| April 5, 2003 | Saturday | Safar 2, 1424 |
Corporate greed: MEDIA REVIEW
THE National Assembly initiated discussion on the US-British war of aggression against Iraq and could neither conclude the debate nor come out with a consensus resolution. The Senate met for five days and 62 senators expressed their views on invasion of Iraq, condemning the merciless bombing and massacre of innocent civilians by the US-British forces.
Of course, the tone and temper of criticism varied from senator to senator, reflecting their personal response and political background. Yet there was a consensus on this war being unjust and unjustifiable. Some of the senators belonging to the PML(Q) and its allied parties also expressed their views quite vehemently, in very strong terms. Yet the effort of the treasury benches was to keep the resolution very mild.
On the other hand, the opposition parties condemned the war in very strong terms and also wanted the resolution to be much stronger than what was acceptable to other parties. The choice before the senators was either to conclude the session without any resolution or bring two resolutions — one strong and one mild — and the other to try to work out a consensus resolution which may not fully reflect the real anger and disgust of the Pakistani nation, yet may convey to the world the message of total disapproval of this war and articulate in unambiguous terms the demand for immediate cessation of hostilities.
There were five points on which there was complete consensus within the debate in the Senate and they were as follows:
1. That this war has been imposed by the US and Britain in total violation of the UN Charter, and as such it lacks legality. Absence of legality makes the war an act of aggression.
2. That there is universal abhorrence against the indiscriminate use of firepower against innocent people and this fact deserves to be noted and condemned.
3. That the UN must be invoked to take immediate steps to bring to an end hostilities and initiate diplomatic process under the UN Charter.
4. That the popular protest against this unjust war is a silver lining and Pakistan must identify itself with this global movement and take steps to further strengthen it to pressurize the perpetrators of war to stop hostilities.
5. Finally to express solidarity with the people of Iraq in their heroic resistance.
An effort was made to capture all these five points in the consensus resolution. I have no reservation in accepting that it represents the lowest common denominator between the treasury benches and opposition parties. While presenting the resolution, I also made it clear in my introductory remarks that we wanted the resolution to be stronger. But we finally preferred to come out with a consensus resolution that conveyed in clear terms the message and feelings, even though in respect of choice of words we had to concede to adopting expressions which apparently lacked punch. It was a price we had to pay to have a common stand. The resolution was moved by me on behalf of 23 senators representing all the parties in the Senate. It is correct that we spent two days negotiating not only on substance but also on words. We, however, preferred to give a message to the world that the Pakistani nation totally disapproves of what the US-British alliance has done in Iraq and identifies itself with all those government and people who are opposing this immoral and unjust war. If the text of the resolution is read in this context, it would enable the readers to have a better understanding of the efforts of the senators.
Text of the Resolution: “The Senate of Pakistan expresses its shock and dismay over the attack by the US, British and allied forces against Iraq in clear violation of the UN Charter. The Senate strongly deplores the military attack against Iraq by use of indiscriminate firepower against innocent civilians and demands that the UN Security Council must take an immediate initiative to stop hostilities and seek a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem.
The Senate supports the protest of all peace-loving countries of the world against this conflict and resolves that world opinion be mobilized to pressurise through all possible means the countries engaged in the conflict for immediate cessation of hostilities.
The Senate of Pakistan expresses its solidarity with the people of Iraq.”
I would like to reaffirm, as I did while proposing the resolution that the MMA senators are committed to pursuing the line that has been adopted by their party in all its statements and million marches. We have not compromised on our objectives and principled position.
It also deserves to be placed on record that the newly formed joint opposition committee in the Senate in its first meeting (April 1) expressed the viewpoint of the opposition in these words: ... “The committee also condemns in the strongest terms the naked aggression of US, British and allied forces against a sovereign Muslim state, Iraq. This war which has been arbitrarily and illegally imposed upon the people of Iraq is in violation of the UN Charter and constitutes a war against humanity. Thousands of civilians have been killed or injured in 13 days of merciless bombardment and military onslaughts. The committee demands immediate cessation of hostilities in Iraq and withdrawal of the allied forces from Iraq’s sovereign territory. The committee also demands that Pakistan government should take a firm and unequivocal stand on this war of aggression and play its role in the Security Council to mobilize the UN to bring this war to an end.”
IN PAKISTAN, multinationals have it great. They get a great press, the best America-returned graduates want to work for them, and they make huge profits.
Of course, they have their defenders, not least the corporate types who work for them, the sort you are bound to run into at a party or a dinner talking nothing but shop. With the commercialization craze rapidly gaining hold on PTV and the private channels, these corporate types will not want to pass up any that they can get to make money. Of course, there is nothing really wrong in that, because, after all, who doesn’t want to make money? The problem with many multinationals is, though, that it’s often at the expense of other segments of society, especially the underdog, and more importantly in ways that seem to be perfectly legal. Many of them spend millions on portraying a customer-friendly and environment friendly image. Charity balls are now the craze and their organizers find multinationals more than willing sponsors.
The larger ones have global advertising budgets running into millions of dollars and leave nothing to chance in promoting a positive image. Fortunately for some of us, there are several watchdogs that keep track of multinationals and large corporations and try and alert whoever is willing to lend an ear to their shenanigans. Unfortunately, for Pakistanis interested in these kind of issues, we do not have any such watchdogs really, except Network, a magazine that focuses of consumer rights and the impact of policies of multinationals of Pakistan. Unfortunately, its bulletin is not widely available, in fact it doesn’t even circulate among the media itself so much of its good work remains unread and unpublicized.
There are however people in the US who are more organized on this issue. Actually, it makes sense that a country which prides itself on its capitalist credo should have more than its fair share of concerned citizens keeping track of the corporations. A website doing very good work in this regard is www.multinationalmonitor.org. It recently carried a list of what it said were the worst corporations of 2002. The companies are American but many have subsidiaries all over the world, including, as one would expect, in Pakistan.
They are: (1) Arthur Andersen: Auditors working for Enron shredded company documents for weeks.
(2) British American Tobacco: The watchdog noted that “as far as BAT is concerned, the question is only theoretical. The company continues to engage in a series of egregious practices, made all the worse because they involve the pushing of an addictive and deadly products.” It further quoted from a report by a British anti-smoking group which, writing on BAT’s business practices, said: “This is perhaps the greatest exercise in corporate mendacity that would have ever known and one of the most serious corporate crimes of the twentieth century. No admission has ever been made, no apology has been forthcoming and no one has lost their job.”
(3) Caterpillar: For selling bulldozers, especially its D-9 model, to the Israeli army. Most home demolitions target civilians who have not been charged with any crime. They are conducted as collective punishment or to clear the way for illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.
(4) Citigroup: Was accused of deceptive marketing tactics. It was also accused of financing environmentally unsound projects in developing countries.
(5) DynCorp: A $2 billion-a-year company that describes itself as “a leading provider of diversified information technology services to government agencies.” DynCorp is among the leaders in a fast-growing industry to take over privatized functions of the US military.
(6) M&M/Mars: Investigations by Knight-Ridder (a US-based wire service) reporters reveal that trafficking in child indentured workers to labour on cocoa plantations and farms is rampant in the Ivory Coast, which supplies 43 per cent of the world’s cocoa. Many of the children, usually between the ages of 12 and 16, are traded across borders, from Mali, Benin, Togo and Burkina Faso. The US State Department estimates 15,000 children have been sold into bondage from these countries and transported to cocoa plantations in the Ivory Coast. Many are whipped and poorly fed.
(7) Procter & Gamble: Coffee farmers all over the world have seen their incomes plummet. Central American countries have seen revenues fall 44 per cent in a year. In Ethiopia, coffee export revenues declined 42 per cent. In Uganda, where a quarter of the population depends on it, coffee earnings dropped 30 per cent. Despite this branded coffee sells for a hefty profit. Coffee farmers get 1 per cent or less of the price of coffee at Starbucks, and about 6 per cent of the cost of a supermarket pack of coffee in Western countries, according to Oxfam. Between them, the four largest companies, including P&G (brand name Folgers) buy almost half of the world supply of green coffee beans. Activists have said that these firms at least buy five per cent of their beans from Fair Trade-certified growers. (Fair Trade coffee ensures farmers get a sustainable price.) Procter & Gamble, among others, has refused.
(8) Schering Plough: maker, among others, of the Diane 35 birth control pill. The company has had a history of failing to comply with quality control requirements at some of its plants, which produce about 90 per cent of its drug products.
— OMAR R. QURAISHI
(email: omarq@cyber.net.pk)