Showing posts sorted by relevance for query naomi klein. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query naomi klein. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Now is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine
By Naomi Klein - September 22nd, 2008
I wrote The Shock Doctrine in the hopes that it would make us all better prepared for the next big shock. Well, that shock has certainly arrived, along with gloves-off attempts to use it to push through radical pro-corporate policies (which of course will further enrich the very players who created the market crisis in the first place...).
The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.
It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the right's ability to use this crisis -- created by deregulation and privatization -- to demand more of the same. Don't forget that Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future, is still riding the wave of success from its offshore drilling campaign, "Drill Here, Drill Now!" Just four months ago, offshore drilling was not even on the political radar and now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed supportive legislation. Gingrich is holding an event this Saturday, September 27 that will be broadcast on satellite television to shore up public support for these controversial policies.
What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus."
We have seen this many times before, in this country and around the world. But here's the thing: these opportunistic tactics can only work if we let them. They work when we respond to crisis by regressing, wanting to believe in "strong leaders" - even if they are the same strong leaders who used the September 11 attacks to push through the Patriot Act and launch the illegal war in Iraq.
So let's be absolutely clear: there are no saviors who are going to look out for us in this crisis. Certainly not Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that will benefit most from his proposed bailout (which is actually a stick up). The only hope of preventing another dose of shock politics is loud, organized grassroots pressure on all political parties: they have to know right now that after seven years of Bush, Americans are becoming shock resistant.
[The Huffington Post]
I wrote The Shock Doctrine in the hopes that it would make us all better prepared for the next big shock. Well, that shock has certainly arrived, along with gloves-off attempts to use it to push through radical pro-corporate policies (which of course will further enrich the very players who created the market crisis in the first place...).
The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.
It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the right's ability to use this crisis -- created by deregulation and privatization -- to demand more of the same. Don't forget that Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future, is still riding the wave of success from its offshore drilling campaign, "Drill Here, Drill Now!" Just four months ago, offshore drilling was not even on the political radar and now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed supportive legislation. Gingrich is holding an event this Saturday, September 27 that will be broadcast on satellite television to shore up public support for these controversial policies.
What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus."
We have seen this many times before, in this country and around the world. But here's the thing: these opportunistic tactics can only work if we let them. They work when we respond to crisis by regressing, wanting to believe in "strong leaders" - even if they are the same strong leaders who used the September 11 attacks to push through the Patriot Act and launch the illegal war in Iraq.
So let's be absolutely clear: there are no saviors who are going to look out for us in this crisis. Certainly not Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that will benefit most from his proposed bailout (which is actually a stick up). The only hope of preventing another dose of shock politics is loud, organized grassroots pressure on all political parties: they have to know right now that after seven years of Bush, Americans are becoming shock resistant.
[The Huffington Post]
Free Market Ideology is Far from Finished
By Naomi Klein - September 19th, 2008
Whatever the events of this week mean, nobody should believe the overblown claims that the market crisis signals the death of "free market" ideology. Free market ideology has always been a servant to the interests of capital, and its presence ebbs and flows depending on its usefulness to those interests.
During boom times, it's profitable to preach laissez faire, because an absentee government allows speculative bubbles to inflate. When those bubbles burst, the ideology becomes a hindrance, and it goes dormant while big government rides to the rescue. But rest assured: the ideology will come roaring back when the bailouts are done. The massive debts the public is accumulating to bail out the speculators will then become part of a global budget crisis that will be the rationalization for deep cuts to social programs, and for a renewed push to privatize what is left of the public sector. We will also be told that our hopes for a green future are, sadly, too costly.
What we don't know is how the public will respond. Consider that in North America, everybody under the age of 40 grew up being told that the government can't intervene to improve our lives, that government is the problem not the solution, that laissez faire was the only option. Now, we are suddenly seeing an extremely activist, intensely interventionist government, seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to save investors from themselves.
This spectacle necessarily raises the question: if the state can intervene to save corporations that took reckless risks in the housing markets, why can't it intervene to prevent millions of Americans from imminent foreclosure? By the same token, if $85bn can be made instantly available to buy the insurance giant AIG, why is single-payer health care – which would protect Americans from the predatory practices of health-care insurance companies – seemingly such an unattainable dream? And if ever more corporations need taxpayer funds to stay afloat, why can't taxpayers make demands in return – like caps on executive pay, and a guarantee against more job losses?
Now that it's clear that governments can indeed act in times of crises, it will become much harder for them to plead powerlessness in the future. Another potential shift has to do with market hopes for future privatizations. For years, the global investment banks have been lobbying politicians for two new markets: one that would come from privatizing public pensions and the other that would come from a new wave of privatized or partially privatized roads, bridges and water systems. Both of these dreams have just become much harder to sell: Americans are in no mood to trust more of their individual and collective assets to the reckless gamblers on Wall Street, especially because it seems more than likely that taxpayers will have to pay to buy back their own assets when the next bubble bursts.
With the World Trade Organization talks off the rails, this crisis could also be a catalyst for a radically alternative approach to regulating world markets and financial systems. Already, we are seeing a move towards "food sovereignty" in the developing world, rather than leaving access to food to the whims of commodity traders. The time may finally have come for ideas like taxing trading, which would slow speculative investment, as well as other global capital controls.
And now that nationalization is not a dirty word, the oil and gas companies should watch out: someone needs to pay for the shift to a greener future, and it makes most sense for the bulk of the funds to come from the highly profitable sector that is most responsible for our climate crisis. It certainly makes more sense than creating another dangerous bubble in carbon trading.
But the crisis we are seeing calls for even deeper changes than that. The reason these junk loans were allowed to proliferate was not just because the regulators didn't understand the risk. It is because we have an economic system that measures our collective health based exclusively on GDP growth. So long as the junk loans were fuelling economic growth, our governments actively supported them. So what is really being called into question by the crisis is the unquestioned commitment to growth at all costs. Where this crisis should lead us is to a radically different way for our societies to measure health and progress.
None of this, however, will happen without huge public pressure placed on politicians in this key period. And not polite lobbying but a return to the streets and the kind of direct action that ushered in the New Deal in the 1930s. Without it, there will be superficial changes and a return, as quickly as possible, to business as usual.
[The Guardian]
Whatever the events of this week mean, nobody should believe the overblown claims that the market crisis signals the death of "free market" ideology. Free market ideology has always been a servant to the interests of capital, and its presence ebbs and flows depending on its usefulness to those interests.
During boom times, it's profitable to preach laissez faire, because an absentee government allows speculative bubbles to inflate. When those bubbles burst, the ideology becomes a hindrance, and it goes dormant while big government rides to the rescue. But rest assured: the ideology will come roaring back when the bailouts are done. The massive debts the public is accumulating to bail out the speculators will then become part of a global budget crisis that will be the rationalization for deep cuts to social programs, and for a renewed push to privatize what is left of the public sector. We will also be told that our hopes for a green future are, sadly, too costly.
What we don't know is how the public will respond. Consider that in North America, everybody under the age of 40 grew up being told that the government can't intervene to improve our lives, that government is the problem not the solution, that laissez faire was the only option. Now, we are suddenly seeing an extremely activist, intensely interventionist government, seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to save investors from themselves.
This spectacle necessarily raises the question: if the state can intervene to save corporations that took reckless risks in the housing markets, why can't it intervene to prevent millions of Americans from imminent foreclosure? By the same token, if $85bn can be made instantly available to buy the insurance giant AIG, why is single-payer health care – which would protect Americans from the predatory practices of health-care insurance companies – seemingly such an unattainable dream? And if ever more corporations need taxpayer funds to stay afloat, why can't taxpayers make demands in return – like caps on executive pay, and a guarantee against more job losses?
Now that it's clear that governments can indeed act in times of crises, it will become much harder for them to plead powerlessness in the future. Another potential shift has to do with market hopes for future privatizations. For years, the global investment banks have been lobbying politicians for two new markets: one that would come from privatizing public pensions and the other that would come from a new wave of privatized or partially privatized roads, bridges and water systems. Both of these dreams have just become much harder to sell: Americans are in no mood to trust more of their individual and collective assets to the reckless gamblers on Wall Street, especially because it seems more than likely that taxpayers will have to pay to buy back their own assets when the next bubble bursts.
With the World Trade Organization talks off the rails, this crisis could also be a catalyst for a radically alternative approach to regulating world markets and financial systems. Already, we are seeing a move towards "food sovereignty" in the developing world, rather than leaving access to food to the whims of commodity traders. The time may finally have come for ideas like taxing trading, which would slow speculative investment, as well as other global capital controls.
And now that nationalization is not a dirty word, the oil and gas companies should watch out: someone needs to pay for the shift to a greener future, and it makes most sense for the bulk of the funds to come from the highly profitable sector that is most responsible for our climate crisis. It certainly makes more sense than creating another dangerous bubble in carbon trading.
But the crisis we are seeing calls for even deeper changes than that. The reason these junk loans were allowed to proliferate was not just because the regulators didn't understand the risk. It is because we have an economic system that measures our collective health based exclusively on GDP growth. So long as the junk loans were fuelling economic growth, our governments actively supported them. So what is really being called into question by the crisis is the unquestioned commitment to growth at all costs. Where this crisis should lead us is to a radically different way for our societies to measure health and progress.
None of this, however, will happen without huge public pressure placed on politicians in this key period. And not polite lobbying but a return to the streets and the kind of direct action that ushered in the New Deal in the 1930s. Without it, there will be superficial changes and a return, as quickly as possible, to business as usual.
[The Guardian]
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DNC - Do Not Criticize
As the Democrats celebrated inside the Pepsi Center on opening day of the convention, outside on the streets police pepper-sprayed protesters and rounded up dozens of them in mass arrests. The incident began near the Civic Center Park around 7:00 p.m., where a few hundred protesters had gathered to march. The police arrived in full riot gear, surrounded the protesters, blocking them in before firing pepper spray into the crowd. Protesters fled across the park, where they were met by dozens of police officers who boxed them in. Many of the marchers sat down in the street. Nearly a hundred people were arrested.
The Real News Network spoke with environmental lawyer, Robert F Kennedy, Jr. at the convention.
Ralph Nader will hold a rally tonight in Denver to protest the democrat and republican parties' refusal to open up the debates to other qualified candidates, like Nader and Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.
Now, in 2008, Nader is back, and on track to be on the ballot in 45 states -- the campaign was on only 34 in 2004 -- and the Nader/Gonzalez ticket is at 6 percent in the latest CNN poll.
These rallies will be part of a massive outpouring of protest in Denver and Minneapolis against the two corporate controlled parties and their policies of perpetual militarism and war.
Nader/Gonzalez is aiming to bust open the presidential debates.
Featured guests include Val Kilmer and Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, Jello Biafra ... Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Nellie McKay and Ike Reilly.
Watch the Rallies HERE
Naomi Klein reiterates the need to not let leaders off the hook, just because they're better than the last guy. The Hope and Change this country needs does not come down from above in the form of a handsome young presidential hopeful; it comes from the people.
Be one of them.
Somebody's gotta keep the pressure up on Obama. This isn't a fairy tale, it's democracy. It's your country - you rule it, no matter who sits in the White House. Participatory democracy doesn't end when last vote is (mis)counted; that's only the beginning.
Keep the pressure up.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
McCommunism
"I think this is an incredibly efficient, actually, a scarily efficient way of organizing society that's actually being celebrated here, which is a hybrid of some of the worst elements of authoritarian communism—mass surveillance of the population, total lack of civil liberties, lack of a free press, lack of democratic rights, authoritarian central planning, all harnessed not to advance the goals of social justice, even in name, although there may be some lip service still paid to that, but to advance the goals of global capitalism. So it is Stalinism meets global capitalism.... There are 100,000 security officers just on Olympic duty. And to put that into perspective, the stadium itself, the Bird's Nest Stadium holds 90,000. So there's 90,000 spectators and 100,000 secret police keeping control of things in Beijing. So this is an incredible operation. But when you hear people like Lou Dobbs and other commentators talking about the problems in China, it's always red China, communist China, or the Chi-coms. And it's really this blast from the past of—you know, it's almost as if the Cold War never ended."
The Olympics: Unveiling Police State 2.0
[from Huffington Post]
The games have been billed as China's "coming out party" to the world. They are far more significant than that. These Olympics are the coming out party for a disturbingly efficient way of organizing society, one that China has perfected over the past three decades, and is finally ready to show off. It is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarianism communism -- central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance -- harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism. Some call it "authoritarian capitalism," others "market Stalinism," personally I prefer "McCommunism."
...Much of the Chinese government's lavish spending on cameras and other surveillance gear has taken place under the banner of "Olympic Security." But how much is really needed to secure a sporting event? The price tag has been put at a staggering $12-billion -- to put that in perspective, Salt Lake City, which hosted the Winter Olympics just five months after September 11, spent $315 million to secure the games. Athens spent around $1.5-billion in 2004. Many human rights groups have pointed out that China's security upgrade is reaching far beyond Beijing: there are now 660 designated "safe cities" across the country, municipalities that have been singled out to receive new surveillance cameras and other spy gear. And of course all the equipment purchased in the name of Olympics safety -- iris scanners, "anti-riot robots" and facial recognition software -- will stay in China after the games are long gone, free to be directed at striking workers and rural protestors.
China's All-Seeing Eye
[from Rolling Stone]
American commentators like CNN's Jack Cafferty dismiss the Chinese as "the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years." But nobody told the people of Shenzhen, who are busily putting on a 24-hour-a-day show called "America" — a pirated version of the original, only with flashier design, higher profits and less complaining. This has not happened by accident. China today, epitomized by Shenzhen's transition from mud to megacity in 30 years, represents a new way to organize society. Sometimes called "market Stalinism," it is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarian communism — central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance — harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism.
...Remember how we've always been told that free markets and free people go hand in hand? That was a lie. It turns out that the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state, fortressed with American "homeland security" technologies, pumped up with "war on terror" rhetoric. And the global corporations currently earning superprofits from this social experiment are unlikely to be content if the lucrative new market remains confined to cities such as Shenzhen. Like everything else assembled in China with American parts, Police State 2.0 is ready for export to a neighborhood near you.
Never too much [Naomi Klein]
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Friday, October 26, 2007
News Roundup for 10/21-10/26 Part 1
World keeps on spinning
Governor Huckabee keeps an eye on babykillers, but can't condemn them all.
Holocaust of abortion aside, the Christian right is dissatisfied with the Republican candidates on sale at the Values Voters summit last weekend
Seventy percent of the American Public apparently highly boo-able
No end in sight as the military-industrial-Bush administration complex unveils more ambitious overstretching and overspending of your tax dollars
Freedom of the Press "threatens national security"
Naomi Klein should apologize for her polarizing analysis of American corporatocracy and its genesis - as if that sort of thing could really happen! It could never be profitable, how could we afford it?
Governor Huckabee keeps an eye on babykillers, but can't condemn them all.
Holocaust of abortion aside, the Christian right is dissatisfied with the Republican candidates on sale at the Values Voters summit last weekend
Seventy percent of the American Public apparently highly boo-able
No end in sight as the military-industrial-Bush administration complex unveils more ambitious overstretching and overspending of your tax dollars
Freedom of the Press "threatens national security"
Naomi Klein should apologize for her polarizing analysis of American corporatocracy and its genesis - as if that sort of thing could really happen! It could never be profitable, how could we afford it?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Shock Doctrine
Naomi Klein, author of the great No Logo, has done it again with her newest book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
For an intro to the No Logo movement,
PLEASE do yourself a favor and check out her very informative interview with John Cusack, and get a better idea what she really means, click here
For an intro to the No Logo movement,
PLEASE do yourself a favor and check out her very informative interview with John Cusack, and get a better idea what she really means, click here
Monday, August 11, 2008
An invitation to Senator Barack Obama to meet with IVAW
[reposted from Iraq Veterans Against the War]
Dear Senator Obama,
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent.
From its inception, IVAW has called for:
On behalf of Iraq Veterans Against the War I would like to invite you to meet with a delegation of our members at Our Savior's Lutheran Church, located at 915 East 9th Avenue Denver, CO between August 25-27, at a time most convenient to you. We would like to discuss your position on withdrawal from Iraq as well as your commitment to veterans care and reparations to the Iraqi people. We would also like to present to you our Winter Soldier testimony, which illustrates the moral necessity of bringing an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq. Please RSVP at your earliest convenience regarding this matter, stating whether or not you or members of your staff will attend or proposing an alternative location for the meeting.
In addition, we would like you to review the following background information and provide your official response to the questions below prior to or on the date of August 27, 2008.
US-headquartered multinational corporations (MNCs) are currently awaiting passage of a law governing foreign direct investment (FDI) in Iraq's energy sector. They have indicated that they will not substantially invest in reconstruction of the country's oil infrastructure until the Iraqi government passes a law which will allow them to negotiate long-term investment contracts called "Production Sharing Agreements" (PSAs) in the parlance of the oil industry.
PSAs have been compared to the colonial concessions which European imperial powers imposed upon Middle Eastern nations in the 20th century, including Iraq and Iran. Numerous historians have pointed out that these concessions humiliated the Arab-Muslim world for decades and provoked internal political instability, the rise of militant nationalism and most recently, religious radicalism directed primarily against the United States.
We are concerned that the Bush administration, despite its denials, is exerting political pressure on the Iraqi government to pass a law which will open the door to these types of contracts once again. We believe that this sort of alleged pressure directly contradicts the ostensible mission of the United States military in Iraq and hinders political progress and stability there. Without a doubt, the prospect of perpetual instability will tempt future administrations to justify a prolonged occupation or continued interference in Iraq's internal political affairs.
Our troops have fought hard. They do not deserve to have their efforts undermined by this or any other administration. The Iraqi people demand independence and we have no right to deny it to them. In doing so we contradict the principles our own nation was founded on and act against our own national security interests. For these reasons we are determined to oppose such policies, official or otherwise.
For more information please see the accompanying documents.
Our questions are:
Sincerely,
Kelly Dougherty
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Supporting Documents:
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil [BBC Newsnight]
Hands off Iraqi oil [Naomi Klein]
Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq's oil wealth [pdf]
Spoils of War [In These Times]
Resisting the economic war in Iraq [pdf - Platform]
Slick Connections: U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil [pdf - Foreign Policy in Focus]
Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal [New York Times]
Dear Senator Obama,
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent.
From its inception, IVAW has called for:
- Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq;
- Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and
- Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.
On behalf of Iraq Veterans Against the War I would like to invite you to meet with a delegation of our members at Our Savior's Lutheran Church, located at 915 East 9th Avenue Denver, CO between August 25-27, at a time most convenient to you. We would like to discuss your position on withdrawal from Iraq as well as your commitment to veterans care and reparations to the Iraqi people. We would also like to present to you our Winter Soldier testimony, which illustrates the moral necessity of bringing an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq. Please RSVP at your earliest convenience regarding this matter, stating whether or not you or members of your staff will attend or proposing an alternative location for the meeting.
In addition, we would like you to review the following background information and provide your official response to the questions below prior to or on the date of August 27, 2008.
US-headquartered multinational corporations (MNCs) are currently awaiting passage of a law governing foreign direct investment (FDI) in Iraq's energy sector. They have indicated that they will not substantially invest in reconstruction of the country's oil infrastructure until the Iraqi government passes a law which will allow them to negotiate long-term investment contracts called "Production Sharing Agreements" (PSAs) in the parlance of the oil industry.
PSAs have been compared to the colonial concessions which European imperial powers imposed upon Middle Eastern nations in the 20th century, including Iraq and Iran. Numerous historians have pointed out that these concessions humiliated the Arab-Muslim world for decades and provoked internal political instability, the rise of militant nationalism and most recently, religious radicalism directed primarily against the United States.
We are concerned that the Bush administration, despite its denials, is exerting political pressure on the Iraqi government to pass a law which will open the door to these types of contracts once again. We believe that this sort of alleged pressure directly contradicts the ostensible mission of the United States military in Iraq and hinders political progress and stability there. Without a doubt, the prospect of perpetual instability will tempt future administrations to justify a prolonged occupation or continued interference in Iraq's internal political affairs.
Our troops have fought hard. They do not deserve to have their efforts undermined by this or any other administration. The Iraqi people demand independence and we have no right to deny it to them. In doing so we contradict the principles our own nation was founded on and act against our own national security interests. For these reasons we are determined to oppose such policies, official or otherwise.
For more information please see the accompanying documents.
Our questions are:
- What is your position on long term FDI in Iraq's oil industry by US-headquartered MNCs?
- What is your position on the role of the United States government in negotiating a so-called hydrocarbon law with the Iraqi government which would govern FDI there?
- What is your position on Production Sharing Agreements and similar sorts of contracts?
- What is your position on debt relief to the Iraqi government? Should it be contingent upon passage of the above-mentioned hydrocarbon law?
- What is your position on the so-called Strategic Framework Agreement, which is rumored to contain language on FDI? Should it be ratified by the U.S. Senate, whether or not it is actually called a "treaty"?
Sincerely,
Kelly Dougherty
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Supporting Documents:
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil [BBC Newsnight]
Hands off Iraqi oil [Naomi Klein]
Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq's oil wealth [pdf]
Spoils of War [In These Times]
Resisting the economic war in Iraq [pdf - Platform]
Slick Connections: U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil [pdf - Foreign Policy in Focus]
Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal [New York Times]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
