Science under the Bush Administration

One of the most talked about speakers at the July Democratic Republican Convention, in Boston, was Ron Reagan, son of the two-time president and beloved figure of the Republican party. Ron Reagan spoke specifically in defense of embryonic stem-cell research. His speech was touted as non-political, but here is how Reagan ended:

In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology.

He cannot help but make these strong contrasts, for its not that the Bush Administration has systematically sidelines the opinion of scientists, in favor of positions of the religious right or powerful corporations. Another speaker at the convention to make this point extremely clear, in a short yet powerful speech at the convention, was Robert Kennedy Jr, the son of the former eponymous Attorney General, himself an environmental activist and lawyer:

In 20 years as an environmental advocate, I’ve been disciplined about being non-partisan in my approach to the environment. If you talk to the CEOs of almost any environmental organization, they’ll say that the worst thing that could happen to the environment would be if it became a partisan issue, the province of a single political party. Five years ago, if you asked experts what they thought was the gravest threat to our environment, they’d mention a whole range of issues, from over-population to global warming, to toxins in our food and air. But today, they’ll give you just one answer: It’s George W. Bush.

You simply cannot talk honestly about the environment today without speaking critically about this administration. This administration has promoted 400 major rollbacks that threaten to eviscerate 30 years of environmental progress. They’ve put polluters in charge of the very agencies that are supposed to regulate them. The second in command of the EPA is a former Monsanto lobbyist. The second in command of the Forest Service is a former timber
industry lobbyist.

This administration says that we have to choose between environmental protection on one hand and economic prosperity on the other. But that is a false choice. Good environmental policy and good economic policy are identical. If we treat this earth as a business, converting our natural resources to cash as fast as possible, we might have a few years of pollution-based prosperity. But our children would have to pay for it - pay for it with a barren landscape, poor health, and astronomical clean up costs.

Environmental injury is deficit spending – putting the cost of our generation’s prosperity on the backs of our children. This entire Administration is about deficit spending. They’ve squandered a $5 trillion surplus. And they’ve squandered the goodwill of the world.

Kennedy Jr. has a longer exposition of his views in The Nation, called The Junk Science of George Bush.

A comprenhensive critique of the Bush Administration's misuse of science in its policy making was prepared by preeminent scientists. Their report, titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, was released in Feb'04. The scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented "manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions." In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released detailed documentation backing up the scientists’ charges in its report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. This report was recently updated. UCS also issued a sign-on statement signed by "more than than 5,000 scientists [including] 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences. A number of these scientists have served in multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican, underscoring the unprecedented nature of this administration’s practices and demonstrating that the issues of scientific integrity transcend partisan politics." Among the structural reasons invoked in the statement are:

• Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
• Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters.
• The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
• Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
• In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

Hand-in-hand with the structural measures are policy decisions exposing the systematic misuse, abuse, and disregard of science in policy-making, in the areas of the environment (undermining the Endagered Species Act, the Clear Skies Act, international efforts to curtail Climate Change), public health (emphasizing abstinence, rather than condom use), and defense (deciding to proceed with projects deemed inviable by scientists, such as missile defense, or 'bunker-buster' that do not generate fallout).

Crisis in Congo

Sadly, the situation in Western Sudan, in the Dafur region, is not the only humanitarian crisis in Africa. War in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has led to perhaps 3.5 million civilians dead, a toll that makes this war more deadly to civilians than any other since World War I, and a refugee crisis of enormous magnitude. At stake is control over gold, diamonds, timber and coltan, used in the making of mobile phones.
The power-sharing government, installed in 2003, is beginning to crumble and there is great risk of a return of overt war. On Aug 13th, 151 Congolese Tutsi refugees, known as Banyamulenge, were massacred in Gatumba refugee camp, some 120 km south from Bukavu. Gatumba sheltered 860 Congolese before the attack. It is one of three camps near the DRC border hosting 20,000 Congolese who fled fighting in the DRC's South Kivu province in June.
A Burundian rebel movement, the Forces nationales de liberation (FNL) led by Agathon Rwasa, has claimed responsibility for the massacre. Rwasa's FNL, whose stronghold is in the province of Bujumbura Rural that surrounds the capital, is the only rebel group in Burundi not to have laid down its arms.
However, several regional leaders, including Azarias Ruberwa leader of the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD-Goma) and one of Congo's four vice-presidents, blame the massacre on Rwandan Hutu rebels in the DRC known as Interahamwe and elements of the Mayi-Mayi. On monday, Aug 23rd, Ruberwa announced his group, the RCD, has suspended its participation in the country's power-sharing government, saying Congo's peace process has broken down and needs to be reassessed. The former rebels say they have no plans to resume fighting.
Understanding the politics of the Congo is hard. Its a huge country, the 12th largest in the world with over 250 ethnic groups, and some 700 local languages and dialects. War has involved numerous factions and many of the DRC's neighboring countries. A brief history of the more recent conflict is helpful.
The genocide in neighboring Rwanda and Burundi, in 1994, led to the massive inflow of more than a million Hutu refugees into exile in the DRC. In late 1996, Rwandan sent its troops into the Congo, asserting the need to impede preparations for attacks on Rwanda and to protect the Banyamulenge, Congolese of the Tutsi ethnic group. Rwandan soldiers together with combatants of the Allied Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaire, AFDL), a hastily organized coalition of Congolese forces led by Laurent-Desire Kabila, attacked refugee camps, killed tens of thousands of Rwandans, many of them unarmed civilian refugees, and forced hundreds of thousands to return to Rwanda.
The AFDL rebel force and its Rwandan and later Ugandan allies overthrew the dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, in May 1997. Kabila assumed the presidency, and 14 months later sought to oust their foreign backers. Rwanda and Uganda supported a new rebellion against the Congolese government led by the RCD. In August 1999, Tutsi troops supported by Rwanda and Uganda attempted to overthrow Kabila. The rebel groups took control of much of the east of the DRC. Zimbabwe, Namibia, Chad, Sudan, and Angola sent troops in support of Kabila. In 1999, rifts emerged between Congolese Liberation Movement (MLC) rebels supported by Uganda and Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD) rebels backed by Rwanda.
A cease-fire was signed in Lusaka, in July of 1999. However, the fighting continued between rebels and government forces, and between Rwandan and Ugandan forces. In January 2001, President Kabila was shot dead by a bodyguard, and was succeeded by his son, Joseph Kabila. In February, Kabila met Rwandan President Paul Kagame in Washington, after which Rwanda, Uganda and the rebels agreed to a UN pull-out plan.
In Dec.'02, a peace deal was signed in South Africa between Kinshasa government and main rebel groups. Under the deal rebels and opposition members are to be given portfolios in an interim government. In April 2003, Pres. Kabila signed a new constitution, under which an interim government will rule for two years, pending elections. In June, Kabila named a transitional government to lead DR Congo until democratic elections take place in 2005.

Some of the groups involved:

• Congolese Liberation Movement (MLC) rebels supported by Uganda.
• Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) purportedly launched to promote reconciliation, the UPC quickly became a predominately Gegere-led political party intent on promoting the interests of the Hema and related Gegere. It turned to Rwanda for support and formed an alliance with the Rwandan-backed RCD-Goma after being excluded by the RCD-ML and the MLC from the Mambasa ceasefire talks in December 2002.
• Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD-Goma), or Rally for Congolese Democracy. A movement split from the RCD-ML, backed by Rwanda, that provides aid to the Union of Patriotic Congolese (UPC), a Hema militia group. RCD-Goma refers to the group based in Goma which controls most of North and South Kivu, parts of Maniema, Orientale, and Katanga, and a large part of Kasai Orientale provinces. RCD-Goma is widely described as proxy of the Rwandan government and dominated by forces of the Rwandan army which occupies this territory. The Banyamulenge play a major role in the RCD
• Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie - Liberation Movement (RCD-ML) also refered to as Congolese Rally for Democracy. Launched in September 1999 after a split from the RCD-Goma. Backed at the start by Uganda, the RCD-ML has been fractured by leadership struggles and in-fighting.The RCD-ML's military wing is the Congolese Popular Army (APC). The RCD-ML entered into the Sun City agreement of April 2002 and the APC are now being trained and armed by Kinshasa.
• Rally for Congolese Democracy - National (RCD-N): Congolese Rally for Democracy
  initially operated as a front organization for the Ugandans in exploiting the diamond riches of the town of Bafwasende. In 2001 and 2002, the RCD-N supported MLC attempts to win resource-rich areas from the RCD-ML.
• The term Mayi-Mayi originally applied to numerous locally based groups of combatants committed to the defense of their communities against outsiders. During the course of the war, some Mai-Mai came to focus on increasing their own wealth and power in the name of defending their communities. They became opportunistic predators, killing, raping and pillaging local civilians.
• Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (Armée pour la liberation du Rwanda, ALIR), a Rwandan Hutu militia, operates in eastern Congo, in Kivu
• Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (Forces démocratiques pour la liberation du Rwanda, FDLR), a Rwandan Hutu militia affiliated more closely with the Congolese army (Forces Armées Congolaises, FAC) operated mostly in South Kivu and Katanga.
• The Interahamwe (Those who attack together) was one of the military groups that acted to exterminate Rwanda's ethnic Tutsi population in 1994.
• Forces nationales de liberation' (FNL) is the armed wing of the Parti pour la liberation du peuple hutu (PALIPEHUTU), the longest-established Hutu rebel group in Burundi. FNL also is widely believed to have been behind the December 2003 killing of the Vatican's representative in Burundi, Monsignor Michael Courtney, 50 kilometers south of Bujumbura.
  

Democracy in America

Hugo Chavez has survived the recall referendum. Nearly 60% of voters supported the Venezuelan president. The referendum came as a result of an agreement between Chavez and the opposition, in May 2003, mediated by the Organization of American States (OAS), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and The Carter Center (an NGO established by former President Jimmy Carter). Article 72 of the Venezuelan constitution permits citizens to request – if they can gather the signatures of 20 percent of registered voters – a recall referendum on an elected leader halfway through his or her term. Yesterday, millions stood in line committed to vote in an expressive dedication to democratic participation. Chvez recieved a confortable victory, which hopefully will remove any question of Chavez's legitimacy.
The Bush administration has exerted its weight in support the Chavez oppostion. When Chvez was temporarily removed from power by a military coup, in April 2002, the US was quick to support the illegal government and blamed Chavez for creating instability. The State Department release at the time stated: "undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration provoked yesterday's crisis in Venezuela." A popular uprising, however, reversed the coup and restored the elected President, Chavez, to government. The Bush administration has yet to exercise the same speed of recognition to the referendum results, although the Carter Center, which oversaw the process, has already accepted the Chavez victory.
This isn't the only country where the Bush adminstration has expressed support for the overthrow of democratically elected officials (while claiming to represent a beacon of democracy, of spreading democracy in the Middle East, etc). In February 2004, armed insurgents began to take over Haiti and overthrow the legitimate President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The miltias were lead by Guy Philippe, former U.S. Special Forces-trained Police Chief – trained in Ecuador under their guidance, and Jodal Chamblain, the C.I.A. supported death squad leader. The OAS and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) attempted to broker a peace deal. However, the US rather than support these efforts, coerced Aristide to leave the country (see reports about the removal and interviews with Aristide on Democracy Now!).
The US recognizes the new government, but Caribbean leaders in a meeting last weekend were unable to make a final decision on whether to restore full diplomatic ties with Haiti. At least four heads of government have signaled their opposition to the move, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Guyana, and Dominica. Aristide is presently in Jamaica.
The Center for American Progress outlines instances of the Bush Administration blatant support for a democratic candidate in another country in the Americas.

• In Nicaragua in 2001, U.S. Ambassador Oliver Garza appeared on the campaign trail with ruling party presidential candidate Enrique Bolaños, who was challenging Sandinista Daniel Ortega. The U.S. Embassy invited Bolaños to join the ambassador in handing out food to the poor. In another instance, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida ran an advertisement in La Prensa, Nicaragua's main newspaper, entitled, "George W. Bush Supports Enrique Bolaños." The ad described Ortega as "an enemy of everything the United States represents," and Enrique Bolaños as "a man whose past promises a future of freedom."
• In 2002, U.S. Ambassador Manuel Rocha warned the Bolivian people that the United States would discontinue aid if they elected Evo Morales, the leader of the coca growers, as the country's president. Some analysts believe that Morales' popularity grew in protest to the Bush administration's intervention.
• In 2004, Salvadorans elected center-right presidential candidate Tony Saca over Schafik Handal, the candidate of the former guerilla party, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN). During the campaign, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega and Special Envoy Otto Reich, warned about the possible trade, economic and migratory consequences of an FMLN victory. Furthermore, just before the election, Republican Congressman Thomas Tancredo promised to introduce legislation that would complicate the ability of Salvadoran-Americans to send remittances to their families in El Salvador should the FMLN win the election. This was a worrisome threat, as Salvadorans depend upon the more than $2 billion they receive from their family members in the United States for survival. U.S. actions served to polarize Salvadoran politics, as Saca campaigned as the candidate who could protect remittances, while Handal seized on the anti-Americanism that the U.S. intervention generated.

Let hope the US is able to have an election in November without any hitches. Unlike those in 2000.

Justice in East Timor (and more)

East Timor is a former Portuguese colony. After Portugal overthrew its 48-year long fascist dictatorship in 1974, Timor declared independence on Nov 28, 1975, but was invaded and occupied by Indonesia nine days later. What followed was one of the most devastating ethnic cleansing episodes of history: one third of the Mauber, the people of East Timor, were killed over several decades of Indonesian occupation. After international pressure and crisis in the Indonesian economy and regime, the 78.5% Timorese voted in favor of independence in the UN-backed 1999 referendum. After it became clear the independence had won overwhelmingly, Indonesian military (TNI)-backed militias wrought a wave of violence, killing over 1,500 people and destroying property. This crisis was overcome, and May 20th, 2002, East Timor's independence was officially recognised. Later that year, on Sept. 27th, it became the junior member of the UN, which now encompasses 191 nations.
East Timor, a small nation slightly larger than the Bahamas, has necessarily faced difficulties in its first few years as an independent nation. It lacks infrastructure, qualified personel, and economic resources. Its greatest hope for a viable economy is the extraction of oil, however Timor is engaged in negociations with Australia over how has extraction rights. Here is an explanation of the situation from the East Timor Action Network, a US solidarity organization:

In October 2002, East Timor enacted a Maritime Boundary Law, claiming a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in all directions, based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). If this international principle were applied, many of the oil and gas fields Australia has exploited and intends to exploit would fall within East Timor's EEZ. Where their neighbors' claims overlap, countries need to negotiate a permanent maritime boundary, usually halfway between their coastlines. In March 2002, Australia gave formal notice that it was withdrawing from international legal mechanisms - the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea - to resolve boundary issues that cannot be settled by negotiation. East Timor’s leaders called this withdrawal a hostile act. The withdrawal prevents the new nation from bringing Australia to those forums to contest its refusal to engage in timely and cooperative boundary negotiations.

The other powerful and rich country in its vicinity with which East Timor can have economic relations is naturally its former occupier, Indonesia. This economic need has forced East Timor to not make strong demands of justice and reparations from Indonesia. On Saturday, Aug 7th, a Jakarta appeals court dismissed all pending cases against Indonesians indicted for crimes against humanity committed in East Timor after the 1999 referendum, overturned the convictions of four high-ranking Indonesian military (TNI) and security officials, and reduced by half the ten-year sentence of a notorious TNI-backed militia that led the post-plebiscite violence. The US Congress is presently discussing whether to provide financial to the Indonesian military.
Give this heroic people a break. Give them justice, peace, and their own resources to make their living. Its time. Go to the ETAN website to see what you can do to express support.

World Bubbles. (Sorry for the extras posts: I was trying a new way of posting images to blogger). I just had to share the wrapper of thes bubble maker a friend of mine bought. It contained a bubble "soap" solution and 6 different plastic bubble makers. The remarkable thing was the "Made in ..." on the back. If you can't read from the photo, the bubble solution was made in Mexico, but the bottle and cap in which it is in, as well as the label, were made in the USA. The bubble makers were made in China, although the bubble shooter was made in Taiwan. Finally the packaging was made and printed in Hong Kong. It doensn't mention were it was all assembled, but somehow it was transported over most of the globe and reached a department store on Long Island, New York, USA for the retail price of $1.49. Talk about Globalization. It reminded me of a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr's Strength to Love

We are everlasting debtors to known and unknown men and women.... When we arise in the morning, we go into the bathroom where we reach for a sponge provided for us by a Pacific Islander. We reach for soap that is created for us by a Frenchman. The towel is provided by a Turk. Then at the table we drink coffee which is provided for us by a South American, or tea by a Chinese, or cocoa by a West African. Before we leave for our jobs, we are beholden to more than half the world.

In the case of the plastic bubble makers, one single product was made from components from all over. This isn't anything new either. I guess it struck me as remarkable because its a dinky little plastic thing, that costs less than a dollar and a half. Its not a car or a computer, where some components can be made by untrained workers and other components require robotics and qualified labor. Its a bubble maker. How much profit margin is made by having the bubble solution made in Mexico rather than the US were the bottle it goes into is made? How cheap is the shipping back and forth, compared to the extra cost of labor?

WTO agreement in Geneva

The World Trade Organization (WTO) members approved a plan on Aug 1st to end export subsidies on farm products and cut import duties around the world. The consensus among the 147 nations veils the intense dispute that broke down the negociations in Cancun, Mexico in September of 2003.
Cancun was held to complete the Doha round (2001) and concentrated on four main areas - agriculture, industrial goods, trade in services, and a new customs code. Developing nations formed a alliance and refused to sign a proposed agreement which they felt favored the rich nations, particularly on agriculture.
Take the case of cotton. The livelihood of some 10 million West African is dependent upon cotton farming. Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad produce cheap, high-quality cotton, often using traditional methods, but are unable to compete against subsidized competition from the mighty United States. American cotton producers receive USD$3,9 bn in subsidies from Washington each year.
In Geneva, the US, the EU, Brazil, and Japan agreed to eliminate export subsidies at a date to be set, to limit other subsidies, and to lower tariff barriers. The plan includes a "down payment" that would see an immediate 20% cut in the maximum permitted payments by rich nations. Developing countries also won the right to protect "special" products crucial to the well-being of their economies. In return, wealthier nations won better access to markets in developing nations, particularly for industrial goods.
Some major NGOs downplay the agreement. The development aid charity Oxfam International pointed out the agreement has no timeline, and so African nations are dependent on the good will of the USA. Celine Charveriat, Head of Oxfam International’s Geneva office said: "Presented as a breakthrough, the text on agriculture does little to address the problem of export dumping, instead introducing dangerous loopholes for yet more subsidies especially from the US. (...) After days of closed door negotiations, rich countries have delivered a deeply unbalanced text as a take or leave it option. This puts developing countries in the unfair position of having to accept a bad deal or reject and get blamed by the US and EU for failure."
Despite having right on their side, constituting the majority and forming a coordinated block, developing countries have less pull in negotiations. "We don't really have a choice. African countries come under a lot of pressure both from industrialized countries and their own governments not to jeopardize food aid or bilateral agreements," said one African Union representative, on condition of anonymity, quoted in www.iol.co.za.
This deal opens the way for full negotiations to start in September. The next WTO ministerial meeting will be December 2005, in Hong Kong.