HUMAN RIGHTS-EUROPE/LIBYA:

PETITION AGAINST MIGRANT DETENTION CAMPS:

The following is for our European readers.the pseudo-socialist regime of Libya has long held intercepted African emigrants trying to make their way to Europe in hellish conditions, both for reasons of their own racism and to curry favour with European governments of a similar flavour. The following from the Fortress Europe site asks you to petition to end this atrocity.

................................

Libya: sign the petition against migrants detention camps:
Fortress Europe support the campaign for an international investigation on the detention conditions of migrants and refugees arrested in Libya on their way to Europe. The petition was launched by the directors of the documentary Come un uomo sulla terra. You can sign directly on this page. If you want you can also ask for signatures in your own town, downloading here the paper in Pdf version. After you'll have collected the signatures, contact the directors by email writing to

comeunuomosullaterra@zalab.org

TO:

*the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies of Italy- Hon. Gianfranco Fini

*the Speaker of the Italian Senate- Hon Renato Schifani

*the President of the European Parliament – Mr Hans G. Poettering

*the President of the European Commission – Mr. José M. Barroso

*the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security- Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Barrot

*the UN High Commissioner for Refugees- Mr. Antonio Guterres

After listening or reading (thanks to the documentary film COME UN UOMO SULLA TERRA) the stories told by African refugees residing in Italy about their journey through Libya,The undersigned

Believe it is necessary to bring to a halt the violence against thousands of human beings arrested and deported by the Libyan police, to prevent their migration to Europe

Believe that Italy’s responsibility in this framework must be clearly stated. Considering the well- know bilateral agreements entered into by the Italian Government since 2004 whereby Italy provides financial and technical support to Libya for the “control of illegal migration flows”

With this petition we call upon

THE ITALIAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES

To promote the establishment of an independent, international committee of enquiry to investigate the procedure for the control of migratory flows in Libya, under the terms of the bilateral agreement with the Italian Government.

In light of this emergency to rapidly send an international humanitarian mission to Libya to verify the conditions of detainees in the prisons and the detention centres for foreigners.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-COSTA RICA:

COSTA RICAN UNIONS FILE COMPLAINT OVER VIOLATIONS OF WORKERS' RIGHTS:

The following item is from the Banana Link, an organization devoted to improving working conditions in the banana industry.

........................

Costa Rican unions lodge complaint with EU:
Trade unions from both private and public sector in Costa Rica have lodged a formal complaint against their government, alleging serious and systematic violations of core international labour standards. The complaint is directed to the European Commission which, since January 2006, grants trade preferences on a wide range of products as part of its Generalised System of Preferences "Plus" scheme.

Beneficiary countries are granted the preferences on the basis that they respect eight core international labour standards and other human rights and environmental conventions. The Costa Rican union confederation, Central Social Juanito Mora Porras (CSJMP), alleges violations of the freedom for trade unions to organise and to bargain collectively with employers, citing a wide range of examples from the private sector, including the banana and pineapple industries, as well as from the public sector.

A complaint was first lodged in Brussels by CSJMP in September 2006, but the unions have never received a direct response from officials in Brussels, despite the existence of formal complaint mechanism under the GSP Plus scheme. In a response to British trade union GMB from Commissioner Mandelson in October 2007, the EU did state that the Costa Rican government had promised the ILO that it would make legislative changes as a response to the problems. However, in the absence of any legislative action by the Costa Rican government and in the face of worsening labour standards violations in the public and private sectors of the country, CSJMP have renewed and updated their complaint in the hope of a direct response from the Commission. The complaint was delivered today to the offices of the EU delegation in San José, Costa Rica.

The updated document detailing the violations (in Spanish only) can be downloaded here .

CONSUMER PROTECTION:

MELAMINE IN MILK SCANDAL GROWS-USA AND CANADA STILL DELAY BAN:

As more and more countries worldwide institute total bans on any products containing milk byproducts from China the Canadian and American governments continue to "hold the line" by only calling for recalls on a limited range of products. As Molly has mentioned before on this blog, this is very reminiscent of the actions of the Chinese government in delaying action on the scandal because of the Olympics. In Canada and the USA the reasons are very much elections rather than Olympics. This is especially true in Canada where there is already an ongoing food contamination problem in the listeriosis outbreak, where there are plans afoot to further decrease food inspection and where the Minister in charge has been essentially gagged so that he cannot put his foot in his mouth in the coming two weeks. Sneaky Stevie Harper is nothing if not a master of the idea of "staying on message".

Two more countries that have banned all products containing Chinese milk byproducts in recent days include the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, most importantly, yesterday Russia according to a report by the Russian Novosti News Agency. This should be seen as significant as the country of my mother's birth is hardly famed for decisive action for protection of its citizens in the case of consumer goods. If nothing else the Canadian and American governments should be shamed into action by the fact that even Russia takes the matter more seriously than they do.

Meanwhile the list of high profile "western" brands implicated in the scandal grows by the day. In addition to the Starbucks, Nestlé, and Heinz companies Pizza Hut in Taiwan (in relation to its cheese) , Oreo cookies from Kraft Foods and M&Ms and Snickers from Mars in Indonesia have now come under a cloud of suspicion, according to an article in the Asian News. The reaction of Kraft and Mars has been less than sterling as they disputed the Indonesian findings, claiming that the products in question are "counterfeit". We'll see. We'll see. Denial was an early feature of many companies eventually implicated in the contaminated pet food scandal last year.

The same article also mentions that the British Cadbury Company has withdrawn 11 of its products produced in China and distributed in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Australia. The article also notes the massive size of imports to both the EU and the USA of sweets ,in the case of the EU, and the milk "protein" (maybe) in the case of the USA in the past year. In the EU, according to an article in the VOA News melamine has been found in cookies marketed under the Koala brand. This article also mentions that melamine was found in Ritz Crackers manufactured by the Nabisco Company in South Korea.

According to yet another article in the Christian Science Monitor Lipton's milk tea has had to be pulled from shelves across Asia. Add Lipton's to the list. The article also notes a couple of interesting facts. One is "strong laws" cannot solve the continuing problem of food adulteration in China (or in many other countries such as the USA and Canada) because the "policing" aspect of such laws is missing. China is actually very "strict" in terms of its laws, and execution would be a probable fate of any arrested executive found implicated in this most recent scandal. Yet stern penalties hardly deter opportunists when the chance of "getting caught" are minimal given the state of inspections in that country, a situation that conservatives in both the USA and Canada see as an admirable situation. The second point is that the company most deeply implicated in the problem in China, Sanlu, is actually a joint venture with the New Zealand Fonterra (mentioned before on this blog) and the Chinese state itself. Yup, this problem developed in a situation where the government itself was the major stakeholder. Interesting ! According to an article in the New York Times over 200,000 children have been brought in for examination in the Chinese province of Hubei alone. the Chinese government has not issued any updates about the number actually affected since last week.

Meanwhile back in the USA the Department of Health has responded by finally promising to press for more stringent 'country of origin" labelling , according to an article at the ABS-CNN News. this comes in the wake of the American ban on milk imports from China (a basically nonexistent item) while not addressing the much more prevalent problem of "milk byproducts".Wait a minute here, for those with a memory. Weren't such "requirements" part of the "lessons learned" to be implemented from last year's pet food scandal ???? Love those promises ! Let's see what happens with the latest vows.

If you want to follow this story as it develops Molly can recommend the following blogs:

1)From a scientific point of view the Science Base blog.

2)For the political and "scandal" aspects (and practical recommendations) the Daily Kos blog.

The material on this matter is starting to accumulate in a pile beside Molly's desk. Last year during the pet food scandal the pile of printouts reached about 1.5 foot high in a box . Molly suspects that this matter may exceed that amount when all is said and done.

Meanwhile, here is yet another view from the IUF website, properly referenced this time for those with touchy feelings, on the role of New Zealand's Fonterra Group in these events.

.....................................

Fonterra and the China milk scandal - too many unanswered questions:

Share this article.

State media in China first began reporting about babies falling ill from milk formula on September 11, after one baby had died from kidney stones in Gansu province. The first reports spoke of "an unknown number of infants in at least seven provinces and regions suffering from kidney stones after drinking milk formula marked San Lu".

San Lu is the joint venture partner of New-Zealand-based dairy giant Fonterra Co-operative Group.

The following day, as Chinese authorities revealed that the chemical compound melamine had been found in samples of baby milk powders, Chinese media reported that the San Lu Group had issued an immediate recall of milk formula made before August 6. The only comment that could be drawn from Fonterra was, "We understand that the product involved is only sold in China."

On September 15, as the Chinese media reported a second death from melamine-laced milk powder, the New Zealand Prime Minister announced that it was her government that had blown the whistle on the tainted milk scandal and set off the recall following the failed attempt by Fonterra to have its joint venture partner's products removed from sale.

That same day, Fonterra issued a statement which was stunningly ambiguous and evasive. They revealed that they had been advised of the contamination of baby formula at a San Lu Board meeting which had taken place on August 2! The statement goes on to say that they "pushed hard" for San Lu to recall the formula and that San Lu "immediately implemented a trade recall of infant formula" followed by "a full public recall of all infant formula". However, this "immediate recall" didn't happen until September 12 - 5 days after the New Zealand government alerted the Chinese government after having been alerted by Fonterra 3 days before.

What was Fonterra doing between August 2 and September 5, when it took the step to inform the New Zealand government?

At a media conference on September 24 to announce its 2007/08 results and cash distribution to farmer-shareholders, Fonterra management offered an answer to explain its scandalous omission: "We firmly felt the most effective way to get the product off the shelves and away from consumers was to work within the Chinese system".

But did it take one month for Fonterra to realize that working within the Chinese system wasn't working? The long history of official complicity and complacency in the face of food contamination scandals in China should have been taken as a call to immediate action.

Amazingly, company management continues to contend they had done all they possibly could during this period, and are now trying to relativize their responsibility by calling San Lu's handling of the melamine scandal "appalling" and accusing them of having attempted to cover up the contamination since December 2007.

Fonterra's own handling of the crisis can only be called a cover up - not only of the contamination scandal, but of its own negligence. Why was Fonterra not aware that San Lu had been receiving complaints about contaminated milk powder since December 2007? The answer might be found in the company's own admission that only one of its 3 directors on the Board of San Lu is a Mandarin speaker. Unofficial websites had been asking questions about tainted milk powder from San Lu for months. Why was Fonterra not monitoring these blogs about food safety? Why did Fonterra fail to put people and systems in place to ensure standards and product safety? Why did it fail to put any efforts into securing the safety of the supply chain?

It is clear that working within the Chinese system has not brought the hoped-for results. Four babies have died and some 50,000 more are ill from adulterated milk powder; Fonterra has taken an impairment charge of the equivalent of USD 95 million to cover the cost of the product recall and loss in San Lu's brand value; and Fonterra's own goodwill has been damaged as the public continues to ask how the company could possibly have let this scandal for so long without publicly sounding the alarm.

Fonterra have talked about the tragedy of the deaths and the thousands seriously ill. They have talked about damage to the brand and loss to their investment. What they have not talked about is that their negligence in China and damage to their reputation puts jobs and livelihoods at risk, including in New Zealand where their products represent 25% of export revenue.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

A HIDDEN ELECTION ISSUE:

Like most elections in Canada and the USA our present one is being fought mainly around image rather than issues, spiced by occasional scandal as candidates from all three major parties are forced to withdraw for this that and the other thing. Sometimes issues are actually hard to drag into public view, as the Harper government is definitely the most secretive one in recent Canadian history. One of the issues that doesn't seem to hit the radar screen is international trade, whether it be with Columbia, the USA or whomever. Here's an item from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) about one Harper initiative that should get people thinking.

.............................

EU trade talks: no secrecy:
The Canadian Union of Public Employees is asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end his secrecy surrounding Canada-European Union trade talks and make it an election issue. The potential trade deal has serious implications for Canadians, and details about the agreement must be made public as citizens choose their next government.

Recent media reports have revealed that Canadian and European officials have drafted a plan to achieve “deep economic integration”. Official talks are expected to be launched at the EU Canada Summit in Montreal on October 17th, three days after the federal election.

While business groups have been prominent in pushing the agreement forward, labour and citizens groups have been excluded. Harper has also been very involved in the plan, but has said nothing in the lead up to the election. Harper’s secrecy about a massive trade deal flies in the face of his promise to provide greater accountability.

Meanwhile, Canadians are left trying to figure out what it all means, with absolutely no tangible information. But for many workers across the country, this deal could have serious implications:
**The text reportedly proposes an open market in government services and procurement, which would allow European companies to bid as equals on public sector contracts. This would take jobs, profits and business opportunities away from Canadians.
**There is no indication that any social or environmental protections would be part of a Canada-EU trade deal. Notably, Canada would have little ability to influence regulations in relation to the EU. Labour standards and product labelling could be compromised.
**It is unlikely that Canadians working overseas would be able to attain the level of social protections that Europeans benefit from.
**The text reportedly boasts an economic windfall of $15 billion for Canada. While it may seem large, $15 billion only amounts to one per cent of Canada’s current GDP. Moreover, the actual credibility of the calculations will remain dubious until they are made available to the public.
**The Canada-EU trade deal will be sold to Canadians as an opportunity for Canada to position itself as a gateway for Europe to the Americas, and reap the economic benefits that come with that role. This would appear to be wishful thinking, given that the EU has bilateral trade relations with over 37 countries, including eight in the Americas. Moreover, progress on EU-US trade relations seems likely in the near future.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has already ushered in privatization and foreign ownership while threatening quality Canadian jobs. We need to renegotiate our current trade agreements. Why should Canada enter a new trade deal with Europe if our own Prime Minister can’t share the details with us during an election?

CURRENT AFFAIRS:

MELAMINE IN MILK SCANDAL GOES WORLDWIDE:

The number of children affected by melamine adulterated infant formula in China continues to grow. According to the World Health Organization Outbreak Report (dated September 22) 40,000 children in China have been presented for medical treatment, and, at that time 12,000 were hospitalized. Four days ago there were three confirmed deaths related to the products, and, according to the WHO at least one child in Hong Kong has been hospitalized because of the poisoned formula.

While the WHO is, of course, an official and fairly reliable source its updates are often not "breaking news". More recent reports such as one from the CBC yesterday put the number of cases at up to 53,000 and the number of deaths at four (so far).

Meanwhile different governments are taking the matter with different degrees of "seriousness". Yesterday the European Union banned all imports of dairy based child and infant products from China, and India imposed a three month ban on all dairy based products from China according to Bloomberg.Com. In the USA and Canada so far only certain products have been flagged for recall. These include:

-Mr. Brown 3-in-1 Instant Coffee

-Nissin Cha Cha Deserts

-White Rabbit brand candies.

In Canada, at least, infant formula from China was previously prohibited from import, but it may still be available for sale, imported illegally given the lax state of inspection, at Asian food stores. The reader should note that none of the above three products that have been flagged so far are exactly "infant related" (unless your baby has to start his or her day with a good stiff cup of coffee). Like the pet food scandal last year the likely course of this story will be that gradually more and more products will be implicated, and governments such as those of the EU and India will be seen to have taken the prudent course, rather than depending upon "inspection" regimes that have been proven to be haphazard and the furthest thing from complete. According to the CBC article mentioned above officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have said that a complete ban on Chinese dairy based products would be an "over-reaction" as "many are still safe". Does this remind anyone of what happened last year with pet foods ? It also begs the question of "how the hell do they know?". Have they checked each and every product, in all its various shipments (batch #s from China may be next to useless) ? That should take them the next two decades, devoting all their resources to this one question (2 centuries if a new Conservative government has its way and depends on the 'self-regulation-cough,cough, of the corporations). Finally...how about a poll of the parents in China about what would be an "over-reaction".

No doubt this story will grow in the days to come. To keep abreast of it please check the WHO Disease Outbreak Reports mentioned above. From an American perspective watch the Food and Water Watch website. The Center for Science in the Public Interest website also has current news, but their site is difficult to navigate to find current matters.

Despite the sang-froid of the Canadian officials some Asian food chains such as T&T have responded by pulling many more products than those named by the CFIA. Wise move actually. Down Hong Kong way, according to Canwest News Service, foods made under the very famous Heinz brand name, have been pulled by the company because melamine was found in some of the formula. Heinz none the less.

Ah, the age of globalization. Continued scandals such as this are continued proof of the anarchist contention that production of essential things such as foodstuffs should be as decentralized and local as possible. They are also proof of the anarchist contention that people cannot rely on the "benign" procedures of government and business for their protection. Independent organizations, whether they be unions, communities or research and regulatory agencies not funded by government, are as essential component of safety in a global world.

Here's yet another view, from the IUF website, about the meaning of this scandal, one that says that such things are not the result of occasional crooked Chinese businessmen but rather of the whole corporate system under which the whole world suffers today.

................................

Melamine milk contamination exposes the reality of 'global brands':

Share this article.

Behind the melamine milk scandal lies an emerging crisis in corporate branding. One of the reasons for the heavy promotion of "global" brands was so that consumers wouldn't know (and would eventually stop caring) where products are made. Now with a major food contamination scandal that has killed at least 4 babies in China and sickened thousands, consumers are asking why their favourite "local" ice creams, biscuits and dairy products are made overseas.

The major transnational food companies spent the 1980s in a frenzy of mergers and acquisitions, buying up local brands and grabbing bigger market shares. The takeover boom continued into the first half of the 1990s and was complemented by a massive shift in company financial resources into marketing these brands, building an image and creating consumer loyalty. By the mid-90’s companies like Nestle, Unilever and Kraft had built up extensive brand portfolios and held the largest market shares in a range of food products - everything from cooking oil to ice cream, instant coffee and biscuits. They were also under investigation for monopoly practices and price fixing in several countries as a result.

By the end of the 1990s the new logic of financialization set in. The brands themselves became valuable financial assets and their value could be boosted through a blend of Wall Street wizardry and aggressive marketing rather than better manufacturing. So there was an irrational shift to rationalization: cutbacks, restructuring and consolidation. Less is more. Now fewer brands were better. By focusing on a few global brands in overseas markets the financial value of these brands would skyrocket. Nestle and Unilever called these their “billion dollar brands”, while Kraft would “shrink to grow” - with just 10 global “power brands” by 2008.

With the focus on “global brands" many of the popular local brands bought up in the 1980s and 1990s were sold off or simply disappeared. Local jobs disappeared too with them as plants were closed, merged or sold-off. In some cases the global brand was simply the logo alongside the local brand name ... then the name disappeared, and the jobs. Unilever’s "Heartbrand"” ice cream logo, for example, carries global recognition, but is known as “Walls” in the UK and Asia/Pacific regions as well as Selecta (Philippines), Kwality (India), Algida (Italy), Langnese (Germany) and Kibon (Brazil).

With global brands location no longer mattered. Production was relocated overseas (and relocated again and again), while aggressive brand marketing ensured that consumers continued to believe they were buying a locally made product with a global identity. The locally branded frozen fish stick could make a round trip detour of thousands of kilometers for filleting in China on its way to the supermarket shelf, with no questions asked.

The power of the global brand for companies like Nestle, Unilever and Kraft lies with their ability to shift production to countries like China, while loyal consumers believed it was the same product. As an added bonus, the companies could trumpet their "green" credentials and commitment to tackling global warming while loading up the products with thousands of additional food miles. Behind the familiar local brand stands a caring, concerned global company…

Consumers loyal to the brands would also continue to believe that their favorite Kraft, Nestlé or Unilever products were made by… Kraft, Nestlé or Unilever. The global branding exercise provided a convenient cover for these companies to outsource a significant portion of production to third party contractors, known as "co-packers", to manufacture their branded products. For example, one of the melamine-contaminated Nestlé Purina pet food products recalled in North America last year, after thousands of pets were sickened or died, was made by just such a North American co-packer.

Consumers who knew the reality of subcontracting were nevertheless supposed to derive comfort from the brand owners' supposed commitment to rigorous quality control. But finance-driven global branding encouraged a tidal wave of casualizing and subcontracting work within the companies' own operations. Even quality control personnel are managed and hired as casual employees through labour hire agencies. And since they're not formally employed by the company, they can't join the union.

The contamination of milk with melamine in China has now exposed the weakness of these powerful global brands. People throughout the Asia/Pacific region are suddenly finding out that their branded biscuits, ice creams and dairy products are made in China. When did that happen? And how long will it take for these products to find their way onto grocery shelves in the rest of the world - if they haven't already? Meanwhile the companies are rushing to assure consumers that products made outside of China are safe. But who is going to look beyond the global brand to the fine print that reads “Made in ...”? Too late. Companies like Nestle and Unilever long ago obscured the meaning of “made in” to refer to anything from packaging to the printing on the package!

Even the brands of companies like Fonterra and Friesland (both dairy cooperatives that went global) could suffer serious damage to their brands. Friesland’s Dutch Lady dairy products were pulled off supermarket shelves in Southeast Asia after contamination was found in Singapore. Instead of importing Dutch Lady from nearby Malaysia (where quality control is strictly regulated and the workplace is unionized) Friesland was importing from its factories in China where it has a minority ownership stake. Meanwhile Fonterra is trying to explain why it is Sanlu (its joint venture partner in China) and not Anmum made in New Zealand (strictly regulated quality control and unionized) that is tainted with melamine....

As the contamination scandal grows there is a greater likelihood that consumers will react against the global brand regardless of whether it contains milk or milk powder from China. The global brand will be tainted. Consumers will now associate Oreo (Kraft’s top global “power brand”, recently pulled from the shelves in Singapore after melamine turned up), Friesland’s Dutch Lady and Nestle’s Dreyer’s ice cream with melamine. Expensive and aggressive marketing may fix this. Maybe.

The financial impact of product recalls and lower sales (and possible lawsuits) and new marketing drives will be passed on through the company and won’t be limited to the operations in China. Workers in other countries will face more cost cutting and restructuring as a result.

EUROPE:

HANDS OFF OUR COOPS:

The European Commission is presently hearing complaints lodged against cooperatives in France, Spain and Italy. The complaints have been filed by large corporations that claim the coops are "not competing fairly". The following is a petition addressed to the European Commission demanding that the EC keep its hands off the cooperative sector.

...................................

Hands off our Coops! - they compete fairly!
10879 Signatures
Published by coopseurope on May 05, 2008

Region: GLOBAL
Target: President European Commission -Jose Manuel Barroso and Competition Commissioner - Neelie Kroes
Web site: http://www.coopseurope.coop/spip.php?article561
History:
The complaints against French, Spanish and Italian cooperatives that are being looked at by the European Commission are made by large shareholding companies. They are trying to get changes to the national tax rules for co-operatives. Any changes to these rules would reduce competition and would steal the coops' business. The Commission's decisions on the complaints may not just concern a few large co-operatives but they could also badly effect all coops across Europe.

Cooperatives are specifically written about in the EU treaties. Twenty five European Union countries have their own laws for co-operatives. Co-operatives are a different kind of business. Cooperative businesses rely on the principles of democratic control, self-responsibility, equity and solidarity. Co-ops have a unique legal and financial structure that needs to be recognised. The Commission cannot be allowed to pretend that they are comparing the same things when they compare co-ops with private sector businesses.

If you believe that attention has to be paid to the social and human dimension in economic activities and that a strong political message needs to be given to the European Commission, please sign the following petition.
You can read the Petition text HERE in EN/DE/ES/FR and IT
Petition:
Hands Off our Coops! - they compete fairly.

We the undersigned, believe that:

The current legal cases that are before the European Commission are attempts to challenge national co-operative laws and tax rules. They are attempts by our competitors to reduce consumer choice, to steal the coop market share and to end their ethical challenge.

Any Commission decision that appears to side with the private share holding companies may not just affect a few major co-operatives but it could present a risk to the whole co-operative system in all the economic sectors of the EU. Are we to be told that our 'cooperative values and principles' are worthless?

Today, 263000 cooperative enterprises are serving their 160 million members (1 in 3 EU citizens). They actively contribute to the economic and social objectives of the European Union.

Cooperatives do not want privileges, they want to compete equally in an open market that acknowledges their 'cooperative difference'.
Sign the petition

BUSH IN HELL:

GEORGE BUSH'S

VISIT TO POLAND:

Yesterday US President George Bush made a brief visit to Poland as the third part of a six nation itinerary to various European countries organized around the recent G8 summit in Germany. At each step of the way he has been "welcomed" by demonstrations by people concerned with American designs around European participation in US military initiatives. Despite a touch of the "stomach flu"(see this) which caused him to miss the last session of the G8 summit(Molly Note:perhaps with the hypocrisy the Emperor actually made himself sick. Stranger things have been known to happen. Was it his pappy who barfed all over the Japanese Prime Minister at one meeting ?) Bush pushed on to visit his Polish allies who have promised to host US interceptor missiles as part of an anti-missile "shield". As with everywhere else that he visits his holidays are spoiled by the demonstrations.

The visit lasted only two hours at the seaside resort of Jurata on the Baltic coast. Here he met with Polish President Lech Kaczynski at the presidential residence of 'Hel'. Hence the term of "endearment" with which he was met "Welcome to Hell" (see the above photo). The US made sure that it was emphasized that the US plans for anti-missile sites in eastern Europe were for "defensive purposes only" and were aimed at "rogue states not Russia". Not that anyone's buying it. Speaking of Polish jokes President Kaczyniski' (evil ?) twin brother Jaroslav Kaczynski let the cat out of the bag earlier this year when he bragged about how the US interceptor missiles "could also give Warsaw a lever against Russia's influence". A truly senior moment, and one can only imagine the swear words used in the halls of power to describe this bit of "loose lippery".

The Polish anarchists were ready for Bush's visit and showed up at Jarata/Hel despite police efforts to block buses heading to the city. Many people who planned to demonstrate were held up at the city of Wladyslawowa, but 200 people managed to get through to the site of the meeting. Despite a heavy police presence a party atmosphere prevailed and the protests were entirely peaceful. The protesters formed a human sign with their bodies spelling "Get Out' which should be visible to Bush as he arrives by helicopter at the sight of the meeting. To read more about the anarchist response and the demonstrations see this article on the Turin Indymedia (in English). Anyone interested in seeing more photos like the ones above of the demo can access them at http://www.eastnews.net/biuletyn.php?id_pozycji=827 .

After leaving Poland Bush flew to Italy where he met with the Pope (To confess his sins and escape another trip to Hell ? ). Here he was met by much larger demonstrations, but more on that later.

"An Affair To Remember"
The July 29th-August 4th edition of The Economist has on the 1956 Suez Canal/Arab Israeli War. This is a Special Report and is unattributed. The report gives the background of this conflict that saw Israel, Britain and France pitted not just against Egypt but also a coalition of both the USA and the Soviet Union. The USA even applied pressure on Britain by making it plain that the IMF would not give emergency loans to a foundering British economy unless the Suez adventure was ended. Britain caved in. The Suez crisis was the last time in history that America acted strongly against Israeli interests, and the results of 1956 set the tone for most of the uneasy relationship between America and Europe during the Cold War. Nasser was the greatest beneficiary of the 1956 war. The canal was nationalized, and the revenues so obtained were diverted to paying the Soviet Union for development of the Aswan Dam, a dam that was far from an unalloyed good. Egypt's jails were filled not only with supporters of the monarchy that Nasser had overthrown in 1952 but also with supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communists. Despite the latter the Soviet Union became and remained Egypt's good friend. Real geopolitical interests trumped "proletarian internationalism". As usual one might say.
What is most significant in terms of what the world may yet see is that the Suez crisis was a spur to the development of the EU. The French foreign minister was at a meeting, along with the French prime minister Guy Mollet, with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer when they were informed by the British that they were terminating the invasion of the Canal Zone. Adenauer said to them, "France and England will never be powers comparable to the United States...Not Germany either. There remains to them only one way of playing a decisive role in the world:that is to unite Europe...we have no time to waste;Europe will be your revenge."
In years to come, as America's empire weakens as all empires eventually must, it remains to be seen what Europe's revenge will be.