table of contents
The Real Utopia
by Ian McKay
Fight for Food Supplements
by OCAP
Legislated Poverty and Misery
by Ken Collier
We better take a good look down the path that we are following
You are currently browsing the archive for the May 2005 category.
By Ken Collier
Briarpatch Magazine
May 2005
A frequent tactic used by those who don’t want to hear opposing points of view is to shout “Conspiracy Theory.” They say it is ridiculous to suppose that dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people must have met to plan something as drastic as the end of the welfare state. They say such ideas cannot, and should not, be believed.
Except, every so often we get an actual record of people conspiring to those ends. Barbara Ehrenreich, a longtime progressive activist, wrote for Harper’s Magazine in August 1997: “The registration fee for corporate participants at the conference on ‘welfare privatization’ held in Washington, DC was $1295 (USA)–an amount almost equal to a year of welfare benefits for a Mississippi family of three. Not that a Mississippi family on welfare was likely to venture into the hotel, which rents rooms for between $300 and $400 a night, discounted to $185 for conference participants. I first learned of the conference from a welfare advocate who faxed me, indignantly, the conference brochure:
–Capitalize on the massive growth potential of the new world of welfare reform
–Gain a leading edge in the market while it is in its early stage
–Profit from the opportunities available.
In these days of the second Dubya administration in the USA, there is no longer any need to conspire about that topic, nor to be secretive about it. President Bush takes pains to promote privatization of services at every available opportunity.
Bush has lots of company among the elites of America. Lockheed Martin and Electronic Data Systems (defense contractors), Unisys and Andersen Consulting (accounting, financial systems) and many other less known firms propose to take over income security and health programs, education, even the prisons. (Yes, that is the same Arthur Andersen company of cooking-the-books notoriety.)
Plans like these came swiftly after President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform bill of 1997 which canceled the USA government obligations to the poor, first legislated in 1936. It limited lifetime welfare allowance to five years. It required adults on welfare to find work. And it turned over the federal share of welfare as block grants to the states, without any binding rule that they must be used for income security. Ehrenreich notes that in the USA, “eligibility for Medicaid and food stamps must be determined by government employees. In May, 1997, the federal Health and Human Services (HHS) administration warned Texas not to flout the law. But Texas congressional representatives have introduced legislation to remove the restrictions. Alternatively, Texas may decide to utilize the loophole offered the state by HHS and begin the privatization of food stamps and Medicaid with ‘pilot programs’ at the county level.”
If we want to see our future, look to our American cousins. Alberta continues to spearhead challenges to Canada’s federal social legislation, and the “new” federal Conservative Party consistently argues for privatization of public services, following a direction recorded in Simon Gunn’s book Revolution of the Right (Pluto/Transnational Institute) aiming to destroy the guarantees of the welfare state–income security, food, clothing, housing, education, health services–as cumbersome drags on corporate finance. (Not that the Liberals are much better, but at least they claim a positive role for government.)
Until the 1970s, industrial manufacturing capital was dominant. Those companies supplying our consumer goods wanted us all–even the poor–to have enough money to “move those refrigerators, those microwave ovens, those custom kitchens, those colour TVs.” By the mid 1970s, companies had made so much money in the consumer market that the world was awash with money, and not enough places to invest it. Finance capital took over from industrial capital as the driving force to remove barriers to global investment. Some of those barriers were (and still are) national tax systems, money transfer regulations, welfare, housing, food quality and conditions of work regulations. The welfare state had to go.
Elements of the welfare state, such as public education, health, housing, income security, human services and the rest were designed originally to help keep good relations between owners and workers. Kaiser Wilhelm in Germany, the second Napoleon in France, and elected governments in England and America, though suspicious of state intervention, chose government welfare programs over worker-led revolution. The welfare state, far from being a gift from kindly, neutral, benevolent governments, was fought for and won by workers, unions and progressive political parties.
Even now, governments try to prevent problems between rich and poor through social legislation in order to keep the economy rolling along smoothly. Governments also try to shape future generations, forecasting what will be needed as new owners and new workers struggle over their roles in the evolving economy. Industrial corporations previously saw the welfare state as a steadying and enabling influence.
The modern corporate finance class has not been satisfied with the results. Their representatives on the political right see state interventions as barriers. Privatization and its partner, globalization, establish the direction away from government regulation and state activity. It leads an anti-tax, individualistic, privatistic, “personal freedom” attack against the state.
What should we do?
In previous generations, the only successful means of affecting the conditions in which we work was through political action. I have three recommendations:
–Join and promote defensive organizations, such as anti-poverty, housing rights, women’s, environmental, First Nations, farm organizations and unions –as examples among many.
–Promote the assembly of those defensive organizations into national and international ecology, feminist, anti-racist and anti-globalization (which is rapidly becoming anti-capitalist) movements, as a means of sharing the issues and promoting the solutions beyond the usual limits of our own experience and locale.
–Promote and join a political party that represents our views and which aims to support and engage with the movement(s), not separated from them or above them.
Political involvement was the foundation of all social welfare and public service. The Settlement House movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the cooperatives that grew out of anti-poverty groups all knew political action was necessary, and the proven effective path, used by right and left forces, is the political path.
Ken Collier works at Athabasca University in Athabasca, Alberta. He is author of Social Work With Rural Peoples: Theory and Practice and After the Welfare State, New Star Publishers, Vancouver. He previously taught social work and social policy at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada.
This article was adapted from a keynote address presented to the Fourth Annual Summer Institute of Social Work, Red Deer College, Alberta, August 23, 2002 and a version previously appeared in The Advocate.
For more of Ehrenreich’s writing see: www.well.com/user/srhodes/ehrenreich.html
By Tyler McCreary
Briarpatch Magazine
May 2005
On January 17, 2005, the Tahltan Band office in Telegraph Creek, in Northern British Columbia was occupied by 35 elders who, as we go to press, maintain a presence there. The elders are concerned about extensive resource development plans for their territory, which their Chief, the BC government, and corporations have developed without significantly involving the Tahltan elders or community.
The Tahltan have been very adamant in asserting their rights and title to their unceded territory. In 1910, the Tahltan Nation forwarded to the government a declaration claiming their sovereign right to their land. And they have chosen to not participate in the current treaty negotiations, which operate according to the government agenda. The treaty negotiation framework requires that First Nations prove their rights and then it negotiates the extinguishment of these rights to ensure sole authority and jurisdiction of the government. Spokesperson Oscar Dennis plainly states the Tahltan position that, “we don’t have to prove our existence here and our rights to our land. Rather it is the Canadian government’s responsibility to negotiate their place in our territory.”
Nevertheless, the Canadian and BC governments have not negotiated but assumed their authority in the region. The Tahltan territory was included in the colony of British Columbia and brought into the Dominion of Canada without Tahltan consent. Further, through the Indian Act the Canadian government imposed a foreign governance system upon the Tahltan. Under this system the traditional respect for the community, elders and the land has been abrogated.
Without respecting the community or elders and involving them in decision making, agreements have been forged to pursue an intensive course of resource development. The new developments include the Nova Gold Galore Creek mine, a Fortune Minerals open-pit coal mine, the Red Chris copper-gold mine, a hydroelectric dam on the Iskut River, and coal bed methane gas exploration already underway by Shell Canada.
The elders, reasserting their authority, question the social and environmental impacts of such intensive immediate development. They “stand strong to protect the land for future generations,” a position they hold as “non-negotiable.”
Eskay Creek, which opened in 1995, is the only active mine currently in the Tahltan territory. An economic boon for the community, the band’s unemployment rate dropped from 85 percent to six percent when the gold and silver mine was opened. However, the Tahltan are a small nation with only 1,500 registered members, all but 400 of whom live outside the territory. The promise of new jobs rings somewhat hollow to a community with an unemployment rate well below the national average.
Dennis explains that they want, “controlled sustainability, where we could stretch these projects over the next seven generations, so we could ensure the security of our grandchildren 100 years from now.” As it currently stands, all these new mines are set to close by 2030, leaving not jobs but environmental degradation to the following generations.
The elders demand the resignation of their Chief, Jerry Asp. The elders assert that Jerry Asp has a conflict of interest, occupying the positions of vice president of Canada Aboriginal Mineral Association (CAMA) and the chief operations officer for Tahltan Nation Development Corporation (TNDC), while negotiating mining agreements on behalf of the Tahltan.
The elders have no legal grounds to depose the Chief, but they carry a traditional moral authority and have many relations in, and are connected to, their small community. Further most of these elders are women, giving their voice a particular gravity as the Tahltan are a matriarchal people.
On February 25, still waiting for information on mining proposals in the Tahltan territory and the resignation of Jerry Asp after 39 days of occupation, the elders declared a moratorium on resource development. The elders are demanding a change in leadership and a return to traditional values that respect the voice of the community and elders, and no new mines will be allowed until these issues are addressed.
Jerry Asp has refused to step down or even talk with the elders. The provincial government is continuing to recognize his authority as Indian Act Chief, and business continues working through agreements with Chief Asp.
This is but the latest clash in BC involving First Nations over resource development. These conflicts, including a logging blockade in Kingcome Inlet, and a mining moratorium declared by another band near Fort St. James, are undermining the government’s effort to promote resource development in a provincial landbase that remains largely unceded.
Yet these troubles must come as something of a surprise, as both the province and corporate investors have extended major efforts to develop good relationships with First Nations. On the same day the Tahltan protest began, the BC mining plan was released, touting a cornerstone of building “strong, enduring relationships between the mining industry, communities and First Nations,” and using the example of the Tahltan as a nation fully in support of development.
However, underneath all the pretty rhetoric, one wonders how (or if) the development strategies have really changed. The Aboriginal–Mining Industry Round Table in 2004 reported, “The foundation for building successful community relations is based on mutual respect and open and ongoing dialogue. Elders must be engaged from the start and made aware of the opportunities available.” Yet it was the tokenism and pandering of the consultation process that triggered the elders’ decision to act.
On January 8 and 9, the Tahltan Central Council held a special general assembly to discuss Nova Gold’s proposed Galore Creek development. Sponsored by the mining company, the Tahltan Band office spent $100,000 to bring in young Aboriginal professionals to sell corporate development to the assembled elders and community.
However, Nova Gold made two statements that upset the elders. The first was that they were not there for Tahltan authorization. The second was that the Tahltans had no say in the decision making process of their development. According to Oscar Dennis, “Tahltan control over decisions was unfeasible from a business perspective, and the investors would simply not allow that.”
The following week at an elders gathering, a decision was made to reclaim their power. The elders are emphatic that they do not oppose development per se, only this form of development that respects neither the voice of the community nor their responsibility to pass on a healthy environment and sustainable economy to the generations of the future. Oscar Dennis hopes that ultimately “our Indian Act puppet government could be removed and that we could instill a more traditional government that would work with the people.”
Tyler McCreary, originally from Northern BC, now lives in Saskatoon, where he works in the geography department at the University of Saskatchewan.
By Jim Harding
Briarpatch Magazine
May 2005
While the Bush regime and its shrinking number of international supporters try to shape the future of Iraq to their liking by force of arms, corporate power and limited democracy, others are working for a very different future. Iraqi nationalists are trying to take back their country through the limited electoral process allowed by the occupying force and the insurgency. Anti-occupation protests have continued worldwide on the second anniversary of the invasion. And, unbeknown to most North Americans, an unprecedented process of resistance to Bush’s imperial future has been occurring on a global scale.
The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) has been working since 2003 to ensure that there is no impunity for the Bush regime and its allies who lied and killed their way into Iraq. It is modelled on the Bertrand Russell-inspired Tribunal on the war on Vietnam in 1967. Now, even more than then, deception and manipulation have become institutionalized into USA imperial politics. In this climate of deceit and fear the WTI “is aimed at challenging the silences of our time around aggression against Iraq and seeking the truth about the war and occupation in Iraq. This,” says the WTI’s Framework Statement, “will be a record of wrongs, violations and crimes as well as suffering, resistance and silenced voices.”
The Tribunal is not taking on this mammoth task to be righteous, but to directly affect the future. It is pursuing its aims “To continue and strengthen the mobilisation of the peace movement and the global antiwar struggle, to restore truth and to preserve the collective memory of humanity against the constant rewriting of history.” But it has a very pragmatic agenda, “to prevent future illegal acts by judging the recent past, to formulate recommendations on international law and expand the notions of justice and ethical-political awareness, to provide alternatives to victor’s justice.”
Its mandate and processes are vast. The WTI is probing “the legality and legitimacy of the war in Iraq and the occupation of Iraq; the criminality of the conduct of the war and occupation in Iraq; the failure of political institutions, both national and international, to disenable the prosecution of the war.” But it goes further, investigating “the complicity of the media and information agencies in all the aforementioned crimes and violations: the grave liability of the political-economic project behind the war and the future threat it entails.”
The Tribunal has been active since November, 2003 when, in a session in London, it investigated war crimes committed by Coalition forces. Since then it has investigated war crimes against women (at a meeting in Mumbai); the legality of the war (Copenhagen); the violation of international law and the UN Charter (New York); crimes against cultural heritage (Istanbul); use of depleted uranium (Hiroshima); the social and economic consequences of the war and occupation (Stockholm); the complicity of the media (Rome) and much more.
Its sessions have continued into 2005, in such new locations as Lisbon, Cairo and Genoa. Sessions are still planned for Pakistan and India. The WTI’s work now spans five continents, and will culminate in Istanbul, Turkey this coming June. This final session will draw conclusions on whether the war violated the UN Charter and international law, including humanitarian law; on whether there have been human rights abuses; and on the conduct of the media and the United Nations itself. It will decide whether this was a war of aggression, whether Iraq’s sovereignty was violated, and whether other governments are guilty of complicity. This will all be done with the most thorough documentation, anywhere to date, of events that have been denied or sidestepped by the White House and have “slipped through” the very large cracks of the corporate media.
The final Istanbul session will also be “a point of departure for future initiatives.” While its vast documentation will be invaluable for public education, peace and justice activism, and future legal actions, the WTI knows it must also address the new international realities that have been created in the aftermath of the Bush regime and the war and occupation of Iraq. The “war on terrorism,” the right-wing politics of public security, the Pax Americana manipulation of democratization, and the new nuclear arms race in the wake of the USA doctrine of pre-emptive aggression, all threaten human security, human rights and ecological stability worldwide.
If the WTI is to have any lasting effect it therefore has to help set another course for the future of humankind. Nothing more and nothing less will do. Of course this won’t happen without worldwide citizen involvement and support. The lack of any serious coverage of this global citizenship initiative in the Canadian and American corporate media just underscores the need for it. There is a direct link of the work of the WTI to Saskatchewan, through depleted uranium, and to Canada, through complicity. Please do what you can. The WTI website is www.worldtribunal.org.
Jim Harding, Adjunct Professor of Justice Studies at the University of Regina and author of After Iraq: War, Democracy and Imperialism, has been invited to present at the final, Istanbul session of the WTI.
