too little or too much power, and undermining national identity as Iraqis. Lebanon's years of confessional (religiously determined) division and war demonstrates the potential dangers.

 

The constitution, for example, would give Kurds, who represent about 20% of the population, a veto over acceptance of the future permanent constitution. This would take place in the context of Kurdish opposition to any future constitution, since Kurds constitute the majority in three provinces, and the interim constitution insures that a law, or permanent constitution, would fail if it is opposed by a majority of people in at least three provinces.

 

Along with the problem of forcing a religious or ethnic identity for people wanting to assert and build a national Iraqi identity instead, it is not at all clear that most Iraqis support the kind of federal system imposed in the constitution. There is little indication that any serious effort was made to consult with large sectors of the Iraqi people before determining such a drastic framework.

 

The constitution creates a federal system but leaves vague what powers remain with the national government and what devolves to the regions. The central government is given responsibility for foreign policy, national security, fiscal and monetary policy, and control of oil and other natural resources. But there is no limit identified as to what powers a "federal region" may assert. The Kurdistan Regional Government, the only federal region identified, is to have broad, yet vaguely defined powers of self-government: legislative and judicial independence, the Kurdish pesh merga militia to remain in force. The Kurdish government will also "retain regional control over police forces &internal security," implying that the pesh merga could remain a permanent force independent of the central Iraqi government.

 

The constitution asserts a set of individual political rights, as well as economic and social rights significantly advanced, though not absolutely unprecedented, in the Arab world. Those rights include freedom of speech and association, assembly, religion, travel, the right to demonstrate and strike, access to the courts, open trials and the presumption of innocence. There are prohibitions against unlawful arrest, slavery, torture and trying civilians before a military court. However, the prohibition on establishing "special or exceptional courts" is already undermined by the special court established to try Saddam Hussein and other accused war criminals.

 

In terms of economic and social rights, the constitution includes "the right to security, education, health care, and social security," and states that the government agencies "within the limits of their resources" shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the region."

 

The text calls for a "goal of having women constitute no less than one-quarter of the members of the National Assembly" that will be selected [by as yet undetermined means] to draft the final constitution, and states that, "All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law."

 

While the U.S. has launched a major propaganda campaign regarding the "unprecedented in the Arab world" nature of these guarantees, in fact a number of Arab states actually have similar constitutional rights. The problem comes -as is the case in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere-not so much in the written law as in its implementation. In this regard, Iraq is unlikely to be very different.

 

The relationship between religious law and individual liberty remains unclear. Islam is to be relied on as "a source" for Iraqi laws, and the constitution states that no law may contradict either Islamic law or the guarantees of individual rights. This was a compromise between those urging that Islam be regarded as "the source," implying that Islamic sharia' law should be the sole basis for new laws, and those, especially women, concerned that Islamic law would undermine the constitution's individual rights. Islam was also identified as the state religion of Iraq (similar to most Arab constitutions), though religious freedom included in the individual rights. U.S. officials including Paul Bremer had already announced they would veto any constitution that in their view would make Iraq an "Islamic state."

 

Issues missing from the constitution. The new document does not address crucial questions even for the interim period itself. It does not identify the means of choosing the new interim government beyond "deliberations and consultations." It leaves undefined the future legality and power of sectarian militias that currently exist in a legal vacuum. The language states that militias and armed factions outside of the to-be-created Transitional Government "are prohibited, except as provided by federal law," implying that a law drafted in the future granting the Kurdish Pesh Merga forces or a Shia'a militia or anything else would be deemed within the constitutional framework.

 

 

A Few Thoughts on the Events in Spain

 

After the horrific train bombings, Spain showed enormous political maturity and political sophistication in understanding the necessity to do four things simultaneously and powerfully:

 

• Mourn the dead

 

• Condemn all terrorist attacks against innocent civilians

 

• Mobilize against the government for its support of the U.S. war and for its 3 days of lying to Spain, to the UN and to the world

 

• Turn out to vote in unprecedented massive numbers to replace their government, reclaim Spanish democracy and reclaim their country

 

It is sobering to imagine the consequences of a similarly horrifying event in the U.S. Even if, for example, the Bush administration was caught lying outright, perhaps claiming responsibility belonged to al Qaeda when all evidence pointed to a Timothy McVeigh-style homegrown rightwing terrorist, it is likely that the majority of Americans would respond with paralyzing fear rather than anger and mobilization.

 

Madrid has returned to the side of global opposition to war; their place in the UN Security Council means that the balance of forces within that very body is shifting, and we have the possibility to imagine reclaiming the United Nations as part of our global mobilization for peace. I am writing from Italy, in the run-up to Rome's March 20th demonstration, and all sectors of the peace movement here are focused on learning and applying the lessons of Spain. We have a great deal of work to do to follow suit.

 

 

 

 

 

Terrorism, Lies and Elections

 

Analysis by Diana Cariboni

 

MONTEVIDEO, Mar 15 (IPS) - Within just four days, terrorism radically changed the direction of the general elections that took place Sunday in Spain, and tested the public's tolerance of concealment and manipulation of information in the investigation effort.

 

On Sunday, the governing Popular Party (PP) lost 35 seats in Congress and its absolute majority. To judge by the opinion polls conducted prior to the elections, the centre-right party would not have suffered defeat without Thursday's rail blasts and carnage in Madrid.

 

Whether or not it is confirmed that the perpetrators were Islamic extremists, many believe the tragedy would not have occurred if the Spanish government had not gotten involved in U.S. President George W. Bush's ''war on terrorism''.

 

Although voters punished the PP's candidate for prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, the main blow went to Aznar, who will be remembered for his unconditional support for Bush in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq despite the mass protests held throughout Spain prior to and during the war.

 

Ten members of Spain's security forces and two Spanish journalists have been killed in Iraq. A survey carried out by the Centre for Sociological Research (CIS) in February 2003 -- just before the March invasion of Iraq -- found that 83 percent of respondents were opposed to the war on Iraq.

 

Spain's prime minister-elect, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero -- the candidate of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) -- confirmed his intention to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. ''The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster,'' he said.

 

Many voters were also angry at the way the government handled the evidence arising in the investigation of Thursday's devastating terror attacks, which left 200 dead and more than 1,500 wounded. The impression was that the government was attempting to capitalise on the attacks electorally.

 

For more than 48 hours -- a crucial period in which many Spaniards were making their final decision on who to vote for on Sunday -- the government stated categorically that the terrorist Basque separatist group ETA was responsible for the explosions, despite growing signs pointing to Islamic terrorist involvement.

 

It was unlikely that such a meticulously planned attack of such magnitude would be immediately clarified, unless the perpetrators credibly claimed responsibility.

 

But it was clear that firm evidence of involvement by fundamentalist Islamic groups, in reprisal for Spain's participation in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, would have devastating consequences for the PP in the national elections.

 

Starting on Thursday morning, the government -- through Interior Minister Angel Acebes -- insistently repeated that the attacks were undoubtedly the work of ETA.

 

All of the country's newspapers carried headlines that day with variations of ''Massacre by ETA''.

 

On Thursday afternoon, several foreign correspondents in Spain received phone calls from a woman who identified herself as an official from the government palace, who listed ''reasons'' that they should consider ETA responsible for the attacks.

 

''She gave us three reasons: the first, that no one had claimed responsibility, and ETA usually takes several days to do so. The second, that the kind of explosive was the same that is frequently used by ETA. The third, that ETA never provides warnings prior to attacks,'' said Henk Boom, who writes for the daily newspapers De Tijd of Belgium and Het Financieele Dagblad of the Netherlands.

 

The phone calls began several hours after the Spanish police found a stolen van in the town of Alcalá de Henares -- the starting-point of several of the trains in which the blasts occurred -- and an audiotape with Koranic verses in Arabic.

 

Concerned over what some journalists saw as pressure from the government, the association of foreign correspondents met Monday to discuss the case. However, the government denied that it had made any attempt to influence the media.

 

The parties officially closed the campaign immediately after the attacks. But the question of the election continued to shape the investigation, in terms of what was investigated and what information was made public.

 

The state-run TV station helped the government in its efforts to pin the blame on ETA, by using the banner ''ETA attack'' from the very start.

 

In its call for demonstrators to come out on Friday to mourn the victims and repudiate the attacks, the government added the theme ''in defence of the constitution'', which nationalist sectors want to amend.

 

Throughout Spain, as many as 12 million people poured out into the streets Friday, defying the cold and heavy rain.

 

''Spanish television was broadcasting footage of the demonstrations in Madrid, lingering on images of signs that read 'An Entire Nation and Only One Flag', but never showing the placards reading 'No to War, Yes to Peace','' according to an on-line article by Spanish journalist Lucía Etxebarría.

 

According to Etxebarría, the newspaper El Mundo refused to publish an article in which she criticised the government's hypothesis that ETA was responsible, even though the daily had specifically commissioned the story.

 

On Saturday, Acebes was still saying he was ''convinced'' that new evidence would prove that the attacks were the work of ETA, while PP candidate Rajoy said he had a ''moral conviction'' that ETA was involved.

 

While people were talking about ETA in Spain, the rest of the world seemed to be watching another movie, perhaps moved by their own fears, or perhaps because they were able to see from afar, in the mangled trains, disturbing signs of the hand of Islamic terrorism.

 

In Israel, reports of the train blasts were accompanied from the start by talk of al-Qaeda, the Islamic network led by fugitive Saudi national Osama bin Laden that is blamed for the Sep. 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.

 

U.S. intelligence officials and journalists promptly pointed out that a series of numerous large-scale explosions in rapid sequence fit with al-Qaeda's style.

 

In Buenos Aires, callers, including homemakers, were phoning the radio stations to give their impression that al-Qaeda, not ETA, was responsible for the horror. The same thing was said by Spaniards living in Argentina, who gathered Friday to mourn and repudiate the tragedy.

 

By Saturday, when thousands of Spaniards gathered outside PP headquarters in Madrid, Bilbao, Santiago, Barcelona, Gijón, Zaragoza and other cities in Spain to protest the government's handling of the evidence regarding the attacks and demand that it tell the truth, ETA had already denied twice that it was involved in Thursday's blasts.

 

''Who Was Responsible?'', ''Liars!'' and ''We Want the Truth!'' shouted the crowds, although those who called the demonstrations had urged people to gather in silence, because according to campaign rules, the day before the elections is a ''day of reflection.''

 

The tension reached such a point that in Pamplona, in the Basque Country, an off-duty police officer shot and killed a local baker after an argument over the attacks.

 

It was then that the government reported the appearance of a video left in a trash bin near a mosque in Madrid, in which a man who identifies himself as a ''military spokesman'' for al-Qaeda in Europe, Abu Dujan Al Afgani, said the group was responsible for the explosions.

 

This is a response to Spain's ''collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies...to the crimes that you caused in the world, and specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will be more if God wills it,'' he says in Arabic.

 

Local authorities in Spain had already arrested five foreign suspects, three from Morocco and two from India, and the ETA hypothesis was crumbling fast.

 

On Sunday, the PP lost its eight-year hold on power to the PSOE, which took 43 percent of the vote. Voter turnout was the highest in 29 years.

 

The PSOE had opposed the war on Iraq from the onset.

 

''The results appear to prove beyond dispute that the anti-war sentiment seen in the crowds on Saturday was not the exception, but the rule,'' journalist William Rivers Pitt, senior editor of Truthout, an on-line newsletter, and international best-selling author of 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know', wrote in an editorial Monday.

 

Still in shock, Spain's grieving voters used their ballots to demand the truth, and reaffirm democracy, above and beyond party loyalty.

 

But if Islamic extremists were indeed responsible for the attacks in Madrid, and indirectly altered the results of the elections, not only Spain but the entire world now has much more to worry about.

 

 "Other News" is a personal initiative seeking to provide information that should be in the media but is not, because of commercial criteria. It welcomes contributions from everybody. Work areas include information on global issues, north-sutrh relations, gobernability of globalization. The "Other News" motto is a phrase which appeared on the wall of Barcelona& 8217;s old Customs Office, at the beginning of 2003:& 8221;What walls utter, media keeps silent& 8221;. Roberto Savio

 

 

 

 WE HAVE BANISHED THE AUTHORITARIAN GHOSTS THAT WERE THREATENING AGAIN
 RAFAEL RAMOS

 Jose Maria Aznar has been voted out of power by the people of Spain not because of al-Qa'ida and the bombs in Madrid, but because of a big lie. His government took Spain to war in Iraq on a false premise; they lied about weapons of mass destruction; they lied about connections between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terror network; they subverted Spain's traditional foreign policy. And they refused to debate any of this in parliament. Aznar exploited terrorism for political purposes and appealed to the lowest inclinations of the Spanish electorate. He fed national and ideological divisions in a way that Spain hasn't known since before the Civil War in the 1930s.

The two questions that obviously come to mind are: why has Spain voted liked this, and what does it mean? The fact that a tragedy like 11 March has had such an impact on the result of an election in a Western democratic country is worrying. But in reality, Mr Aznar and his Popular Party have lost not because of a terrorist attack, but because of their own arrogance.

They took Spain into the Iraq conflict against the wishes of 90 per cent of the Spanish population. Although they got fairly decent results in last May's municipal elections, and probably thought they had got away with it when bombs exploded in Madrid's suburban trains on Thursday, the Aznar government panicked. It was their nightmare scenario - the only thing that could bring defeat in the polls. And the reaction was to take the "big lie" all the way to the end: to blame Eta, the Basque terrorist group, even if all the evidence pointed to Islamic radicals. After all, they must have reasoned, they controlled the state television, the state radio and most of the press. They only needed three days of confusion and contradicting stories, and then they would be safe. It almost worked: they missed by 24 hours.

What Spain has seen in the last couple of days is a "popular democratic revolution" - the equivalent to May '68 in Paris. While the government mobilised all its ambassadors in foreign capitals and called the national and foreign media to "sell" the story that Eta was to blame, tens of thousands of Spanish voters spontaneously took to the streets, communicating through the internet and mobile phones, claiming the right to know the truth.

The end never justifies the means, and nobody in Spain would exchange 200 lives for the result of an election, but the country is now politically healthier than it was just a few days ago. Mr Aznar has enjoyed a good press abroad, but over eight years he has poisoned the air to an enormous extent, exploiting fear, and stigmatising Catalan and Basques as "terrorism sympathisers". It was an electoral strategy, to divide and conquer.

History changes very slowly, and the Popular Party has a stronghold of nine to 10 million voters who support it whatever the circumstances. This is often because they are natural conservatives, or authoritarians, or feel nostalgia for the "good old days" of Franco. Some of them, no doubt, turned against Aznar not because he supported Bush on Iraq, or because of the bombs on 11 March, but because he lied in such a flagrant way. But the big political phenomenon has been the millions of young citizens who felt motivated to vote for the first time, and voted for truth, and peace, and transparency. In the United States, most voters would have probably reacted to 11 March by supporting the government out of a misplaced sense of "patriotism". In Spain, they responded by calling the government's bluff and voting them out off office.

The new socialist leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, doesn't have any experience in government, and everything suggests it will be a rough ride for him. After all, Tony Blair couldn't say "no" to Bush on Iraq, and it will not be easy for Mr Zapatero to call the White House and explain that Spain is withdrawing its troops from the Gulf by 30 June. He will do it, though, because he has a political mandate.

Spain didn't get anything out of being in the front line of the war against Islamic terrorism. All we got were a few "photo-ops" of our former prime minister in the Azores, or wearing a Texan hat beside George Bush. All this was in the mind of Spanish voters last Sunday, as much as the bombs in Madrid.

Out of tragedy, Spain has had a catharsis in the last few days. The country has banished the fascist and authoritarian ghosts that were threatening again. It has supported a different style of government, and voted for a more humble prime minister who accepts dialogue and will consider the Basque and Catalan demands for more autonomous power, even for a constitutional change towards a federal state. In a matter of days, power has shifted dramatically from the authoritarian right and the centralist state to the young and the nationalist periphery.

The emphasis of Spanish foreign policy will switch from an unconditional support of Bush and the North American "neo-cons" towards the Franco- German position of the European Union, and the traditional role of Spain as a "bridge" between Europe and Latin America and also between the Western and Arab worlds. Common sense will return. For once, just maybe, Spain has shown a glimpse of the future to Britain and the United States.

The writer is UK correspondent for the Catalan newspaper La Vanguardia'

 

 Low Hanging Fruit The superstores are mopping up the last pockets of resistance By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 16^th March 2004

 

Every year the list is the same, but every year it still comes as a shock. Of the ten richest people on earth, five have the same surname. It's not Gates, or Murdoch, or Rockefeller, but Walton.1 They are the heirs and trustees of the supermarket chain Wal-Mart. Between them they are worth $100bn.2

 

Considering how the press fawns on the ultra-rich, we hear remarkably little about them. Perhaps this is because their position is rather embarrassing. The company which enriches them trades on the idea that it is the friend of the common man and woman, distributing rather than concentrating wealth.

 

Over the past 20 years, two world-shaking social transformations have taken place. The first, the effective collapse of the proletariat as a political force, has been well-documented. The second, the disappearance of the petit bourgeoisie as an economic force, rather less so. The near-elimination of the small businesses supplying and running the retail trade is in some ways as consequential as the withering of organised labour in heavy industry and the coalmines. The global monopolisation of the sector has destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of small proprietors and their employees. But, because this workforce was dispersed, the effects are rather harder to see.

 

A couple of weeks ago, I went to buy some fruit trees. I travelled to the world's most unprepossessing centre of biodiversity: Langley, on the outskirts of Slough. In the first half of the 20th century, most of London's fruit and vegetables were grown round there. The farms were supplied by specialist nurseries, which ensured that Britain possessed a wider variety of temperate fruit trees than any other nation. Two weeks ago, only one of them was left. In the 1940s, JC Allgrove's kept 1000 varieties of apple trees. It is still listed in the directories as one of Britain's great growers. But I was among its last customers.

 

Since the owner died two years ago, the business has been run by a volunteer, Nick Houston. "There are bits of ground here where no one's been for 20 years," he told me. Recently, scrabbling beneath the ivy which now covers the orchards, he found a fruit he had never seen before. It was a Baumann's Reinette: the horticultural equivalent of a Faberge egg. "But I had no idea which bloody tree it had fallen off". Somewhere in the nursery there should be two varieties - King Harry and St Augustine's Orange - which even the national fruit collection doesn't possess, but he hasn't been able to find them yet. The land is to be sold. Nick will salvage what he can and run a business of his own, under the old name, to try to keep the rare breeds growing.

 

He gave a one-word answer when I asked him what had happened to the business. "Supermarkets". Today the apples they buy are landing three miles from JC Allgrove's. Heathrow's first runway was built on strawberry farms and orchards. From the air, you can still see derelict greenhouses and the parallel lines on the land where fruit trees once grew. Richard Cox, the man who bred the world's favourite apple, is buried beside St Mary's Church in Harmondsworth,3 which will be flattened if a third runway is built at Heathrow.4

 

The superstores have used their buying power to force the world's farmers to compete directly with each other. Yesterday I spoke to a fruit grower in Gloucestershire, who told me that to stay in the game he must sometimes sell coxes for as little as 57p a kilo, less than his cost of production.5 The supermarkets then sell the same apples for between pounds1.60 and 1.80. They can buy them for even less from Chile, New Zealand and South Africa, where labour is cheap and the farms are huge. This would present no threat to the growers here, had the superstores not used their political power to ensure that fuel costs stay low, and the docks and airports keep expanding.

 

These companies are now strolling over the battlefield, dispatching the last of the wounded. A few days ago, Verdict Research published a report on the takeover of Britain's cornershops. The big chains have moved into the suburbs, where they are closing down the competition. "Now smaller retailers can no longer hide in the neighbourhood," Verdict reports. "A major shake-out is inevitable".6

 

Wal-Mart, which owns the British chain Asda, is now the biggest company on earth. In the last financial year it took $245bn. It is successful partly because it is one of the most ruthless employers in the western world.

 

In the US its sales clerks made an average of $13,861 in 2001, almost $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three.7 It is reported to have told new employees how to apply for food stamps so that they don't starve to death.8 In November, the police found hundreds of illegal immigrants working as cleaners in its stores. Some of them claimed that they were obliged to work seven nights a week, without overtime, insurance or benefits.9

 

By forcing down the prices of the goods they buy, the superstores encourage even more repressive conditions in the companies which supply them. A recent study by Oxfam documents the systematic abuse of workers in the factories and farms they buy from.10 The Waltons are so rich because others are so poor.

 

Beside this, the destruction of our horticultural diversity looks trivial. But both are manifestations of the same problem. As the superstores capture the market, they shut down all our choices: about where we shop, what we buy, who we work for. This, of course, is what all monopolies seek to do.

 

We might have hoped that governments would treat them as such. Indeed, there was a time when they did. In 1936, a federal anti-trust act was passed in the US to protect small shops from the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company.11 But governments were braver then. In Britain, the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission seem to spend their time devising new excuses. They continue to insist, for example, that big stores and corner shops are separate markets.12 Tesco might sell 25% of all Britain's groceries, but it owns "only" 6% of the convenience store market, so it should be allowed to expand in that sector as it pleases. Last month the OFT admitted that its voluntary code of practice, which is supposed to protect farmers from the excessive power of the superstores, isn't working. By way of remedy it proposed "more research".13

 

In response, the MPs Andrew George and David Drew are launching an early day motion in parliament today, calling for a legally binding code of practice and a supermarket watchdog.14 But Tony Blair seems to be as frightened of the superstores as he is of the tabloid press. Nick couldn't find me any of the rarest varieties. He sold me an Adam's Pearmain, a Charles Ross, a Sturmer Pippin and a Cornish Aromatic. I would have bought the names even if the trees weren't attached to them. If they survive my clumsy handling and fruit, I will regard every apple they produce as a minor act of insurrection.

 

www.monbiot.com

 

References: 1. http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/bill04land.html

 

2. ibid.

 

3. Lucinda Lambton, 15^th March 2003. Historic Departures. The Daily Telegraph.

 

4. http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/environment/planning/heathrow_airport/third_runway/runway_questions.php

 

5. The grower asked me not to reveal his name. Most of the superstores’ suppliers are afraid to speak out publicly against them.

 

6. Verdict Research, March 2004. Press release: A Multiple-Led Local Renaissance Coming to Small Stores Near You!

 

7. Anthony Bianco and Wendy Zellner, 6th October 2003. Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful? Business Week.
8. ANDREW GUMBEL, 6th November 2003. WAL-MART FACES PROSECUTION OVER USE OF ILLEGAL WORKERS. The Independent.

 

9. ibid.

 

10. Oxfam, 2004. Trading Away Our Rights: Women Working in Global Supply Chains.

 

11. Anthony Bianco and Wendy Zellner, ibid.

 

12. Eg Verdict Research, ibid.

 

13. Office of Fair Trading, February 2004. The Supermarkets Code Of Practice.

 

14. Andrew George David Drew, 11^th March 2004. EDM 817. Supermarket Code of Practice.

 

 

 

 

 

Liars Lose -- The Lessons of Regime Change in Spain

 

Jeff Cohen

 

Published on Monday, March 15, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0315-13.htm

 

"Political shock in Spain!" blared ABC News on Sunday night, as regime change came to Madrid. Along with Tony Blair, Spain's conservative Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had been the staunchest of Bush allies.

 

One down, two to go.

 

The deciding issue in Spain's election was government deceit over war in Iraq and terrorism at home, especially the bomb blasts that rocked Madrid three days before the balloting. In a country (like ours) where major TV channels routinely echo government propaganda, grassroots activists defeated Aznar's Popular Party by reaching swing voters and young voters through mobile phones, the Internet and creative, nonviolent protests.

 

For weeks polls had showed Aznar's hand-picked successor comfortably ahead of Spain's uninspiring Socialist party, which had been voted out of office in 1996 amid corruption scandals. Then came Thursday's terror attacks, killing 200 Spaniards and injuring 1500.

 

The conservative government that had brought Spain into the Iraq war (despite overwhelming opposition) by echoing U.S./U.K. lies on WMDs immediately blamed the Madrid terror attacks on Basque separatists -- before there was any evidence, and continuing in the face of evidence pointing to Islamist terrorists. Antiwar Spaniards had long warned that aligning with the U.S./U.K would intensify the threat of foreign terror.

 

By election day, government manipulation had become the salient issue in the minds of millions of shell-shocked swing voters. But the seeds of doubt about Aznar's government had been planted by the antiwar movement. After all, intelligence on Iraq had been manipulated; now it seemed Spain was manipulating the truth about who had murdered hundreds of Spaniards. It leaked out that, within hours of the terror attacks, Spain's foreign minister had written ambassadors: "You should use any opportunity to confirm [Basque] ETA's responsibility."

 

In his vivid street-level account from Madrid in the hours before the election, writer Paul Laverty described a mass nonviolent revolt. One grandmother told Laverty that she had voted conservative the last time, "but I can't vote for these thugs again who led us into a war nobody wanted. They lied about the weapons in Iraq, and they're lying again today. How dare they manipulate the dead?"

 

With suspicions mounting that the government was holding back the truth about the terror attacks, and that mainstream TV couldn't be trusted, "thousands of mobiles were on the go flashing messages between friends" about independent news and spontaneous protests that became massive the night before the election. In cities across Spain, protesters gathered outside Popular Party headquarters, chanting: "We want the truth before we vote," "Our Dead, Your War," "Liars, Liars, Liars...Don't play with the Dead."

 

Then, at a time established through mobile messaging, came "cacerolada" protests -- banging of pots and pans -- from balconies and porches and spreading into town squares. After midnight, Madrid protesters marched to Atocha train station, near ground zero of the terror attacks, and the huge crowd went silent for a vigil and prayers and tears.

 

On election day, the New York Times quoted a Madrid voter as saying: "I never would have gone into the streets for a demonstration like yesterday except that I felt like they were not telling us everything."

 

Voter turnout was very high. Late-deciding voters (and many who hadn't expected to vote at all) swung hard against the government, and in support of the Socialists, who campaigned on a pledge to withdraw Spain's troops from Iraq.

 

AP quoted a Barcelona voter: "I wasn't planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq." A law student told the BBC: "It's the first time I voted. I feel very happy because the government had to change...because of the Iraq war." As Prime Minister Aznar cast his ballot, protesters shouted: "Manipulator!"

 

After winning, Socialist Prime Minister-elect Zapatero called for "self-criticism" by Bush and Blair: "You can't bomb people just in case...You can't organize a war on the basis of lies."

 

There are lessons for Americans seeking regime change here at home:

 

 *      A winning issue is government deceit and manipulation; late deciders can be won over if the Bush administration's basic honesty is in question. With enough swing voters questioning Bush's honesty, even a late-breaking "October Surprise" could backfire against him. John Kerry was caught on mike accurately referring to the Bush team as "the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen" -- if only the Senator would add some principle and bite to his policy statements.

 

*       Take the offensive against the administration for failing to defend our citizens on the homefront on Sept. 11 and in Iraq and beyond. Despite all the pundit blather, Bush has been a "security" failure. 9/11 victims' families need not be alone in expressing anger at a White House that politically manipulates 9/11 while taking no responsibility for its failure and stonewalling the investigation. Bush could continue to lose faith with veterans and their families for cluelessly sending U.S. soldiers and National Guard into Iraq unprotected -- as thousands return home badly wounded to inadequate health and veterans' services.

 

*       Use creativity and all available means of communication to reach out to undecideds in swing states until the very last vote is cast. In the weeks before Nov. 2, disinformation about Kerry will be flowing furiously in mainstream media while accurate information about Bush will be blocked. We need to use everything from email and door-knocking to paid ads and rock concerts to reach folks who aren't getting the full story.

 

*       Don't cast a risky vote this year for a 3rd party or independent presidential candidate. In our winner-take-all elections, only Kerry can retire the most dangerous and extremist regime in recent U.S. history. A cautious, mainstream Democrat like Kerry may be as uninspiring to some of us as the often-vacillating Socialists are to activists in Spain. But the demise of Madrid's conservative regime has electrified peace and progressive activists worldwide. Imagine the elation we'll feel if Bush is retired next November.

 

 Jeff Cohen is a columnist, media critic and TV pundit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spanish Voters Throw Out Pro-War Party

 

 It was a vote heard round the world. European newspapers described it as a "political earthquake." Spain's conservative Popular Party, headed by Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, was defeated in an election on Sunday that was clearly determined by public opposition to Spain's participation in the Iraq war.

 

 The Bush administration has now lost one of its most outspoken and prominent allies in the occupation of Iraq, second only to Britain's Tony Blair. But what is most remarkable about the election is that it happened just three days after Spain fell victim to the deadliest terrorist attack on the European mainland since World War II.

 

 At least 200 people were killed and over 1500 wounded in the bombings of rush-hour trains in Madrid. Evidence so far points to people associated with Al Qaeda as responsible.

 

 But instead of rallying around the ruling party in the wake of this horrific attack -- as often happens -- millions blamed the government for involving Spain in a war that 90 percent of the Spanish people had opposed. Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets on Saturday with angry messages such as "Your War, Our Dead."

 

 Their anger prevailed, fueled also by suspicions that the government -- which initially blamed the Basque separatist group ETA for the bombings -- was trying to withhold information about the perpetrators. The ruling party -- which was ahead in the polls just a few days earlier -- knew that if Al-Qaeda were seen to be responsible, it would cost them votes.

 

 "On June 30 I will give the order for [Spanish troops] to return home," said Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, the leader of the winning Socialist Party, on Thursday. This pledge proved decisive to a majority of voters, who turned out in very large numbers.

 

 It is hard to imagine such a scenario in the United States, where our governing party was able to take both houses of Congress in 2002, partly by beating the drums of war and diverting attention from all the other issues on which it was vulnerable. President Bush has skillfully used the tragedy of September 11, not only to launch the war in Iraq -- which had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism -- but for issues seemingly even less related, such as tax cuts for the wealthy and "fast-track" authority for trade negotiations.

 

 But a majority of Americans now think that the war was not worth it, according to recent polls. Millions are also aware that terrorism directed against Americans is overwhelmingly a result of our foreign policy, and not the other way around. For Spanish voters, the solution was clear: stop participating in the conquest and occupation of other nations.

 

 Americans will eventually come to the same conclusion, but when? In the first weeks after September 11, 2001, there were some who began to ask -- like children who do not know that such questions are inappropriate -- "Why do they hate us?" But this line of inquiry was quickly dropped. Soon the "war against terrorism" had become the replacement for the all-encompassing "war against Communism" that had served as pretext for all the terrible things (invasions, military coups, massacres, dictators) that our government supported throughout most of the post-World-War II era.

 

 Many pundits and editorial writers here will lament about "Spain giving in to terrorism," and how Spain's election will only "encourage terrorism." On Sunday our Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld criticized the Spanish opposition: "It's like feeding an alligator, hoping it eats you last. And it's not a terribly proud posture, in my view."

 

 He couldn't be more wrong. A more appropriate metaphor would have Mr. Rumsfeld kicking and stomping on an alligator, which would otherwise not have become a threat.

 

 The Spanish people should indeed be proud that in the face of a heart-wrenching national tragedy, while still mourning their dead and caring for their wounded, they refused to be manipulated. With courage and rationality, they decided that it was not enough to fight such barbarity through increased security or law enforcement, while allowing their government to continue provoking it. They decided to do something about the cause of the terrorism.

 

 It will be a great day for the United States -- and the world -- when we do the same.

 

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net), in Washington, D.C.