London Progressive Journal

China likes to paint itself as a victim. The only English language channel, CCTV, plays daily documentaries about the Japanese occupation and their inherent cruelty. A total boycott of the Games would play right into their hands and prove to its citizens that the world is ganging up on it, completely unprovoked, and its reaction would be petulant, at best. It is also unfair on athletes, not least Chinese ones. Protests of the kind in London and Paris this week are an effective way of signalling disapproval with the limited tools ordinary citizens have-public displays and symbols.

China's Olympics is fair game

China’s achievement of lifting millions out of poverty is not to be sniffed at, but the argument that sports and politics should not mix, and that protesting at the torch run is unsportsmanlike, (“vile misdeeds”, they called it) does not wash. Athletic competitions have long been an arena for the continuation of politics by other means. The torch run through Tibet, for example, is blatant political posturing and the Olympics itself is being used by China to show its citizens that the one-party government has international legitimacy. The torch run itself, long abandoned, was revived by Germany in 1936 as a symbol of the Nazi party’s perceived ideological and cultural link with ancient Greek civilisation. The torch was carried through the Balkans in 1936 to signal its new power over the region (the region would be invade shortly afterwards). You can also bet that the amount of medals won by China and the US in August is going to be very significant indeed.

The Olympics are a truly international event and protesting is one of the only avenues people have to draw attention to various issues - be it the oppression of Falun Gong followers, imprisoned journalists and human rights activists, the Tibetan issue, Darfur, and of course media censorship. Once the Olympics is over, China will continue to go about its business of becoming a superpower. While public protests might not do much good in the long run, they will show countries in the future that if they have skeletons in their closet, they will encounter international murmurings of disapproval and a PR disaster at the very least. The current international actions might also make the International Olympic Committee (IOC) more careful to select, in future, host countries with better human rights records, and reduce the likelihood that the Games will be awarded to a country with dubious credentials. Because, like it or not, the country will interpret the awarding of the Games as tacit international approval.

Is it unfair that China is losing face in this manner? We can’t pretend that our own hard-fought and imperfect liberal democracies don’t have blood on their hands, or that feudal Tibet was a utopia. And of course the British government’s collusion in keeping working conditions in China poor and preventing workers from forming trade unions means we can’t expect our officials to speak up in the way the mayor of Paris and various other officials did, with banners and marches that caused the torch run to be cancelled. There will be protests in 2012 for Britain’s involvement in Iraq, but what China is purposefully overlooking is that many people are protesting its treatment of its own people as well as its international actions, while the government is trying to paint protesters as misfits with an irrational and catch-all Sinophobia. It is very unlikely that, in 2012, people will protest about how the UK treats its citizens, even accounting for the increasing erosion of civil liberties at home - its foreign policy will be the main target.

However, even if we were to draw a line under the past and forget China’s appalling human rights regime, giving it a chance to make the fresh start which was the admirable aim of the IOC in the first place, the media censorship in recent weeks is the tip of an iceberg which on its own would be unacceptable. It is China’s tough luck that we now live in an unprecedented climate of human rights concern coupled with more access to information. Of course, in 1936 this was not the case, and human rights law was not codified in any serious manner until after World War 2.

There is an international spirit of ethics laid out in the Olympic charter, and Beijing made certain campaign promises to win the 2008 bid. The most important of these was an improved human rights record and free media access to journalists. The IOC says it cannot get involved in the recent events, despite the fact that China's actions contravene explicit promises Beijing made to IOC officials as a condition for being awarded the 2008 Games. Countries need to know that if they get the Olympics they will be under close scrutiny.

The host nation is given the Games as a token of its support for the Olympic charter and its commitment to fair play, and as such it is subject to certain ethical obligations, sporting and otherwise, as a member of the international community. Awarding the Games to Seoul in 1988 had a positive impact on South Korea’s development, but China has shown that it has not fulfilled its promises and, even more, that it does not really care.

It is important that, in the small avenue that we have been given, we signal disapproval. Countries like Saudi Arabia that become rich and powerful without social development (in this case through a resources jackpot) become like fortresses, totally invulnerable to world opinion (when was the last time the House of Saud wrung its hands over its international reputation?). This is the only chance to show China that the world is indeed watching, and even without all the other issues, media blackouts are unacceptable.

‘Everyone else is doing it so why can’t we’

The Games are barely four months away, and it does not look likely that China will allow the media freedom it has promised. China has an obligation to the IOC to provide open internet access for the 30,000 journalists expected to cover the games, Kevan Gosper, vice-chairman of the IOC Co-ordinating Commission, said on Tuesday.

Blocking the web during the games “would reflect very poorly” on Beijing, Mr Gosper said, drawing attention to criticism of China closing down internet access during last month’s unrest in Tibet.

Concerns over internet access were among issues raised on Tuesday by the IOC in talks with the Beijing organising committee. “This morning we discussed and insisted [on access] again,” said Mr Gosper. “Our concern is that the press is able to operate as it has at previous Games.” However, the IOC said that, so far, access for the media was not yet provided “and it was still on the table for discussion”.

Beijing had given clear assurances that the required access would be delivered, the IOC said, “but operationally, it isn’t up to the mark yet”. Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, said she acknowledged that China banned some internet content, but said other countries did the same. She declined to say if the internet would be unrestricted for journalists during the Games. This excuse is an almost contemptuously childish attempt to deflect attention from China’s own media crackdown.

Our media coverage is of course not perfect either, but it does not even bear comparison with the total control and imprisonment of ‘critics’ that China is attempting. And what of these ‘other countries?’ To whom are they referring? The Open Net Initiative, made up of research groups at the universities of Toronto, Harvard Law School, Oxford and Cambridge, conducted a study in 2007 to find out which countries had government controls on the internet. Burma, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Pakistan and Uzbekistan were on the list along with China. None of these countries are likely to get the Games any time soon, and if they did the protests would be even louder. China can’t have it both ways. They can’t agree to make changes as a condition for hosting the Games and then renege on the promises because ‘other countries do it too’.

It is a good idea to find Games hosts that are not in the old boys’ club of international politics, and having the world’s attention after decades of isolation can be a good thing. The IOC said in 2001 that awarding Beijing the Olympics would have a positive impact on human rights in the country as it would be forced to change under the spotlight of world attention, but this change has not materialised. As Human Rights Watch said when Beijing was awarded the Games: "We think that the human rights record of a country should be taken into serious consideration by the International Olympic Committee in selecting the site for the 2008 Olympics, but we are not opposed a priori to China getting the Games. Experience with the 1995 UN Women's Conference in Beijing has shown that having thousands of people from around the world in China can focus attention on the country, including on the degree of state control and fear of political protest."

Protesting is the only way international attention is going to be a positive thing, and if it does not bring about changes, it will at least let China know that the world has not entirely been fooled. This is a one-time chance to attract international attention at a truly international event, and in line with the IOC’s stated aim of effecting changes by awarding the Games. After the Olympics, this avenue might be closed forever.

Flooded with foreign journalists who venture into the recent political history of the country as unequipped explorers, Colombia has again attracted worldwide attention in recent weeks, on account of rumours regarding the state of health of FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt. Luis Eladio Pérez, one of the hostages freed by the FARC towards the end of February, was the first to express serious concerns about the health of the former presidential candidate in the hands of the guerrilla group.

Her pall and dismal appearance in the video circulated by the rebels only weeks before seemed to confirm the suspicions already advanced by many. Since then, various sources have provided details which indicate that Ms Betancourt (pictured) is seriously ill and in need of an urgent blood transfusion. Witnesses from the Guavire region are reported to have seen her in various villages, where the FARC have allegedly tried to get some urgent medical help. In particular, she is said to suffer from Hepatitis B and Lesmaniosis, a tropical disease caused by a mosquito bite.

The political chameleonism of Uribe, supported by Sarkozy, whose involvement is to be linked to the clear political gains he would obtain at home to overshadow an unimpressive domestic record, had produced a new conjuncture before the rapid deterioration of Betancourt's health. All of a sudden, the intransigence hitherto shown by the Colombian president towards the FARC has switched to a milder attitude, with talk of 'prisoners' release' on the one hand and 'political asylum in France' on the other, in exchange for the permission of a French mission to supply medical care to the ex-leader of the Oxygen Green Party. This twist is related to a clear political logic. Uribe has always shown little interest in the liberation of Ingrid Betancourt - a fact often pointed out by Ms Betancourt’s family - for two main reasons. The first is that her captivity is a good propaganda instrument to be constantly employed against the FARC, which can easily and rightly be accused of barbarism, thereby giving a moral boost to the hard line so far adopted. The second, instead, has to do with the risks implied in her possible return to political activity. The enormous popularity she has attained in these years could make her a dangerous rival for Uribe. As the party she founded no longer exists, her potential entry into the Polo Democrático Alternativo (PDA) would render the left-wing coalition extremely appealing.

Who better than somebody who has been imprisoned by the FARC to put an end to their activity? Provided she has not changed her mind over the course of the years, the authority conferred by her tragic experience would make the negotiated solution all the more attractive again. However, her death could be seen as a terrible blow to the uncompromising politics of “democratic security' carried on by Uribe. If one side of this politics has rendered much of the country much safer, many other aspects have been neglected, among which the question of the hostages. Public opinion would not receive well the news of the death of a hostage who has attracted attention from the whole globe, even worse without the Colombian government having made some attempt to save her. It is under these lenses that Uribe's move should be read.

However, the answer of the rebels has not been accommodating. After days of waiting, the Falcon 50 sent by the French government to locate Ingrid Betancourt in the jungle, has sadly made its way back to Paris. In a statement of 4th April, released only on the 8th by the Bolivarian Press Agency, the FARC declared: “We do not act under blackmail nor under the impulse of mediatic campaigns. If at the beginning of the year the president Uribe had cleared Pradera and Florida for 45 days, Ingrid Betancourt, as well as the soldiers and the guerrilla fighters would have recovered their freedom, and it would be the victory of all.”

Moreover, the FARC blame the government for the killing of Raúl Reyes, and attribute to this and other gestures the unwillingness to proceed to a humanitarian exchange. As admitted by the governments of France and Ecuador, Raúl Reyes was the likely negotiator of any possible agreement. The measures taken in the last few months by the Colombian president do not seem to have been very conciliatory at all. The unilateral moves of the FARC have not been followed by any real good intention of the government. If on one side, the clearing of military control from Florida and Pradera, two municipalities in the Valle del Cauca, a department situated in western Colombia, is a critical request, which could well hide the rebels' intention to regroup after the severe losses recently suffered, on the other the strong position of the president should induce him to pursue a more balanced approach to find a real solution to the hostage crisis. But he simply shows to have little interest in that beyond narrow political calculations.

Exactly sixty years after the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, the historic political leader whose murder constituted the spark of the infamous La Violencia period, which is at the basis of the current conflict, Colombia must rediscover his contribution. The civil war that has plagued the country for so long is the product of the systematic exclusion of the masses from the political system, but also the materialisation of the tensions brought about by a profoundly unjust economic model. If the violence has distanced the poorest sectors to which the rebels appeal, the material conditions of the country still require a much-needed change. The neo-liberal social paternalism of the current government coalition cannot be fought with arms, but through a democratic affirmation of progressive forces. In the same way as the Communist Party was outflanked by the FARC in the 1980s, the PDA should gain the hegemony of the left, making clear that the old tactic of the 'combination of all forms of struggle' (i.e. including violence) is dead. Only by understanding that the democratic and non-violent path can be successful in changing the country for good will the FARC allow their struggle to benefit of the whole left and the whole country.

Is this Government really serious about climate change? We've just learnt that it is now lining up behind BP to get a decent-sized chunk of the oil-drilling licences soon to be issued in Iraq. That's in line with the discovery that Britain is also planning to lay claim to over 1/3 rd of a million square miles of the seabed off Antarctica because of its oil potential.

And the UK is also already developing sub-sea claims on Atlantic oilfields around the Falklands, off Ascension Island, and in the Rockall basin, as well as large tracts in the Bay of Biscay.

Tony Blair's visit to Gadaffi in 2004 was prompted less by concern about Libyan WMD than by the goal of prising open the huge Libyan oil market. Blair's red-carpet welcome in Downing Street in 1998 for Haydar Aliyev, the ex-KGB President of Azerbaijan, was designed to secure a £5 billion oil deal for BP, which it duly did. The Government also strongly backed the construction of BP's $4bn Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan 1,000 mile oil pipeline which is now transporting a million barrels of oil a day of Caspian oil to the UK and the West. Again, Government support lay behind Shell's massive $20bn Sakhalin Energy gas and oil project in Eastern Siberia (till Russia muscled its way into taking it over in 2006) and Shell's equally costly Athabascan tar sands project in Alberta, Canada, to extract synthetic oil from oil shales even though extracting it generates twice as much C0² as conventional oil. And of course UK participation in the American invasion of Iraq was at least partly motivated by the goal of securing for BP some significant share in Iraq's huge still-unexplored oilfields.

This policy of relentless - and extraordinarily expensive - pursuit of the remaining hydrocarbon supplies wherever they may be found across the world is both shortsighted and wholly contrary to any pretensions to be tackling climate change as being the greatest threat facing the planet. It is shortsighted because peak oil - the point at which oil production reaches its global peak before it then steadily declines - is widely expected to be reached some time between 2010-2015. At the same time the global demand for oil, driven mainly by the frenetic growth rate of the Chinese and Indian economies over the last decade and into the future, will continue to rise inexorably and the 1-1.5 trillion barrels of conventional oil that remain will be consumed in some 40 years and perhaps less. Even if the UK could secure a significant slice of the remaining hydrocarbon deposits across the world which, given that the intense competition between the US and China for the same supplies is the biggest struggle driving geopolitics today, must at best be highly optimistic, it is a policy which is absurdly short-term. Oil has no long-term future, and it is madness that so close to its demise we are not at this stage planning much more systematically for a post-oil world.

The policy also ruthlessly exposes the proud boasts that the UK is leading the world in the fight against climate change. While Government is telling people (rightly) to turn off their electronic stand-by buttons and to recycle more, which will have a useful but small effect, it is still cranking up the last enormous reserves of the fossil fuel mania which will have a vastly greater and negative effect. While 10-25% of electricity generation in Europe is derived from renewable sources of energy, and 35-50% in Scandinavia, in Britain - which as an offshore island has more windpower capacity than most of the rest of Europe put together - it is a pitiful 4%.

Still today almost every aspect of energy policy in Britain is driven by the dominating influence of the old fossil fuel industries. The Government is proposing to triple airport capacity by 2030 even though on current trends air travel emissions may well by 2050 equal emissions from all other sectors combined so that even if all the latter were reduced to zero (which is fanciful), there would still be no reduction at all in the hugely excess level of total emissions that already exists today. And since the abolition of the fuel duty escalator in 2000, there has been no policy to discourage use of gas-guzzling and emissions-inflating SUVs except the mild differential in annual car tax between small and large cars which a recent budget increased for SUVs by 80p a week - which is a joke.

Nor has industry, or at least the largest firms, been required to report annually on their greenhouse gas emissions so that the public can see whether they, and particularly the most polluting industries, are making their due and proper contribution to cutting emissions by at least 60% by 2050, as the scientists say is necessary. There was indeed a Government legislative measure to do just that in 2002, but it was dropped at the last moment in order to burnish the Chancellor's deregulatory credentials with the CBI. Nor, to cut food air miles when produce can be grown locally, are food products required to be labelled with the country of origin and the distance they have travelled to be sold.

There are however two areas where the Government is certainly headed in the right direction. One is the proposal that all new house-building by 2016 should be emissions zero-rated. This is a bold initiative, though it needs to be supplemented with measures to reduce the carbon-rating of existing buildings progressively towards zero. The second is the proposal to introduce a carbon allowance for each family, depending on its size, which will then gradually be reduced year by year, though its date of introduction should be brought forward from 2012.

The ongoing love affair with oil has got to be broken. In 1990, taken as the baseline date for climate change purposes, Britain generated about 160 million net tons of carbon a year. If we are to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050 (though the scientists are now saying 80% will be necessary), we will have to reduce that to no more than 60 million tons - a reduction of around 2 million tons of carbon every year right through to 2050.

On that basis the total should by now have reduced by some 35 million tonnes compared with 1990. In fact it has reduced by only about 5 million tons. There could be no starker reminder that if we are really serious about stopping catastrophic climate change - in reality, not just in words - then we need as a top priority a blueprint for a zero-carbon post-oil Britain, and we then need to enforce it.

Michael Meacher is the MP for Oldham West and Royton. This article appeared on Compass.

In the bleak desert region of Algeria, around 165,000 Saharawi refugees have been living in camps for 34 years, in the desperate hope of an eventual return to their homeland, the Western Sahara. Situated on the Atlantic coast, the Western Sahara, Africa’s last colony, shares borders with Morocco to the north, Mauritania to the south and Algeria to the east. It has immense natural resources including some of the largest phosphate mines in the world, extremely rich fisheries, and possibly crude oil off its coastline, making it an important bargaining tool in international politics.

In 1975 King Hassan II of Morocco sent in a 350,000-strong civilian invasion of the Western Sahara, known as the “Green March”. Shortly before, Spain, under UN pressure to decolonise the territory, had been discussing independence for the Western Sahara with the Saharawi liberation movement, known as the Polisario. However, rather than risk war with Morocco, the Spanish government illegally passed the territory over to Morocco and Mauritania, abandoning its former colony to a grim fate.

By 1979, Mauritania retreated but Morocco continued in its colonial aspirations, pushing back Polisario fighters by constructing a large defensive barrier, known as the “berm” that cuts the Western Sahara in two. This berm consists of 2,700km of defensive walls 3-4 meters high, patrolled by 130,000 Moroccan soldiers, and surrounded by minefields for its entire length. It is the longest military wall in the world, separating the Saharawis who did not escape during the 1975 invasion from those who now live in exile in refugee camps situated in the harsh conditions of the barren Algerian desert. Despite the 1969 UN call for self-determination of the Saharawi people which it has restated in every resolution since, the international community continues to ignore the Saharawi people’s plight and is reluctant to force Morocco to end its unlawful and brutal occupation.

The final round of the peace talks between the Polisario and Morocco held last month in Manhasset, New York, has failed. Whereas the Polisario will accept no less than a self-determination referendum with the option of total independence for its people, King Mohammed VI has declared, “whatever formula for a consensual solution should emerge from the negotiations, Morocco, its king and its people, will never accept anything other than autonomy”.

But the two sides of the Western Sahara conflict are no strangers to diplomatic stalemates. The initial 1991 Settlement Plan which called for the implementation of a self-determination referendum was blocked by Morocco and subsequently abandoned.
The next strategy, masterminded by UN envoy James Baker, envisaged granting the Western Sahara the status of autonomy within the Kingdom of Morocco. Yet this so-called solution was seen as unacceptable to both the Polisario and the UN Security Council and was consequently scrapped.

Baker’s second plan offered a referendum with the option of independence in which Moroccan settlers as well as Saharawis would be entitled to vote. In an unanticipated diplomatic move, the Polisario accepted the plan, surprising considering that Moroccan settlers outnumber ethnic Saharawis by a ratio of more than 2:1. But equally astonishing was Morocco’s rejection of the plan. Perhaps it feared that its own settlers, sick of the unjust, repressive monarchy, would vote in favour of the socialist, democratic Polisario.
Utterly frustrated and faced with yet another failure, Baker resigned. Currently, the situation of neither peace nor war persists for the Saharawis in the refugee camps of Algeria, whilst those in the Occupied Territories continue to endure daily human rights abuses. Is there any hope of a closure to the case of Africa’s last colony? What other tactics exist apart from the seemingly fruitless path of international diplomacy?

The strategy for peace of the Saharawi civilians living under Moroccan occupation has been the instigation of a non-violent intifada. Taking to the streets on an almost daily basis, Saharawis protest with placards against the occupation, hang the Saharawi flag in strategic positions and paint Polisario slogans on the exterior walls of their homes. They film the subsequent punishment beatings carried out by the Moroccan security forces and upload the images on websites such as YouTube in order to transmit the evidence of the abuses to the international community.

Is this strategy a viable route to peace? It certainly has many advantages. Firstly, it de-legitimises Moroccan violence, given that heavy-handed repression of peaceful protest is never easy to justify. Secondly, it adds to the shame of those Western powers that explain their support for Morocco by claiming that the Kingdom is the best hope for “stability” in the North African region. Can a country that practices violent, systematic repression really be a source of stability? Thirdly, the strategy undermines the Moroccan assertion that the territory is under control, which is indicated by the fear shown by the security forces in their approach to Saharawi resistance.

But has the non-violent war had any tangible successes? The charismatic “Saharawi Ghandi” Aminatou Haidar, one of the iconic leaders of the movement whose beaten body has often appeared on solidarity websites as a testament to Moroccan human rights abuses, has recently been released from jail following international grassroots pressure. This is surely a persuasive example of the power that peaceful protest can have. But for any change in the current stalemate, international NGOs and public opinion would have to put a huge amount of pressure on their respective governments. Unfortunately, the general public are still largely uninformed of the dismal fate of the Saharawis. As long as this situation of unawareness persists, the conflict will continue whilst world leaders look on indifferently.

The NUJ's annual conference meets at a crucial time for the union. After 7 years of membership growth a wave of redundancies has hit the union hard - both numerically and financially.

There is a stark choice facing the union - retrenchment and cuts to union services or organising to resist the employers' cuts. Our annual conference should be the opportunity to put organising centre stage and begin to build a wider resistance to the bosses' offensive.

Over the past two years more than 6,000 media jobs have been lost. Despite industrial action at the BBC, in local newspapers and threatened action in other sectors - which has been successful in ensuring redundancies have largely been voluntary - employers are using the move to multi-skilling and multi-platform working to cut staffing and reduce editorial budgets.

Voluntary cuts are better than compulsory ones - but they are still cuts and those left behind are expected to work harder while companies continue to rake in massive profits. And such cuts pose a threat to the union and members' ability to protect their terms and conditions - and as such a co-ordinated, union-wide fight must be waged against them.

It is these threats which drove the union to launch its Stand up for Journalism campaign last year and the union's first national day of action for more than a decade. Now we need to build on that, backing motions that call on the union to co-ordinate pay claims across media companies, put recruitment and workplace organisation at the heart of our policy and plan further national actions to build the confidence of members in their workplaces to oppose job and budget cuts.

And media freedom issues, in the face of police actions against photographers or threats to force journalists to hand over film or sources, will feature highly. It is important they are not just issues strong letters are written about but that professional issues become causes around which members organise in their workplaces.

The conference will also set the scene for the biggest fight the union faces over the coming 18 months - the future of public service broadcasting. The BBC has seen thousands of jobs cut, whilst ITV have axed local and regional services. More cuts are planned. And the regulator and government are allowing them to happen. Reviews into the future funding of public service broadcasting open up the prospect of further cuts over the next few years. Building an alliance of workers and readers and viewers committed to putting public service before either commercial concerns or government-imposed cost-cutting is crucial to building the type of campaign which can force the employers to back-down and the government to ditch plans to top-slice the licence fee.

But our campaign shouldn't just be about preserving the status quo - it should be about building genuine public service broadcasting - publicly-funded, catering for all and democratically accountable.

It's time to build the fight-back.

Jeremy Dear is the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists. This article appeared on Socialist Appeal.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was finally came into force this week. Following years of campaigning, the implementation of the legislation will make it easier to prosecute companies for deaths that they have been accused of causing.
.
When considering the criminal liability of a corporation it is necessary to establish the mens rea (mental element) to make it possible to prosecute for any wrongdoing. The attribution of mens rea to a corporation for manslaughter has for a long time been difficult to prove. The concept of culpability could be viewed as being solely a human attribute, and impossible to ascribe to an obviously ‘artificial’ company that would, in theory, be unable to manifest such action.

The absence of an identified person has been the main dilemma in pinpointing the blame for corporate wrongdoing. An individual within the company hierarchy would need to be acknowledged as being responsible for the incident, for example a manager or other controlling officer. The problem in recognising such a person is particularly challenging with respect to the chain of command of a large corporation. Within such a company the safety policy can become unclear due to the business having a scattered structure, and it may become impossible to identify a specific individual who embodies the directing mind of the company and possesses the necessary mens rea for the crime.

The new law means that the joint actions of an organisation’s management team can now be considered when attempting to find blame. The company as a whole, or a group of senior managers can now be found to hold culpability for the offence. Although a person cannot be imprisoned under the legislation, an unlimited fine can be imposed on the company. It is hoped that any fine obligated will be of a considerable amount in comparison to the corporation’s annual turnover – possibly up to 10% of their annual turnover. The fine will be enforced alongside a publicity order that will require the company to publicise particular details of their offence and their subsequent conviction.

Adrian Bever, a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard told The Timesnewspaper that the new measures were the ‘most significant change in health and safety law for 30 years’.

Tom Sheffield, technical director at risk management firm Aeon told the press: ‘MPs such as David Blunkett have argued that numerous public disasters and workplace accidents caused by companies’ gross failings have gone without punishment because the government has not previously had good tools to prosecute effectively. This inability to convict has been the largest driving force behind the new Act. Armed with this new law, prosecutors could be eager to put these weapons to the test. As such, this really serves as a wake-up call to business to update their health and safety controls for the well-being of their employees and the public.’

Disturbingly, according to the British Safety Council many businesses remain ignorant of the new law. Leaving them open to serious charges, awareness of the act is as low as 53% in some regions. In their research, employment law firm Peninsula found evidence to suggest that as much as 79% of businesses have not taken any steps to prepare for the new law.

Workplace deaths are not as uncommon as some may perceive. Between 2006 and 2007 there were 241 employee deaths. Ninety members of the public also lost their lives due to accidents that had occurred in workplaces.

Under the new law, breach of the company’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of its employees and the public will occur if there has been a failure in:

-Ensuring all staff have adequate health and safety training
-Making sure all lifts are properly maintained and adequate fire precautions have been taken
-Checking all equipment is in a safe condition

It is hoped that the act will, through practice, become easier to work with than its predecessor. The earlier law had, on occasion, been over-interpreted by the courts and in turn caused additional nuisances. Following the years of injustice in cases throughout the years (the most high-profile being the Zeebrugge disaster), it is anticipated that the new law will bring about a higher level of health and safety in the workplace, and deter companies from neglecting their responsibilities.

The Iraq Solidarity Campaign is renewing its call to the international anti-occupation movements to build resistance to the plans by the regime of Jalal Talabani and Nouri Al-Maliki, who plan to eliminate the food ration system by June 2008.

According to the Party for Socialism and Liberation, ending the ration system will mean that “over 5 million Iraqis will be denied assistance“ and have warned that the change will lead to an increase in the levels of starvation and malnutrition, particularly among children.

The system was established by Saddam Hussein during United Nations sanctions, which were imposed during and after the 1990-1991 Gulf War. It was lauded by the world body as an effective tool to prevent hunger in the country and was also praised for being the world’s largest and most effective relief effort.

Aid agencies say the reduction in the rations will further hurt Iraqis, millions of whom are already facing a humanitarian crisis. The UN says that one in four children under the age of 5 is chronically malnourished, and at least four million Iraqis are in need of food assistance.

According to Gina Chon of the Wall Street Journal, “the rationing program cost more than $3 billion in 2007”, adding to the vast expense of maintain the occupation, along with carrying out military operations against civilians. However, Because of Iraq's double-digit inflation and higher international food prices, the cost is expected to reach more than $7 billion this year.

“The Iraqi government says it wants to move away from expensive subsidies and adopt market mechanisms. That goal has been lauded by the World Bank and others. The government has been curbing the program for months. Starting this year, only flour, sugar, rice, oil, and infant milk were part of the rations package.”

But in June, the government plans to end the rationing program altogether for many of Iraq's citizens. Under the current program, every family received rations, regardless of their means. After the summer, only the “needy” will be eligible for the program. The government estimates five million of Iraq's 28 million people would be ineligible for the rations under the new system.

Whilst the international pressure to end the occupation grows, a clear message needs to be sent to both the occupying powers and the “government” they have set up: that ending the rations to the Iraqi people is nothing less than an act of collective punishment.

With imperialism having already killed 1.5 million children through the UN-imposed sanctions, coupled with the one million dead since the 2003 invasion began, the populations of those in “Coalition” countries have a moral and legal duty to the people of Iraq, to ensure that an extra five million lives are not added to the growing lists of the dead, through their own governments’ silent complicity in ending Iraq’s ration system.

Sign the petition today:
[Petition Website]

Hussein Al-Alak is Chairman of the Iraq Solidarity Campaign.

At a time of growing public disenchantment with the major media, millions now rely on alternate sources. Many online and print ones are credible. One of the world's most relied on is not - the BBC. It's an imperial tool, as corrupted as its dominant counterparts, been around longer than all of them, now in it for profit, and it's vital that people know who BBC represents and what it delivers.

It was close but not quite the world's first broadcaster. Other European nations claim the distinction along with KDKA Pittsburgh as the oldest US one. BBC's web site states: "The British Broadcasting Company Ltd (its original name) was formed in October 1922....and began broadcasting on November 14....By 1925 the BBC could be heard throughout most of the UK. (Its) biggest influence....was its general manager, John Reith (who) envisioned an independent British broadcaster able to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation, free from political interference and commercial pressure."

That's what BBC says. Here's a different view from Media Lens. It's an independent "UK-based media-watch project....offer(ing) authoritative criticism" reflecting "reality" that's free from the corrupting influence of media corporations and the governments they support.

Its creators and editors (Davids Cromwell and Edwards) ask: "Can the BBC tell the truth....when its senior managers are appointed by the government" and will be fired if they step out of line and become too critical. It notes that nothing "fundamentally changed since BBC founder Lord Reith wrote the establishment: 'They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.' " He didn't disappoint, nor have his successors like current Director-General and Chairman of the Executive Board Mark Thompson along with Michael Lyons, Chairman, BBC Trust that replaced the Board of Governors on January 1, 2007 and oversees BBC operations.

On January 1, 1927, BBC was granted a Royal Charter, made a state-owned and funded corporation, still pretends to be quasi-autonomous, and changed its name to its present one - The British Broadcasting Corporation. Its first Charter ran for 10 years, succeeding ones were renewed for equal fixed length periods, BBC is in its ninth Charter period, and is perhaps more dominant, pervasive and corrupted than ever in an age of marketplace everything and space-age technology with which to operate.

It's now the world's largest broadcaster, has about 28,000 UK employees and a vast number of worldwide correspondents and support staff nearly everywhere or close enough to get there for breaking news. It's government-funded from revenues UK residents pay monthly to operate their television receivers - currently around 22 US dollars, and it also has other growing income sources from its worldwide commercial operations supplementing its noncommercial ones at home.

Most important is how BBC functions, who it serves, and Media Lens' editors explain it best and keep at it with regular updates. They argue that the entire mass media, including BBC, function as a "propaganda system for elite interests." It's especially true for topics mattering most - war and peace, "vast corporate criminality," US-UK duplicity, and "threats to the very existence of human life." They're systematically "distorted, suppressed, marginalized or ignored" in a decades-long public trust betrayal by an organization claiming "honesty, integrity (is) what the BBC stands for (and it's) free from political influence and commercial pressure."

In fact, BBC abandoned those notions straight away, and a glaring example came during the 1926 General Strike. Its web site says it stood up against Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill who "urged the government to take over the BBC, but (general manager) Reith persuaded Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that this would be against the national interest" it was sworn to serve.

Media Lens forthrightly corrects the record. Reith never embraced the public trust. He used BBC for propaganda, operated it as a strikebreaker, secretly wrote anti-union speeches for the Tories, and refused to give air time to worker representatives. It got BBC labeled the "British Falsehood Corporation," and proved from inception it was a reliable business and government partner. It still is, of course, more than ever.

Consider BBC's role during WW II when it became a de facto government agency, and throughout its existence job applicants have been vetted to be sure what side they're on. Noted UK journalist John Pilger explains that independent-minded ones "were refused BBC posts (and still are) because they were not considered safe."

Only "reliable" ones reported on the 1982 Falklands war, for example, that Margaret Thatcher staged to boost her low approval rating and improve her reelection chances. Leaked information later showed BBC executives ordered news coverage focused "primarily (on) government statements of policy" and to avoid impartiality considered "an unnecessary irritation."

This has been BBC practice since inception - steadfastly pro-government and pro-business with UK residents getting no public service back for their automatic monthly billings to turn on their TVs - sort of like force-fed cable TV, whether or not they want it.

Back on BBC's web site, it recounts its history by decades from the 1920s to the new millennium but leaves out the most important parts. This critique focuses on filling in the blanks on one of them - BBC's nine year war against Hugo Chavez and Bolivarianism.

Targeting Hugo Chavez and Assailing His Democratic Credentials

BBC misreports everywhere at one time or other, depending on breaking world events and the way power elitists view them. Consider Venezuela and how BBC reported on Chavez's most dramatic two days in office and events preceding them. Its April 12, 2002 account disdained the truth and headlined "Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (was) forced to resign by the country's military. (His) three years in power (ended) after a three-day general strike....in which 11 people died....more than 80 others (were) injured," and BBC suggested Chavez loyalists killed them. It reported "snipers opened fire on a crowd of more than 150,000 (and it) triggered a rebellion by the country's military."

During anti-Chavez demonstrations, "Mr. Chavez appeared on the state-run television denouncing the protest, (then BBC falsely reported corporate TV channels it called independent ones) were taken off the air by order of the government. (High-ranking) military officers rebell(ed) against Mr. Chavez. (He) finally quit after overnight talks with a delegation of generals at the Miraflores presidential palace."

"BBC's Adam Easton, in Caracas at the time, says there are noisy celebrations on the streets, (and former army general) Guaicaipuro Lameda said Mr. Chavez's administration had been condemned because it began arming citizens' committees (and) these armed groups....fired at opposition protesters."

In another report, BBC was jubilant in quoting Venezuela's corporate press. They welcomed Chavez's ouster and called him an "autocrat," "incompetent" and a "coward." They accused him of "order(ing) his sharpshooters to open fire on innocent people (and) betray(ing his) country."

BBC went along without a hint of dissent or a word of the truth, but where was BBC when a popular uprising and military support restored Chavez to office two days later? It quietly announced a "chastened....Chavez return(ed) to office after the collapse of the interim government....and pledged to make necessary changes." In spite of vilifying him in the coup's run-up, cheerleading it when it happened and calling it a resignation, BBC put on a brave face. It had to be painful saying: "The UK welcomed Mr. Chavez's return to power, saying that any change of government should be achieved by democratic means."

It's hard imagining Caracas correspondents Greg Morsbach and James Ingham see it that way. Morsbach called the country a "left-wing haven" on the occasion of 100,000 people taking part in the 2006 World Social Forum in the capital. He said the city is "used to staging big events (opposing) 'neo-liberal' economic policies," then couldn't resist taking aim at Chavez. "Five hundred metres away from the (downtown) Hilton," Morsbach noted, "homeless people scavenge in dustbins for what little food they can find." He then quoted a man named Carlos "who spent the last three years sleeping rough on the streets" and felt Bolivarianism did nothing for him.

It's done plenty for Venezuelans but Morsbach won't report it. Under Chavez, social advances have been remarkable and consider two among many. According to Venezuela's National Statistics Institute (INE), the country's poverty rate (before Chavez) in 1997 was 60.94%. It dropped sharply under Bolarvarianism to a low of 45.38% in 2001, rose to 62.09% after the crippling 2002-03 oil management lockout, and then plummeted to a low of around 27% at year end 2007. In addition, unemployment dropped from 15% in 1997 to INE's reported 6.2% in December 2007.

Morsbach also omitted how Chavez is tackling homelessness. He's reducing it with programs like communal housing, drug treatment and providing modest stipends for the needy. His goal - "for there (not) to be a single child in the streets... not a single beggar in the street." It's working through Mission Negra Hipolita that guides the homeless to shelters and rehab centers. They provide medical and psychological care and pay homeless in them a modest amount in return for community service. No mention either compares Venezuela under Chavez to America under George Bush (and likely Britain under anyone) where no homeless programs exist, the problem is increasing, nothing is being done about it, and the topic is taboo in the media.

Instead in a BBC profile, Chavez is called "increasingly autocratic, revolutionary (and) combative." He's a man who's "alienated and alarmed the country's traditional political elite, as well as several foreign governments," (and he) court(s) controversy (by) making high-profile visits to Cuba and Iraq" and more. He "allegedly flirt(s) with leftist rebels in Colombia and mak(es) a huge territorial claim on Guyana."

The account then implies Chavez is to blame for "relations with Washington reach(ing) a new low (because he) accused (the Bush administration) of fighting terror with terror" post-9/11, and in a September 2006 UN General Assembly speech called the president "the devil."

Chavez's December 2007 constitutional reform referendum was also covered. It was defeated, the profile suggested controversial elements in it, but omitted explaining its objective - to deepen and broaden Venezuelan democracy, more greatly empower the people, provide them more social services, and make government more accountable to its citizens. Instead, BBC highlighted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying: Venezuelans "spoke their minds, and they voted against the reforms that Hugo Chavez had recommended and I think that bodes well for the country's future and freedom and liberty."

In another piece, Inghram took aim at the country's "whirlwind of nationalizations, and threats to private companies (are) changing Venezuela's economic climate and threaten to widen a tense social divide." It's part of Chavez's "campaign to turn Venezuela into a socialist state" with suggestive innuendoes about what that implies, omitting its achievements, and reporting nothing about how business in the country is booming or that Chavez's approach is pragmatic.

Instead, Inghram cites his critics saying "his plan is all about power" (and) bring(ing) no benefit to the nation" in lieu of letting business run it as their private fiefdom. It's how they've always done it, Venezuelans were deeply impoverished as a result, and BBC loves taking aim at a leader who wants to change things for the better and is succeeding.

It refers to his "stepp(ing) up his radical revolution since being re-elected in December 2006." Venezuela is "very divided" and its president "far too powerful (and) can rule by decree" - with no explanation of Venezuela's Enabling Law, his limited authority under it, its expiration after 18 months, and that Venezuela's (pre-Bolivarian) 1961 constitution gave comparable powers to four of the country's past presidents.

BBC further assailed Chavez's refusal to review one of RCTV's operating licenses and accused him of limiting free expression. Unreported was the broadcaster's tainted record, its lack of ethics or professional standards, and its lawless behavior. Specifically omitted was its leading role in instigating and supporting the aborted April 2002 coup and its subsequent complicity in the 2002-03 oil-management lockout and multi-billion dollar sabotage against state oil company PDVSA.

Despite it, RCTV got a minor slap on the wrist, lost only its VHF license, and it still operates freely on Venezuelan cable and satellite. Yet, if an American broadcaster was as lawless, it would be banned from operating, and its management (under US law) could be prosecuted for sedition or treason for instigating and aiding a coup d'etat against a sitting president. BBC ignored RCTV's offense, assailed Hugo Chavez unjustifiably, and reported in its usual deferential to power way.

It falsely stated RCTV's license wasn't renewed because "it supported opposition candidates (and said) hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Caracas....some to celebrate, others to protest." Unexplained was that pro-government supporters way outnumbered opponents, it's the same every time, and they gather spontaneously for every public Chavez address. Also ignored is that opposition demonstrations are usually small and staged-for-media events so BBC and anti-Chavistas in the press can call them huge and a sign Chavez's support is waning. As BBC put it this time: The situation "highlight(s), once again, how deeply divided Venezuela is" under its "controversial" president - who's popular support is so considerable BBC won't report it.

A broadcaster is supposed to be neutral, fair and balanced and BBC states "Honesty and integrity (is) what (it) stands for." BBC is dedicated to "educate (and) inform, free from political interference and commercial pressure."

The US-based Society of Professional Journalists states in its Preamble that it's the "duty of the journalist (to seek) truth and provid(e) a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. (They must) strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility....Seek truth and report it....honestly, fairly, courageously."

In serving power against the public interest for 86 years, BBC fails on all counts, including its past nine year misreporting record on Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution.

This article first appeared on Venezuela Analysis.