www.nzherald.co.nz 29.01.2003

First, there was the ticking clock: the countdown to the war by the United States.

Then there was the second ticking clock: the diary of the week - the Blix statement, the State of the Union Address, the Blair-Bush war cabinet.

No one in the press talked about the third ticking clock: the dollar, the collapsing US economy, Venezuela and North Korea.

How easily do we slip into war?

The people don't support us? Why, let them be reminded of the asphyxiated Kurds of Halabja (whom we didn't care about at the time), the "weapons of mass destruction" which have never been used against us (but which we helped to create), the flagrant breach of United Nations resolutions of which Iraq has stood guilty (along with Israel, though we mustn't say so).

Ah yes, it's a hard life trying to convince a free people to go to war.

Especially when some of them - the British perhaps - take note of some unhappy facts along the way.

Let's take, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 14 dead Palestinians in Gaza in just 12 hours - killed by an army led by a general whom President George W. Bush has called a "man of peace".

Few newspapers in Europe reported two weeks ago that Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said he supports a change in the country's legislation, which would, after all, allow Sharon to be tried for war crimes during the Sabra and Chatila Beirut camps massacre in 1982.

When Sharon stood for election in 2001, he expressed his regret about the "terrible tragedy" of Sabra and Chatila - at 1700 civilian dead, this was more than half the total fatalities of the World Trade Centre on September 11 that year. The most important prosecution witness against Sharon was the Lebanese Phalangist militia leader Elie Hobeika, who agreed to testify in Brussels last year, but was murdered just over 12 hours later. Israel denied any part in the murder.

The critical aspect of the forthcoming war in Iraq - alas, I suppose we must use such words as "forthcoming" - is that journalists are already using the language of inevitability.

The Americans are the good guys, the British the same - if their tank units perform as efficiently as the Americans' - just so long as no one brings up the subject of Israel.

Just take a look at Israel's man in space, Ilan Roman, a hero of the interstellar world who is now a crew member of the space shuttle Colombia, "a crew fighter pilot who bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981," according to Associated Press.

But then AP says that, "He fought ... in the 1982 war in Lebanon". Really? But 17,500 civilians were slaughtered in this war, mostly by the Israeli Air Force.

Does Roman really fit into the new US space world? There is a serious case for some Israeli pilots in 1982 being brought before a war crimes tribunal.

I have met some of Roman's colleagues, who are haunted by the killing of the innocents they were called upon to commit. Maybe Roman is a nice guy. He certainly looks it. But when the New York Times suggests that the pilots may become "targets for terrorists" it doesn't say why.

Strange, you may think, to include all this in the third ticking clock. But in the Middle East, it is part of the story.

In other words: When the Americans invade Iraq, let's watch the Israel-Palestine war and ask ourselves the old question "why?".

Let's ask why we don't invade North Korea. Let's remember the dollar.

www.prospect.org By Jeff Faux Issue Date: 2.1.03

Print Friendly | Email Article Two political movements representing distinct visions of the global economy will hold their annual conventions the last week of January. The World Economic Forum -- an organization of some 1,000 multinational corporations -- will meet in Davos, a picture book ski resort in the Swiss Alps. The forum was organized 30 years ago to provide a discreet hideaway where businessmen-without-borders could socialize and strategize with one another and selected heads of state. Over the years, Davos has become less an exclusive retreat to do business and more a quasi-public conference on how to make the world safe for multinational capital. This year, more than 500 government officials, media pundits, leaders of churches and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Red Cross, and "leading thinkers" will share cocktails and ideas with the captains of global capitalism.

Meanwhile, some 7,000 miles away, a much larger group of environmental, labor and other social activists will gather in sunny Porto Alegre, a bustling commercial city in the flat, cattle-raising landscape of southeastern Brazil. The World Social Forum was first organized in 2000 as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum. Porto Alegre was chosen because it is in the Third World and because the local government -- run by Brazil's Workers' Party, whose leader, known as Lula, has just been elected president -- offered to host it. Two years ago, 4,000 registered delegates showed up, and another 16,000 people came to listen to the discussions. Last year there were 14,000 registrants and 35,000 observers. For this year's conference, organizers had 24,000 registrants by Dec. 1.

Although the party of Porto Alegre has larger conventions, the party of Davos remains in power almost everywhere. Its neoliberal model, which makes freedom to invest the supreme political value, has been for 20 years the agenda of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and other governing institutions of the global marketplace.

But inside the cozy chalets of Davos, the triumphalism of the past is likely to be muted this year. The world's economy is entering the third year of economic slowdown, and there's no consensus among the multinational elites on how to revive it. Japan remains in the grip of its deflationary spiral, tight-money central bankers are choking Europe's growth and much of the developing world is staggering under unpayable debts. The prospect of war in Iraq and at least a short-term unsettling of global oil prices add to the jitters. Doubts about the Bush administration's competence notwithstanding, Davos looks to the United States for salvation -- hoping that U.S. consumers will continue to defy the laws of economic gravity by spending more than they earn in order to absorb the rest of the world's excess production.

The uneasiness among the Davos constituency reflects more than business-cycle anxiety. Despite the rapid U.S. expansion of the 1990s, the neoliberal model has failed to deliver on its promises to accelerate Third World growth, improve the distribution of income, and usher in an era of freedom and democracy. Indeed, almost half of the world's 50 poorest countries saw a drop in their per capita incomes over the decade.

Misgivings can now be found even at U.S. universities, where thousands of foreign economics and business students have been trained in neoliberal thought. As The Wall Street Journal recently observed, "After the economic and financial distress that has hit Mexico, Asia, Russia, Argentina and Brazil in the past decade, the current generation [of foreign students] is absorbing a sobering new message about globalization and the trade-offs and turmoil that can come with it."

The response at corporate Davos has been to blame the customer, not the product. The theme of this year's conference is that ordinary people are plagued by a lack of trust in the world's companies, governments and other established institutions. A press release warns that unless trust is somehow restored, the world could see "greater system instability and a growing mandate for NGOs and new political parties."

This global distrust of established institutions that brings heartburn to the party of Davos brings hope to the party of Porto Alegre. It is a sign that the world's ordinary people are waking up to the failures of global laissez-faire. Davos looks to George W. Bush; Porto Alegre looks to Lula. The victory of Lula -- an ex-labor leader jailed under the 20-year military dictatorship with which many of the Davos member companies were happy to do business -- is Porto Alegre's answer to the establishment media that dismiss their protest movement as kooky and without clout.

Lula's victory certainly helps make the case for the Porto Alegre theme, "Another World Is Possible." But the vision of that other world is still incomplete. There is no consensus among the many disparate groups that fill the hundreds of workshops and seminars of their convention. The emphasis on self-sufficiency, decentralization and autonomy for indigenous tribes does not necessarily resonate with the majority of the world's impoverished people, who see their problem as lack of access to First World goods and services.

In Latin America, for example, where the neoliberal model is widely discredited, populist leaders remain intimidated by the threat of a capital strike from the world's financial markets. After a year of financial meltdown, Argentina is still on IMF life supports. In Venezuela, populist President Hugo Chavez is being pushed to the wall by a shutdown of the oil industry. Even in Brazil, Lula has had to reassure Wall Street by appointing conservatives to run the central bank and other economic ministries.

Indeed, the shadow of a third model -- China -- falls over both Davos and Porto Alegre. For Davos, China is a multinational corporation's dream: practically infinite sources of cheap, docile labor and a government that will use force to keep it that way. Yet China's amalgam of private greed and state power threatens to create corporate competitors whose market clout even the U.S. oil and military industrial complexes might not be able to match.

The threat to the party of Porto Alegre is that the socially repressive Chinese model -- what has been called Market Leninism -- may turn out to be an attractive alternative for the desperate Third World, resulting in a future of more centralization, more environmental degradation and much less democracy. History's sun may well be setting on Davos, but it has not yet risen on Porto Alegre.

www.nytimes.com By DAVID KOEPPEL

An American telecommunications executive on business in Venezuela is involved in an automobile accident that severely injures the other driver. Even though he is not at fault, he is arrested.

A businessman traveling in the Middle East is arrested at the airport for possessing a pornographic magazine.

A Connecticut dealer in meteorites is jailed in Brazil, accused of stealing a meteorite.

While the vast majority of business conducted by Americans abroad is relatively problem-free, security specialists, lawyers and diplomats all recommend taking great care in countries where navigating an array of obscure and often byzantine laws can be perilous. The State Department estimates that about 3,000 Americans are arrested in foreign countries every year, and most experts say the true figure is probably higher. In many cases, guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

"When you're traveling abroad for business or pleasure you need to understand something about the country's legal and cultural background," said Alexander Tabb, the associate managing director of the Security Services Group of Kroll Inc. "Just because you're an American doesn't make you safe, and it doesn't mean some cop won't beat the living daylights out of you."

Even innocent gestures like taking photographs can court trouble. And reckless driving or possession of even a small amount of drugs can land you in jail for years. Prison conditions in most developing nations are at best squalid and at worst extremely dangerous.

Ronald Farrell, 48, a buyer and seller of meteorites in Bethany, Conn., discovered how dangerous. Mr. Farrell spent 75 days in a Brazilian federal prison in 1997 after he and an associate were accused of stealing a meteorite from a museum, a charge he said was baseless.

Mr. Farrell said he was locked in an 18-by-20-foot foot cell with 16 other prisoners, including convicted murderers, given inedible meals and threatened by guards with beatings. In his second month of captivity, he said, he managed to bribe officials into giving him better food and letting him make cellphone calls to his wife back home. After his lawyers bought his freedom for $25,000, he said, he was forced to remain in Brazil for two months. He said that throughout the ordeal the American consulate offered little assistance.

"I still suffer from trauma when I travel," he said. "I can wake up in a strange hotel and think I'm still back in that Brazilian cell."

Kelly Shannon, a State Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on Mr. Farrell's case, but said that the help that consular officers could give to jailed Americans was limited. The officers generally visit the prisoners and can bring food, medication and reading material; make legal recommendations; insist on proper treatment; notify the prisoners' families; and file protests about prison conditions. But, she said, they cannot demand a detainee's release or provide a lawyer.

The State Department recommends that travelers check its Web site (www.travel.state.gov) for specific warnings and advisories.

While most business travelers are smart enough not to bring illegal drugs or firearms into foreign countries, they can be caught unaware by some local regulations. Many countries prohibit taking photos of government buildings and airports, for example; Ms. Shannon said a woman was detained in Zimbabwe for photographing a government mansion last year. And Japan bans such commonplace over-the-counter medications as Tylenol Cold Medicine and Nyquil.

Bruce McIndoe, chief executive of iJet, a Maryland company that provides legal, cultural and security information about 182 countries to mostly corporate and government clients, urges travelers to be alert to local mores, like whether police will seek a bribe or bristle at one. In Thailand, he said, it is not unheard-of for drugs to be planted in a traveler's suitcase.

About the worst thing that can happen is to be arrested for drug possession. Scores of Americans have been imprisoned in Thailand on drug charges in recent years, for example, most of them claiming they were coerced or duped.

In one highly publicized case, Stephen Roye, an American journalist, was arrested in 1994 at the Bangkok airport and charged with possessing about six pounds of heroin. Mr. Roye, now 57, said he had been doing research for an article on the drug trade and was forced into concealing the contraband in his luggage by heroin smugglers who threatened to kill his mother and son. He received a life sentence that was later commuted to 40 years; last month, he was allowed to return home and complete his sentence in the United States.

Richard Atkins, the vice president of International Recoveries, a Philadelphia organization that works with Americans arrested abroad, says a more common risk is being detained in car accidents, especially if there are serious injuries. Drivers and passengers alike can "wind up in a hellhole of a prison cell," Mr. Atkins said.

"Investigations can sometimes last several months," he added.

He strongly recommends carrying a charged cellphone and having adequate travel insurance that includes a 24-hour legal-consultations service. He recalled a client who was arrested several years ago in Venezuela after his car was struck in the rear by another driver, who was seriously injured. The client, an American telecommunications executive, grabbed his cellphone and called his travel-assistance company's hot line even as he was being taken away by police, Mr. Atkins said. The company then called International Recoveries with his insurance information, the name of co-workers and Venezuelan officials to contact immediately, he said. The client was released from custody within several hours.

Other experts recommend finding a reliable and licensed car service in unfamiliar countries. Gladson I. Nwanna, a finance professor at Morgan State University in Baltimore and author of "Americans Traveling Abroad: What you Should Know Before You Go" (World Travel Institute, 1996), says that in any third world country it is a good idea to check in with the American consulate and with the country's tourism ministry on potential pitfalls.

"Bribery is a common way of doing business in many parts of the world," Dr. Nwanna said. "But if you give money to the wrong person, it can get you into trouble."

Giving it to the right person does not have to be expensive, though. John Briley, the senior managing editor for Ijet and a freelance writer, said $5 freed him from a speeding charge in Panama and $10 bought off a border guard when he wandered into Costa Rica by mistake.

Mr. Tabb, the Kroll official, advises Americans who think they are about to be arrested abroad to keep a cool head — and a soft voice. "Let them know you're an American citizen and ask to speak to the consulate," he said. "Don't be demanding or arrogant. The squeaky wheel will not get the grease."

biz.thestar.com.my

PRICES of plastic resins, both local and imported, have increased substantially between 15% and 30% in late January this year compared with November 2002. 

The increase was in line with the surge in the crude oil price, which had surpassed US$30 per barrel, the Malaysian Plastics Manufacturers Association (MPMA) said in a statement. 

MPMA said that this prevailing trend was expected to continue into February/March 2003 due to the increasing threat of the Iraqi war and the oil-strike in Venezuela, which would not likely end by next month. 

“Because of this increase in the prices of plastic resins, there would be a spill-over effect, which leads to the increase in the cost of production,” it said. 

MPMA president Callum Chen said that the association had asked that retailers of plastic finished products exercise some understanding and consideration in their negotiations with the plastic products manufacturers so as not to have too big an impact on the end-users. 

Currently MPMA has 900 members, which represent about 60% of plastics manufacturers in the country and accounts for 80% of the country’s total production of plastic products. – Bernama 

www.examiner.com Date: 01/27/2003 BY CONN HALLINAN Special to The Examiner

    WHEN THE BUSH administration threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons last year, it did more than ignite the present standoff in North Asia. It opened the Pandora's Box of proliferation.

    The genesis of the present crisis goes back to the administration's 2001 nuclear policy review, which proposed using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations, including Libya, Syria and North Korea.

    While the North Koreans have caught flak for withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, it was, in fact, the U.S. that violated the treaty by making the threat in the first place.

    Under the 1968 agreement, nuclear powers agreed never to threaten non-nuclear nations with nuclear weapons unless those countries were in alliance with another nuclear power.

    In spite of the insular and rigid nature of the North Korean regime, it is George Bush, not Kim Jong Il, who has thumbed his nose at the international community. Washington, not Pyongyang, dismantled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements and is preparing to violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by testing its "bunker busting" nuke.

    How did this happen?

    It happened because the spineless Democrats remained silent and because the United Nations Security Council failed to challenge the nuclear policy review as a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Where will this lead? How about a nuclear arms race in Asia?

    North Korea is not the only proliferation problem on the Korean Peninsula. In March 1994, the head of the South Korean National Security Planning Agency revealed that former President Roh Tae Woo approved a covert nuclear weapons program.

    There are at least two other countries in Asia that can produce nuclear weapons if they choose -- Japan and Taiwan.

    According to the CIA, Taiwan, Israel and South Africa tested a nuclear weapon over the South Atlantic on Sept. 22, 1979, so we can assume the Taiwanese know how. And in May 2002, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Yasuo Fukuda, said that Japan was considering abandoning its long-term opposition to nuclear weapons.

    How about nuclear weapons in South America?

    Early this month, Brazil Minister of Science Roberto Amaral said Brazil could not afford to renounce any scientific knowledge, "whether the genome, DNA or nuclear fission."

    The left-wing government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva quickly distanced itself from Amaral's remark, but Brazilians are well aware of the unequal nature of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In September da Silva said that, "If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?"

    Brazil and Argentina have nuclear programs dating to the 1950s and, during the period of their respective military dictatorships, pursued nuclear weapons research. Both countries signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Brazil has cause to be jumpy, given the Bush administration's attitude toward left-wing regimes in Latin America.

    Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, says Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba are a Latin "axis of evil" and that da Silva is a "pro-Castro radical."

    Talk like that ought to make everyone nervous these days, particularly with right-wing extremists such as John Bolton, Otto Reich and Elliot Abrams heading up the administration's Latin America policy.

    If Brazil decides to take this axis stuff seriously, it may indeed decide to go nuclear. If Brazil builds a bomb, so will Argentina.

    "Sow the wind, reap the storm" goes the old dictum. The Bush administration has been sowing nuclear threats since early last year, and we are reaping the results of that policy.

    Comment: letters@examiner.com

    Conn Hallinan is a provost at UC Santa Cruz.