www.rockymountainnews.com By Naomi Koppel, Associated Press January 28, 2003

Corporate leaders at economic forum tackle business ethics

DAVOS, Switzerland - Corporate leaders at the World Economic Forum turned their attention Monday to the official theme of the conference - how to restore public confidence in business.

"We are dealing with this issue head-on," J.T. Battenberg III, chief executive of U.S. auto supplier Delphi, told the forum, an annual meeting of government and business leaders.

The crisis of confidence was brought on by scandals like the collapse of U.S. energy trader Enron. Many at the forum, which has drawn about 2,300 attendees, called for a new commitment to old-fashioned business ethics instead of relying completely on the laws and rules affecting corporate governance.

"We no longer live in a world where business can say, 'Trust us. We'll do it right,' but one where the public will say, 'Show me you'll do it right,' " said Jaap Winter, former legal adviser to Unilever.

"Business must not only do the right thing but be seen to do the right thing," said Winter, who led a group of experts on corporate governance and accounting issues for European Union finance ministers last year.

The official theme of this year's forum is "building trust," but the meetings have been overshadowed by the U.S. threat of war against Iraq.

Business and government leaders at the forum also showed signs that they have moved closer to solving a problem that has threatened to bring global trade negotiations to a halt.

After intensive talks among the heads of pharmaceutical companies, South African trade minister Alec Erwin and other trade officials, there is progress in finding ways to ensure poor countries can afford vital medicines, said Supachai Panitchpakdi, director-general of the World Trade Organization.

"In the last few days I thought (drug companies) have shown the kind of understanding that really we aren't that far apart and we should still be looking for a possible solution," Supachai, who also participated in the talks, told reporters. "What we heard at the meeting was encouraging."

Negotiations on the issue collapsed late last year after the United States refused to agree to a plan that would have let poor countries in certain circumstances override patents and order cheap, generic drugs from foreign companies to treat diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Discussions are due to restart today at the WTO's headquarters in Geneva.

The forum, in the posh Alpine resort of Davos, has been criticized by some activists as putting corporate profit ahead of improvements for the world's poorest people.

But on Sunday, the new leftist president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, expressed hope that the forum can be brought closer to the opposition World Social Forum, where da Silva also spoke before heading to Davos.

"This is like a simple negotiation between a labor unionist and an employer," he said. "Once they sit at the bargaining table, we can see there are many topics that can be improved so we can reach an agreement."

On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called on the nations of the world to back the Bush administration in a potential war with Iraq.

"History will judge us whether we have the strength, the fortitude and the willingness to take that next step," he said.

Jordan's King Abdullah told the leaders in the next session that there is little chance of avoiding war in Iraq.

"We're a bit too little too late," he said. "Today I think the mechanisms are in place. . . . It would take a miracle to find dialogue and a peaceful solution."

politics.guardian.co.uk George Monbiot Tuesday January 28, 2003 The Guardian

Mr Bush and Mr Blair might have a tougher fight than they anticipated. Not from Saddam Hussein perhaps - although it is still not obvious that they can capture and hold Iraq's cities without major losses - but from an anti-war movement that is beginning to look like nothing the world has seen before.

It's not just that people have begun to gather in great numbers even before a shot has been fired. It's not just that they are doing so without the inducement of conscription or any other direct threat to their welfare. It's not just that there have already been meetings or demonstrations in almost every nation on Earth. It's also that the campaign is being coordinated globally with an unprecedented precision. And the people partly responsible for this are the members of a movement which, even within the past few weeks, the mainstream media has pronounced extinct.

Last year, 40,000 members of the global justice movement gathered at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This year, more than 100,000, from 150 nations, have come - for a meeting! The world has seldom seen such political assemblies since Daniel O'Connell's "monster meetings" in the 1840s.

Far from dying away, our movement has grown bigger than most of us could have guessed. September 11 muffled the protests for a while, but since then they have returned with greater vehemence, everywhere except the US. The last major global demonstration it convened was the rally at the European summit in Barcelona. Some 350,000 activists rose from the dead. They came despite the terrifying response to the marches in June 2001 in Genoa, where the police burst into protesters' dormitories and beat them with truncheons as they lay in their sleeping bags, tortured others in the cells and shot one man dead.

But neither the violent response, nor September 11, nor the indifference of the media have quelled this rising. Ever ready to believe their own story, the newsrooms have interpreted the absence of coverage (by the newsrooms) as an absence of activity. One of our recent discoveries is that we no longer need them. We have our own channels of communication, our own websites and pamphlets and magazines, and those who wish to find us can do so without their help. They can pronounce us dead as often as they like, and we shall, as many times, be resurrected.

The media can be forgiven for expecting us to disappear. In the past, it was hard to sustain global movements of this kind. The socialist international, for example, was famously interrupted by nationalism. When the nations to which the comrades belonged went to war, they forgot their common struggle and took to arms against each other. But now, thanks to the globalisation some members of the movement contest, nationalism is a far weaker force. American citizens are meeting and de bating with Iraqis, even as their countries prepare to go to war. We can no longer be called to heel. Our loyalty is to the principles we defend and to those who share them, irrespective of where they come from.

One of the reasons why the movement appears destined only to grow is that it provides the only major channel through which we can engage with the most critical issues. Climate change, international debt, poverty, the hegemony of the G8 nations, the IMF and the World Bank, the depletion of natural resources, nuclear proliferation and low-level conflict are major themes in the lives of most of the world's people, but minor themes in almost all mainstream political discourse. We are told that the mind-rotting drivel which now fills the pages of the newspapers is a necessary commercial response to the demands of younger readers. This may, to some extent, be true. But here are tens of thousands of young people who have less interest in celebrity culture than George Bush has in Wittgenstein. They have evolved their own scale of values, and re-enfranchised themselves by pursuing what they know to be important. For the great majority of activists - those who live in the poor world - the movement offers the only effective means of reaching people in the richer nations.

We have often been told that the reason we're dead is that we have been overtaken by and subsumed within the anti-war campaign. It would be more accurate to say that the anti-war campaign has, in large part, grown out of the global justice movement. This movement has never recognised a distinction between the power of the rich world's governments and their appointed institutions (the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation) to wage economic warfare and the power of the same governments, working through different institutions (the UN security council, Nato) to send in the bombers. Far from competing with our concerns, the impending war has reinforced our determination to tackle the grotesque maldistribution of power which permits a few national governments to assert a global mandate. When the activists leave Porto Alegre tomorrow, they will take home to their 150 nations a new resolve to turn the struggle against the war with Iraq into a contest over the future of the world.

While younger activists are eager to absorb the experience of people like Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Lula, Victor Chavez, Michael Albert and Arundhati Roy, all of whom are speaking in Porto Alegre, our movement is, as yet, more eager than wise, fired by passions we have yet to master. We have yet to understand, despite the police response in Genoa, the mechanical determination of our opponents.

We are still rather too prepared to believe that spectacular marches can change the world. While the splits between the movement's marxists, anarchists and liberals are well-rehearsed, our real division - between the diversalists and the universalists - has, so far, scarcely been explored. Most of the movement believes that the best means of regaining control over political life is through local community action. A smaller faction (to which I belong) believes that this response is insufficient, and that we must seek to create democratically accountable global institutions. The debates have, so far, been muted. But when they emerge, they will be fierce.

For all that, I think most of us have noticed that something has changed, that we are beginning to move on from the playing of games and the staging of parties, that we are coming to develop a more mature analysis, a better grasp of tactics, an understanding of the need for policy. We are, in other words, beginning for the first time to look like a revolutionary movement. We are finding, too, among some of the indebted states of the poor world, a new preparedness to engage with us. In doing so, they speed our maturation: the more we are taken seriously, the more seriously we take ourselves.

Whether we are noticed or not is no longer relevant. We know that, with or without the media's help, we are a gathering force which might one day prove unstoppable.

www.monbiot.com

politics.guardian.co.uk George Monbiot Tuesday January 28, 2003 The Guardian

Mr Bush and Mr Blair might have a tougher fight than they anticipated. Not from Saddam Hussein perhaps - although it is still not obvious that they can capture and hold Iraq's cities without major losses - but from an anti-war movement that is beginning to look like nothing the world has seen before.

It's not just that people have begun to gather in great numbers even before a shot has been fired. It's not just that they are doing so without the inducement of conscription or any other direct threat to their welfare. It's not just that there have already been meetings or demonstrations in almost every nation on Earth. It's also that the campaign is being coordinated globally with an unprecedented precision. And the people partly responsible for this are the members of a movement which, even within the past few weeks, the mainstream media has pronounced extinct.

Last year, 40,000 members of the global justice movement gathered at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This year, more than 100,000, from 150 nations, have come - for a meeting! The world has seldom seen such political assemblies since Daniel O'Connell's "monster meetings" in the 1840s.

Far from dying away, our movement has grown bigger than most of us could have guessed. September 11 muffled the protests for a while, but since then they have returned with greater vehemence, everywhere except the US. The last major global demonstration it convened was the rally at the European summit in Barcelona. Some 350,000 activists rose from the dead. They came despite the terrifying response to the marches in June 2001 in Genoa, where the police burst into protesters' dormitories and beat them with truncheons as they lay in their sleeping bags, tortured others in the cells and shot one man dead.

But neither the violent response, nor September 11, nor the indifference of the media have quelled this rising. Ever ready to believe their own story, the newsrooms have interpreted the absence of coverage (by the newsrooms) as an absence of activity. One of our recent discoveries is that we no longer need them. We have our own channels of communication, our own websites and pamphlets and magazines, and those who wish to find us can do so without their help. They can pronounce us dead as often as they like, and we shall, as many times, be resurrected.

The media can be forgiven for expecting us to disappear. In the past, it was hard to sustain global movements of this kind. The socialist international, for example, was famously interrupted by nationalism. When the nations to which the comrades belonged went to war, they forgot their common struggle and took to arms against each other. But now, thanks to the globalisation some members of the movement contest, nationalism is a far weaker force. American citizens are meeting and de bating with Iraqis, even as their countries prepare to go to war. We can no longer be called to heel. Our loyalty is to the principles we defend and to those who share them, irrespective of where they come from.

One of the reasons why the movement appears destined only to grow is that it provides the only major channel through which we can engage with the most critical issues. Climate change, international debt, poverty, the hegemony of the G8 nations, the IMF and the World Bank, the depletion of natural resources, nuclear proliferation and low-level conflict are major themes in the lives of most of the world's people, but minor themes in almost all mainstream political discourse. We are told that the mind-rotting drivel which now fills the pages of the newspapers is a necessary commercial response to the demands of younger readers. This may, to some extent, be true. But here are tens of thousands of young people who have less interest in celebrity culture than George Bush has in Wittgenstein. They have evolved their own scale of values, and re-enfranchised themselves by pursuing what they know to be important. For the great majority of activists - those who live in the poor world - the movement offers the only effective means of reaching people in the richer nations.

We have often been told that the reason we're dead is that we have been overtaken by and subsumed within the anti-war campaign. It would be more accurate to say that the anti-war campaign has, in large part, grown out of the global justice movement. This movement has never recognised a distinction between the power of the rich world's governments and their appointed institutions (the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation) to wage economic warfare and the power of the same governments, working through different institutions (the UN security council, Nato) to send in the bombers. Far from competing with our concerns, the impending war has reinforced our determination to tackle the grotesque maldistribution of power which permits a few national governments to assert a global mandate. When the activists leave Porto Alegre tomorrow, they will take home to their 150 nations a new resolve to turn the struggle against the war with Iraq into a contest over the future of the world.

While younger activists are eager to absorb the experience of people like Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Lula, Victor Chavez, Michael Albert and Arundhati Roy, all of whom are speaking in Porto Alegre, our movement is, as yet, more eager than wise, fired by passions we have yet to master. We have yet to understand, despite the police response in Genoa, the mechanical determination of our opponents.

We are still rather too prepared to believe that spectacular marches can change the world. While the splits between the movement's marxists, anarchists and liberals are well-rehearsed, our real division - between the diversalists and the universalists - has, so far, scarcely been explored. Most of the movement believes that the best means of regaining control over political life is through local community action. A smaller faction (to which I belong) believes that this response is insufficient, and that we must seek to create democratically accountable global institutions. The debates have, so far, been muted. But when they emerge, they will be fierce.

For all that, I think most of us have noticed that something has changed, that we are beginning to move on from the playing of games and the staging of parties, that we are coming to develop a more mature analysis, a better grasp of tactics, an understanding of the need for policy. We are, in other words, beginning for the first time to look like a revolutionary movement. We are finding, too, among some of the indebted states of the poor world, a new preparedness to engage with us. In doing so, they speed our maturation: the more we are taken seriously, the more seriously we take ourselves.

Whether we are noticed or not is no longer relevant. We know that, with or without the media's help, we are a gathering force which might one day prove unstoppable.

www.monbiot.com

www.vheadline.com: Monday, January 27, 2003 - 3:01:38 PM By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

The Miami Herald says many Venezuelans who flew to the United States to pass the Christmas vacations in Florida have decided to stay on and not return even though they had bought a return ticket.  Many claim that they cannot face a return to scarcity of foodstuffs, insecurity and political unrest in Venezuela.

• A local Miami school reports that 80 Venezuelan families have signed their children up for primary school since Christmas.

The Venezuelan-American Brotherhood has confirmed the trend adding that the situation is even more critical since US firms are not investing in Venezuela any more. Some of the Venezuelans say they expect aid from Miami’s Cuban community, which has espoused the Venezuelan opposition cause because of President Chavez Frias’ alleged close friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Monday, January 27, 2003 - 3:14:44 PM By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

Shipping Association of Venezuela (ANV) director Federico Boccardo has announced that shipping lines will start moving cargo this week after 50 days of inactivity owing to the national stoppage. “It doesn’t mean we are resuming activities … we will be bringing cargoes that were diverted to other ports.”

• Boccardo says the association wants to help metallurgy and chemical companies that must to fulfill contracts or suffer stiff penalties.

However, there are security and gasoline supply problems to attend to before the shipping lines get into full swing again.

Some pilots, Boccardo maintains,  are still undecided whether to return to work and insurance companies must be called in to give the green light regarding optimum conditions. He adds that the Navy has taken over from rebel Port captains in Puerto Cabello, La Guaira and Maracaibo.