Dark Matter Politics

South America the Saudi Arabia of lithium

The good news. The metal that fires up your iPhone and iPod will be the power source for all electric cars including the increasingly popular Toyota Pirus, Telsa Roadster, Nissan Leaf and GM’s hybrid Volt. The bad news. It is estimated the demand for lithium will outstrip supply in less than 10 years unless new sources are found. In fact, Byron Capital Markets predicts a 40 percent increase in demand for lithium from 2009 to 2014.

Enter Bolivia, Chile and Argentina.

Over half of the world reserves for lithium lies under the Bolivian Salar de Uyuni. The two largest lithium exporters are Chile and Argentina. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Chile provides 61% of lithium exports to the U.S. and Argentina is the source of 36%. Chile has a reserve of an estimated 3 million tons and Argentina weighs in with 400,000 tons, while Bolivia’s reserve is calculated as being about 5.4 million tons.

Will South America become the Saudi Arabia of lithium? The challenge lies in the cost efficient exploitation and transportation of the mineral as well as the regional politics.

The cost of extracting lithium from Bolivia’s Salar de Uyuni is unknown. Its ratio of magnesium to lithium – 30:1 units against 6.5:1 in Chile’s Atacama Desert – could put extraction costs at about USD $5,000 a tonne, compared with USD $1,500 in Chile. Currently, lithium is not traded as a commodity so investors are looking into companies which sell the metal. One company that is traded on the NYSE is the Chilean firm, Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile (SQM), which has been creating quite a buzz throughout the financial world.

As for the regional politics, Bolivia’s president Evo Morales has a strict agenda of natural resource nationalization. While regarded as populist by the United States government, this political agenda aims to end of the decades of plunder, epitomised by the faded city of Potosi, where hundreds of thousands died in the silver mines that funded Spain’s Armada. To this effect, Bolivia has ruled out private investment in producing lithium – however it has left the door open to alliances for value-added products in which the government retains a 60% stake. Any partner would be required to build a plant to make lithium-battery powered cars. This approach will test Bolivia’s state owned national mining company Comibol ability to raise funding and manage such a large scale project. 

The stakes for Bolivia’s Evo Morales are considerable. By taking advantage of these substantial natural resources, he can realistically lift his country out of poverty and increase its role as a significant player on the global market. Even prior to increased demand for lithium, the Bolivia’s mining industry was producing significant gains for the country, leading to a 9.4% increase in its GDP.

However for South America to proposer from lithium it must not strive to become the Saudi Arabia of lithium. Instead it should seek its own sustainable long-term democratic plan, focus not only on exploitation but the recycling of lithium from used batteries. More importantly, politicians and economists but ensure the indigenous people of South America, the rightful owners of these resources, are part of the process and the economic benefits.  

The War on Terror: Manipulating the American psyche

The "War on Terror", a defining statement of the George W. Bush administration is not simply political rhetoric or a sound bite that has shaped American foreign policy since 2002; it is carefully crafted statement aimed at manipulating the American psyche.

The American psyche is conditioned by a sense of all encompassing divine purpose derived from the battle for independence from colonial rule, the later conquering of the new frontier and the struggle against Communism.

This belief was cemented during and after the Spanish American War and the Mexican American War. During these two conflicts, the United States defined an expansionist policy known by the catch phrase of “Manifest Destiny” - the belief that the United States had a divinely inspired mission to expand, spreading its form of democracy and freedom. Advocates of “Manifest Destiny” believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and inevitable ("destiny").

When shaping their approach to combating actual, perceived and made up threats, the Bush administration tapped the Terror management theory (TMT), first proposed by Sheldon Solomon, Tom Pyszczynski, and Jeff Greenberg, suggests that people adhere to cultural worldviews and beliefs in order to suppress death and mortality-related thoughts. TMT suggests that people combat the terror of their mortality with the same cognitive abilities that cause this terror to arise, by developing death-denying cultural belief systems.

More importantly, TMT suggests that individuals must feel that they are significant contributors to this worldview and derive their sense of self-esteem according to whether or not they meet culturally determined standards. If the standard defined by the establishment and promoted by the media is based on an all-encompassing struggle and war with imminent loss of life, it is obvious why the "War on Terror" statement was so easily sold to the large majority of the American people.

Peter Beinart writting for the Daily Beast says Obama should openly embrace the argument that the "War on Terror" isn’t a “war” for three main reasons.  First, the term “war” should be reserved for direct armed confrontations, and common American rhetoric about “wars” on poverty, cancer, drugs, and such have diluted this strict meaning.  Second, the term gives the executive branch cover to destroy civil liberties in the name of security.  Third, it gives the false impression that bullets and bombs are sufficient to eradicate threats.

President Bush decision to conflate Iraq and the War on Terror into one thing, was a calculated decision to manipulate the American psyche.  

Obama's Thoughest Policy Challenges

1. Pakistan
Pakistan, is a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons, in the middle of the struggle between Western radicals and Muslim radicals. The growing influence of radical groups in the north of Pakistan has lead the US to deploy military strikes across the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Continued strikes by the US military will exacerbate and destabilise the Asif Ali Zardari government which seeks domestic support. Obama will demand more cooperation from Pakistan, however, support will continue to be ambivalent given Pakistan's desire to maintain a sphere of influence around Kashmir. While the US recent rapprochement with India helps to balance US interests in the region, the Zardari administration shows little promise of consistent military and political support.    

2. The Senate
What is worrying about the United States democratically elected Senate is that it is not very democratic. Each member of the House of Representatives represents roughly the same number of voters.  In the Senate, by contrast every state gets two seats., regardless of influence or population. So Wyoming with 500,000 citizens enjoys exactly the same clout as California. No wonder the Senate spends so much money on pointless projects. Furthermore, senators have the power to kill a bill - it takes 60 votes out of 100 to end a filibuster, so 41 senators can block anything. In fact, 11% of the population could theoretically thwart the will of the other 89%. This is the kind of in balance that kept legislation such as the Jim Crow laws alive. Obama's team will have to rely heavily on bi-partisan agreements to push his agenda forward; something that might prove difficult given the upcoming Senate elections in November 2010.  

3.  Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid
Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid- will drive deficits and so debt up sharply. Publicly held debt will climb from 41% of GDP last year to 54% last year next year. Obama's ability to invest in the programs he believes important for America will be limited by a raising deficit. In 2007, $432 billion was spent on Medicare accounting for more than 3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). 

The way to address Medicare's shortfall is to fix the private health-care system, as Barack Obama has pledged to do. If health-care costs are contained, so that they only grow due to the ageing of the population, and otherwise move in line with per capita income, then Medicare will be an affordable programme. The problem is not the ageing of the population, the problem is a broken health-care system.

Barack Obama: The power of reinvention

With wars under way in Iraq and Afghanistan, an engulfing economic downturn, a catastrophic foreign policy and the largest federal deficit in history, the United States has elected Barack Obama. Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election is not a reaffirmation of the American dream; but the validation of the United States ability to reinvent itself. Both Obama and McCain represented this power of reinvention. Obama has simply been the most suited leader for this specific period in history.

While Obama is an agent of hope, John McCain can become an agent of reconciliation. Hope will not create jobs, fix a broken health system or mend a failed foreign policy. Hope will however, bring people together to act, gather, legislate and engage for a common goal and purpose. E.J Dionne Jr. from the Washington Post encapsulates this sense of reinvention in a few simple words - "Yesterday, America chose to practice what it has long preached to the rest of the world."

On the policy side we hope the Democrats majority in both chambers leads to the fulfilment of an ambitious Obama policy platform including: 1) an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and a greater focus on the war in Afghanistan, 2) tax cuts for Americans who make less than $200,000 a year and higher taxed for those making above $250,000 a year, 3) revamping of the health care system, 4) a conciliatory and open foreign policy. We will be keeping a close eye on Obama's new online community space change.gov. 

Obama's first test will be his appointments to key positions including Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State. Obama must translate this electoral win into a successful governing startegy. Obama is the best man for the job.

Adios Fidel

Fidel Castro is resigning the presidency of Cuba. But is he resigning control of the country? More significant, Fidel's influence will endure. The Cuban model will not change for some time.  The Cuban exile community in the US hoped that communist rule in Cuba would quickly crumble upon his demise. This will not occur. The political future of Cuba will be influenced by three factors.

The first is the second and third generation of hard-liners in the Cuban government that will follow from Fidel. These individuals will be bolstered by the support of Latin American leaders including Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and Hugo Chavez. Latin America's political DNA has evolved considerably in the past three years; helping to support the Cuban model. 

The second influence to consider is the upcoming US election. If elected Obama might opt for dialogue with the Cuban government. If elected McCain will probably follow the hard nose approach of the last eight years. If elected Hillary is likely to keep the status quo. While the United States does not have the will or credibility to deal with Cuba, the next president of the United States will play an important role.

The third factor to consider is the US embargo on the island. The US continues to ignore a United Nations vote (U.N 184-4) that called for the end of embargo, which has done nothing but deteriorate the living standard of the Cuban people.

Barack Obama Cuban Flag

Barack Obama has been compared to many political figures from the past including John F. Kennedy. The latest comparison (following an incident at a local support office in Houston) to Che Guevara, while absurd, raises the question of how important myth and icons have become in American politics.

Mainstream and independent media, including thousands of independent blogs have focused on the fact that the Obama campaign failed to denounce the Che Guevara Cuban flag incident. The focus should have been in his policies. This incident could have provided a platform to better understand Obama’s policy towards Cuba.

However the focus has turned into historical parody, reinforcing the Barack Obama icon – an icon, which like Che Guevara is laced with a combination of myth and truth, future tense and past tense, hope for change and thirst for things past.

How much do we really know about Barack Obama (beyond his policies) other than him being an icon of hope? How much do we really know about Che Guevara (beyond his beliefs) other than him being an icon for revolution? How much do we know about John McCain (beyond his policies) other than him being an icon of heroism?

Barack Obama and Che Guevara share little in common, other than the fact their beliefs and substance have been overshadowed by a need to construct and elevate icons. The image featured on this post is yet another example of this phenomenon.

While marketing may be the factory that manufactures and helps makes sense of politics, we should be careful not everything of great promise gets printed  onto a t-shirt.

Carlos Lage and Cuba’s Parliamentary Vote

This past Sunday Cubans took to the ballots to participate in parliamentary elections. Cubans have been participating in Parliamentary Elections since 1993. The Communist Party is the only party allowed to run and put candidates forward.

While this is against the established Western electoral model, it raises an interesting dynamic; choice is not based on ideology but merit and participation in their local communities lead by municipalities. Furthermore, Cuba’s National Assembly is more diverse than any other Western representative body with women accounting tor 42% and blacks 20%.

The winners of Sunday's National Assembly election will choose which members will serve on the legislature's ruling Council of State, which in turn selects the president every five years. That decision is expected in early March.

While it is likely Fidel Castor’s brother, 76 year old Raul Castro will be named head Council of State, when the new parliament meets on February 24th there is a possibility that Carlos Lage the current Vice President of Cuba could be appointed to the position. 

Fidel Castro will remain a power figure and an ambassador for Cuba. Cuba's economic growth has exceeded 6 percent in each of the past three years even as a U.S. trade embargo put in place against the island in 1962 remains. The Caribbean country has benefited from Castro's alliance with Venezuela and Brazil.

Hugo Chavez New Constitution

Hugo Chavez is calling the Venezuelan people to the polls on the 2nd of December. What is at stake? A series of sixty nine changes to the constitution.

The more significant changes to the constitution include: 1) allowing Chavez to run for re-election indefinitely 2) extend presidential terms from six to seven years 3) create new types of property to be managed by cooperatives and communities and 4) limit the legal working day to six hours a day. The constitutional reforms are directed also at promoting Venezuelan-style socialism. Under a revised article 158, “The state will promote as national politics protagonist participation of the people, transferring power to the people and creating better conditions for construction of a socialist democracy.” The majority of the media has focused on the clause that allows Chavez to run for election indefinitely. The mainstream media calls this a breach of democratic principles and dictatorial; the United States did not have presidential term limits until 1951. Was the U.S. previously a dictatorship?

While monopolies would be banned under article 102, the modification of article 302 is what must be concerning the US government more than anything. The modified article 302 would guarantee state control over the oil industry, closing off any potential loophole that would allow privatisation of this resource; “The State reserves, for reasons of sovereignty, development and the national interest, the activity of exploitation of liquid, solid, and gaseous hydrocarbons as well as the exploitation of goods and services of public interest and strategic character.”

One of the most positive initiatives not mentioned by the mainstream media include the creation of a Social Stability Fund for ‘non-dependent’ or self employed workers such as taxi drivers, fishermen, and artisans, among others, to guarantee them the same fundamental rights as other workers such as retirement pensions, paid vacations and prenatal and postnatal leave entitlements.

In a tactic to defuse attention from the polls, Chavez officially terminated diplomatic relations with Colombia. The two nations are each other's second biggest trading partner after the US, with annual bilateral trade running at more than $4bn. One of his closest allies, Evo Morales, Bolivia’s president is only planning a referendum to pass changes to the constitution that would extend his power.

Lights Out! Natural gas crisis in Chile

 

Chile receives 70 percent of Argentina's natural gas exports, which go to electrical plants, and cover 37 percent of the country's electricity demand. On April 1, 2007 Argentina decided to reduce its supply of natural gas to Chile by 14 percent - around 2.3 million cubic meters daily. The cut seriously affected the Antofagasta and Atacama regions in the north of the country, which do not have hydroelectric energy sources. The cuts disrupted the regions large mining base, including Chiquicamata, the world’s largest open copper mine. The national copper corporation, Codelco Chile announced they would use diesel to alleviate the natural gas deficit.

The flow of natural gas from Argentina in 1997 came as a blessing for Chile as wholesale prices where considerably lower than other energy sources. However with supply lines being threatened the Chilean government has to seriously examine its energy policy as a net importer of energy.

For decades the Chilean government has realized the importance of energy to support economic growth. In 1997 the Gas Andes pipeline was completed, connecting Argentina's Neuquina basin with Santiago. In 1999, two gas pipelines, the Gas Atacama and the NorAndino pipelines, were completed linking Argentina's Northwest basin to the mining regions in the north of Chile. Although progress has been made by various administrations most notably in the development of hydropower, Chile is now at a cross roads with its energy policy.

History teaches us long term social progress in Chile need to be aligned with long term energy sustainability. How can the Chilean government aim to alleviate poverty without securing the energy to mobilize its industries - which in turn generate employment and exports to fund expenditures in social programs? History also teaches us politicians grapple with decisions that do not provide tangible results during the tenure of their administration. The Chilean government could for example allocate a portion of the surplus from copper exports to fund new energy initiatives. While this might not be a popular decision in the short term it could ensure the long term energy security of the country.

Intertwined with economic and social factors is the issue of environmental protection; making a viable energy policy challenging for any administration. According to forecasts by the International Energy Agency, Latin America will need $1.3 billion in new investments in the energy sector by 2030 in order to deal with increased demand. The reality is that the large majority of that investment will be privately funded.

While Chile can develop a sound energy policy it is impacted by the decisions of its neighbors. Case in point, in May 2005, Bolivia’s Congress approved a new Hydrocarbons Law that levies an additional 32 percent tax on oil and gas production at the wellhead, on top of the existing 18 percent royalty. This has been a controversial decision that divides public opinion. Is the protection of a nations’ natural resources comprise its potential net benefit by disincentivising investment aimed at increasing capacity, efficiency and distribution?   

While hydroelectric and gas provide the large majority of Chile’s energy supply, there is significant opportunity for the development of wind, solar, biomass, agro-fuel, wave and geothermal based energy. 

Wind.  There is only one wind energy plant is in operation in Chile. “Alto Baguales” owned by Empresa Electrica de Aysen is situated in the South of Chile, provides 19,000 families with energy. Companies including Pacific Hydro (Australia) and Meridian Gold (Canada) are proposing projects totalling US$678 million.

Solar. While the north of Chile is probably one of the most suitable places for the exploitation of solar energy applications, it’s use in Chile is restricted to local applications because of the high cost associated with this technology.

Biomass.  Biogas projects in Chile have been associated to landfill operations whereby the biogas is extracted from their sites, processed and sold in portable tanks. The use of bio-digesters has been extensively used in swine farms to lower methane emission, re-use the methane and generate carbon credits sold on the international CER (Certified Emission Reductions) market.

Agro-fuel. The Chilean government’s Innovation Agriculture Fund (FIA) will assign US$1 million to agro-fuel investigation and to develop/adapt technologies to produce agro-fuels in Chile. However the logistics of implementing sustainable afro-fuel are considerable. In order to produce the 300,000 cubic meters of ethanol required to replace 10% of gasoline, Chile requires to cultivate an additional 62,500 hectares of corn (now, 100,000 hectares are cultivated for human consumption and animal feed).

Wave.  Chile’s 4, 200 kilometers of coastline and geography offers a perfect setting for tidal and wave technologies. Despite these conditions, any efforts to develop this technology have been limited by the lack of incentives and regulations to encourage its development.

Geothermal.  Geothermal capacity in Chile is outstanding but drilling and prospecting costs are high. Law 19, 657 of the Ministry of Mines and Energy regulates the concession process.

Blair’s involvement in Iraq

I still remember that day – 2nd May 1997. Tony Blair entering 10 Downing Street becoming Britain’s youngest prime minister. It was not only his youthful spirit that invigorated me but the “New Labour Manifesto” filled me with a feeling of exuberant optimism. His close relationship with Bill Clinton seemed to usher a new era of social, economic and political progress.

The Blair of today is not the Blair of 1999. However the Blair of 1999 did demonstrate a clear foreign policy doctrine that would culminate in the full scale involvement of Britain in Iraq. Blair’s prelude to Iraq was Kosovo.

Kosovo was fought without U.N approval against Slobodan Milosevic. While Milosevic was responsible for slaughtering his own people, he did not pose any threat to any of the major European or NATO powers. The Kosovo bombing campaign was deployed under the NATO flag, although Britain, like the United States in Iraq, committed the largest force. Kosovo was a success. However had it failed, Clinton and Blair would have been regarded as interventionists and imperialists. Kosovo shaped Blair’s doctrine of international community.

The doctrine of international community is based on the belief a globalized world is like a chain of domino pieces, one event can directly impact and threaten the interests of Britain and the United States. The doctrine called for the major powers (US and Britain) to work through international institutions, intervening more aggressively in the domestic affairs of other nations; to strengthen their financial and public sectors, ultimately ushering them into the world of democracy and capitalism.

The doctrine of international community is as flawed as the Iraq war. First it assumes the United States and Britain own the solution to a nation’s problems, disregarding fundamental issues related to the ethnic, political and cultural history of a nation, well before the emergence of superpowers. As with Iraq, in Kosovo Britain and the United States failed to realise the Albanian and Serbians where caught in a dangerous and long conflict fuelled by nationalism and separatism.

Second, the doctrine of international community assumes the nations in questions will embrace the recipe of capitalism and democracy prepared by both powers.

Third, action taken under the doctrine of international community requires for humane motives rather than military interests to justify intervention. As with Iraq, Kosovo did not fulfill four precautionary measures tied to the doctrine including: right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects.

Fourth, the doctrine of international community requires for its leaders to differentiate between policy and rhetoric.

Tony Blair and George W. Bush can no longer differentiate between policy and rhetoric, as their administrations have become cradles of spin, leading their electorate through a forgettable five years of foreign policy blunders.

What if Iraq was the United States in 1964?

While sitting at a park bench in New Orleans I engaged in conversation with a Vietnam veteran who sat quietly feeding pigeons. His views on the U.S involvement in Iraq and the Civil Rights movement where clear from the start of our conversation. For the past ten years he had been teaching at a local elementary school, using what he called "historical parody" to explain events that are difficult to rationalize (such as the war in Iraq)...

February 1, 1964, at the height of segregation in the United States, the British send a military force taking control of the south of the United States deploying forces across Alabama, Tennessee Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida.

Following repeated warnings voiced in the United Nations and through media outlets, the British rally the support of Spain to create a "coalition of the willing" to oust the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was seen as directly responsible for not fully supporting legislation to implement a Civil Rights Act, in strict violation of the Magna Carta.

The British draft an extensive dossier which highlights the abuses to large portions of the African American population including state sponsored lynching, unlawful imprisonment and execution. The dossier adds the actions of the United States government violate the principle of habeas corpus, the legal action by means of which detainees (in this case African Americans) can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The British dossier presented Mississippi as an example of the dire situation. In 1960, 42% of the population was black but only 2% were registered to vote. Lynching, executions and jailing was still employed as a method of terrorizing the local black population. The last section of the dossier included testimony from the families of Denise McNair (11), Addie Mae Collins (14), Carole Robertson (14) and Cynthia Wesley (14) who died at the Sixteen Street Baptist Church on the 15th September,1963. An additional twenty-three other people were also hurt as a result of the bomb placed by Robert Chambliss, a member of the Ku Klux Klan following the end of Sunday school classes at the church.

While President Lyndon B. Johnson was a strong ally of the British and the Civil Right Movement before taking office after the assassination of President Kennedy, British intelligence revealed of his intention to increase US involvement in Vietnam and veto the Civil Rights legislation.

The British where emphatic the action, dubbed as "Operation Jim Crow" was also taken as a pre-emptive action against the continued spread of the Ku Klux Klan, a group that threatened through the use of force, the freedom and principles of equal rights in the region. Spain reluctantly joined the British, in spite of domestic protests, in the fear their lack of involvement would leave them outside of the new political order. The British placed tremendous pressure on the Spanish as government officials recognised Spain would be an effective partner given its historical ties in the south of the United States; dating back to the colonial days when Spain occupied parts of Louisiana (Spain purchased Louisiana from the French in 1763). Furthermore, and behind closed doors, the British feared the spread of the Ku Klux Klan across the Caribbean and the Gulf Coast, compromising their fragile sphere of influence in the region and the vast oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico.

Following a rapid invasion of the Southern states, which saw small number of British and Spanish causalities, officials called for an amnesty and following pressure from other members of NATO and the United Nations, defined a timeline for the withdrawal of forces. However, the invasion of the south triggered an internal battle between the Christian Coalition of America and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 1.2 million members of the Christian Collation and close to 5 million members of the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began an armed struggle for control of the Southern states, given the reluctance of the federal government to commit further military resources as these where stretched given the large troop deployments in Vietnam.

While the military operation of the British and Spanish was a resounding success, they failed to realize the underlying historical tension between both groups - rooted on very different biblical interpretation of the Sonship of Christ. More concerning, the African American population, the British and Spainish where meant to liberate, became increasingly militant, frustrated by lack of progress in establishing a democratic system in the region.

civil rights act iraq war segregation jim crow President Johnson Ku Klux Klan

The Wage Gap in Latin America

Latin American politics have moved left. Twelve of the regions countries have held presidential elections since November 2005. Six of the countries in Latin America have elected heads of state that are further to the left than the outgoing leaders. The latest elections in the region have confirmed such trend; the reelection of Lula Silva in Brazil, the ascent to power of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and the election of Rafael Correa in Ecuador (another headache for Washington as Ecuador is the second largest exporter of crude oil in the region and it hosts the only U.S military base in South America).

Two basic camps of leftists have emerged within the region. Those who run on authoritarian populist platforms such as Hugo Chavez and those who support representative democracy such as Lula da Silva of Brazil.

While the authoritarian populist platforms receive the most scrutiny for their social and economic policies, further analysis indicates countries closest to the left-centre of representative democracy suffer from the largest level of inequality. This inequality is most apparent in Colombia, Mexico, Chile and Brazil. While Colombia and Mexico enjoy right wing governments, Chile and Brazil have the regions´most marked centre-left governments.

While there are many indicators of inequality, comparing the wage paid to elected representatives against the minimum wage earned by the average citizen; serves as an effective indicator. The wage gap between those "who legislate" and those "who elect" is a powerful one, as it demonstrates how a nation and its legislative institutions not only perceive, but act on their duty to fight against economic inequality.

The elected representatives in Felipe Calderon´s Mexico enjoy the largest wage gap – paying themselves 52 times (USD $6.773 a month) that of the minimum monthly wage! To put things in perspective the average United State senator receives a wage of USD $13,766 a month, based on figures provided by the United States Senate. This monthly wage is thirteen times that of the average minimum monthly wage of USD $990 in the United States.

The elected representatives of Chile receive a staggering monthly wage of USD $11.282, 44 times the average national minimum wage of USD $256 a month. Furthermore, the monthly wage of USD $11.282 paid to Chilean senators does not include extraordinary costs such as flights, accommodation or consulting. In the case of the average Chilean senator, their average net wage is doubled when accounting for all costs. While Chile leads the region in overall compensation for its elected representatives, Brazil is one of the world leaders. Senators in Brazil receive 15 salaries throughout the year, withe the average cost per senator amounting to almost USD $240.000 a year in tax payer money.

The wage rankings for elected representatives in Latin America reveals the wage gap of the five nations to be enormous. Chile leads the region with an average monthly wage of USD $11.282 for its elected representatives - 44 times minimum wage. In second place Colombia with USD $7.400 a month – 41 times the minimum wage. In third place is Mexico where elected representatives are paid a monthly wage of USD $6.773 – 52 times the minimum wage. Fourth is Brazil, paying its senators USD $5.961 a month – 34 times the minimum wage. Fifth in the rankings is Peru, paying its elected representatives USD $4.756 a month – 30 times the minimum wage.

During his presidential campaign, Rafael Correa, elected president of Ecuador, used a belt as a symbol of his campaign (a wordplay on his last name, which means belt). The belt was a symbol for the radical changes he would bring to the country including the "whipping of the old political guard". We suggest Rafael Correa sends his belt to all his fellow Latin American leaders, so they can bring an end to the unjustifiable high levels of compensation paid to elected representatives in the region.

Avian Flu: The Years Most Hyped Media Story

Avian Flu as this years "Most media hyped story that never was". This honour was contended by some major heavyweight stories, which while recieving extensive coverage translated into little more than higher viewership and readership figures for the worlds´ global media outlets. The runner up to this years "Most media hyped story that never was" is the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten.

Avian flu was dubbed the new "killer pandemic", raising fear among millions of people and prompting governments to take usual steps. While avian flu killed just over 150 people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization, the story recieved unprecendented media coveage. While the extensive media coverage lead to raising the potential risks of avian flue, it served to desensitized the general public to the Avian flu threat based on past warnings related to Mad Cow Disease, West Nile Virus, and more recently, SARS.

While increase media coverage should have lead to a greater understanding of avian flu, a poll conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) indicates this is not the case. The poll reveals over half of Americans report following the news media's coverage of avian flu closely (54%). Most Americans were aware that there had been cases of avian flu in humans in Asia (69%). Furthermore, most people were aware that there had not been cases in the United States. However, and concerningly, one in seven people believed that human cases had occurred in the United States (15%).

Nashi: Russian Youth Movement

Nashi (meaning "Our People") is a youth movement brought to life by Vladimir Putin's chief political strategist Vladislav Surkov. The stated mission of Nashi is to "train young Russians to form a new governing elite to establish a "revolution" in political thinking and style of government to enable Russia to overtake its international competitors."

Political youth movements such as Nashi are not new to Russia. What is outside is the norm is the rapid growth and state patronage given to Nashi. The rapid growth of Nashi (now the largest youth movement in Russia) fuelled by the unquestioned support it has received by the Putin administration is directly related to the influence of opposition youth movements outside the existing status quo. Nashi seems to be the antidote the Kremlin is prescribing to immunise against the possible spread of an Ukrainian orange style youth movement in Russia. Alternatively Nashi can be seen as an attempt to establish a strong national identity platform young people can identify with – in short nationalism. A more radical but possible view, shared by Dark Matter Politics, sees Nashi as an attempt to embeed the beliefs and influence of Putin into Russian society, once the Russian leader is no longer in power. We believe Nashi is not about Putin´s legacy, but about Putin´s continued power play after he leaves office.

The next presidential elections in Russia will be held on the second Sunday of March, 2008. Putin will not be able to run for a third term in office, unless the constituion is modified. Furthermore, Russia will have Duma elections on December 2, 2007. The 2007 election will be the first use of party-list proportional representation, while the previous elections half of the seats where filled using proportional representation.

The importance of youth movements in Russia has grown as the new multi-party political system attempts to gain a voice and the overall population ages. The oldest movement is the youth branch of Yabloko (Russia’s liberal left party). A noteworthy addition to the youth movement is DA! (the initials DA make the Russian word for yes), which declares its goal to be "building a civil society in Russia and resolving concrete problems: the elimination of censorship, police tyranny, ethnic intolerance, corruption in higher educational establishments and problems in the army." Of equal note is the Youth Left Front which is the resulted from the unification of various left-wing youth organisations including the Communist Youth League and the Red Youth Vanguard. It has to be pointed out these movements, including Nashi not only serve as political instruments but contribute to social causes aimed at improving infrastructure and livelihoods.

The emergence of Nashi has faint parallels to that of the German Youth Movement in Germany (Die deutsche Jugendbewegung) - also known as the Wandervogel. The Wandervogel started and re-estabalished itself as an educational-cultural renewal movement in 1896. Unfortunately, the movement was absobed by government influence during the second world war, giving rise to the Nazi Youth. The movement gained strength among the youth as it allowed the young to break free of the perceived injustice of the Treaty of Versailles and make Germany strong again. 

The question is not "if" Nashi the Russian youth movement will become radicalised into a political movement; the question is "when".

British Telecom Failures Unbundled

BT (British Telecom) has proved as incompetent as Tube Lines and Metronet, the companies responsible for maintaining and upgrading the London Underground Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly, Bakerloo, Circle and Victoria lines.

Not an easy feat, but BT’s failure to adequately open its network (unbundled its local loop) is a major blunder which BT should have predicted and planned – given the strong growth and demand for broadband services during the past 36 months.   

Back in November 1999, OFTEL (now known as OFCOM), the UK telecommunications regulator announced BT would have to unbundle its local loop, effectively allowing competitors to install their own lines in BT telephone exchanges.

The process by which operators install their lines in BT exchanges to provide telecoms services direct to end users is referred as local loop unbundling (LLU). Currently, BT offers two types of unbundling services - the bulk migration of fully unbundled (MPF) and shared access (SMPF) lines. Fully unbundled lines are where the LLU operator, for example Bulldog, takes full control of a phone line to a home or business providing both a broadband and phone service. Shared access is where the LLU operator provides the broadband connection, but the phone service remains hooked up to BT's network. In the case of both MPF and SMPF, the maximum amount BT is allowed to charge operators for migrating individual lines in bulk is £34.86 per line. In its "draft determination", OFCOM has ruled that the maximum charge BT should impose for the bulk migration of fully unbundled lines should be £29.06.

A BT spokeswoman was quoted admitting to BT’s inability to manage the demand for local loop unbundling “There is currently a demand to unbundle 20,000 lines a week and we simply do not have enough engineers to deal with this effectively. This has resulted in a growing volume of network faults.” BT’s excuse for the problem of unbundling was down to a “shortage of telecoms engineers”. The task of completing the local loop unbundling cannot be underestimated, however BT was given substantial allowances, including the creation of OpenReach. BT Open Reach is the division that runs the copper in the ground, giving equal access to LLU players and BT Wholesale. 

Regardless of the impact on BT’s competitors and other broadband providers, this delay in unbundling could cause a halt to the growth of broadband in the UK. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge BT Openworld (BT’s broadband service) is owned by the same group at BT Retail. This is surely a conflict of interest which could potentially lead to BT favouring its own services to the detriment of its rivals. Furthermore, given the demand for unbundling, the cost might rise. Sky's Easynet unit says it costs on average £40,000 ($74,600) to £50,000 ($93,252) per unbundled exchange.

Lastly, BT’s failure to provide adequate and timely resource to unbundling its network has lead to delays in the growth of services in Ireland. BT Ireland CEO Danny McLaughlin said that in April 2005 his company announced plans to invest over 100 million Euro in its network over a three-year period, but as yet had invested barely a tenth of that amount as a result of delays in unbundling the country’s phone networks.

European Union killed the video star!

In an age of YouTube and on-demand programming, how do you define and regulate broadcasted entertainment? How many people have heard of the "Television Without Frontiers" Directive (TVWF Directive)? Do you know the "Television Without Frontiers" Directive, the cornerstone of the European Union's audiovisual policy, might decide the future of interactive services in Europe?

The "Television Without Frontiers" Directive rests on two basic principles: the free movement of European television programmes within the internal market and the requirement that television channels, reserve over half their broadcasting time for European works. On 28 August 2006, the Culture Committee of the European Parliament debated the draft report on the modernised "Television without frontiers" (TVWF) Directive.

The "Television Without Frontiers" Directive (TVWF Directive) is currently being modernised to extend regulation to cover not just traditional scheduled broadcast services, but all audiovisual media services – usually referred as the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive. This new definition covers all services which have, as their principal purpose, the provision of moving images in order to entertain, inform or educate, where there some form of compensation is involved – advertising, sponsorship for example. The new definition of the "Television Without Frontiers" Directive (TVWF Directive) does not include private correspondence, but would include a huge number of services that are currently emerging or are yet to emerge – IPTV, mobile TV, through to video blogs and other user generated content.

The modernisation project is driven by the following changes in the audiovisual industry driven by the European Union:

The convergence of technologies and services: traditional (linear) TV, Internet TV, TV on mobile phones and other mobile devices, etc.;

Expansion of fixed broadband, digital TV and 3G networks;

Increase in per-per-view;

Innovations in non-linear service delivery such as video on demand (VOD);

Peer-to-peer exchanges of audiovisual content;

Interwoven linear and non-linear services;

Changing viewer habits: more and more people want the audiovisual content following their time schedule and not the other way around;

New advertising methods, such as search-related ads on the internet or SMS ads on mobile phones.

The exact scope of the legislation the European Commission is proposing is unclear, however opposition is mounting. Shaun Woodward MP, Minister for Creative Industries and Tourism for the UK government summarises his concerns; "We have serious concerns over the inclusion of non-linear services [such as video-on-demand] in the Directive. This is neither desirable nor practical, as there is nothing to stop companies relocating outside the EU to bypass regulations. Companies may relocate, taking jobs and services elsewhere, while the content is still consumed here." Furthermore OFCOM has published a study conducted by RAND Europe on the implications of the new regulations on video and streaming content online.

The threat is that the revised "Television Without Frontiers" Directive legislation will create legal uncertainty because it directly overlaps with other legislation (currently in place within each member state) and is to vague to establish clear direction. Furthermore, self-regulation schemes should be encouraged instead of more regulation related to the broadcasting and advertising scope of new interactive services. Currently there is no industry standard for advertising on emerging platforms such as video content and video on demand – will the new legislation establish limits before the market can determine the best balance between user experience and monetary contribution?

It is a matter of Dark Matter Politics when regulation ordained by the European Union preludes the opportunity for the market, through testing and self regulation, to determine the best way of managing new emerging technologies. Furthermore, the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive may not only stifle the growth of interactive content in Europe but take precedence over the choices and legislations of each member state.

North Korea Nuclear Tests

What to do in response to North Korea’s underground nuclear testing, taking in consideration the role of China, Japan and the United States?

Economic sanctions imposed on North Korea, while demonstrating a unified condemnation, address only the economic end of the regimes relationship with its people and the rest of the world. As seen in the case of Cuba and Venezuela (previously documented in Dark Matter Politics) sanctions become an effective political tool governments can utilise to galvanise and polarise popular opinion within their countries. Furthermore, the current US administration "axis of evil" policy, - which effectively destroyed 50 years of détente -, further inflames the propaganda and aggresive posture of governments such as North Korea.

Interestingly enough, China one of the most influential regional players, is particularly resistant to economic sanctions against North Korea because it believes these could push North Korea's population over the edge, resulting in a flood of refugees into China's neighbouring Liaoning and Jilin provinces and spurring domestic instability. Any further action, other than a strong statement of disapproval from China is unlikely. The reality is that China views North Korea as an important buffer against U.S. forces in South Korea and a friend deserving of some loyalty. Furthermore, reports indicate China supplies 70% of North Korea fuel and 40% of North Korea food supply.

The other key player in this equation is Japan. The nuclear test conducted by North Korea coincided with a visit by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to South Korea’s capital Seoul. Although it is unlikely the North Korean nuclear test will trigger an immediate arms race; Shinzo Abe Japan’s Prime Minister has hinted an end to Japan’s long enduring pacifist constitution. Shinzo Abe, Japan’s youngest premier (only 52 years old) and first born after World War II will take Japan into a more robust military and assertive foreign policy. Furthermore, among Abe’s new inner circle are Foreign Minister Taro Aso, known for his hard line stance toward China. If Japan sought a nuclear deterrent, it could develop it internally – after all, Japan is third, after the United States and France, in nuclear power output, and its 43 tons in plutonium stockpiles are among the largest in the world.

As for the United States, the nuclear testing undertaken by North Korea provides extra fuel to the current administrations’ "axis of evil" rhetoric. As for the US media, we can now expect nothing more than an assault in our senses and establishing a "state of fear". Reports of the mighty North Korean army (4th largest military in the world) will be paraded in front of our TV screens, the same way the media hyped the military capabilities of the Iraq. Without a doubt this incident will be used by the Republican party to establish of "state of fear" before the upcoming November 7th election in the House of Representatives. Currently, the House is currently composed of 230 Republicans, 201 Democrats and 1 Independent.

More concerningly and a reflection of the current US foreign policy, although North Korea is using its nuclear capabilities as a deterrent force, it has been demanding a non-aggression treaty and diplomatic relations with Washington.

Deliver knowledge to the North Korean people and they will make the choice regarding how their government should act. Do not deliver the North Korean people hunger and deprivation in the form of economic and aid sanctions. As for the North Korean government, engage in meaningful politics and diplomacy (as opposed to a pointless war of words with Pyongyang) leveraging the influence of China, the EU and Japan.

korea, north korea japan prime minister economic sanctions Pyongyang axis of evil korean army plutonium stockpiles Shinzo Abe Liaoning propaganda

Hezbollah and Israel

In 2000 Hezbollah captured three Israeli soldiers. The soldiers died during the operation, but four years later, Hezbollah was able to exchange their bodies for 430 Palestinians and Lebanese held in Israeli jails.

Six years later, Hezbollah sees itself engaged in a regional conflict with Israel following the adjunction of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on the 12^th of July 2006. This time around Israel’s aims are no longer limited to recovering the soldiers, safeguarding it citizens but a realignment of the politics in the Middle East.

The reality is that the 12^th of July incursion by Hezbollah has provided Israel and the United States with the perfect excuse to use its military might to realign the political spectrum in the Middle East. Furthermore, the media seems more than willing to play along. The reality is that this conflict is not limited to a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel; it is a conflict between the Lebanese people and Israeli people. By focusing its military actions and political rhetoric on Hezbollah, Israel and the United States have succeeded at incorporating this latest conflict to the “one size fit all” approach to the war on terror ideology. If anything has been learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that the war against terrorism cannot be won by separating the people from radical groups and entities such as Hezbollah. War is no longer purely waged on the battlefield but on the airwaves, blogwaves and ultimately the hearts and minds of people – and groups such as Hezbollah know this better than Israel and the United States. This raises the issue of Palestine.

Hezbollah’s 12^th of July incursion was nothing more than a dramatic gesture of solidarity with the Palestinians. So while the Palestine position is supported by Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, the United States bears significant responsibility for the support of Israel.

Israel receives USD $2.6 billion in foreign military financing from America every year. Three quarters of that “international aid” has to be spent on products sold by US companies. America’s military aid accounts for 20% of Israel’s military budget. Since 2001 the Israel Armed Forces have been allocated USD $10.5 billion in military aid from the US government, but have only received USD $6.3 billion in arms. The remaining amount will be delivered to Israel in the next few years, although their attack on Lebanon will surely expedite the process. Without a doubt this level of military infrastructure limits the need, willigness or desire of the United States or Israel to take the dipolmatic route as opposed to the military option. On the other hand you have Hezbollah which is also happy to continue using the military option.

Sadly hard liners on both ends of the conflict, driven by common factors, refuse to end military aggression.

The Google Economy: Access Determines Value

The Google Economy. The term identifies the concept that the value of a resource can be determined by the way that resource is linked to other resources (its accesability and relationship to other resoruces). Google and the Internet have identified the role of citation as a means of defining value – effectively lowering the barriers to entry for the publication and distribution of information. What Google did was establish a methodology for establishing value from those resoruces to other resources.

However the Google economy, as with market economies, is subject to uncertainties, fluctuation, and occasional manipulation. Furthermore, as with market economies, is there a true open access to valuable information on Google? The reality is that the value of information under the Google Economy is not determined by its style or trustworthiness but by how accesible it is – and like it or not Google contols accessability. Lets keep in mind Google makes a duplicate copy of the entire content of each Web page it crawls for indexing and then keeps the copy it created, and subsequently controls, within its own storage facilities.

Below is a chart lists (based on week ending May 13, 2006) the top twenty Google domains as their overall share in the marketplace. Google is usually referred as a "category killer" – it is the consumer which will have the last say on the future of the Google Economy.

 

Google                                     79.98%

Google Image Search             9.54%

Google Mail                             5.51%

Google News                          1.49%

Google Maps                           0.82%

Froogle                                    0.46%

Google Video Search              0.45%

Google Groups                        0.43%

Google Scholar                       0.27%

Google Book Search               0.25%

Google Earth                           0.22%

Google Desktop Search         0.18%

Google Directory                     0.10%

Google Answers                     0.09%

Google AdWords                    0.07%

Google Local                           0.05%

Google Finance                       0.03%

Google Calendar                     0.01%

Google Talk                             0.01%

Google Labs                            0.01%

Email Tax Coming to Your Inbox?

The European Parliament's Committee on Budgets lead by Alain Lamassoure has floated the idea of levying a tax of 1.5 cent on every sms text, and tax of 0.00001 cent on every email. Lamassoure is quotes as saying "This is peanuts, but given the billions of transactions every day, this could still raise an immense income."

The European Union's budget is currently funded through a combination of duties, VAT and contribution by member states. The European Union currently works on the basis of a seven-year budget, with new funding proposals expected by 2008/2009. Calls for a byte tax is not new. The first major proposal for taxing electronic information was by Arthur Cordell in a 1994 Club of Rome report.

Proponents of the btye tax argue that such a tax will offset the erosion of traditional revenue collection as we all go online or that it is a new, low-impact tax that can be used for international development. Oponents of the byte tax argue the btye tax it would discourage electronic transmission of information; being counterproductive in that it burdens e-commerce and its productivity.

Since its inception, the internet has been at the centre of a taxation debate. The 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act (formerly known as S.442)
was signed into law on October 21, 1998 by President Bill Clinton to bar state and local governments from taxing Internet access service and imposing discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. Another debate currently taking place in the legislative halls of Washington is the issue of Net Neutrality.   

Every form of taxation should be required to demonstrate substantial improvement in the communal welfare of citizens. If considered a "pay-to-send message" tax or "byte tax" should at least guarantee reduction of spam and security for the average consumer. While not widely used this solution already exists - as a voluntary cost as opposed to a mandatory tax- in the form of private services such Goodmail Systems that serve as a certification and validation for email senders.

Taxation of email to grow the coffers of governmental organisations is ill advised and will have minimal impact on consumers welfare when compared with much more pro-active environmental or green taxes.

Agricultural Subsidies: A Lesson to be Learned from China?

It is estimated a staggering $350 to $380 billion is currently allocated every year on agricultural subsidies around the world.

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture was the first time developed and developing nations addressed the issue of agricultural subsidies. The removal of agricultural subsidies depends largely in the involvement and steps taken by OECD countries (as the 23 members represent 50% of global trade and 60% of the world economy). The Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was originally signed by twenty countries in 1960 – a further ten countries have become members.

A recent report by OECD member countries indicates 30% of farmers receipts come from a combination of government interventions in markets and budgetary payments. On the other hand, China (not a OECD member country) provides its farmers with around 8 % subsidy, a far lower proportion than in most OECD countries. This is significant considering the importance of agriculture to the Chinese economy; accounting for almost 15% of GDP and providing more than 40% of all jobs. The graph below issued by the OECD provides an overview of the Average Bound MFN Tariffs by select countries on select goods.   

After entering the World Trade Organization in 2001, China began exploring ways to directly subsidize farmers, who were believed to be vulnerable to foreign competition (Liu, Ouyang, and Zhang). Furthermore, as part of its entry to the World Trade Organisation in 2001, China it agreed to cap its support for its farmers at 8.5% of production.

Without a doubt, OECD member countries including the United States, Canada and France (which is the largest recipient -22% in 2004 - of the controversial part of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy which began operating in 1962) could learn something from China in respects to agricultural subsidies.

agriculture china agricultural subsidies subsidies Trade Common Agricultural Policy Agricultural Policy The Uruguay Round Agreement

Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush: Text and Analysis

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad letter to George W. Bush is not only a new chapter in the on-going crisis, but a landmark event - the first direct communication from an Iranian leader to an American president since 1979. A copy of the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad letter to George W. Bush has been posted by lemonde.fr

In his letter to President George W. Bush, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only outlines a list of grievances with the United States but reveals key contradictions of the United States foreign policy. Some of more interesting and controversial observations contained in the letter are outlined below, followed by a Dark Matter Politics analysis.

"The contradiction of holding Christian beliefs but acting against those beliefs by commanding the death of thousands of individuals and the destruction of communities’ resources including electricity and water. How can those strong values be reconciled with the actions taken?"

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fails to concede most religions co-exist in a constant flux and state of contradiction including the Jewish and Muslim religions. Although this contradiction is more acute within pockets of extremism, all individuals will adapt and interpret their religious beliefs to justify their actions – especially politicians. George W. Bush is not alone on this one but his moral ground is shaking more and more every day.

"The justification for invading Iraq was not to topple Saddam Hussein, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Instead of the troops returning with weapons of mass destruction, they have returned with thousands of individuals currently being held in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement resonates loudly with a large portion of the international community. No weapons of mass destruction where found or will be found. The Bush and Blair administration in a superb but failed public relations drive, have tried to convince the world that the invasion of Iraq can be justified by the fact it is has given the Iraqi people a chance for democracy in their country. Democracy has never been one the United States best exports (or Iran’s imports) – the approach taken repeatedly fails to recognise democracy has to provide freedom of experience as opposed to being indoctrinated and dictated.

"The cost of establishing the State of Israel and the enduring struggle of the Palestinian people which has not rightly been recognised by the United States."

A brief review of contemporary history in the Middle East indicates the seeds for the struggle where planted by the European colonial powers. However, it is evident the United States support for Israel was driven by the politics of the Cold War. Describing the new US strategy in the Middle East, James Feron wrote in the New York Times (11 June, 1966), that the: "United States has come to the conclusion that it must rely on a local power - the deterrent of a friendly power -- as a first line to stave off America's direct involvement. Israel feels she fits this definition."

Following the start of hostilities between the newly established Israeli state and Arab countries including Egypt, the United States and the Soviet Union sponsored talks in Geneva. These talks quickly collapsed, leading to Henry Kissinger’s famous "shuttle diplomacy" (organizing separate agreements between Israel and each Arab government). From the start, Kissinger’s negotiations ignored the Palestinians. As international support for and recognition of the PLO grew, (culminating in Yasir Arafat's appearance in November 1974 at the UN General Assembly) the case was brought to the United Nations. The United Nations voted 105 to 4 to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self- determination, and to grant the PLO observer status within the United Nations itself. Only Israel and the US, along with US-dependent Bolivia and the Dominican Republic, voted against the resolution. It was a start of a very difficult relationship between Israel, the United States and the Arab nations – which is complicated by the presence extremist organisations on both ends, enduring the use of violence as opposed to diplomacy.

The acceptance 9/11 was a horrendous incident and the killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Furthermore, an acceptance all governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. "However, why haven’t those who botched their responsibilities identified? And, why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity to the American people?"

Only recently have the events of 9/11 been able to be analysed without compromising the rightful sensitivities of an entire nation. The findings of the 9/11 Commission place the blame on the intelligence services, mainly the CIA for not being alert to such a treat. Many theories are arising about the events that lead to the terrible events of 9/11 and the potential withholding of information by certain elements of the US government. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provides an interesting observation of the "culture of fear" which surrounded the United States and the United Kingdom. In all respects the mainstream media in countries like the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Italy have been responsible for enduring a sense of fear among citizens. On the other hand, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fails to mention his administration also leverages the influence of the media to push its domestic and international agenda. Domestically, television and radio is controlled by The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting; limiting the access to other media sources. Abroad Iran launched Al Alam - The World - a 24-hour news channel in Arabic, which was launched just when the Saddam Hussein's regime was ousted in Iraq.

The letter is more than anything a unique insight into the thinking and beliefs of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – a manifesto of heart felt rhetoric but calculated wording. The letter touches on many of the contradictions that have plagued the United States’ foreign policy and been responsible for annihilating so many people who used to hold the United States in admiration and respect. The letter does not address or provide further insight into Iran’s nuclear enrichment program – a missed opportunity and grave error by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

All this leads us to believe the Bush administration has probably commissioned a group of psychologists to analyse the letter, as opposed to political analysts. Will the letter help defuse some of the tension? Not all. The letter fails to address the rationale behind his policy of nuclear development and making relevant arguments relative to the current situation. The letter will be labelled as propaganda by those seeking a more aggressive and direct stance against Iran. The situation on Iran is increasingly becoming a battle of perception, in which propaganda and counter-propaganda will be used by both parties to further their positions.

iran iran letter Politics United Nations fear Religion Middle East

Brazil and Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

This past Saturday 6th of May, Brazil announced to the world media their uranium enrichment program had been launched. On the same day Iran announced it would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if the current controversy over its uranium enrichment program was not solved peacefully. Two nations developing nuclear enrichment programs for the purpose of energy supply; two complete reactions from the world community and the media. Why?

The reason depends on who you ask. On one end you have those in the media and government that argue Iran, unlike Brazil is an inminent threat to the interests of world peace and cannot be given the opportunity to develop a nuclear weapons program. On the other side of the argument are those who would argue Brazil is not of key strategic interest and given the low approval ratings for the Bush administration (39% approval based on the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll) Iran would be way of shitfing public perception. Sitting in between both sides, you have those who argue Brazil conformed to international law by following the strict requirements of the IAEA, while Iran refuses to do so.

The reality is that Iran is not guilty of perusing a nuclear enrichment program, but guilty of rhetoric. Populist statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have not eased the concerns of the international community and given the hard-liners in Washington the perfect ammunition to seek military action. On the other hand, the United States and the European Union are also guilty of rhetoric – by posturing Iran’s uranium enrichment as a nuclear weapons program (very similar to the argument used against Iraq over their weapons of mass destruction). Furthermore, the nuclear issue was a major consideration in Ahmadinejad's election last year. At the time of the election, confronting the West over their nuclear programme had gradually become a matter of national pride. The rhetoric does not only have populist political roots, but cultural roots. The large majority of Iranians are Shias; this is a sect of Islam based on the principle of martyrdom and sacrifice for one's beliefs. Iranians always support the underdog and adore those who are oppressed and have been wronged by powerful individuals or governments.

Iran has also been guilty of non working closer with the IAEA as Brazil did.  Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which Iran is part of, “a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection”. Iran’s possible retraction from the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be a clear example of the mentioned rhetoric and lack of cooperation – however Iran would not be the only country of “strategic importance” to the world to do so. Israel is not a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (although it has announced it had acquired nuclear weapon capacity). Another example of how the rules of engagement dictated by the United States, the European Union and the media are not consistent. Furthermore, Iran's nuclear program like Brazil's goes back as far as the 1950's and was supported by the United States. The Nuclear Threat Initiative site features an very well documented time plan of Iran's nuclear program including the agreement between the Carter and the Shah of Iran administration in 1978 to purchase a series of light water nuclear reactors.

As reported by Haaretz.com an Israeli new site, Iran's deputy nuclear chief said Tehran would agree to United Nations supervision of its uranium enrichment process and intrusive inspections of its atomic facilities if its case was referred back to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The offer came a day after the U.S. called a summit of foreign ministers from Germany and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in New York on May 9 to discuss a united response to Iran's nuclear program. The draft response which was introduced by Britain and France - has been criticised by Russia and China, who oppose the fact the resolution is to be legally binding and could lead to sanctions or even military action if Iran does not comply.

On the other hand Brazil, by cooperating with the IAEA and limiting its rhetoric on nuclear power to the South American region, has been able to establish the same program with no intervention from the United States. After all, Brazil, together with Colombia is the most important partner for the United States in South America. The regions radical shift to the left and the potential alliance of Evo in Bolivia, Chavez in Venezuela and  Humala in Peru (leading candidate in the upcoming Peruvian election); is a nightmare scenario for the United States. Providing Brazil leeway in the development of their nuclear program would not only strengthen Brazil’s energy position in the region, but establish goodwill to approve a the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

It is a subject of Dark Matter Politics when populist political rhethoric - in English and Persian - fuels the fires of international confrontation.

iran nuclear Energy rhetoric brazil Shias Mahmoud Ahmadinejad screwed globally Bomb Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty United Nations UN Security Council Britain

Military Expenditure in Chile

In response to feedback from our article Evo Morales "Gas War" in Bolivia: Implications for South America we have taken a closer look at the "military and nuclear card" in South America and its role once the "age of cheap energy" is over.

Based on figures from the CEPAL and the IMF military expenditure per capita in South America (Brazil, Argentina, Chile,  Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela and Colombia) is an average of USD $77. This compares to a per capita military expenditure of $1,884 by the United States. Chile leads the  per capita defence expenditures in all of Latin America, at USD $214 per  inhabitant.

Country	Military Expenditure	Total Inhabitants	Military Expenditure   per Capita	GBP per Capita
United States	$518,100,000,000	275,000,000	$1,884	$39,496
Chile	$3,420,000,000	15,980,912	$214	$10,904
Argentina	$4,300,000,000	39,537,943	$109	$12,794
Colombia	$3,300,000,000	42,954,279	$77	$6,962
Venezuela	$1,687,000,000	25,375,281	$66	$5,571
Brazil	$11,000,000,000	186,112,794	$59	$8,029
Ecuador	$655,000,000	13,363,593	$49	$4,083
Peru	$829,300,000	27,925,628	$30	$5,556
Bolivia	$132,000,000	8,857,870	$15	$2,710

Part of the reason why the Chilean military receives extensive funding is because it has a large budget, which it obtains partly because of Chile’s copper exports (the armed forces are mandated to receive 10% of the total of all copper exports, a provision in effect since the late 1950's and which remained so during the Eduardo Frei and Salvador Allende administrations until the present time). While Chile leads the region in military expenditure Brazil holds the nuclear card. 

For decades Brazil has been developing what is now a $1 billion nuclear energy industry - driven by its extensive energy requirements and uranium reserves (Brazil has the world's sixth-largest uranium reserves). Already Latin America's biggest nuclear power provider, Brazil plans up to seven new atomic plants to reduce its dependence on oil and hydroelectric power and plans to export enriched uranium to provide energy for other countries. This extensive nuclear program complements Brazil's successful fuel alcohol technology. Brazil's nuclear energy program will be accelerated given the countries fragile relationship with 
Bolivia and their decision to nationalise their gas industry. It seems the future question is undoubtatly about what will happen once the "age of cheap energy" is over. More concerning is the challenge we are facing today - the "age of access to cheap energy".

Brazil's evolution from a nuclear energy producer to a nuclear weapon country  cannot be discounted. However it is very far from being a reality. Brazil's new nuclear plant will be capable of enriching natural uranium to less than 5% uranium-235, an isotope needed to fuel its two reactors. Warheads need more that has been enriched to 95 percent uranium-235, a material Brazil claims "it can't and won't produce".

However Brazil is and will become a key provider of nuclear raw materials - given  their extensive uranium reserves. Its biggest customers will be China, Pakistan and India. Although China recently signed an agreement with Australia to buy 20,000 metric tons of uranium to China each year beginning in 2010, Brazil will become a key exporter of uranium to China. 

It is interesting Iran and Brazil have both recently announced they have enriched uranium for the purpose of energy generation. Far more interesting is the lack of attention Brazil's enrichment program has received from the media, the European Union and the United States. Is there a double standard and should different rules apply? Without a doubt the international community believes so. In an interview 
with the International Herald Tribune, James Goodby, a former arms control negotiator in the Clinton administration stated: "Similar programs in Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have rightly been seen as either direct or indirect threats to international peace and security. Unlike Brazil, they harbour hostile intent toward the United States." This double standard can also be explained by the fact the United States is trying to generate support for their Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) among key South American nations including Brazil.

So would Chile and Brazil use their respective military and nuclear capabilities to advance their national interests within South America (the same way Bolivia is using gas and Venezuela oil)? Unlikely under the current administrations of Lula and Bachellete. However, nobody can predict the outcome beyond the present administrations. 

The only way military and nuclear proliferation programs will not become an issue in South America is if the region develops close internal economic and political ties. It would be a Matter of Dark Politics if South American countries weighted gas, military capabilities and nuclear programs against each other to advance their national interests.

nuclear Energy military brazil Americas Bolivia evo morales EVO chile uranium nuclear energy electricity

Evo Morales Gas War in Bolivia: Implications for South America

The 18th of December, 2005  Evo Morales became Bolivia's president. Since his appointment Evo Morales  has taken some unpresedented decisions, defining the scope of his presidency. In an interview with The Fourth International Evo Morales outlined the aims of his administration quite clearly.

"We are staking our future on communitarian socialism, organised around the activity of peasant communities. Where does communism come from? Well, from communities! Where I lived there was no private property, it was an agricultural zone which belonged to the whole of the community. So we have to take over and strengthen these forms of organization, which are collective and based on solidarity, so as to better share out our riches, our wealth, in the whole of Bolivia."

Evo Morales has already taken steps to define his presidency and approach to governing Bolivia. The most significant decisions include cutting his salary by more than a half to a little over USD $1,800 (GBP £1,012) per month (followed by an annoucement his first cabinet would cut their salaries by 57%). Furthermore, Evo Morales has enacted a law calling for a referendum on greater regional autonomy, which will be held on 2nd July, 2006. The referendum is seen as a first move at drafting and enacting a new consititution for the country.

However the most significant decision of Evo Morales administration is related to the management of Bolivia's gas reserves. Bolivia's gas reserves of 48.7 trillion square feet (4.5 trillion sq metres) are second in the continent to Venezuela's 151 trillion square feet (14 trillion sq metres). Evo Morales position on the subject is clear stated "the free-market model does not work in Bolivia, and the partial privatisation of basic services and natural resources should be reversed".

During the past decade Bolivia has been involved in a “gas war”, which has been driven by a fightback against the exclusion of the majority of Bolivians from the country’s wealth generated from gas. Bolivia is the poorest country in Latin America, with two-thirds of its population living below the poverty line. The seeds of the "gas war" conflict were planted in 1990 when the International Monetary Fund and donor governments persuaded the Bolivian government to privatise its gas and oil sector and lower taxes, promising increased income as a result of additional foreign investment. In fact, government revenue fell – but the multinational energy firms raked in unprecedented profits, taking 58% of all the income from gas and oil in straight profits, making Bolivia one of the most lucrative operating countries in the world.

The Bolivian "gas war" caused the downfall of President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada. Lozada resigned in October 18th 2003 due to strikes and road blocks  over the on-going privatization of gas resoruces. Lozada was forced to resign following the violent suppression by the Bolivian armed forces which left some 70 people dead. The protests where orginally sparked by plans to export gas to the US and Mexico, shipping the gas via a Chilean port - an outlet that used to be part of Bolivian territory until Chile seized Bolivia's coastline in their 1879-1883 war.

Evo Morales has added a new chapter to the Bolivian "gas war" by annoucing the official nationalisation of all gas fields in Bolivia. All forgein companies currently involved in the Bolivian gas industry are required to agree new contracts with the state-run firm, Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos (YPFB), within 180 days. As part of the nationalisation program, Bolivia will keep up to 82% of their revenues, allowing them just the remaining 18%.

Evo Morales decision to nationalise the Bolivian gas industry was expected. However it is concerning Evo Morales decision will not only impact the United States and Europe but the countries part of the "South American nation" Evo Morales pledged to support as part of his signing of the The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. Read more about "The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas" at Dark Matter Politics.

Petrobras, Brazil's leading oil company has invested more than $1bn in Bolivia and controls 45% of its gas production. This decision will mark a clear break between Mr Morales and Lula - jeopardizing the relationship between Bolivia and Brazil. This is a massive blow to Brazil's president who is facing re-election the 1st of October, 2006. 

Now that Evo Morales  has control over the gas fields he will require control over the distribution of these resources. This will lead to increased pressure by his administration on the Chilean government and international community (mainly the Organization of American States) to review Bolivia's access to the sea.  Bolivia and Chile broke off full diplomatic ties in 1978 over the outcome of a land and sea war at the end of 1879, when Chile won mineral-rich coastal territory from Bolivia. Bolivia wants to negotiate sea access through northern Chile so that its natural resources and agricultural products can be sold to the booming markets of the Asia-Pacific region. But Chile has opposed ceding territory to Bolivia.

The political and economic animosity of Bolivians toward Chile should not be underestimated - it will impact any negotiations between both nations. Bolivia's only other alternative is to build a pipeline through Peru, however a basic knowledge of the regions geography indicates this would be an expensive undertaking. It is unlikely Chile will comprise its sovereignty over a "Sea for Gas" agreement proposed by many Bolivians (69% of Chilean respondents believe a solution should be taken without ceding territory). Furthermore, it is unlikely Evo Morales will cease in his pledge to return the sea to his Bolivian citizens.   

Without a doubt Bolivia's "gas war" has now become a regional issue which could destabilise the political foundations of the South American region. The benefits of this much needed re-distribution of wealth within Bolivia will have to be judged not by economist or Evo Morales himself, but by the people of Bolivia. On the other hand, Evo Morales approach towards his regional counterparts including Brazil and Chile will determine the true extent of his ideals and drive for South American integration.

bolivia evo morales chile mar gas gas war brazil brasil Lozada latin america oil multinational free market Capitalism referendum

The Dream of South American Integration

In August 6, 1825 Simon Bolivar, credited for leading the fight for independence of several South America countries including Venezuela and Bolivia, founded the Republic of Bolivia. 179 years later The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas was brought to life by the presidents of Cuba and Venezuela. This past week, Bolivia became the third member of The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas; an ambitious alliance aimed as an alternative to the US sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

The Bolivarian Alternative calls for the eradication of illiteracy and the expansion of employment in each of the member countries and well as close economic and resource partnership among member nations. For example, under the agreement, Venezuela will provide preferential rates on all the subsidised oil Bolivia requires for its domestic consumption

As with Bolivar, the founding members of The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas seek the integration of South America. Bolivar’s dream of an integrated South America lasted for little over a decade with the creation of the Greater Colombia, consisting of present-day Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama. Bolivar’s dream of an integrated South America under a federalist system was tainted by internal division and strife; leading Bolivar to proclaim himself dictator on August 27, 1828. This decision, aimed at saving the newly established republic, is the first instance and source of the “caudillo mentality” in South America. Dark Matter Politics published an article on the impact of the “caudillo mentality” we recommend you take a look at.

The ideals behind the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, like Bolivar’s dream of a unified South America are commendable and to be encouraged. However, what will the role of this agreement in light of The Andean Community and Mercosur, two very successful economic and political regional agreements already in place? In fact these two trading blocs have tentatively been merged to create the South American Community of Nations, a continent-wide free trade zone eliminating tariffs for non-sensitive products by 2014. However, as Bolivar experienced 170 years before the agreement might not come to life.

The first issue might be Chile, which having 70% of its GDP attributed to foreign trade, it has traditionally favoured relations with the United States and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum over South American agreements. Furthermore, the relationship between Chile, Peru and Bolivia is tense due to the century old disputes over land as well as the increased expansion of Chilean companies in both countries.

The second issue might be Venezuela, which quit the Community of Andean Nations (CAN). President Chavez argued that as Colombia and Peru have signed free trade agreements (FTAs) with the United States, the Andean Community is "dead". Chávez's decision to withdraw from the CAN fell like a cold shower on Colombia, which exports $2.1 billion a year to Venezuela under the CAN trade agreement. Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe called on Venezuela ''not to get stuck in ideological debates over [political] models.'' He noted that Chávez sells 1.5 million barrels of oil a day to the United States, adding that Venezuela ``should allow other brotherly countries to enter the U.S. market, just like they do with their oil.''. It is evident Chavez decision to depart CAN, while driven by strong ideological beliefs, was fuelled by the creation of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas.

The third issue that will determine the longevity and expansion of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas is the upcoming elections in the region.

Country	Date of Election
Colombia	28th of May, 2006
Peru	28th of May, 2006
México	2nd of July, 2006
Brazil	1st of October, 2006
Nicaragua	7th of November, 2006
Ecuador	15th of October, 2006
Venezuela	November, 2006

The elections in Mexico and Colombia might accelerate or stop the future growth of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. In Mexico, it is unlikely the government of Fox will be re-elected (due to the poor economic performance of the country) with opposition candidate Mexico City Mayor, Andres Manuel López Obrador winning the election. Obrador without a doubt will align himself with Chavez, confirming the massive move of the region towards the left - providing some kind of support to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. A close working relationship between Obrador and Chavez certainly conjures nightmare for Washington and the Bush administration. Mexico and Colombia, which  contribute a quarter of all oil to the United States, could establish a “South American OPEC” by bringing Mexico's state owned oil company, Pemex, into a cooperative arrangement with the Venezuelan leader's oil trading bloc "Petrosur. In Colombia, Álvaro Uribe, the United States’ closest ally in Latin America will be re-elected - maintaining the status quo in the country towards The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. Peru will next to join the agreement, based on the expect win of Ollanta Humala.

The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas provide a strong and commendable ideological platform for the region – economic, ideological and political independence. Most significant is a proposal for the set-up of  a “Compensatory Fund for Structural Convergence,” which would manage and distribute financial aid to the most economically vulnerable countries within the region. Furthermore, it recognises the importance of combining the state and free markets to manage the agricultural sector; as the sector cannot be deliberately subjected to market liberalisation, while developed countries maintain policies based on multi-million dollar subsidies and high import tariffs (to protect their own internal production).

However The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas will only succeed if it can unite other countries within the region, working not only as an agent of economic and social development, but of understanding. Further integration in South America will not occur unless conflicts between its nations are resolved. This call for increased  understanding among South American governments will require a re conciliatory approach – a quality which Venezuelan president Chavez has yet to demonstrate. 

To be successful, The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas should not be lead by “caudillos” but by pragmatic individuals who have lived and understand the needs of their people .To really benefit the people of South America, The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas should be closer to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal than Castro's Socialist revolution.

Islam and the West

Iran is a country with great economic potential. Iran has a large and young population – 60% of its 65 million inhabitants are aged 15 to 53 years old – providing a huge commercial potential for consumer goods. Iran holds 9% of the world’s proven oil reserves and 15% of the world’s proven gas reserves. Iran will not only be the centre of international diplomacy and posturing for years to come, but a main protagonist in the new struggle between East (Russia and China) and West (the European Union and the United States).

History and politics favour the East to win in Iran; although a handful of European and American companies have been operating for years in Iran, despite pressure from U.S policy makers. The United States and Europe have faced restricted access to Iran since the late 70’s. These restrictions where formalised in 1996 with the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). ILSA provided for the imposition of sanctions on companies, irrespective of their corporate "nationality," that invest more than USD $20 million annually in the Iranian oil and gas sectors."

The most controversial element of the ILSA legislation is that the United States could seek to penalize foreign companies for investing in Iran. To date, Iran has attracted an estimated $30 billion in foreign investment in its petroleum sector since ILSA was enacted. The European Union (EU) opposes the application of ILSA sanctions to companies in member countries, and on November 22, 1996 passed Resolution 2271 directing EU companies not to comply with ILSA.

An American company that has taken the advice of the European Union is Halliburton (which had Dick Cheney as CEO). Last year Halliburton’s CEO (and Dick Cheney’s successor) David Lesar announced, after much pressure, the firm had plans to cease doing business in Iran. However Lesar did fail to mention the company continued doing business in Iran by skirting U.S. laws. Halliburton’s Tehran office was set-up through its subsidiary Halliburton Products and Services which is registered through a Cayman Island subsidiary.

Furthermore, Halliburton will participate in a USD $308 million project to develop Iran’s huge South Pars natural gas fields. South Pars covers an area of 3,700 square km and contains a reservoir of 437 trillion cubic feet of gas which is about 8% of the world's natural gas reserves. Reports released by Newsweek show that Halliburton’s revenue from Iran - principally through the Dubai-based Halliburton Products and Services, but also including five other foreign subsidiaries - grew from USD $31 million a year in 2001 (when Bush first called Iran an "axis of evil" nation for its support of terrorism) to USD $42.5 million in 2003.

What other foreign companies are heavily involved in Iran? As part of the South Pars project the following companies have secured profitable contracts; French company TotalFinaElf, Russian firm Gazprom, Brazilian company Petronas, Norwegian company Statoil and South Korean Lucky Goldstar (LG). Without a doubt the involvement (or lack of involvement) of these companies in Iran, greatly influences the stance of their national government on Iran. Does the involvement of Russian oil firm Gazprom explain the ambivalent stance of the Russian government towards to the Iranian nuclear controversy? On the other hand does the involvement of Halliburton and other US companies influence the administrations stance towards Iran?

The latest entrant to this select group of foreign corporations in Iran, is China’s Sinopec. Sinopec recently signed a the two-part deal with the Iranian government, giving Sinopec a half-share in one of Iran's most important new discoveries, the Yadavaran field, an energy-rich area in southwest Iran, allowing the company to explore for oil over the next few decades. With the field's oil reserves estimated at about 17 billion barrels, China's operations could be worth another USD $100 billion.

Iran provides an insight into China’s growing and influencial foreign policy. China’s policy, based on the ideals of unity and power, suprisingly lacks any hegemonic ambitions. In fact, China’s foreign policy, unlike the United States is not devoted to advancing any higher international ideological interests such as spreading freedom and democracy. At the heart of China’s approach is the belief ideology is secondary to advancing national interests. However, it is unlikely China’s approach will remain unchanged. Its political pragmatism to international relations will quickly evolve once it begins adopting populaist domestic policies, which will require increased posturing internationaly. The most significant issue to alter China’s current forgein policy will be Taiwan.

Deportation Island: New Reality TV

Prime Minister Tony Blair announced today his cabinet would be launching a new reality television show. The reality TV show entitled “Deportation Island” will mark the Prime Minister’s directorial debut and represents a direct public relations offensive to combat sliding approval ratings. A poll conducted by The Telegraph places the Prime Minister’s personal approval rating at just 36%.

Executive producers of  “Deportation Island” include Home Secretary Charles Clarke and Lord Levy. Clarke was asked to become executive director following his extensive experience handling deportation issues. Only yesterday Clarke admitted that 1,023 foreign prisoners had been freed without being considered for deportation. Lord Levy (also known as “Lord Cashpoint” given his role as a key Labour party fundraiser) was brought on board not only because he has donated a lot, lot, lot of money to the Labour party but due to his “recent experience” in the world of entertainment (during the 1960’s and 1970’s Lord Levy managed singers including Alvin Stardust and Chris Rea). 

“Deportation Island” will be an unscripted quest series that will feature teams of foreign and British convicted criminals who will be provided with a series tasks, aimed at getting them deported from the United Kingdom. The winning team will receive a non-transferable lifetime membership to the Guantanamo “super hostel” located in the Shetland Islands. Producers of the show confirmed earlier statements by the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) in regards to the fact the super hotels “ would feel like mini-jails”.

Media analysts see “Deportation Island”as a perfect product placement opportunity for the government – not only to promote their high security “super hostels” scheme for criminals on probation but other programs such as their ID card scheme. It is believed the press team of “Deportation Island” is seeking one major corporate sponsor for the show. Initial discussions were had with HP Foods, but negotiations broke down when the shows producers realised having HP Brown Sauce, plastered all over the show, although a wholesome choice, agravated the Prime Minister.

A spokesperson for “Deportation Island” confirmed the show would only air on BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 133 given “the BBC had to make minor "programming concessions" to the government following the extension of the television license fee to fund the organisations activities”. In order to create a "melting pot of subversion" the producers of "Deportation Island" announced foreigners and British nationals would be mixed to create four teams. The teams have yet to be named; although names such as "Pimps & Whores from the East" and "The Probation Boys" where already labelled "as slightly derogatory" by the shows legal advisers.   

Furthermore, it was revealed the first episode of “Deportation Island” will have the four teams face a daunting double challenge. Challenge #1: smuggle ten unsuspecting foreigners illegally into the United Kingdom and get thrown in jail. Challenge #2 take them to the A&E of an NHS trust hospital and get seen by the doctor. The aim is for the teams to get either prosecuted or seen by a doctor - which ever takes the least amount of time. 

Unconfirmed reports indicate “Deportation Island” would feature guest celebrities that would mimic the antics of Sir Alan Sugar and Donald Trump in other reality TV shows. After a series of focus groups the idea of having Nick Griffin, leader of the notorious British National Party, yelling “You are Deported!” to the losing team each week was dropped.

The issue of deportation and immigration is a global. Case in point, immigrants account for 17% of Canada's population (only Australia surpasses Canada in terms of the immigrant percentage: 21%). A large portion of the Canadian legal and illegal immigrant population is Portuguese. The attached video is a parody of a recent decision by the Federal Immigration Minister Monte Solberg to deport a group of Portuguese workers. Most of the deportees had come to Canada a year earlier after the then-Liberal government opened the doors to skilled workers at the request of employers facing a dire shortage of workers. Enjoy!

If the video does not display properly
click here to upgrade to Flash 8

America's Victory Culture replaced by Triumphalism

Winners and losers. Success and failure. Victory and defeat. As the United States strived to define its identity and sovereignty, it adopted a “victory culture”, typical of emerging powers throughout history. Unfortunately this “victory culture” essential to American history and politics, has evolved into a dangerous culture of triumphalism.

The ”victory culture" of American politics is rooted deeply into its history. The founders of the present day United States of America sought not only independence from the British, but victory against the British. This victory was not fully completed until extensive negotiations led to the signing of the Treaty of Paris in September 3, 1783; which served not only as a formal acceptance of independence but more importantly the delineation of boundaries that would allow for American western expansion. A result of western expansion was the “Indian Wars”; a period of American history in which the “victory culture” began to take shape.

The “victory culture” began to take shape during this period given: 1) the new national government, having achieved national independence strived for sovereignty (through geographic expansion); which in turn, 2) defined a struggle not only against the colonial powers but more importantly, nature and the local indigenous populations in the West.

The “culture of victory” was cemented during and after the Spanish American War and the Mexican American War. During these two conflicts, the United States defined an expansionist policy known by the catch phrase of “Manifest Destiny” - the belief that the United States had a divinely inspired mission to expand, spreading its form of democracy and freedom. Advocates of “Manifest Destiny” believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and inevitable ("destiny").

The “closing of the American frontier” in 1980 defined the end of an era and the start of a new historical period; in which the victory culture would begin morphing into a dangerous culture of triumphalism.

The rise of communism and the Soviet Union, defined a new struggle for the United States – driven by ideological control as opposed to geographic gain. The road to victory was to be achieved through military, economic and political influence – as Teddy Roosevelt famous stated "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Vietnam was a prime example of how the “culture of victory” consumed and influenced military and political decisions. Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore in the film Apocalypse Now provides a glimpse of this thinking when he states - “Napalm in the morning smells like victory".

The capitulation of communism defined a “New World Order” in which the United States found itself as the only legitimate superpower, its military and political might unmatched. The tragic events of 9/11, while providing the United States with an opportunity for introspection, cemented a “doctrine of triumphalism” under the Geroge W. Bush administration. When Republican Howard Dean, recently questioned the administrations’ “plans for victory” on Iraq he was blasted for sending the troops and people the wrong message. Surely the conditions and definition of victory should be defined by the people of Iraq (who are the recipients of this victory) and not the United States?

The most significant impact of the United States “doctrine of triumphalism” is an impaired ability to judge the value or morality of its own actions. It is a serious case of Dark Matter Politics when triumphalism blinds and keeps political leaders from adjusting their policies and learning from past mistakes.

Octavia Hill, The Church of England and Institutional Abuse

The Church of England recently agreed to sell the Octavia Hill estates in South London, housing 1,100 tenants, including key workers like ambulance staff and teachers. The Octavia Hill estate is being sold to the Genesis Housing Group and private housing supplier the Granger Trust. A similar sale of the Waterloo estate to the same partnership of Genesis and Granger last year left tenants facing a 6% rent hike. The Octavia Hill estate was part of a legacy held in trust by the Church Commissioners, which was based on the pioneering work of Octavia Hill, a 19th Century Evangelical social philanthropist and social reformer who sought to ensure that working people could possess affordable housing in London.

The Church of England is big, big business. The Church Commissioners were formed in 1948 to manage the Church’s historical assets, mainly invested in the stock market and property to support the Church ministry. The Church Commissioners acts as the financial controller for the Church of England managing the Church’s pension commitments and fund the work and needs of bishops, cathedrals and parish ministry.

The Church Commissioners are making a 14% annual return on their investments and £100 million a year from property sales. The Church of England at their last valuation in 2004 had investment capital of £4.3bn. The Church of England’s investment policies where questioned when it was revealed it invests about £2.5m of its £900m share portfolio in Caterpillar which has been heavily criticised for supplying vehicles used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes and building Israel’s Separation Wall. Following pressure form activist groups the Church of England's general synod decided earlier this year to disinvest church funds from companies profiting from Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Furthermore, the Church of England receives £200 million in Gift Aid, £60 million in Inland Revenue tax back programs, £200 million in cash and donations by congregations and visitors and £140 million raised through various programmes including letting of church halls, bookstalls and parish magazines.

The BBC’s Watchdog produced a report the 14th of March looking into the sale of the Octavia Hill estates and the 'Key Worker Letting' agreements might be in risk for thousands of residents.

So what does the Church of England spend these financial resources on? A report published last year indicates, £4.5 million spent on parish mission funding,  £104 million in clergy pensions, £20 million in bishop’s ministry, £27 million on ministry support for dioceses and £6.5 million in cathedral’s ministry. Having a financially solvent Church is necessary, however the methods to generate this solvency is where the Church of England has failed time after time.   

A report published by the General Synod in July 2005 says the Church has allowed itself to “drift apart from society”, undermining its mission to the whole nation. Some parts of the Church are little more than a club for existing members”. The Church has systematically compromised its’ basic principles by placing the financial needs of its administration before the needs of the people it serves. Unfortunately this is not a new phenomenon. Earlier this year the General Synod finally acknowledged complicity in the slave trade after hearing that the Church had run a slave plantation in the West Indies and that individual bishops had owned hundreds of slaves (the Church's missionary arm, the Society for the Propagation of the Faith in Foreign Parts, owned the Codrington plantation in Barbados).

This is NOT a question of faith, but an issue of institutional abuse. Western civilisation has been created by men and women who have lived and worked together under the formula of institutions.   

The Octavia Hill estates fiasco illustrates the choice faced by the Church of England in this period of financial prudence. Does it use its' financial influence to preserve and protect the social benefits of the general population (who might be affiliated to other faiths) or does it concentrate on the continued funding of expensive national and local programs aimed mainly at its' constituency of believers?

church of england faith BBC Octavia Hill Dark Matter

The Musical Side of the National Health Service Controversy

The National Health Service (NHS) in Great Britain has been seen better days. When first created, under the Labour government of Clement Attlee’s, the NHS was a model for public healthcare. In 1990 after decades of under-funding one of the most controversial reforms was pushed forward. The National Health Service & Community Care Act 1990 introduced an "internal market" into the NHS, whereby Health Authorities ceased to run hospitals directly but instead "purchased" care from their own or other authorities' hospitals. The main controversy sorrounding the NHS relates to its' ability to deliver services hyginically, quickly and cost effectively – currently the NHS carries a deficit of GBP £948 million!

Controversy over the NHS took a new turn when several hospitals in Glasgow announced they where using iPod music players to train new staff. The iPods give new recruits to the hospitals an "audio induction" to the workplace, which is followed by a computer-based knowledge test. The audio tracks where developed by Dr Maggie Haertsch, a lecturer at a nursing school, who become inspired by the self-guided audio tours offered in art galleries and museums. Hospital managers at NHS Greater Glasgow say the iPod tours can be used to train staff about issues like workplace safety, infection control and coping with violence (?). The NHS in Glasgow claims the scheme "is a prudent use of public money". However, managers refused to say how many iPods have been bought, how much they cost and how they can be better value for money than printed information.

The average taxpayer in Scotland and England has to wait the equivalent of 80 music tracks before being attended at an A&E department and the equivalent of 2,800 music tracks before getting knee replacement surgery. We welcome innovation in the health care sector, but wonder about the safety of having medical staff walking around wards when one of their primary senses is fully engaged. In the spirit of cooperation, Dark Matter Politics has provided Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Health with a list of suggested listening tracks - your suggestions are welcome as we are looking for a diverse range of music styles and artists... 

Beds are burning - Midnight Oil
Doctor Feelgood -  Motley Crue
Doctor! Doctor! -  Thompson Twins
Nightshift - The Commodores
Physical - Olivia Newton John
The Reflex - Duran Duran
She Blinded Me With Science - Thomas Dolby
Hospital Song - Ben Folds Five
Cuts like a knife - Bryan Adams
I See Red - Split Enz
The Death Song - Marilyn Manson
Wait - White Lion

ipod Patricia Hewitt Glasgow Dark Matter

Caudillismo and Political Leadership in South America

The on-going national election in Peru reveals the dichotomy of political leadership in South America - leadership changes led by the legacy of past leadership.

The Peruvian election will be decided by a presidential runoff vote between the leading candidate Ollanta Humala and most probably Alan Garcia who received 24.7% of votes. Garcia's contender for the presidential runoff is former Congresswoman Lourdes Flores who received 23.6% of the votes. Alan Garcia was president from 1985 to 1990 (aged only 36 when he took power, he was dubbed as the "Latin America Kennedy"). His administration was disastrous. During his time in power the per capita annual income of Peruvians fell to $720 and Peru's GDP dropped 20% (by the end of his term, national reserves were a negative $900 million). Furthermore, he was charged with multiple counts of corruption and human right abuse, leading to an increase in terrorist activities by the Shinning Path. Astonishingly after living eight years in exile he returned to Peru in 2001 to run for president, obtaining 48% of the vote losing marginally to Alejandro Toledo. It is rumoured Garcia and his APRA party cut a deal with Alberto Fujimori in the 1990 election, backing him in return for impunity (preventing Mario Vargas Llosa from winning the election). It is truly a matter of Dark Matter Politics when a politician with the legacy of Alan Garcia is even considered for power again.

Without a doubt, even to this day, there is a strong legacy of caudillismo in South American politics. Caudillismo is a cultural phenomenon that first appeared during the early 19th century in revolutionary South America, as a type of strong leader with a charismatic personality and enough of a populist program of generic future reforms to gain broad sympathy, at least at the outset, among the common people. The history of South American leadership is plagued by this thinking. Hopefully the Peruvian people will begin to shed some of that thinking and not place Garcia in power once again. On the other hand, Ollanta Humala, a former army lieutenant colonel is an uncertain choice. Humala has tapped into a powerful vein of discontent among Peru's poor majority with a populist message inspired by the 1968-1975 left-wing military dictatorship of General Juan Velasco (another caudillo) promising heavy state intervention in Peru's free-market economy and to strip political power from a European-descended elite. The potential ascension of Humala, while in line with the caudillo legacy, follows a dramatic shift and change in the leadership of the region.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Lucio Gutierrez (replaced by Alfredo Palacio following demonstrations against his administration) in Ecuador all share a leftist populist approach, that aims to balance elements of free market economics with control of national interests and resources. Kirchner, Bachelet and Gutierrez are considered the most moderate of all leaders (moderate leftist), partly due to their personal beliefs, the political outlook of their countries and their "lack of anti-American rhetoric". This dramatic shift in South American politics has Washington very concerned and China elated. During the past three years China has invested billions in the region (mainly in Venezuela as it provides China with a vast and alternative supply of crude oil) to establish its own economic sphere of influence.

South America is currently living a dramatic political transformation. The most challenging and promising transformation will be an end to the caudillo mentality; being replaced with leadership that is truly dedicated to the needs of the people and not the popular majority.

Caudillismo Ollanta Humala Alan Garcia Evo Morales Michelle Bachelet Nestor Kirchner Alberto Fujimori Peru Dark Matter

Immigration in America is Big Business

Immigration is once again centrepiece of the American media and mainstream consciousness. Immigration is truly global trend, in which the United States plays an important role; its policies impacting individuals far beyond it's borders.

Around 175 million people currently reside in a country other than where they were born - the number of migrants in the world has more than doubled since 1975, according to findings from International Migration 2002, issued by the United Nations Population Division. What the United Nations study confirms is that immigration is fuelled by economic and freedom gaps among populations of the world. Case in point, almost one of every 10 people living in developed regions is a migrant; in contrast, nearly one of every 70 persons in developing countries is a migrant. A direct impact of migration is the growth of remittances from migrant workers. According to the World Bank remittances from migrant workers in 2004 were estimated at USD $182 billion globally. The United States (USD $28.5 billion), Saudi Arabia (USD $15.1 billion) and Germany (USD $8.2 billion) are the top three host remittance nations. In 2003, Mexico received nearly $13.3 billion in workers’ remittances, an amount equivalent to about 140 percent of foreign direct investment and 71 percent of oil exports. For certain countries remittances account for a substantial proportion of gross domestic product - including Tonga (31%), Moldova (27.1%), Lesotho (25.8%), Haiti (24.8%), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (22.5%). Without a doubt, migration serves a powerful force for the redistribution of wealth throughout different regions of the world, helping curve poverty.

When examining the subject of immigration in the United States it is important to make the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between the legislation and management of immigration - the last has proved challenging for several US presidents including the Clinton and Bush administrations. Lastly it is important to remember illegal immigration is big, big business.

The overhaul of immigration legislation in the United States occurred in early 2003, with the end of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) which served as the main body for the management and enforcement of immigration since 1933. The INS had become inefficient and fragment well before the tragic events of 9/11. The latest attempt to overhaul immigration legislation comes in the form of H.R. 4437 (Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005). H.R. 4437 was approved by the House of Representatives in December 16th, 2005 (by a vote of 239 to 182) along clear party lines - 92% of Republicans supporting the bill and 82% of Democrats opposing H.R. 4437. Adding to the immigration legislative agenda, on March 27, 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed bill S 3193 which modifies certain elements of H.R. 4437 incorporating a "guest worker program". The "guest worker program" which is greatly favoured by George W. Bush could potentially open the possibility of full amnesty as well as permanent residence for over 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States. The program would provide 400,000 three year temporary work visas; with employers required to pay a fee and attest that the positions for which it is hiring meet a long list of requirements.

The adoption of new immigration legislation is long overdue. The key question and challenge is if this new legislation can be applied in an equitable manner, balancing the needs of citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. A close review of H.R. 4437 and S 3193 raises questions on two policies - border control and legal enforcement.

On border control H.R. 4437 calls for the various measures including: 1) the building of 700 mile security wall between Mexico and the United States, 2) an increase in Border Patrol Agents to 2,000 per year. Interestingly enough the call for the construction of a security wall in the United States, was swiftly pursued by several other nations including Saudi Arabia. Last month Saudi Arabia opened bids for the construction of 900km (560mile) desert border with Iraq. Saudi Arabia is mainly concerned with the radicalisation of the Shai minority which is concentrated in the oil-producing eastern region of Iraq. Evidently, the Saudi government like that of Israel believes the militarization of its borders will not further contribute to the radicalization of certain ethnic groups....The cost of building the 700 mile security fence would carry a staggering cost of at a cost of at least $2.2 billion as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this year. Supporters of the project (when examining the issue from a pure cost perspective) argue that $134.5 billion have been spent so far in the occupation of Iraq - making the investment in national security an easy one to justify.

On legal enforcement H.R. 4437 calls for transforming into a felony with jail terms what until now has been a civil violation for unauthorised presence in the United States subject to fines and deportation. The problem with the current version of the bill is that it makes little or no distinction between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. For example, individuals fleeing persecution and victims of human trafficking entering the United States will face prosecution, limiting their re-entry and receiving relief or protection once their claims for asylum have been verified. It is imperative the needs of genuine asylum seekers and those fleeing prosecution are taken in consideration by a country that was not only founded by those escaping religious prosecution, but by a country that strives to uphold the beliefs of freedom and prosperity for all.

Furthermore, H.R. 4437 does not go far enough at penalising those who actively employ illegal immigrants (creating a vacuum between individual and institutional enforcement). Last year Walmart (which reported sales of $288.19 billion in 2005) agreed to pay $11 million to settle federal allegations it used illegal immigrants to clean its stores mainly through subcontracting companies. Why where Walmart executives and other members of large companies, supporting illegal immigrants for profit, not subject to individual legal prosecution beyond a simple financial settlement? Interestingly enough, the bill imposes penalties upon any person assisting others through a Church or a social service organization (up to five years in prison and seizure of assets). Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, released a statement in response to this policy contained within H.R. 4437 - "It is staggering for the federal government to stifle our spiritual and pastoral outreach to the poor, and to impose penalties for doing what our faith demands of us". Unfortunately the issue has been already politicised from both ends - Los Angeles is the largest US diocese with five million Catholics mostly from Mexican and Latin descent, providing the Church with a strong political base and funding from the Vatican.

Illegal immigration and the enforcement of an equitable immigration law is clouted by the fact illegal immigration is big, big business. In May 2004 the House International Relations Committee narrowly approved a resolution requiring that any amnesty deal for Mexican "illegal aliens" in the United States be linked to an opening of Mexico's state-controlled oil company Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex has been a state company in Mexico since 1933). Mexico is currently the largest importer of crude oil into the United States, providing 1.774 million barrels per day based on data released by the Energy Information Administration. Given energy supply is regarded as a matter of national security by the US government, we can expect US officials to continue pressuring and bargaining with Mexico to reach an "amnesty for oil" agreement.

Not widely publicized in the fact that each year, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an "earnings suspense file" -- an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to undocumented workers who will never claim their benefits (supporting source: Standard & Poors Econ 101 on Illegal Immigrants). Those funds could be redirected to state governments to fill in gaps for the education of citizens and migrants.

Banking institutions continue to profit greatly from illegal immigration. For example, Wells Fargo opened more than 400,000 new accounts for Mexican immigrants, using the Matricula Consular card, averaging 22,000 new accounts per month, featuring several high fee services such as remittance services. Money transfer giants such as Western Union continue to benefit from the flow of remittance payments, charging commissions of between 5% to 10% for the sending money. For Q4 2005, Western Union reported a 14% increase in money transfer revenue totalling over USD $1 billion for the quarter, and an increase in operating profit of 23% to USD $351 million (achieving a staggering margin of 35%).  Host nations such as Mexico do also profit from illegal immigration in the United States from remittance contributions entering their economy.

It is clear the United States requires an equitable immigration policy that not considers not only the impact on its own borders and people, but on the rest of the world. It is to easy to answer and posture the debate of illegal immigration with crime. It is like trying to solve the drug problem by not addressing the human element of addiction. No nation, including the United States can solve the problem of illegal immigration of its own, it requires multiple partners - however this would mean a collaborative approach from US and international legislators. Preventing illegal immigration may prove difficult for any administration, however each administration should strive to have an open debate and put special interests aside - unfortunately this last matter of Dark Matter Politics is what might prove impossible.

Much is at stake, as the social adventure of the United States is no longer about conquering nature or establishing ideological supremacy, but finding an equitable way of managing migratory people.

immigration, H.R. 4437, united nations, world bank, Saudi Arabia, remittances, poverty, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Protection, guest worker program, Walmart, illegal aliens, Dark Matter

Symbol of Britain’s Big Brother state

Parliament Square in London is no longer just a great vantage point for great views of Big Ben, but a symbol of Britain’s "Big Brother" state. 

Parliament Square, became Britain’s first official roundabout in 1926 as well as the home of Brain Haw. Brian Haw has been protesting outside of Parliament Square against the Iraq war since 2nd of June 2001.  In October 2002, following attempts by government officials to remove him, he won a major case in the High Court, in which the judge ruled that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech in Parliament Square. This outright acknowledgement of citizens’ freedom of speech is currently being challenged by the governments’ latest security legislation – the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, among other policies, prohibits any group demonstrations or individual demonstrators (even peaceful silent protests) within a half-mile zone around Westminster. The half-mile area covers Parliament, Whitehall, Downing Street, Westminster Abbey, the Middlesex Guildhall, New Scotland Yard, and the Home Office. It also covers a sliver of land on the other bank of the River Thames, including County Hall, the Jubilee Gardens, St Thomas' Hospital and the London Eye. Furthermore, it extends police powers to fine and arrest individuals partaking in demonstrations without an official police permit. Supporters of the law claim it is required to ensure of safety of residents and workers around the area, as well as limit “anti-social” behaviour.

Regardless of individual beliefs on the Iraq War, nuclear power, fox hunting, taxation or any other subject, as well as ones conviction to participate in a demonstration or not; freedom of speech that does not harm or hinder is unequivocal! Placing "exclusion zones" on these rights is the start of a slippery road - before you know it Christmas carols won't be allowed within Parliament Square as the government strives to establish an "open secure multi-cultural secular society".

Prime Minister Tony Blair stated on 7 April 2002, "When I pass protestors every day at Downing Street... I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can. That's called freedom."

It is a matter of serious Dark Matter Politics when a country sanctioning and promoting principles of freedom of speech around the world, fails to fully support them for its own citizens.    

Brian Haw anti terrorism protests dark matter

Net Neutrality: The Battle for Open Access to Online Content

For the past few years, legislators and key members of the telecommunications industry in the United States have been working on updating the Telecommunications Act of 1996; largely obsolete due to dramatic changes in the industry - including the migration of voice and video signals to the Internet. This new initiative has created an explosive and controversial battle between access providers (such as AT&T and Verizon) and content providers (such as Google and Amazon) over access and distribution of content. Net Neutrality - "the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content or use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by an Internet service or access provider". Maintaining the principle of net neutrality would keep broadband providers from discriminating against any forms of digital content.

Rejection of the principle of net neutrality would allow access providers to tier and potentially charge for the delivery of content. Division in Congress appears to be falling along party lines, with Democrats overwhelmingly in support of Net Neutrality and most Republicans siding with the major carriers. Joe Barton, a Republican who chairs the committee overseeing telecommunications law, says providers "may not block, or unreasonably impair or interfere with, the offering of, access to or the use of any lawful content, application or service provided over the Internet." Content providers such as Amazon and Google argue for Network Neutrality, which calls for companies that own the means of delivery (the broadband pipes) do not configure their networks in a way that benefits favourites. Web 2.0 (the new Internet following the burst of the dot-com bubble) is about content and participation. Some of the largest acquisitions include News Corp.’s $580 million purchase of MySpace (a leading community site), New York Times Company $410 million purchase of About.com (a leading content portal) and Experian’s $485 million purchase of PriceGrabber.com (a leading price comparison site).

Major U.S. carriers, including AT&T and Verizon have been lobbying both the House of Representatives and Senate in an effort to push through legislation allowing them to establish separate "tiers" of service on the Internet. These tiers would be used for the express delivery of voice and video services, as well as content. More controversial is that these carriers want to be able to charge for access to these tiers. Service and content providers which sign up to use the carriers’ "fast lane" would receive guarantees for "priority" delivery of their data. Access providers argue they should be able to collect access fees to off-set the cost of network upgrades (which would be necessary to facilitate the delivery and innovation of next-generation services).

During the past two years, and reminiscent of the exuberance of the late 90’s, there has been a dramatic increase in mergers and acquisitions within the online sector. Although this time around the industry is far more mature and stable, a major battle is taking place for the ownership and control of content. Companies such as News International have recognised the

Interactive mergers and acquisitions in the first quarter of 2006 totaled 54 deals worth $3.2 billion, up from $2.6 billion for 47 deals in the last quarter of 2005 (excluding the $1 billion swap of Yahoo China's assets with Alibaba), and up from $2.9 billion for 28 deals in the first quarter of 2005.

The battle for Net Neutrality boils down to the way rich content (such as video content) is priced, distributed and accessed (uniform access versus tiered access). The rejection of the Net Neutrality principle will without a doubt guarantee short term financial gain for access providers as they will not only charge consumers for the content but tag content owners with fees to distribute their content.

The outcome of this debate will undoubtatly reshape the way content is distributed and accessed online, with major content providers purchasing or partnering with access providers such as Comcast (with 21 million subscribers and is the largest such provider in the US) or Time Warner.

Imagine not being able to access Yahoo's Web portal as quickly from your Internet service provider, because your broadband provider (the company that owns the cable lines) has cut a deal with Google to provide their services exclusively. Imagine having to pay an extra 10 cents every time you sell an item on eBay or for downloading a movie from www.shockwave.com. The reality is the content providers, wil pass on any access fees to consumers. Furthermore, what are these ISP's companies going to do with this incremental revenue? Improve their customer service, provide free tools such as spam protection and virus protection? Unlikely. I encourage you to join the Save the Internet campaign to ensure Net Neutrality is kept and protected.

Minoriteam - Exaggeration that reveals absurd realities

Cartoon Network last week aired a new show featuring a band of Marvel Comic type heroes. The five crime fighters starting in Minoriteam are extreme stereotyped super heroes out to save the world from bigotry and racism. The show succeeds not at being outright funny but in its pure exaggeration. The characters are exaggerated to such a ludicrous degree that they even question the bigotry of those who believe in the clichés. The line-up of characters living in Corporate City are lead by Dr. Wang, the wheelchair-bound Asian with the computerlike brain. The team leader is complemented with four super heroes including:

-          Fasto, the jive-talking black superspeedster with a constant eye on the ladies

-          El Jefe, the sombrero-topped Spanish speaker whose secret weapon is his leaf blower and a personal Kryptonite, tequila

-          Jewcano, whose religious rage allows him to conjure up volcanoes

-          Nonstop, the turban-wearing guy who has been shot so many times in his years as a convenience store clerk that his skin is lined with lead.

The nemesis of the heroes is White Shadow and his accomplishes including Racist Frankenstein, the Corporate Ladder and Standardised Test (whose head is shaped like a No. 2 pencil and whose body resembles a Scantron test) who meet inside a Washington monument to plot world domination.

So what differentiates Minoriteam from other cartoons such as the recent caricatures of the prophet Mohamed or cartoons published in Arab media about the Pope? First, Minoriteam has a clearly defined struggle between good and evil. Second, it is all encompassing satire - covering a large part of the “ethnic spectrum” in the United States - as opposed to focusing on an individual group or entity. However, what is shared by the both the Minoriteam and the Danish cartoons is the readjustment of a groups accepted reality through exaggeration. That absurd exaggeration is what makes them a positive influence (beyond freedom of speech); in their ability to shed light on those who hold such absurd exaggerations as reality - across all religions and cultures.

Animation comedy central Television minority team race

South Park "Trapped in the Closet" Episode Cancelled

Shock waves where felt across the animated comedy series industry and its fans following the news Isaac Hayes, - who served as the voice of “Chef” in the acclaimed series South Park (launched in 1997 and still the highest rated series on Comedy Central) - announced he was leaving the series, apparently because he objected to its' inappropriate ridicule of his religion.

"Trapped in the Closet" episode number 137 of the series, aired in November 16, 2005 sparked controversy not only with Hayes but with the Church of Scientology and Tom Cruise. A preview of the episode follows…

Stan is saving his money for a new bike, so he can't join Kyle, Cartman and Kenny when they go off to play laser tag. Opting for something that is "fun and free," Stan takes a personality test that is being offered by the Scientologists. After answering a long questionnaire (the questions given to Stan during the personality test are from the actual OCA personality test that Scientology uses), Stan is informed that he is "one messed up kid" who is "completely miserable and totally depressed" (Even though he didn't't know it). This based on the episodes storyline makes him a perfect candidate for Scientology—they offer to help him out for $240. After some test with an e-meter they believe Stan must be the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology’s founder and prophet. Following a question by Tom Cruise to Stan, Stan tells Cruise that his acting is not as good as Leonardo DiCaprio, Gene Hackman or "that guy from Napoleon Dynamite," but that he is "okay," Cruise yells in agony, runs, and locks himself into Stan's bedroom closet (supporting source: Wikipedia.org). A large part of the episode revolves around the punt of Tom Cruise being locked in the closet and the money driven nature of Scientology. 

What is concerning of this story is that episode was scheduled to re-run on March 22^nd, 2006, but airing was cancelled without prior notice – the episode was replaced with Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls (a classic of the series). In the interest of objective reporting, Comedy Central's official explanation was as follows: "In light of the events of earlier this week, we wanted to give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for." What is clear is that the episode was cancelled although thousands of loyal South Park and Comedy Central viewers protested. Further questions should be raised to Viacom (the parent company of the Comedy Channel and other major media outlets including movie studios) regarding the influences and reasons for the cancellation of the long awaited South Park episode. Whatever those influences, they where stronger than ratings, viewership and advertising revenue - the "meat & potatoes" of Viacom....   

Matt Stone one of the creators of South Park, rightly declared to the controversy raised by the departure of Isaac Hayes  – “This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem - and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians...He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and, to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin." (supporting source: BBC News)

The matter of Dark Matter Politics is the fact religious parody for the purpose of entertainment (as opposed to ideological influence) is no longer accepted as a form of social commentary and expression but immediately treated as confrontational defamation. Furthermore, the cancellation of the episode can be seen as a serious limitation on free speech. A copy of the episode of "Trapped in the Closet" can be found at contemporaryinsanity.org

500 days of "Pinochet in Suburbia"

As portrayed in the BBC series Pinochet in Suburbia, General Augusto Pinochet arrived to England in early October, 1998 for a back operation (he had surgery for a herniated disc at the London Bridge Hospital) – 500 days later, the British High Court granted Pinochet immunity from prosecution as a former Head of State. In late October 1998, when Pinochet was taken into custody, the Metropolitan Police said they where acting on a warrant from Spain where Pinochet was investigated over the deaths of Spanish citizens during the period of 1973 and 1990.

The 500 days Pinochet remained under house arrest in England are a riddle of diplomatic and political manoeuvring. It was also one of the most expensive extradition cases ever – Dark Matter Politics can report the Pinochet case cost British taxpayers a staggering £2,204,595 - prosecuting barristers on the case alone were paid £425,077. (complementing source: BBC News)

The political manoeuvring began shortly after the arrest, when Eduardo Frei, Chile’s president, announced a suspension of all official visits and meetings with UK ministers, an end to all flights to the Falkland Islands and the governments’ intent to fight a legal battle to ensure the release of Pinochet. Frei’s reaction was not surprising as it was a decision that appeased key elements of the Chilean military as well as powerful and influential supporters of Pinochet.

More importantly, the decision was driven by the belief of self-determination and the sovereignty of the Chilean people to decide the fate of one of its' citizens. As Colonel Alfredo Ewing stated "As a result, the task of defending what the president (Eduardo Frei) has called a question of principle and what the President of the Supreme Court has said amounts to stamping on our sovereignty is incomplete." However, the choice of Chile’s courts and citizens is limited by the fact that Pinochet provided himself and other members of the Army with immunity from prosecution (based on an amnesty law passed in 1978) as well as naming himself as senator-for-life, as part of the 1980 constitution he pushed forward while in control of the country. Although the1980 constitution was approved by 75% of people, it was regarded as a highly irregular plebiscite and process - there was no constituent assembly or public debate on its contents.

Furthermore, the question of sovereignty clashes with the principle of universal jurisdiction; which has been applied to this case. Wikipedia defines universal jurisdiction for Dark Matter Politics as “a controversial principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country.” 

The process of establishing a legal course of action for Pinochet in Chile has been slow – although some eighty Pinochet-era officers have been indicted in recent years, including former CNI (secret police) agents who were given life sentences for political murders committed in 1986. In  August 11th, 2000, Chile's Supreme Court announced that they had voted to strip Pinochet of his senatorial immunity. The ruling fell short of requesting medical examinations to establish whether the former military dictator will stand trial. This decision was followed by a ruling the 10th of January, 2006 which strips Pinochet of his legal immunity against trial for the killing of two bodyguards of Salvador Allende. Although unlikely, this ruling might see Pinochet prosecuted by local courts and its fellow citizens in the near future (on other charges related to possible cases of tax evasion and embezzlement).

It is clear no conditions can be placed on obtaining justice for those who suffered most during Pinochet’s rule, however, the fate of Pinochet should lie with the Chilean people and Chilean legal institutions. Without a doubt,  it will be a slow and politically charged process; one of continued painful introspection; but one that is absolutely necessary to ensure Chile continues to establish a shared historical conscious that focuses on truth and social economic development for all. (darkmatterpolitics.com, March 2006).

pinochet, pinochet, politica

Revisiting the Argentinean Military Dictatorship of General Videla - Once Again?

The 24th of March, 2006 Argentina's President, Nestor Kirchner, unveiled a plaque in the centre of Buenos Aires reading the words – “Nunca Mas” (Never Again). The plaque was a symbolic reference to the thirty years since the “Dirty War” - that saw a military dictatorship lead by General Jorge Rafael Videla take power for seven years.

The seizing of power by the military in Argentina was not driven by a temporary “vacuum of power” or social and political instability in Argentina. The seeds for military rule in Argentina were planted in 1943, decades before General Jorge Rafael Videla took power. Since 1943 a combination of internal and external events drove Argentina to a military government that was responsible not only for the end of freedom but the death of over 10,000 Argentinean citizens and the depletion of the Argentinean economy (the external debt reached $35.7 billion by 1981, the year General Videla stepped down from power).
. 
The first seed – Peronismo. In February 1943, Juan Peron came to power. His administration would shape Argentina’s politics – pursuing social policies aimed at empowering the working class, helping establish the CGT a powerful workers union. Perón served as president two more times (in 1951 and 1973). His wife was in power, when power was seized by general General Jorge Rafael Videla and his junta military in 1976. His legacy is important because it defined relationship of a president in Argentina with the military, the Catholic Church, the unions and more importantly the international community (an important element given the policies of the United States towards the region at that time).

The second seed – Truman Doctrine. In 1947, President Harry Truman implemented the Truman Doctrine. The doctrine proclaimed the “willingness of the United States to assist friendly governments resisting not only external aggression but also "armed minorities" in their own midst.” It was an ominous passage, for the United States was announcing the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations to help preserve regimes deemed friendly to American interests. This doctrine was captured on Truman’s address to Congress the 12th of March 1947 where he called for the US Congress to approve USD $400 million in aid to be delivered to Greece and Turkey, both under the treat of “communist insurrections”.

The third seed – Operacion Condor. In 1975 the US government, officially launched “Operation Condor” when General Manuel Contreras (an important player in the military dictatorship that took control of Chile in 1973) brought together representatives of the intelligence agencies of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil in Santiago and forged an agreement to set up a joint "information bank" and "task forces" across South America. The purpose of the operation was to aid the establishment of right-wing administrations friendly to the United States across South America – including the support of military groups in countries such as Argentina.

Dark Matter Politics has identified the original document dated the 25th of September 1976 issued by the Department of Defence Intelligence launching Operation Condor (click on Operacion Condor link to download document).

Access to this document was obtained through the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (signed into law on October 2, 1996), which provides access to previously secret and classifieds documents issued internally and externally by the US government.

It is a grave case of Dark Matter Politics when the political future of a nation and its people, is impacted by the decisions of a few. As with Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil the foreign policy of the United States was a major catalyst to the temporary end of democratic rule in Argentina.

Based on the track record of the United States foreign policy during the past thirty years in South America and the rest of the world, a plaque should be unveiled in Washington reading - “Una Vez Mas” (Once Again).

The Chagos Archipelago, Diego Garcia and British Colonialism

The United States fearing the expansion of Communism in Asia, was seeking to establish a military presence between the Mediterranean and the Philippines. The Chagos Archipelago (a group of 600 individual tropical islands in the Indian Ocean about 500 kilometres from the Maldives in the Indian Ocean) provided the United States with the geographical and strategic advantage they sought as well as a minimal “population problem”.The United Kingdom had gained possession of both Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago in 1814, and retained the islands as part of the British Indian Ocean Territory when Mauritius gained independence. The islands were discovered by Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama in the early sixteenth century (Chagos comes from the Portuguese word "Chagas") then claimed by the French as a possession of Mauritius in the eighteenth century.

A deal was signed between the United States and the British Government in 1966, that allowed for the building of a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia. As part of the agreement, between 1967 and 1973 the British Government forced 2,000 island inhabitants to move from the Chagos group of islands. The British action violated articles 9 and 13 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which state that "no one should be subjected to arbitrary exile" and "everybody has the right to return to his country".

What lead the British Government to completely disregard in international law and the genuine right of its inhabitants? The British government’s case for expulsion of the island inhabitants was based on denying that the islanders were permanent residents and insisting they were temporary contract workers, employed on the copra plantations. This was the line that both the British and US governments were to maintain for years, even though they knew it was untrue. In 2000, the High Court ruled the removal of the inhabitants was illegal. The British government blocked the decision resorting to a series of draconian colonial powers.

In return for the “leasing” of the island (the lease expires in 2016), the United States offered a United Kingdom an USD $11M subsidy on the Polaris submarine nuclear program which was considered key to establish a nuclear deterrent in the region as well as provide support, following the British humiliating withdrawal from the Suez Canal in 1956 (confirmation source: wikipedia.org). However the Polaris agreement accentuated the contradiction between Britain's global ambitions and its resources meant that the Polaris deal was only one of a number of arrangements made between the US and the UK during this period. Based on a report from Ewen MacAskill and Rob Evans from The Guardian in 2000, in return for US help in trying to strengthen the pound in September 1965, an informal agreement was made that the Wilson would tighten spending; control wage rises and also more importantly, supports American intervention against Vietnam (confirmation source: wikipedia.org).

What is worst was Wilson’s complete disregard for universal law principles. While Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, the Chagos Islands were annexed to the British colonies, establishing the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Despite UN Resolution 1514 on decolonisation and the division in public opinion in Mauritius, the island accepted a £3 million compensation from Great Britain. It was officially granted independence on March 12, 1968 despite UN General Assembly resolution 2066 XX in December 1965 which mandated that Great Britain takes "no action which would dismember the Territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity" (confirmation source: The Guardian).

Diego Garcia currently houses 1,600 military personnel and 1,500 civilian contractors. The island is said to be a joint American-British military base - but only 50 troops are British (confirmation source: wikipedia.org). The depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago represents a serious case of Dark Matter Politics. Furthermore, no politician in over thirty years has explained why Chagos islanders, American and UK military cannot coexist on a territory that is longer than 190 kilometres.

The Morning After Pill Debate in Chile

One of Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s latest president who took office in March of this year, key health initiatives was the universal distribution of the “morning after pill” to every woman in Chile that required it. Currently, the “morning after pill” is available under prescription and medical advice for around GBP £12 (11,000 Chilean pesos). Obviously the price places it out of the reach of many women in Chile. The new minister of health, Salud, Soledad Barría, stated during an interview to La Tercera, a leading Chilean newspaper, that the plan for the universal distribution of the pill would occur, but not in the short term, as the government was focused on more pressing health issues.

The Chilean Catholic Church strongly opposes the open distribution of the pill, claiming the universal distribution plan is purely based on social economic criteria that do not account for the “dignity of the individual” or the “potential of life”. 

Many senators and political figures within Chile have already been expressing their views. A leading senator stated he believed the issue was not one of “morality but of hygiene and well being”. It is interesting to see how perspectives are slowly changing in a very traditional Catholic country like Chile - the “moral value” of actions is no longer the only factor being considered when discussing issues such as abortion and sex. However it is clear, the government is seen as an important influence in matters regarding abortion and sex - calls for a government sponsored campaign to educate young people about sex and the alternatives to abortion - are still strong across all groups. What if instead of spending millions on an advertising campaign, the government set-up local programs for the professional and social development of high risk women in Chile?

More importantly, in a country like Chile, the issue of universal distribution of the “morning after pill”, comes down to trying to put an end to one of highest rates of illegal abortions in the continent. It is officially estimated close to 400,000 illegal abortions are performed in Chile, a country with a population of 15 million people – compared to between 1.2 to 1.5 million in the United States with a population of 275 million – a rate five to six times that of the United States.

Lets hope the debate of universal distribution of the “morning after pill” does not become a subject of Dark Matter Politics and that president Michelle Bachelet, as she has proved so far, can go against the status quo to ensure open choice for Chilean women.

chile, morning after pill, Michelle Bachelet

George W. Bush talks Blogs

This past Wednesday, President George W. Bush, blaming the media for lopsided coverage of the ongoing struggle in Iraq, brought up the blogosphere as an alternative to the mainstream. At a recent speech, President George W. Bush stated:

“One of the things that we have to value is that that we do have a media… there’s blogs, there’s Internet, there’s all kinds of way to communicate which is literally changing the way people get their information and so if you’re concerned I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that got internet sites and just keep the word moving."

Until the day of his speech yesterday, Bush seemed contemptuous of all media - acknowledging no long ago that he didn't watch the news, follow polls or read newspapers.

Obviously Bush and his communication team have failed to do their homework. A quick scan of the blogosphere by Dark Matter Politics indicates the “public sentiment” for this administration and decision to invade Iraq is not a positive or even neutral. When searching Google’s Blog Search the first ten results associated with the term “George W. Bush” provide harsh criticism of his policies, mainly focused on his foreign policy. The same situation occurs when searching under the term “Iraq war”.

When searching the blog indexes for Feedster.com a major blog index site, the search “George W. Bush” results in a large majority of highly critical blogs and sites. Interestingly enough, the top sponsored listing (a listing that is paid for - usually on a cost per click basis - placed on the top of the results pages page) is for the donation site of the Republican National Committee. 

The Bush administration and its supporters have created Blogsforbush.com, a collection of blogs that discuss and support the policies and actions of the president. Dark Matter Politics supports the development of blogs covering all points of view and perspectives; however it is increasingly concerned by the increased reliance of the Bush administration on the “support the troops” slogan. It is obviously an easy way for the administration to strip down the discussion on the Iraq War and try to control the public discourse. Support for the well being of the troops stationed in Iraq (which is a very strong sentiment in the United States and Britain even after three years since the invasion and occupation of Iraq) does not equate to support of the invasion. Support for the troops stationed in Iraq is not solely based on their direct actions during the invasion but among many reasons: 1) their safe return to their respective homes and families and 2) their adherence to basic principles of engagement outlined by the Geneva Convention.

The best way for a country to support its troops is to send them into conflict only when necessary and when provided with full majority moral, material and strategic support by their fellow citizens and the larger global community. Under those conditions, the large number of troops sent and still stationed in Iraq is a serious case of Dark Matter Politics.

An anonymous blog by a young woman in war-torn Iraq has been for the first time shortlisted for the prestigious BBC Four's Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction. The blog can be found at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/.

If the Bush administration is serious about the blogosphere and its real measurement of the positive public sentiment for the invasion, it should start an open blog allowing the troops stationed in Iraq to provide their perspective... 

The Politics of Water Management and Conservation

The 4th World Water Forum is taking place in Mexico in March of this year. The event has received minimal or no coverage across the main global media outlets. It is unfortunate, as water is quickly becoming a resource that currently and will continue to drive political and economic interests across the globe.

More concerning, the finite sources of freshwater (less than one half of one per cent of the world's total water stock) are being depleted at a fast rate – it is projected by the year 2025, two-thirds of the world's population will be living in a state of serious water deprivation. The issue of water management and conservation has received special attention this month as the South-East of England is experiencing one of its worst droughts since the 1920s. After 15 months of below average rainfall some parts of the country will be suffering water supply controls during the summer - which raises the question of who manages water supplies. 

The market of water management is dominated by French trans-national Suez (formerly Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux) and German conglomerate RWE. Ranked 79th and 78th among Fortune's Global 100 List, these two water companies capture nearly 40 percent of the existing water market share. These multinationals are now gaining a foothold in the United States, where they operate through a number of subsidiaries. Suez operates in 130 countries and Vivendi in over 100; their combined annual revenues are close to $70 billion. RWE revenues are currently over $50 billion (energy included), having acquired water company Thames Water in the United Kingdom.

The companies have worked closely with the World Bank and other international financial institutions and lobby aggressively for legislation and trade laws to require countries to privatise their water (as a condition for receiving major loans and aid). Across major cities around the world—such as Buenos Aires— the World Bank has flexed its financial muscle to persuade local governments to sign long-term contracts with the major private water companies.

A perfect example of this situation is the privatisation of the Buenos Aires water utility by the Argentinean government in 1993. The Argentinean government at that time experiencing a serious economic crisis, characterised by hyperinflation, granted a 30-year concession to run the water system to Aguas Argentinas, a consortium controlled by two French water giants, Compagnie Générale des Eaux  (now Vivendi) and Lyonnaise des Eaux (now Suez). The consortium did not pay any money for the concession, promising to reduce water bills for local citizens.  At the time, it said that private firms would do better at bringing water and sewage connections to poor areas of the city. The sell-off of the water company was part of a wholesale auction of state assets to foreign and Argentine businesses. This was the perfect example of how, in some cases, privatisation deals, while making fast cash for the government – money usually used to pay debts to the IMF, World Bank and other foreign creditors – are generally a bad deal for the public and full of secrecy and corruption.

Soon thereafter, the World Bank declared the Buenos Aires privatisation an overwhelming success and made it a model for privatisations of water that followed in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia. and South Africa. In the spring of 2002, the company defaulted on about $700 million in loans and threatened to reduce water services unless the government guaranteed the loans in U.S. dollars. The government refused, instead suggesting that Aguas Argentinas could save $6.3 million a year by reducing its executive salaries. The International Monetary Fund then insisted that President Eduardo Duhalde authorise a rate hike as a condition for renegotiating Argentina's foreign debt. President Duhalde had no choice in the summer of 2002 but to grant Aguas Argentinas a 10 percent increase.

Back in France, Suez have come under scrutiny in a host of criminal and civil cases, with accusations that include bribery of public officials, illegal political contributions, kickbacks, price fixing, operating cartels and fraudulent accounting. Suez have close ties to the French government; the water companies are claimed to be strong sources of income for the political parties, particularly Chirac's RPR. In 2000, Jérôme Monod, CEO of Suez from 1987 to 2000 left the company becoming a senior adviser to Chirac. Interestingly enough, the French government has taken a protectionist approach to the water business - no foreign companies have water concessions in France.

There is no doubt large water companies including Suez, Vivendi and RWE have a responsibility to their shareholders to generate returns, however their biggest corporate responsibility should be on the fair and equitable management of their host countries waters. Unfortunately, these companies have demonstrated a ruthless approach to the management of waters in foreign counties being plagued by corruption and price increase scandals. Government organisations are equally at fault for issues of corruption and misappropriation of resources in their countries. The perfect example of weak government controls, is the role the Argentinean Water Management Agency,  ETOSS played in the disastrous privatisation of Buenos Aires waters. ETOSS subordinated to corporate and government pressures and constantly altered the contracts between the government, municipalities and the water conglomerates.

Thankfully, alternative sources of water management and collection are being developed. As with the Namib fog beetle (in Africa) which collects moisture for sustenance of its body, fog collection is a growing program for the development of affordable water supplies. Fog collection is fairly simple and affordable -  large vertical shade nets are erected in high-lying areas close to water-short communities. As fog passes through these shades, water droplets are deposited onto the net. As the droplets become larger, they run down the net into gutters attached at floor level. From there, water is channelled into reservoirs, and then to individual homes. Lets hope the distribution and development of fog collector technology, unlike water concessions, is done in an equitable and transparent manner. 

Many governments, including the United States, Austria and Spain are becoming increasingly protectionist about their resources including steel, manufacturing and ports – it is only a matter of time until protectionism extends to water supplies. However it might be already to late. The issue of water management and concession is a serious matter of Dark Matter Politics that not only involves corporate interests but government and world financial institutions that are supposed to be spreading economic development across the world.

water management, water conservation, water, suez, RWE, vivendi

CCTV technology in the United Kingdom : Balancing Privacy and Security

In early 2002 Michael McCahill and Clive Norris of UrbanEye published a paper estimating there was 4,000,000 surveillance cameras in the UK – that is a staggering figure as it means one camera for every 14 people. The figure becomes even more staggering when considering the UK has 20% of the world's CCTVs. The increased proliferation of CCTVs in the United Kingdom has lead to debates over security versus privacy. CCTV was first introduced in the United Kingdom in response to the IRA bombings.

The supporters of the wide spread of CCTV technology argue it serves not only as a key crime prevention tool, but on detection and prosecution. The impact of CCTV on high profiled murder cases in the United Kingdom has been important. CCTV technology in the United Kingdom has been enhanced by a new software technology, called the Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance system (IPS), which allows for advanced face recognition and monitoring. The IPS surveillance systems where first introduced in two London Underground stations - Liverpool Street and Mile End. The most concerning element of this project is that customers of these stations where never informed about the introduction of these cameras. Peter Tollington, at that time involved in the operation of the Underground justified by the decision with the following statement - "we want to get the technology right before we make any song or dance about its effectiveness".

On the other hand the introduction of CCTV has lead to an increased “Big Brother State” reminiscent of George Orwell’s nineteen eighty four which featured a two-way telescreen  in every home through which The Party would monitor the population. The question raised is that citizens are being asked to give up civil liberties for security. This claim is defined as a false choice and quoting one of the founding fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In 1996, a video called Caught in the Act prompted outrage when it hit stores in the United Kingdom. The film was a series of CCTV material showing people in a variety of intimate situations. On July 22, 2006 Jean Charles de Menzes, a Brazilian citizen living in London was shot dead by police at Stockwell station in London. CCTV footage has debunked some the police original claims. More concerning is that the CCTV footage of Stockwell station have never been made available. The police claim because of the follow-up bombing attempts the previous day, some of the tapes had been supposedly removed from various CCTV cameras, for study, and they were not functional.

This event as many more is a dramatic demonstration of the gap in trust between government and governed, rich and poor. More importantly and key to the discussion, it raises concerns regarding the collection and distribution of CCTV footage by public and private entities. In short, it poses the challenge of who is “watching the watchers”? The UK Data Protection Act of 1998 led to legal restrictions being imposed on the use that CCTV footage can be put to, and also mandated their registration with the Data Protection Agency. The successor to the Data Protection Agency, the Information Commissioner clarified that this required registration of all CCTV systems with the Commissioner, and prompt deletion of archived footage. 

The extensive use of CCTV technology is increasingly becoming an element of Dark Matter Politics, as public consultation and disclosure on their installation is limited.

privacy, surveillance, cctv, security cameras, privacy

Women, Abortion, Divorce and the Chilean Catholic Church

It is often said that if the Vatican ever had to go into exile again, rather than Avignon, the place of choice would be Santiago de Chile.

Chile has traditionally been a bastion of Catholicism. The strong influence of the Catholic Church is a direct result of the Spanish crown, and the “patronato real”, an agreement that gave the Spanish throne and, by extension, the colonial authorities significant powers in church affairs (for example  appointments of clergy and bishops required the approval of civil authorities). This relationship was cemented in the 1833 constitution, which made Roman Catholicism the established church of the new Chilean republic.

The 1992 census showed that 77% of the population fourteen years of age and older declared itself Catholic, while 13% percent declared itself either Evangelical (the term Evangelical in the country is used to refer to all non-Catholic Christian churches with the exception of the Orthodox, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses) or Protestant. Chile’s cultural conservativeness (a direct result of the strong Catholic tradition) has lead to one of the world's most restrictive laws on abortion and divorce. 

Abortion has constituted a crime in Chile. The 1874 penal code prohibits abortion in all cases. In 1931, the Codigo Sanitario (national health law) gave doctors the possibility to provide abortions, without criminal penalties for the doctor or the woman, where necessary to safe the pregnant woman's health or life (so-called "therapeutic abortion.") According to this law, a woman needed the consent of two doctors to obtain a non-punishable abortion. In 1989, President Pinochet annulled this statutory exception to the general illegality of abortion as one of his last acts in office. The national health law now prohibits abortion in all circumstances. However things are beginning to change - in late 2005, the Chilean Supreme Court of Justice authorised the sale of Postinor II, a "morning after pill," which is sold in some pharmacies against medical prescriptions that are retained on file.

Chile didn't legalize divorce until the 11th of March 2004, in great part due to the influence of the Church which effectively blocked the law for over nine years. Chile had been one of the last countries in the world, where divorce is legally forbidden (the law forbidding divorce was passed in 1884). The Church tried to kill the law by creating moral pressure on Parliament members. In an aggressive television advertising campaign, the Church claimed the law would strain the institution of family ("Chile wants a united family. Let's not divide it" was the main claim of the campaign), even threatening ex-communication to Catholic parliamentarians who voted in its favour.

Discussions on the morality of these laws and events will continue for a very long time. However, a central question and matter of Dark Matter Politics is the role and influence of the Chilean church in the advancement of women’s interests in the country.

The Bush Doctrine

When identifying the single most significant force defining the George W. Bush administration (in addition to the events of 9/11) many perspectives and opinions surface. One of the most significant forces has been the dramatic shift in foreign policy – the replacement of a traditional policy of containment and deterrence with a doctrine of preemptive action. The impact of this new doctrine has been dramatic; not only on the way the United States relates to the rest of the world community but the fundamental principles and beliefs guiding the country. Internal policies such as the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security are not direct results of this new policy but a reflection of a new kind of approach, based on a “duty to prevent” and a “right of self-defence”. This notion of duty needs to be examined carefully. 

Recently, George W. Bush declared at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves - safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life."

This statement embodies noble core values and beliefs, if not universal, applicable to aspirations of many peoples of the world. The question must be raised - can a doctrine of preemptive action co-exist and support these values and beliefs? We invite you to provide your perspective on this question.

These ideals are not new to the politics of the United States - one could argue President Bush pespective is greatly influenced by what is known as "Wilsonian Idealism" (a great definition and overview of Wilson's administration are provided by Wikipedia). President Woodrow Wilson advocated for the pursuit of democracy and human rights conceptualized within the context of self-determination for the colonized peoples. The idea of universal morality was central for Wilson. In his view, the realization of individual freedom, limited government, and legitimacy of power held the key to both international peace and the emancipation of humanity from injustice. It was within this philosophical context that he advocated for the need to make the world safe for democracy. This, he argued, would promote America's long term political and economic interests.

We must not forget, values and beliefs such as freedom, safety and a better life are best when supported and shared by a society and individuals. When these value and beliefs become institutionalised and turned into doctrines, the main players are no longer individuals but government institutions. These government institutions, while having their citizens interests at hand, can in many instances compromise the application of these core values and beliefs.

In short the “indoctrination of values” by any administration or government is dangerous, and represents a key element in the world of Dark Matter Politics. 

Wilsonian Idealism, george w. bush, bush doctrine, bush-administration

The Tainted Legacy of Former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos

Before addressing the Dark Matter Politics that have shadowed the government of Ricardo Lagos – who presided as leader of Chile from 2000 to early 2006, it is important to review the historical context leading to his administration.

Chile’s reintegration into the democratic world officially began in 1988 following a national plebiscite. The plebiscite provided Chileans with two choices – SI (yes) to have August Pinochet become president of Chile and NO (no) to have open general elections to elect a new democratic government. The Chilean people opted for general elections – with 53.2% of registered voters voting for open general elections. The NO campaign was led by a coalition of political entities and individuals known as the “Concertacion de Partidos por el No”. Following the call for general elections the organisation regrouped as the Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia, putting forward their Cristian Democrat candidate Patricio Aylwin. Aylwin contended with Hernan Buchi, the candidate of the right centre coalition – the former Minster of Finance from 1985-1989 during the Augusto Pinochet rule.

Aylwin became president of Chile on March 11th 1990 ruling until 1994. Aylwin lead a conservative transition government focused on the readjustment and strengthening of its democratic institutions. Case in point, one of Aylwin's first acts as president was the creation of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission – an eight-member commission mandated "to clarify the truth on the violations of human rights" during the military rule.

The Aylwin administration was followed by Eduardo Frei, another Christian Democrat part of the Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia who presided from 1994 to 2000 – gaining 57.9% of the national vote. Interestingly, Eduardo Frei’s father Eduardo Frei Montalva was founder for the National Falange, an independent party based on progressive Christian principles, which in 1957 became the core of the new Christian Democratic party. Eduardo Frei’s administration was characterised by strong international relations and strong investment in social and education programs. The Frei administration was followed by Ricardo Lagos. Lagos became the first socialist president since Salvador Allende was deposed by Pinochet in 1973. 

Ricardo Lagos served as public works minister in the government of president Eduardo Frei from 1994 to 1998. In this role, he developed an innovating system of road concessions, integrated the private sector in the construction of works and its later operation. Since 2002 his government faced suspicions of political corruption due to the prosecution of one of his ministers and of other employees of the Public Works Ministry, in what has been coined as the “MOP-GATE” case. A comitee investigating the accusations, discovered that ministers, and other officials of exclusive confidence of the President, received additional payments to their regular remuneration: the so-called "extra payments". This irregularity was acknowledged by Lagos, who specified that the practice had also developed during the governments of Frei Ruiz-Tagle and Aylwin. During his administration Lagos experienced increased public questioning of contracts between his friends, relatives and state institutions. Furthermore, a complex fraud scheme involving government deposits was uncovered accidentally in February 2004, when Central Bank President Carlos Massad’s secretary was caught sending sensitive financial information to an accomplice in a major investment company, giving the impression that local bond and exchange markets were rigged. Tentative losses to the state treasury where estimated at nearly US$100 million, and the scandal briefly threatened to undermine local capital markets. Massad was forced to resign from the Central Bank on April 1 for negligence.

At the moment when his administration faced increased pressure, a government spokesman, made an astonishing request, stating “Lets not damage Chile's image.”

So what where the forces exerting their influence on the Lagos administration and responsible for increased levels of corruption? The first factor is what we define as the “trafficking of influences”, a common practice in Latin America where power and influence is used to advance personal objectives. The second factor is the closer relationship between business and politics – with some politicians preferring to be “business politicians” as opposed to “public servants”. The third factor is the “prolonged single party rule” - the Lagos administration was the third consecutive presidency of Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia, leading to increased status quo within the political system (on the other hand it could be argued as a positive situation ensuring the continuity of policies and initiatives).

It is unfortunate the legacy of the Lagos administration, which was responsible for some very positive initiatives including the the creation of an unemployment insurance; the AUGE health program guaranteeing coverage for a number of medical conditions; extending compulsory schooling to 12 years and the approval of the first divorce law in Chile; has been tainted by claims of corruption and misuse of power.

ricardo lagos, chile , santiago, MOP-GATE