In earlier entries on this site I talked about our change in policy on nuclear weapons ... that we were 1) willing to use them, 2) consider them part of our strategic arsenal, and 3) were willing to use them preemptively. All of this was clear from both the Nuclear Policy Review and the Strategic Defense Review (I know not a whole lot of folks read these documents).
If you are watching the media, you will see that there is growing concern that the strategists for the war with Iraq have put nukes on the table as part of the "standard" arsenal. This is BIG and this is SCAREY. The military is nervous, but the strategists (who are generally not military) are apparently not to be budged.
You really need to read this article by William Arkin (1/26/03) The Nuclear Option in Iraq. This is possibly more dangerous to the US than any unfettered terrorist could be 1) because of the precedent it sets, 2) it could ruin any coopertaion with the UN and 3) it could ruin relationships with our allies.
I bit my tongue and watched the whole State of the Union address. Lies and hypocrisy delived with utmost sincerity and even a moist eye at times.
From the concern about our pocket books and the economy (let's advance those tax cuts) where in a "Family of 4 earning $40,000" would pay only "$45" a year in federal taxes. While that seems wonderful (I guess) how are we going to fund the war-without-end and ever get out of the trillion plus dollars of debt on $45 a year? Who pray tell makes up the difference? The corporations? Not bloody likely. Which means that something stinks here.
I bit my tongue and watched the whole State of the Union address. Lies and hypocrisy delivered with utmost sincerity and even a moist eye at times.
From the concern about our pocket books and the economy (let's advance those tax cuts) wherein a "family of 4 earning $40,000" would pay only "$45" a year in federal taxes. While that seems wonderful (I guess) how are we going to fund the war-without-end and ever get out of the trillion plus dollars of debt on $45 a year? Who pray tell makes up the difference? The corporations? Not bloody likely. Which means that something stinks here.
The we have those folks on Medicaid who need prescription drug cost relief... no problem ... it's important ... just give up your Medicaid benefits and join an HMO. Stinks of the 'P' word to me (privatization). Of course, we won't mention that HMOs are cutting off serving the elderly (or pricing them out of coverage) almost as fast as Cheney can disappear down his rabbit hole.
And OF COURSE President Bush cares about the environment (that's why he is letting energy producers NOT deal with "costly" pollution control requirements, why he is leasing our protected federal lands to oil companies, why he is saving us from forest fires by getting rid of those pesky trees, why he wants to drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, and why he is wants to give businesses who buy SUVs a 75% tax write-off on the cost). So he wants to give 1.5 BILLION to automakers to come up with a hydrogen fuel car (of course they won't give the money back if they never put one in production). And TECHNOLOGY and INNOVATION are going to save us from global warming - we have thought that over and over again.
Ah yes, then the news we were all waiting to hear -- war and terrorism. North Korea - watch out! We will not be blackmailed by nuclear threat (we are building the Stars Wars missile defense shield after all). And Iran, look out - we hear the voices of the cry for freedom - and you have weapons of mass destruction AND connections to terrorist organizations.
But we wanted to hear about Iraq and did we ever.
NOTE italicized portions are my comments.
QUOTE: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack."
And of course WE have the most weapons of mass destruction to ... make us feel safe at night?
QUOTE: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured."
Of course we won't mention that we helped supply Hussein with those WMDs, nor say ONE WORD while he used them on Iran or on the Kurds.
QUOTE: "Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."
And our training of Latin American dictators, generals, police personnel, in torture and control through School of the Americas run by the US military?
QUOTE: "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."
I think we all agree on this one - Hussein is not the only one engaging in "evil".
QUOTE:"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom."
AFTER we have blocked them with sanctions for 12 years! Is this a bribe?
QUOTE:"America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers."
As we fought "selflessly" in Panama, Columbia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia ..... all the while helping dictators and despots rise to power; engaging in combat only when "our" interests were advanced. Oh please.
And perhaps most frightening of all -
QUOTE: "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity."
"WE" apparently are doing "God's"work in expanding this "freedom" to everyone whether they want it (or us) or not.
Full text of State_of the Union Address
As I wait for the state of the union address to be given tonight, I can't help but wonder if we are on the eve of destruction. It is so hard to tell from the news what may happen when. Debka File reports that US will launch the end of March, The Russian's leak the end of February, and FromThe Wilderness thinks it will be this week.
One thing we can be sure of is that there is a lot of disinformation going on, and that no one seriously thinks that Bush can be dettered from this course of action - delayed possibly, but not deterred. We'll see.
Hey all,
Want to point you to another Portland blog with comments and photos of the Portland 1/18 march and rally: Strangechord
Thanks Emily
If you missed it, there were absolutely huge anti-war protests all over the world - including here in Portland, Oregon where we had (apparently) one of the larger gatherings.
Here are some crowd estimates I have heard for the Jan 18th marches:
Washington DC 200,000-500,000
SanFrancisco 42,000-50,000+
Portland Or 20,000-25,000 (go Portland!!!)
Share your experience with us!
If you've been watching the news you will have heard the report that military personnel are not going to be able to donate blood because of receiving the small pox vaccine.
Medical personnel and "first responders" are also on the list to be vaccinated.
There are plans to start voluntary vaccinations of the public.
Military personnel who are vaccinated cannot donate blood for at least 3 weeks (correction) and possibly much longer . It is assumed the same would be true of others who receive the vaccine.
Uh .... what happens to our blood supply?
By Sara Reischman
The fast food industry has affected our society in a variety of ways. From the way food is processed to the labor force, America has seen numerous changes. I plan to examine how corporations, the government and the food itself have had an adverse effect on people and our culture.
The fast food industry has affected our society in a variety of ways. From the way food is processed to the labor force, America has seen numerous changes. I plan to examine how corporations, the government and the food itself have had an adverse effect on people and our culture.
Fast food has been a part of American culture for nearly 70 years. What started out as a hot dog stand and a dream has grown to become an ugly monster that has taken over our society. Working in a carhop is only a faint memory for some and a non-reality for most. Jobs in the fast food industry are usually reserved for the uneducated, the young and immigrants. The food served in them is usually of the poorest quality and the standards are lowered to insure company profit. The animals are treated poorly in the meat plants, because the industry requires a low- cost method. More people have gotten sick eating in fast food restaurants than anywhere else and because of its ease in our fast paced society children are fed fast food at least once a week. Fast food is more than just a burger. It has become a way of life. The “slow food” approach to meals is non existent for most people. The fast food industry has saved many people a lot of time, but has taken a big bite out of morality and society in the process.
Being an employee in a car hop or burger place was once believed to be a respectable job. In the 1940’s the line cook was valued for its ability to make delicious food in a timely manner. When the McDonald brothers decided that they could make more money if they reduced their menus and replaced the line cook with a few machines, the restaurant industry was changed for the worse. In 1948 The McDonald brothers closed down their restaurants for three months, fired all of their employees, installed machines that could do all of the cooking and called it the “Speedee Service System”(Schlosser 20). This required little thought on the part of the employees and made production quicker and more predictable. Soon many of the other restaurants got on the bandwagon. To this day you cannot go into a fast food restaurant and find a line cook or waitress. The industry prides itself on being a self-serve environment where the workers only have to push a few buttons and greet customers. It is this type of working environment that has poured over to all areas of employment. Many jobs now occupied by human employees are to oversee what a computer or machine is doing. The implementation of new technology into the work force has left a lot of people unemployed, and many more nervous about their job security, or taking wage or hour cutbacks to stay where they are.
Creating a lower standard for education in fast food positions has opened the door to exploitation of the employees. Fast food industry restaurants pride themselves on creating an environment that appears to look like a family, but in reality is filled with intimidation and fear. Many workers are pushed to their physical limits with long hours and are not given breaks. Because immigrants and high school students often fill these jobs the treatment of employees and the wages they are paid often the barely meet the minimum requirement.
About two thirds of the nations fast food employees are teenagers. This is not required of the positions, but fast food companies seek out these young people because they are inexperienced and easily intimidated. This makes them easier to control (Schlosser, 68).
Wages are usually right at minimum wage for these employees. “The fast food industry pays the minimum wage to a higher proportion to its workers than any other American industry. Consequently, a low minimum wage has long been a crucial part of the fast food industry’s business plan” (Schlosser,73). Not only has the fast food industry tried to maintain a low minimum wage, they have also tried to implement a federal guest worker program, set out to import workers from other countries to work for low wages and be exempt from the minimum wage of the United States. These ideas of treating the employees poorly is not exclusive to the fast food industry, but is most relevant due to the people that work these positions and the recent outpouring of advocacy for them.
The mistreatment of employees does not stop at poor hourly wages, but the denial of the right to join a union. When a group of employees decided that it would like to get some protection or raise the standards, the corporate headquarters send in what is called a “flying squad” (Schlosser76) of experienced managers to talk the employees out of it. The mistreatment of workers is not limited to fast food employees. It also effects the workers in the plants that create the food they sell there.
Many slaughter house workers are forced to work not only in unsanitary, but extremely dangerous positions.
“Working conditions on the slaughter houses were Dickensian. Men were forced to work in dimly lit rooms with poor ventilation and even poorer sanitation. Laborers often stood in pools of stagnant water, full of effluent blood…. Workers often ate their meals near their work stations, while surrounded by the stench of dying animals” (Rifkin,121).
While the conditions of the workers is inexcusable the treatment of the animals was usually illegal. Because of the implementation of the new disassembly line the cows are hung upside down, punched in the forehead with a hammer their throat is cut and they continue down the line where they are disemboweled and skinned. On many occasions the hammer does not strike the cow properly and in it regains consciousness. In a panic over being hung in the air by it’s Achilles tendon, it shakes free of the shackles and falls headfirst into the conveyor belts and sometimes grinders below. The treatment of the cows outside the slaughterhouses is not better. They are often crammed into pens, one right next to the other. Standing in week old fecal matter and eating food that is not only spoiled, but usually includes chicken manure and other items unfit for bovine consumption. Some researchers have experimented with feeding the cows a pellet mixture of 80 to 90 percent ethylene and 10 to 20 percent propylene. These not only act as an artificial roughage to fatten the cow up quicker, but can be recovered from the cow’s rumen, melted down and re-used (Rifkin,13) All aspects of the feed lots focus on fattening the cattle up as quickly as possible. Flies are an area of great concern. The animals can lose up to half a pound a day swatting at flies. To prevent this, the animals are showered with a toxic repellant from a nozzle or dusted with it from crop duster. The animals are then loaded into trucks where they travel for days without food or water. Because this makes the animals weak some fall in the truck beds and are trampled by the other cows. They are usually the last to be taken off of the trucks and lie for hours spread eagle on the floor with broken pelvises and legs. The animals will not be anesthetized or put down because this will cost money so they are left in pain until they are drug by chains on their legs into the slaughter house. The ones that do no make it are then flung onto the “dead pile” (Rifkin,14). The blatant mistreatment is not only cruel to the animals, but causes illness in humans as well. The foul meat is often mixed in with the healthy meat and made into sausages or hamburger. Most of these products end up in the fast food restaurants across America. Most food poisoning incidence stem from tainted meat.
One of the first people to become ill from tainted meat in the fast food industry was a girl from San Diego California. She was six years old and after having three heart attacks, and suffering terrible pain, she died in her mother’s arms on Christmas Eve. Her death from E.coli 0157:H7 brought much attention to the fact that this disease could cross species and even kill. It was believed before that a small amount of fecal matter in the meat would be an acceptable amount to be consumed by humans and not cause any illness. What the FDA did not take into consideration was that most of the people consuming fast food burgers were children. Thus having a smaller body mass, the E.coli had a more severe effect on their systems. Surrounded by parents whose children had died of E.coli President Clinton adopted a new science based meat inspection system (Schlosser,215). Many federal inspectors opposed the new system citing it as “greatly diminishing their authority to detect and remove contaminated meat”(Schlosser,215). Before the E.coli outbreak the USDA had 12,000 inspectors. Today it has 7,500. The inspectors today feel immense pressure from both the government and the meat packing industry to not slow down the meat packing lines (Schlosser, 215). Now instead of trying to fix the problem of bacteria in the meat by monitoring feedlots and slaughterhouses, the USDA is advocating irradiation. This is a form of bacteria birth control ( Schlosser, 217). This will sterilize the bacteria that are growing on the meat. This process has been impeded, however by the public’s reluctance to eat meat that has been treated with radiation. Cost and regulations both play en extremely important role in the cattle industry in the United States. This is the motivation to move many of the cattle raising to other countries and bring about many environmental concerns.
“Global warming is fast becoming the greatest environmental and human threat in history”(Rifkin,223). In fact much of the biomass being burned toady is to promote the ranching industry. With rain forests cut and burned to make room for cattle grazing fields there are millions of tons carbons being released into the air to support the cattle industry. Cattle also emit methane. This occurs naturally from various plant sources on the planet, but cattle emit it at such a rate that they account for 6 percent of the global warming gasses. Though the workers, the environment and the animals are all adversely affected by the fast-food industry, we cannot overlook the unhealthy impact it has had on America’s eating habits.
Fast food companies are more focused on the bottom line than anything else. They try to create a loyal customer and to do this they must implement the ”cradle-to-grave” approach to advertising (Schlosser). This means that with the understanding that a person establishes their brand loyalty by the age of two, they must direct most of their advertising to children. Because children are so easily targeted for advertising the corporation bank on the fact that they will whine, beg and cause a scene until they get what they want. To increase the effect of marketing, many big corporations are joining together to sell a ”package” product. McDonalds is notorious for including a Disney product in their Happy Meals to promote a movie and the food product at the same time. McDonalds tries to correlate fun with eating and though it entices children in with play yards and Happy Meals, it keeps the tables small, the chairs uncomfortable and the environment noisy so parents will eat and leave, opening a table for a new customer (Kincheloe,203). By directing their advertisement at children they are not only creating a customer for life, they are creating a fat America.
As people eat more outside the home they consume more calories, less fiber and more fat (Schlosser,241). This combined with the evolution of modern technology and the more sedentary lifestyles of Americans; obesity is spreading across the U.S. with the spread of a communicable disease. 13 percent of all children are overweight and 300,000 deaths per year are due to obesity (Grange, 2002) The combination of fast food and video games is creating obesity in children at disgusting speeds. These are people whose lifestyles will likely not change. So a lifelong customer for one industry becomes a lifelong liability for another.
The fast food industry has also effected the way we live our lives in general. Americans are in more of a rush than any other country. We have more choices for the same product than any other nation. Americans are used the getting it “their way” and have taken to treating people poorly if that doesn’t happen. Gone are the days when a family sits down to meal together and talks about their day or how each other are doing. Fast food has not only made it easy to avoid the hassles of eating at home, but more acceptable to just “pick something up”. Fast food restaurants focus on broadening their attraction to groups of all income levels and races encouraging them that there is equality in a burger. We as a country have lost much respect from European countries and their people for making things like McDonald’s and forcing them on them. There used to be joy in eating out and now it is nothing more than something to check off on the to-do list for the day. Something has been lost. We are no longer simply the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are a country of unlimited options and various sizes of fries and drinks. It is unfortunate that all of the friendly slogans lie “have it your way” does not seem to apply to the young people behind the counters and I don’t think McDonalds cares if the cattle they encourage to slaughter inhumanely are smiling. One cannot drive down the street without seeing at least one fast food restaurant every ten blocks. In this world of plenty we are ruining the environment, mistreating animals and fattening up our children like Christmas geese. There will be a backlash. It will come in the form of health problems, and limited environmental resources. There will come a day when the land has given all it has to give and it will be because the human race has taken its resources and tried to “Super-Size” them.
Works Cited
Granger, Kay. 2002. Granger, Bono Introduce Bill to reduce Obesity
Kincheloe, Joe L. 2002. The Sign of the Burger. Temple University Press.: Philadelphia
Rifkin, Jeremy. 1992. Beyond Beef. Penguin Books.: New York
Schlosser, Eric. 2002. Fast Food Nation. Perennial.: New York
Does the news about Iraq seem a bit confusing? On one hand, you have weapons inspectors busy running here and there. Yesterday, they found some war heads capable of carrying some bio-load and the US responds "This is a violation!" Then we hear that those war heads are not restricted under the sanctions.
Earlier this week, I heard that the 7th fleet will be ready to launch an attack "within the week" and the Army Engineer Reserve was mobilized out of Portland Or on 96 hour notice (assignment unspecified, but expected to serve for 1-2 years). Last night on the news I hear that with the Troop mobilization, President Bush could order an attack in early March.
Excuse me, but my guess is that he could attack Iraq within the next hour.
Lest we forget, Rumsfeld restarted then moved the Office of Disinformation. He moved and renamed it after pressure that (oh surprise) the US press and citizens might also get disinformed. Obviously this is disingenuous. Of Course we are being disinformed and the muddled news is a clear example.
Is there anyone who doesn't know that we are already in position to launch a full scale attack?
I imagine there are some who have missed the news that we have already sent Special Forces and CIA into Iraq (a clear treaty violation), but that movement means we are already attacking Iraq.
Don't believe what you hear. You couldn't anyway with all the contradictions. Remeber that the "american" public is also considered unreliable.
Written by Crystal Tenty
In our post September 11th political climate, the culture of terrorism has been given a new role and has come to be viewed very differently by the U.S. and the world at large. We are now fighting a highly subsidized war on terrorism and having been told by the CIA that another attack on the U.S. is eminent, many people have a new heightened sense of fear at what atrocities the future might hold. The attacks on the world trade center and the Pentagon were the first large scale attacks to occur on American soil and the people were no where near prepared. Many mixed feelings and emotions arose. People across the country waved flags from their homes and vehicles in a collective call to demonstrate “patriotism” and the word “terrorism” became a part of everyday vocabulary for most people.
In our post September 11th political climate, the culture of terrorism has been given a new role and has come to be viewed very differently by the U.S. and the world at large. We are now fighting a highly subsidized war on terrorism and having been told by the CIA that another attack on the U.S. is eminent, many people have a new heightened sense of fear at what atrocities the future might hold. The attacks on the world trade center and the Pentagon were the first large scale attacks to occur on American soil and the people were no where near prepared. Many mixed feelings and emotions arose. People across the country waved flags from their homes and vehicles in a collective call to demonstrate “patriotism” and the word “terrorism” became a part of everyday vocabulary for most people.
In the book Chronicles of Dissent, linguist Noam Chomsky says that the word terrorism became commonly used around the end of the 18th century to mean acts of violence by the state against its own people. However, those in power sought to change the term in order to benefit from it so “terrorism” has come to mean acts of violence against the state by small, marginal groups of citizens. Chomsky says that we no longer refer to “state terrorism” anymore except when we talk about our enemies (Chomsky Chronicles 50).
According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, terrorism has “no agreed definition among governments or academic analysts” but usually refers to “threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed substrate groups” (Mclean 492). The uncertainty by many people of the true meaning of terrorism along with its various contrived definitions has allowed rogue states to justify their own acts of violence and aggression against people all over the world while simultaneously condemning the aggressions of their enemies. The most notorious perpetrators of such hypocrisy is the United States government.
United States Sponsored Terrorism and Clandestine Support
The School of the Americas and El Salvador
Clear evidence of U.S. terrorism can be found by analysis of the operations and military tactics of the former School of the Americas. The School of the Americas was established in 1946 in Panama by the U.S. Army and moved to Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia in 1984. Its purpose was to train Latin American military personnel in combat techniques, counter insurgency and psychological warfare to be used to handle “instability” in their own countries (Salter1). Many perpetrators of brutal murders and torture occurring in El Salvador over the past couple of decades have been traced back to graduates of the School of the Americas.
El Salvador has been run by dictators installed and supported by the U.S. government for years. As a result, many of its citizens, mostly peasants, have been subjected to extreme forms of oppression. During the 1970’s there were popular movements growing in El Salvador. Peasants were joining to form cooperatives, unions and bible study groups which raised the threat of democracy. In February 1980, the Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero sent a letter to president Carter begging him not to send military aid to the junta that ran the country out of fear that it would increase oppression against these peasant organizations. On march 7, 1980 a war against the peasant population began with a large massacre at the Rio Sumpal. At least 600 people were brutally butchered. The massacre was organized by the Honduran and Salvadoran armies. Two weeks later, Romero was assassinated while saying mass (Chomsky Uncle Sam p 34-35). In November 1989, six Jesuit priests, their cook and her daughter were murdered by the El Salvador death squad, Atlacatle Battallion. In early 1990, a US congressional task force investigation found that those responsible for the murders were trained at the SOA (Harbury 1).
The SOA was widely criticized for years by human rights advocates around the world for its training in torture tactics and its promotion of other techniques that violated human rights. One deserter of the Salvadoran army seeking asylum in Texas in 1990 claimed that in training, “draftees were made to bite the throats of dogs and vultures to kill them. They were also forced to watch soldiers torture and kill suspected traitors, decapitating them, cutting their bodies into pieces and playing with their limbs (Chomsky Uncle Sam p38).
In January 2001, the House finally voted to cut SOA funding and it was shut down by the army. A month later it was replaced by the Department of Defense and given the new name, the Western Hemiphere Intistute for Security Cooperation. Supporters of the new institution claim that abuse is no longer taught and that new law requires that each student be given eight hours of training in human rights practices (Ciponline.org 2). However, critics claim that the cirriculum is similar to the SOA. Father Roy Bourgeois, founder of the School of the Americas Watch organization says “Changing the name is like taking a bottle of poison and simply writing ‘penicillin” on it. They tell us they’re teaching democracy there now. How is this possible through the barrel of a gun in an undemocratic institution?” (Salter 1). Bourgeous, a 62 year old Catholic priest, has spent close to four years in federal prisons for protesting the School of the Americas (Salter1).
U.S. Aid to the Contras
Another blatant example of U.S. support for terrorist organizations can been seen upon examining the Iran-Contra Affair. In the late 1970’s Nicaragua’s dictator Anastasio Somoza’s rule was challenged by the Sandanista army which sought redistribution of wealth. The Sandanista government follows what is known as “liberation theology” which the Oxford Concise Dictionary of politics defines as “Belief that the Christian Churches have a duty and a commitment to oppose social, economic, and political repression in societies where exploitation and oppression of humanity exist” (p 287). The Sandanista’s genuine care for the Nicaraguan people and their desire to create a real democracy terrified policy makers in Washington (Chomsky Uncle Sam p 43). President Reagan instructed the CIA to organize and fund an opposition group known as the Contras. This created a huge controversy and many opposed the Contras, especially human rights groups who complained about the Contras’ brutality. Even a CIA official testified that judges, doctors and other supporters of the Sandanistas had been assassinated by the Contras (Hastedt 62). In 1984 congress cut all funding for the Contras and passed legislation forbidding any U.S. funding to the Contras. Reagan, who called the Contras “freedom fighters” and the “moral equivalent of the founding fathers” had to find another means to continue military aid.
Conveniently, in 1984, three Americans, one of whom was the CIA station chief, were abducted and four more Americans were taken hostage in 1985.
The Reagan administration blamed the Iranian government of Ayatollah Khomeini for anti American terrorism and felt that violating the administration’s own policy of nonnegotiation would end terrorism in the Middle East (Hastedt 63). The U.S. embargo against selling arms to Iran was lifted in exchange for the hostages and the arms transfer generated a $16 million dollar profit with the Contras receiving $3.8 million dollars in aid (Hastedt 63). Even though the entire operation was run from the white house by Colonel Oliver North, Reagan denied any knowledge about the connection between the arms sales and the Contras. At a time when the Reagan administration was highly critical of terrorism in Libya and the rest of the Middle East it had no problem with supporting terrorism throughout Latin America. The United States government has been condemned by the United Nations for unlawful use of force AKA “terrorism” in Nicaragua (Chomsky Chronicles p 3-4)
The 1975 Indonesian Invasion of East Timor
Another example of U.S. support of aggression is the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor. I am particularly interested in mentioning the invasion because it is an event which not only had extremely limited media coverage at the time it occurred, but was also never taught to me in school, and was completely omitted from my history textbooks despite the fact that estimated murders reached genocidal levels.
East Timor was a Portuguese Colony since the 16th century and finally gained its independence in December of 1975. Within a month, Indonesia invaded East Timor, killing thousands of innocent people. In an article published by the International Committee of the Fourth International, Frank Gaglioti reveals secret documents from the National Security Archive at George Washington University that prove the United States government supported the invasion of East Timor. The released documents dating from July 1975 to June 1976 reveal the role and responsibility of President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger in the atrocities carried out by the Indonesian military dictatorship (Gaglioti 1). Several exchanges occurred between Suharto, Ford and Kissinger prior to the invasion. The first document dated July 5 1975 documents the discussion between General Suharto and Gerald Ford about their interests in surpressing political dissidence throughout Southeast Asia and Suharto declares that East Timor cannot be allowed independence. The second document dated August 12 1975 describes a discussion held by Kissinger and some of his staff about a reported coup in East Timor. Kissinger states “It is quite clear that the Indonesians are going to take over the island sooner or later” (Galioti 2).
The third document from November 1975 is an outline Kissinger prepared for Ford on the full extend of the tactics Indonesia would take to control East Timor and alerted Ford that the U.S. supplied weapons to Suharto may pose a problem because U.S. law prohibits such weapons to be used unless in self defense (Galioti 2). Document 4, dated December 6, 1975 is an official transcript of the
discussion between Ford, Kissinger, and Suharto in Jakarta the day before the invasion. It quotes Suharto saying “We want your understanding if we deem necessary to take rapid drastic action” and Ford responds “ We will understand and will not press you on the issues. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have.” Then Kissinger asks Suharto to wait until they return to America and then make sure the invasion is as quick and effective as possible (Gialoti 2). Within hours of their departure, the slaughtering began. Over 200,000 people have been killed out of a population of about 600,000 people. Indonesian rule continued over East Timor despite the call on Jakarta by the United Nations in 1975 and 1976 to withdraw “without delay”(www.etan.org ).
Not only was the Carter administration aware of the projected invasion of East Timor, but the U.S. actually doubled military aid to Indonesia and blocked the UN from effectively enforcing any action. Since 1975, more than $1.1 billion dollars worth of arms has been transferred from the U.S. to the Indonesian government (www.etan.org). And yet president Carter won the Nobel Peace prize for his wonderful human rights campaign.
More U.S. Benevolence aka Hegemony
I believe the three examples I have given: El Salvador, Nicaragua, and East Timor, blatantly illustrate U.S. hegemony and acts of terrorism, however there are many more cases in which the United States has supported, if not personally placed brutal dictators into power. Manuel Noriega in Panama (also a graduate of the SOA), Marcos in the Philippines, CIA-trained battalions in Honduras, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Pinochet in Chile, and our favorite bad guy, the man we love to hate, Saddam Hussein (Chomsky, Uncle Sam, p 54). Saddam Hussein may be trying to produce nuclear weapons but the U.S. has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. I have heard arguments made that although the U.S. has such harmful weapons, we would never dream of using them to harm civilians. And I ask what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about Dresden? What about Vietnam?
I personally cannot see the difference between these violent acts of aggression that are carried out by the U.S. to achieve political and economical goals and the violent actions of Saddam Hussein towards the Kurds, Kuwait, or Iran. Why is it that violence inflicted by this nation is somehow always justified as being benevolent, democratic, and in the “national interest” while the violence in the rest of the world is fundamentalism (Islam), terrorism, and genocide? It seems like even when this nation does recognize wrongful actions committed by our government such as the case with the Iran-Contra scandal, reparations are not made and policy makers get a little tap on the wrist at most. Unless of course they are having sex with interns and then they’ve got to pay the price, their crimes must be exposed.
Bibliography
Chomsky, Noam. Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. South End Press: Cambridge, 2000.
What Uncle Sam Really Wants, 1989. Chronicles of Dissent.
Hastedt, Glenn. American Foreign Policy: Past, Present, Future. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 2000.
Mclean, Iain. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford: New York, 1996.
Web Sources
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation
Gaglioti, Frank Gaglioti
Governor Ryan of Illinois has taken a bold and courageous move and communted the death sentences of 167 prisoners to life imprisonment. This is after releasing 33 death row prisoners as not guilty. (see US governor overturns 167 death sentences.
While this move is likely to cause considerable dialog about the death penalty, at this point it is mostly causing uproar about Ryan. I feel this is unfair, and a deliberate attempt to distract from the issue.
Ryan has been a very long term, ardent supporter of the death penalty. Untill he started finding out that innocent individuals in his state were on death row, and the degree of improper criminal justice proceedings in placing people on death row. The move to commute the sentences is HUGE.
Thank you Governor Ryan for your courage to 1) change your mind, and 2) take such a controversial step. You will get trashed for your decision, but it is the only just decision.
States across the nation are facing massive budget deficits. Those states are making budget cuts to try and balance the books. Among those measures are massive cuts to education and social services budgets. An article in the SanFran Chronicle is an example that is being repeated across the nation Davis slices $21 billion.
Watch the news. The impacts are going to be drastic. Funding is being dramatically cut to health services, education, children's protective services, services for the disabled and the elderly, foster care system, and on and on. These cuts are occurring at a time when there are more people in need because there are more people out of work, more people only working part time than full time, more people taking pay cuts in order to keep their jobs. In other words, hard times for state budgets are a reflection of hard times for individual budgets.
States across the nation are facing massive budget deficits. Those states are making budget cuts to try and balance the books. Among those measures are massive cuts to education and social services budgets. An article in the SanFran Chronicle is an example that is being repeated across the nation Davis slices $21 billion.
Watch the news. The impacts are going to be drastic. Funding is being dramatically cut to health services, education, children's protective services, services for the disabled and the elderly, foster care system, and on and on. These cuts are occurring at a time when there are more people in need because there are more people out of work, more people only working part time than full time, more people taking pay cuts in order to keep their jobs. In other words, hard times for state budgets are a reflection of hard times for individual budgets.
The likely consequences? People are going to die. Children in abusive situations or because they can't go to a doctor; house bound folks from lack of care, food and medical access. People are going to freeze to death as energy programs for the poor disappear (thank you Mr. Bush).
Meanwhile, we have more than enough money to put up a "Star Wars" missle shield (that doesn't work). We have more than enough money to give the Defense Dept and essentially blank check. We have more than enough money to plan and gear up for "multiple wars on multiple fronts." We have more than enough money to cut taxes for the wealthy and allow corporations to stash their money in tax free zones. We have more than enough money to set up a massive intelligence system to monitor every man/woman/child/ and stray cat in the US (Total Information Awareness System).
In "our concern" for being secure, we will have nothing left to secure.
My prediction? Many more people in the US are going to die and be significantly damaged in our choice of priorities than died on 9/11/01- not to mention those both civilian and military that will die in our "war" on Iraq.
If we are (or someone is) choosing to place money somewhere else (i.e. defense) and that decsion means that we let people die for lack of services, is that murder? Seems like it to me.
Matthew Hale (leader of the white supremacist group World Church of the Creator) was hauled into court for copyright infringement. Apparently there is an organization in Oregon who grabbed the name first. Anyway, now Hale is under arrest for trying to arrange the murder of the judge in his case. White supremacist held in murder plot
You may remeber Ben Smith in Illinois who drove around for a killing spree of people of color in 2001 and then shot himself when cornered by the police. Anyway, Smith was a follower of Hale.
Hey did you hear the latest news of our potential new front in the war on terrorism? Venezuela!
You may remember that last year there was an attempt to unseat Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela) which was strongly rumored to be sponsored by the US. However, the people wouldn't have anything to do with it and protested by the millions. The major problem (from a US perspective) is Chavez wants to maintain Venezuelan control of its oil resources, and Chvez wouldn't let US military fly over his nation on the way to Colombia.
I think we have probably been hard at work again given the disruption in Venezuela, but now there is a new twist. Suddenly, Chavez is being linked to the Al Qaeda. That puts him dead in the sights of our "war on terrorism." Is Venezuela our next active front?
While there are growing voices against war with Iraq globally and in the US, word has it that the "war" has already started with the US sending in CIA and Special Forces, increased bombing in Iraq of military targets, ongoing mobilization of US forces into the region, etc. Of course, in invading Iraq with CIA and Special Forces, we are in violation of the Security Council agreement, but what the hey.
And then there is North Korea, there are mumblings that perhaps we should try diplomacy. (Chuckle) North Korea looking at the raging success of sanctions in Iraq, says "initiate sanctions and we go to war." Of course there is both North African and South Africa that are also in an uproar with US troops being mobilized there as well. Maybe we should make some money on all this military hoohaw and turn our armed forces into mercenary troops. Oh forgot - nobody wants us.
Before I start, I am no expert on the stock market or economics, but President Bush's economic stimulus plan doesn't make much sense to me.
He is not going to tax "dividend" income because he says it is being taxed twice. All right that seems debatable. Supposedly, the corporations are paying taxes on dividends (except only around 320 of the Fortune 500 have dividend programs and many of those corporations pay virtually no taxes at all). Second he says that stock holders then pay taxes - true I guess. Therefore, not taxing dividends is going to increase investor confidence and they will invest more. (Maybe), but how does this benefit the average person, and how does this stimulate the economy?
My understanding is that many companies don't do dividends because they put that money back into the company for growth and new development. This plan would pressure companies to offer dividends instead of growing and improving their operations. Therefore, not too likely that they are going to create jobs (it seems to me).
Bush also wants to accellerate the tax cuts - wise move when we are into deficit spending, and I doubt most of us will see much of it anyway.
And then of course there is our increased spending on defense, anti-terrorism, and war war war. but hey - who's counting?
Hey, we may have some hopeful news. Dennis Kucinich (Representative from Ohio) may be running for President. For those of you not familiar with Kucinich, he has been loundly condemning Bush's activities since the beginning, and vocally fought against giving Bush the right to declare war with Iraq.
He would certainly give voters a choice in the 04 elections - something that the other dems so far do not (in my opinion). I have largely resisted working in campaigns, but if Kucinich runs I may have to reorganize my schedule and campaign for him.
Keep an eye on this one.
The federal government has decided to give Calpine a contract to build a geothermal power plant at Medicine Lake - an area sacred to the Modoc. Here is a link to the NY Times article about the decision U.S. approves power plant in area Indians hold sacred. I was particularly struck by the quote:
"They gave me a clear and open opportunity to make our case," Mr. Preston (chair of the Pit River tribe) said. "But at the end, they described it as a clash of cultures. They understood our plight and were sympathetic to it. They said they recognize our culture, but also the culture of capitalism."
Here is a link to International Indian Treaty Council statement on the Medicine Lake project
Maggie O'Kane has a timely piece in the Guardian (UK) reminding us of the lies of the last Gulf War and the warnings for the impending one. This is a critical read. Below is an excerpt (12/5/02 Guardian/UK). Click the link to see the full article.
"The chances of Saddam Hussein using chemical and biological weapons if attacked are, according to the testimony of the CIA to the US Senate intelligence committee on October 7, "pretty high" - a scenario that even one of greatest hawks in US history, Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to George Bush senior, says would lead to meltdown in the Middle East. As of December 7, when Iraq is expected to produce its definitive dossier, there should be no illusions: no matter what Baghdad discloses, America and almost certainly Britain are going to war. The "material breach", if it does not happen by itself, will be manufactured, so wringing consent for the second Gulf war just as consent was manufactured with breathtaking cynicism in 1991. "
Last year, The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law. Civil Libertarians screamed and the ACLU dedicated virtually their entire web site to addressing the problems with this sweeping piece of legislation. Being a college teacher, I talked about it in my classes. However, no large public outcry went up to throw out this frightening legislation. Now, this legislation is coming home to roost. Court challenges and appeals are largely over and John Ashcroft has been given carte blanch to do what he wants. Again this year, the call went out “Beware the Homeland Security Act!” It is now law and is going into action much quicker than the USA PATRIOT did. If you are not afraid of what our government is doing to our Constitution and to our nation, you should be.
Last year, The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law. Civil Libertarians screamed and the ACLU dedicated virtually their entire web site to addressing the problems with this sweeping piece of legislation. Being a college teacher, I talked about it in my classes. However, no large public outcry went up to throw out this frightening legislation. Now, this legislation is coming home to roost. Court challenges and appeals are largely over and John Ashcroft has been given carte blanch to do what he wants. Again this year, the call went out “Beware the Homeland Security Act!” It is now law and is going into action much quicker than the USA PATRIOT did. If you are not afraid of what our government is doing to our Constitution and to our nation, you should be.
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 is actually an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. It became Public Law No: 107-56 on 10/26/2001. This is a broadly sweeping law that weakened the barriers between the intelligence and justice communities, and between foreign and domestic surveillance. It also broadened the powers of the justice department and police forces to pre-1973 levels. After the massive invasions of personal rights and liberties of the civil rights and Vietnam era, significant barriers were put in place to keep such from happening in the future.
The USA PATRIOT Act weakened surveillance oversight, allowed indefinite detention of non-citizens, expanded the ability to engage in secret searches, and access business and confidential information on “suspects,” gave the Attorney General the right to declare domestic groups as terrorist organizations and open large scale investigations for “intelligence” purposes. Because of the “cooperative thrust of the legislation, it has blurred the lines between intelligence and justice agencies, and between citizen/non-citizen-domestic/foreign differentiations” (ACLU, USA Patriot Act of 2001 and Civil Liberties http://www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html ).
After a year of court rulings and appeals, on November 18, 2002 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review gave the Justice Department (and cooperating police forces) the right to engage in detailed surveillance activities against ordinary US citizens (11/19/02, NY Times, “A Green Light to Spy). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review is a top-secret appointed subgroup of the U.S. Supreme Courts and normally handles FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) issues. This ruling extends the more lenient rules for investigations of non-citizens to citizens. Attorney General John Ashcroft is moving rapidly to take advantage of the ruling (Eric Lichtblau, 11/24/02, “Justice Department Acts to Use New Power in Terror Investigations, NY Times ).
However, even without the ruling things have changed dramatically. You may have noticed the changes in the information sharing brochures from financial institutions, credit companies, and utility companies, stating that the are now required to share your information with investigators under the USA PATRIOT Act. Likewise, libraries, bookstores, and internet vendors are required to turn over their records of your transactions (Joan Bertin, 9/16/02, “Now They Check the Books You Read,” Newsday http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-06.htm ). Further, under the law, these organizations cannot inform you that your records have been turned over.
It seems that virtually every piece of legislation has some security aspect attached. For example, between the PATRIOT Act and the Leave No Child Behind Act, any school receiving federal funding (that covers all public and most private institutions) are required to turn over student records to the government upon request, and to allow military recruiters on campus or risk losing federal aid. Student records have been considered confidential and only released with a valid court ordered search warrant. Now they are up for grabs by intelligence agencies – and police who may be acting as their proxies.
And what about those “warrants?” Ashcroft has said that warrants are still required – which is true. However, warrants in the past required some sort of solid proof of link to a crime and were issued by judges. Now warrants are “related to an ongoing investigation” and subject only to administrative Justice Department review – yep, the same folks doing the “investigating.”
As if the extension of government power under the USA PATRIOT Act were not enough, enter the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (became Public Law No 107-296 on 11/25/02). Even the most uninformed would find this legislation frightening. Among the many areas covered by the law, it gave official authorization to a Defense Department program known as “Total Information Awareness System” operated under DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and run by none other than John Poindexter of Iran-Contra infamy. TIA is a comprehensive “data-mining” system that collects all data available on an individual from all sources (commercial, public, private and government sources). For a look at the project itself, go to http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm . Conservative editorialist William Safire is certainly up in arms, and his short article “You Are a Suspect” http://spot.pcc.edu/%7Erwolf/safire_tia111402.htm says a lot about how invasive this system is. You might be asking why the US Defense Department is working on a system for surveilling US citizens??? I am too. However, the program was included under the Homeland Security Act and it was recently announced that President Bush has authorized $900,000,000 ($900 MILLION) as seed money for the project.
Just a look at the agencies included in the Homeland Security reorganization is enlightening. All or part of the following agencies and programs will be reorganized to the agency (from the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY REORGANIZATION PLAN November 25, 2002):
Whole Departments
> Coast Guard.
> Customs Service,
> Transportation Security Administration
> Federal Protective Service (“the FPS”),
> Office of Domestic Preparedness (“the ODP”),
> Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (“the FLETC”).
> United States Secret Service.
> Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”).
> Integrated Hazard Information System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which shall be renamed “FIRESTAT.”
Programs or functions
> Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (“CIAO”) of the Department of Commerce,
> National Communications System (“the NCS”),
> NIPC of the FBI (other than the CIOS),
> National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (“NISAC”),
> Energy Assurance Office (“EAO”) of the Department of Energy,
> Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services Administration (“FedCIRC”)
> functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“the INS”),
> the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under the laws specified in Section 421(b) of the Act from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
> Major programs from the Department of Energy
> National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center of the Department of Defense.
> National Domestic Preparedness Office of the FBI, including the functions of the Attorney General relating thereto.
> Domestic Emergency Support Team of the DOJ, including the functions of the Attorney General relating thereto.
> Metropolitan Medical Response System of the Department of Health and Human Services,
> National Disaster Medical System of the Department of Health and Human Services
> Office of Emergency Preparedness and the Strategic National Stockpile of the Dept. of HHS
> Plum Island Animal Disease Center of USDA.
Obviously this is a creation of an agency that is massive in its scope and frightening in its reach - especially when we consider the implications of previously discussed legislation. Of course, the Office of Homeland Security, does not mean that all intelligence and activities are gathered in one place. The Defense Department and each branch of the military, Department of Justice, CIA, FBI, and NSC (to name a few) all have their own programs – and all of them are operating with increasing freedom domestically now that FISA has been determined to apply to U.S. citizens.
The President has determined that he has the power to broaden the designation of “enemy combatant” to those who were not. Previously, this designation has meant that a U.S. citizen was actively fighting with a foreign force against the U.S. Now you just have to be labeled. That means that you can be picked up, detained indefinitely without charges or access to council (Lane 12/01/02, Washington Post, Terror’s Parallel Legal System, http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4641556.htm ), or even killed. The President has given the order to the CIA that they can kill U.S. citizens they think are “enemy combatants” – whether they are abroad, or theoretically even domestically (CBSNEWS.COM, 12/4/02, CIA’s License to Kill http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/03/attack/main531596.shtml ). In short, the CIA can assassinate people (including U.S. citizens) without a trial or conviction.
I have heard more times than I care to hear from people that “I don’t have anything to worry about, because I’m not involved in that stuff.” Almost universally, I hear this from “white” folks, who think that “if you don’t have anything to hide” then you “shouldn’t be worried.” This has been the “common” thought process for a long time ... back in the 1980s when police were setting up roadblocks to check every driver for alcohol; when in the “war on drugs” police were allowed to break down doors and force searches; and now ... when the government wants a life dossier on every person in the U.S.
I can’t believe that people can be so trusting or so naive. Or so stupid.
If you are not concerned, or think that no one would ever think you did anything, then think again. What if it is a “simple mistake?” Someone’s name is almost like yours, or your social security number is somehow messed up in data entry or a computer glitch, or the new threat “identity theft.” What if you bump into a “suspected terrorist” on the street and the security cameras catch it, or someone in deep cover is a member of your golfing club? Any piece of information can be wrong, and any piece of information can be taken out of context - especially by those who cast the widest possible net. Under the new rules, you could be locked away for months without even being able to ask friends and family to start “straightening out” the error.
In these times, with these laws, you are guilty until proven innocent – except the mechanisms for proving innocence are no longer in place. It is almost impossible to prove a negative. That is why our court system was designed to prove a crime rather than to prove one’s innocence.
If you think these laws and these actions are going to make you safe from terrorism, then think again. The definition of terrorism is so broad as to be meaningless at this point. Are you, or someone you know, a member of Green Peace (they have engaged – under the new laws — in “eco-terrorism”). Are you, or someone you know, a member of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) members of this group have “attacked” research labs. Are you, or someone you know, a member of Right to Life (members of this group have attacked womens’ clinics). Any common association, someone you know casually but interact with regularly, could be labeled as being a “suspect” and if they are you are.
Now is the time to act. Waiting until they sweep you or your loved ones up is way too late. Our Constitution is being deconstructed right in front of us. Demand that your elected representatives act. Support organizations that are fighting for our rights such as the ACLU. Find out what is going on and keep on top of what is going on and share that information with others. Support organizations that are keeping you informed. Write letters to the editor. Protest.
Do not wait silently and passively until you have no voice at all.
Greenwashing by Emily Pollard Strangechord
Cue to an aerial shot - a large bird in flight over a beautiful turf of water foaming with waves. The text below reads “Shell is making waves for cleaner engines.” Shell? Shell Oil? Yes indeed; the ad text goes on to describe the specially formulated cleaner grade gasoline Shell has developed, ending with the sentence, “Experience the waves of change at Shell.” (Shell, 2002) Ahhh, you say, now I get it. And you set the magazine page down feeling reassured and even hopeful…maybe these oil companies aren’t so bad after all.
If this experience sounds familiar, you and millions of others the world over have been duped. Each year oil companies pour vast amounts of PR money into creating ad campaigns aimed at painting an environmentally friendly picture of their company. In this world of slick media, these corporations realize that the ad is mightier than the deed when it comes to shaping public perception. This mass manipulation is referred to as greenwashing.
What is “greenwashing”?
In 2000, in a moment of victory for environmentalists, the term “greenwashing” was included in the 10th Edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Pelupessy, 2000). It is defined there as “Disinformation disseminated by an organisation so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash.” The CorpWatch definition: “1.) The phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty. 2) Environmental whitewash. 3) Hogwash.” (CorpWatch, 2002)
Greenwash takes many forms. From the print advertisement described above and television commercials to participation in environmental conferences and the creation of eco-friendly-looking corporate front groups, many transnational corporations (TNCs) have made expensive and wide-reaching efforts to ensure that no matter how they act environmentally, the public will view them in a good light. These companies sink their dollars into huge public relations campaigns designed to manufacture and preserve a green image. The whole situation is two-faced. As John Stauber, publisher of PR Watch magazine said, “Companies take on corporate ad campaigns and high-profile partnerships with mainstream environmental group--while simultaneously lobbying to gut green laws.” (Helvarg, 1996)
Greenwashing has a full history behind it, beginning in the mid to late 1960s. Back then Westinghouse, recognizing the growing anti-nuclear movement, ran four-color ads proclaiming the anti-polluting virtues of atomic energy (Karliner, 2001). In 1969 alone, the utility companies spent over $300 million advertising their anti-pollution efforts, apparently more than eight times the amount the companies were spending on the efforts themselves. This brand of greenwash, which Jerry Mander labeled “eco-pornography” at the time, increased in prevalence over the coming decades, peaking around Earth Day 1990. Corporate environmentalism came into its own that year. Companies realized that increasing numbers of consumers wanted green products and so they set about marketing themselves as environmentally conscious and concerned. Today, it doesn’t take long to find products made by the biggest TNCs boasting “recyclable”, "biodegradable" or "all natural” properties. The problem is, these corporations rank among the biggest enemies of the environment when it comes to their day-to-day operations. In fact, it’s often the greatest culprits that pour the most money into hefty green PR campaigns. Ten years ago, O’Dwyer’s PR Services Report, a trade publication, posited that the environment would be, “the life-and-death PR battle of the 1990s.” (Helvarg, 1996) A battle is exactly what one would call it, with TNCs fighting it out by whatever means necessary to win the public’s approval.
What is fundamentally at play when it comes to greenwash tactics is corporations’ belief that they should be allowed to police themselves and participate in environmental causes on their own terms. There is an intrinsic assertion that governments should relax regulations and avoid legislations, allowing corporations to handle their own operation and cleanups in a voluntary way. Our government has heavily bought into this notion of corporate freedom. Protected by free speech laws and laissez-faire policy, corporations are permitted to wreak their environmental havoc, and then select eco causes that hurt their bottom lines the least and tout their affiliation with those to the public.
The oil companies
In writing this paper, once I decided to narrow my focus to a single industry the choice was glaringly obvious – the oil industry. “According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, just 122 corporations account for more than 80 percent of all global carbon emissions - by far the major greenhouse gas. And just five private global oil corporations -- ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, Shell, Chevron and Texaco -- produce oil that contributes some 10 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.” (Bruno & Karliner, 2000) The pattern we find in oil corporation greenwash is one of highlighting and glorifying the very small amount they spend on environmental research and projects (often involving renewables). The truth the public rarely hears is what a minute budget percentage goes to that which these companies are advertising.
In reality, over time, the Greenhouse Gangsters have not used their power for significant development of renewable energy. In 1973, geothermal, wind, and solar accounted for 0.1% of world energy supply. In 1996, renewables accounted for a mere 0.4% of world energy supply. During that same period, oil declined in terms of dominance of fuel supply, from 44.9% to 35.3%, though it is still the biggest source. But this decline was replaced largely with natural gas, which contributes equally to global warming, and nuclear power. (Bruno, Karliner & Brotsky, 1999)
To follow is an overview of greenwashing campaigns of BP Amoco, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil.
BP Amoco - “Plug in the Sun”
The 1998 merger of BP and Amoco formed Britain’s largest company and the world’s second largest oil corporation. The oil company most determined to carve out an environmentally sensitive image, the corporation spent over ₤69.5 million in 2000 to rebrand itself as green (Arnold, 2001). It declared a new name, “Beyond Petroleum” and now boasts a new green logo design and commitment to invest in renewable energy sources. Included in this rebranding campaign was the purchase of Solarex, the largest solar energy company. With that $45 million purchase (CorpWatch, 2001), BP can now claim that it is the largest solar energy company in the world. Within a week after the purchase, BP launched a “Plug in the Sun” global program, installing solar panels on 200 BP stations nationwide.
All of this newfound environmental concern sounds great in print and on television commercials. However, sweeping aside the green curtain also reveals some jaw-dropping hypocrisy. “A week before the purchase of Solarex, BP Amoco showed its true colors (closer to black than green) when it purchased ARCO for $26.5 billion.” (Bruno, 1999) For every $100 the company spends on oil exploration and development, a mere 16 cents is spent on solar energy (Pelupessy, 2000). The purchase of Solarex was a drop in the bucket for BP to be able to call itself the world’s largest solar energy company. “BP will spend $5 billion over five years for oil exploration in Alaska alone” (CorpWatch, 2001) and is in fact one of the strongest lobbyists for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. BP Amoco’s track record is like that of any oil company – full of oil spills, major accidents, regulations violations, and environmental destruction. Ironically, on the same day the company announced its “Beyond Petroleum” campaign, it agreed to pay $10 million in penalties for environmental and pollution violations at nine of its oil refineries. (Manuel, 2001)
Make no mistake, BP Amoco’s bread and butter is its oil business. Ads stating, “We can fill you up with sunshine” mislead consumers into thinking the company is steering away from oil and pouring vast amounts of resources into the solar energy business. Once you look past the designer greens of the print ads and the pretty glare of the service station solar panels, you see that while “BP Amoco hopes you will feel you are putting ‘some sun in your life,’….you put greenhouse gases in your tank”. (Bruno, 1999)
Chevron - “People Do”
One of the top five oil corporations in the world, Chevron has one of the longest histories of greenwash. The company’s “People Do” advertisements debuted in 1985 and the campaign is considered the textbook case of successful greenwashing. According to CorpWatch, polls Chevron conducted in California in the late 1980’s showed that it had become the oil corporation people trusted most to protect the environment (CorpWatch, 2001). In fact, Chevron rates consistently high in marketing polls asking respondents to name the oil company they would trust most to conduct environmentally sensitive projects. Perhaps most notably is that the corporation ranks best among those most antagonistic to oil companies. The following is a description of one of their fruitful “People Do” ads:
The shot opens with a troop of tiny sea turtles moving along the sand towards the full moon's glow on the ocean. "In a race to survive, instinct and moonlight guide newborn sea turtles," a somber narrator intones. "Do people make certain that the only light visible is the one that leads home? People Do." Sounds like a generic nature special, right? But actually this is an ad – for Chevron oil company. The ad goes on to explain how Chevron is saving the turtles by concealing light from nearby oil and gas operations so they can make it to the water. The message is clear: Chevron is a defender of the environment, a champion of endangered species, a lovable, eco-friendly corporation saving the infants of the animal kingdom. (Pelupessy, 2000)
What Chevron’s green ads don’t explain to the public is that these actions are usually a result of “legal ‘mitigation’ that Chevron is required to carry out under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and other laws before it can destroy other habitats with its drilling operations.” (Helvarg, 1996) Also bear in mind that the company is spending much less on the promoted projects than on the “People Do” campaign itself. “The butterfly preserve project at the El Segundo refinery in California, for example, costs the company $5,000 a year to run. But producing a 30 second advertisement about the preserve may cost $200,000.” (Pelupessy, 2000) And that amount does not even cover airtime. Chevron has been slapped with millions of dollars in fines resulting from plant explosions, illegal air pollution, neighborhood chemical and waste pollution, and improper hazardous waste disposal (Pelupessy, 2000). While achieving the best reputation of the oil companies through its greenwash ads, Chevron continues to rack up some of the highest fines recorded by the EPA.
Shell - “Profits or Principles”
Shell Corporation is the third largest global oil company. Their “Profits and Principles” campaign emphasizes Shell’s renewed commitment to “not only meet the agreed Kyoto targets to reduce greenhouse gas emission, but to exceed them” (Bruno, 2001). The commercials feature company employees doing environmental work, and Shell’s annual report now includes a special addition covering their environmental and ethical endeavors. Even their U.S. corporate web address is
Shell looks as if it is making eco-friendly strides, beginning with its alignment with the Kyoto Protocol. Upon closer inspection, though, we see that the backing is largely symbolic. Shell alone accounts for more CO2 than most countries, and the corporation is as active in its efforts to locate oil as the other oil giants. “Shell touts its commitment to renewable energy and stresses that it has created a division called Shell Renewables…(The fact is) Shell spends just 0.6% of its annual investments on renewables.” (Bruno, 2001) The following is from a satirical Shell “acceptance speech” for winning Lifetime Achievement Award at 2002’s Green Oscars:
Our commitment to greenwash has never faltered. We believe we have spent more on greenwash than any other company (though naturally we will not give out figures)…We imply that the PR fiascoes of the 1990's have changed us, without ever admitting that there were any fiascoes, or that anything needed changing! In other words, we didn't do anything wrong, and we'll never do it again. Our ads have everything from exuberant green foliage to attractive blond actresses/geologists in Third World villages. We're starting a Sustainability Institute at Rice University…Best of all, our greenwash is working! Most 'reasonable' people (i.e. newspaper editors, government policy wonks, pretty much everyone except green wackos who we can easily marginalize) think we have changed. (EarthSummit.biz, 2002)
ExxonMobil - “Helping Earth breathe easier”
ExxonMobil continues to be the “hard-liner” of the oil corporations. As the largest in the world, the company is the least concerned with presenting an eco-friendly image. Although ExxonMobil greenwash may be less ubiquitous than that of the other corporations, it is certainly as reprehensible. A recent campaign showed the corporation contesting claims that America’s air quality is getting worse. “In fact, ExxonMobil informs (the public) that the improvement in air quality comes from a ‘determined and cooperative effort involving both public and private sectors, harnessed to the power of advanced technology.’” (Heller & O’Malley, 2002) The oil giant also ran weekly commentaries in the editorial section of the New York Times explaining how its industry is “helping Earth breathe easier” due to tree-planting and financially supporting environmental groups (Pelupessy, 2000).
One only need turn to ExxonMobil’s actions to see that not only is the company preventing Earth from breathing a little easier, but it in fact has the most staunchly anti-environmental record of any of the oil companies. Unlike Shell and BP Amoco, ExxonMobil refuses to speak out against global warming, instead taking the stance that the issue does not exist. According to the company’s website, “fears of global warming ‘are based on completely unproven climate models or more often on sheer speculation without a reliable scientific basis’. ExxonMobil believes that current scientific understanding does not justify ‘mandatory restrictions on the use of fossil fuels’”. (Bruno, 2001) The corporation also provides major funding to so-called “greenhouse skeptics” – groups that serve mainly to mislead the public and policy makers by asserting that global warming is largely a myth. One of these groups is the Global Climate Coalition, which has spent more than $63 million to fight Congressional global warming policies (Pelupessy, 2000). Through this and other industry fronts, ExxonMobil was one of the most influential opponents of U.S. entry into the Kyoto Protocol.
ExxonMobil continues to be the biggest oil industry spender when it comes to protecting its interests politically. Its campaign contributions and lobbying efforts have enormous power over which regulations are passed or renewed.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2000 election cycle, ExxonMobil ranked second out of all donors by contributing $1,375,250 in campaign contributions. To make sure Congress gets their message, ExxonMobil spends millions of dollars on lobbying each year. In 1999, the company spent $11,695,800 to protect their interests from regulations…ExxonMobil was responsible for nearly a fifth of all lobbying dollars spent by the oil and gas industry. (Heller & O’Malley, 2002)
The above passage reveals the frighteningly close link between the corporation’s purse strings and our nation’s legislative process.
The impact on the public
Because greenwashing is a public relations issue, it is vital to look at how these campaigns shape public perception of the oil corporations. Their advertisements work extremely well to the companies’ benefit, but prey upon the public’s trust, intelligence, and good intentions. According to a 1999 Cone/Roper survey, Americans are more likely to give their business to companies which support environmental protection causes (Pelupessy, 2000). The oil corporations heed this message, but instead of taking actions and implementing policy to transform their companies into ones of which the public can be proud, they resort instead to greenwashing campaigns that deliberately deceive the people. The oil companies carefully craft an image rather than disclose to the public where their real motivations lie. To be expected, the companies are quick to defend their ads:
The companies claim they're simply responding to pressure. "When you see corporate America doing green advertising, it's because they get hit so often by the environmental community. You have to let the public know what good you're doing," counters Hal Dash, president of Cerrell Associates, a Los Angeles-based PR firm that numbers oil and auto interests among its clients, and which recently helped defeat an electric car mandate in California. (Helvarg, 1996)
Unfortunately, “the good they’re doing” is not much compared to the mess they’re making. In the long run, the oil corporations would make a much stronger positive impression on the public if rather than spending such large amounts on public relations, they invested in changing their operations.
The oil and other industries are adept at making environmental problems seem within the domain of citizen responsibility. While it is important that we limit our driving, turn off lights behind us, conserve water and heat, and recycle, there is a limit to how much individuals can do in their daily lives to manifest large-scale change. Making it look like the public’s burden to bear relieves industry from having to accept any responsibility to make truly significant advances to preserve the earth. With their minuscule investments in renewable energy sources and endless plundering and exploration, they take the smallest initiative they can get away with to plug into their greenwashing ads. “In this regard, the two oil giants are seeking to completely transform their image from oil companies with flawed environmental and social records, to ‘energy companies’ committed to taking action to combat climate change, without having to dramatically change their behavior. The PR company Burson-Marsteller, an expert in ‘reputation management’, argues that ‘corporate reputation has a direct impact on a company's ability to achieve policy-related goals.’” (CEO, 2000)
The best defense against greenwashing is to stay informed. For consumers, more than half the battle won is knowing that what is portrayed in an environmentally friendly oil advertisement belies what the corporation’s main operations and objectives. Although few of us can cease filling our vehicle’s tanks with gasoline and driving, we can let our legislators know we do not support sell-out to the oil corporations’ lobbying and front groups, or the new drillings the companies propose. The hope is to prevent the scenario that the world’s children grow up believing the oil corporations will save the earth.
Citations for resources used
Arnold, Matthew. 2001, July 12. “Walking the ethical tightrope.” Marketing.
Bruno, Kenny. 1999. “BP Amoco’s ‘Plug In the Sun’ Program.” CorpWatch.
http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=4048
Bruno, Kenny. 2001. “A Convenient Confusion.” New Internationalist. http://www.newint.org/issue335/confusion.htm
Bruno, Kenny & Karliner, Joshua. 2000. “Beware of deluge of deception on Earth Day.” The Progressive. http://www.progressive.org/mpdvbk00.htm
Bruno, Kenny, Karliner, Joshua & Brotsky, China. 1999. “Greenhouse Gangsters vs. Climate Justice.” CorpWatch. http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=1048
CEO: Corporate Europe Observatory. 2000. “The Climate Greenwash Vanguard: Shell and BPAmoco.” http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/greenhouse/greenwash.html
CorpWatch. 2002. “Campaigns: Greenwash Awards.” http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCC.jsp?topicid=102
CorpWatch. 2001. “Greenwash Fact Sheet.” http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=242
EarthSummit.biz. 2002. “The Green Oscars: Lifetime Achievement Award.” http://www.earthsummit.biz/awards/lifetime.html
Helvarg, David. 1996. “Perception is Reality: Greenwashing Puts the Best Public Face on Corporate Irresponsibility.” E/The Environmental Magazine. http://www.emagazine.com/november-december_1996/1196feat2.html
Heller, Rachel & O'Malley, Rebecca. 2002. “Don't Be Fooled 2002.” Earthday Resources. http://www.earthdayresources.org/publications/dbf2002.html
Karliner, Joshua. 2001. “A Brief History of Greenwash.” CorpWatch. http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=243
Manuel, Athan. 2001. “Vice President Once Again Supports Smog, Meltdown and Oil Spill Energy Plan.” Common Dreams Newscenter. http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0508-09.htm
McMillan, Stephanie. 1990. Cartoon. http://home.earthlink.net/~msarchive2000/015.htm
Pelupessy, Asmara. 2000. “The Green Screen.” http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=7
Shell Corporation. Advertisement. U.S News & World Report. December 2, 2002: 65.