Hello. Jean here. I realise that this is all over the news. But the idea that phone companies were just releasing their records to the government, has put a bee in my preverbial bonnet. For those who don't know, I'm American...hailing from Michigan. And I am horrified by this. Truthout via the AP has this article on the issue Bush says that he is not going against our fourth amendment rights (search and seizure). I shouldn't be too surprised. It's not the first time that my constitutional rights have been trampled over by the government. Sigh. Good for Qwest Communications though for being the only big dog phone company to not just roll over and give the NSA the records. This is an excerpt from the article in USA Today:

One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order - or approval under FISA - to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.

Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information - known as "product" in intelligence circles - with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.

Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.

NEW IRAQ ALLEGATIONS POINT TO DANGERS OF PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANIES The Iraqi Minister of the Interior has accused private security companies of being mixed up in Iraq’s dirty war. Speaking to the BBC about the increase in death squad activities and kidnapping, Bayan Jabr ’implicated the involvement of about 30,000 civilian security guards operating in Iraq.’ BBC news 12/04/06 British companies’ major involvement in Iraq’s private security forces was set out in Corporate Watch’s recent report Corporate Carve-up. Dozens of companies, many led and staffed by ex-British army officers, are being used by UK and US governments and corporations. Our report flagged up the potential dangers of such large forces in Iraq, unregulated and privately run. However, this is one of the first times that we have heard direct accusations that private security personnel may have been involved in undercover operations in Iraq. Loukas Christodoulou, the main author of the report says ’British security companies such as Aegis are doing very well in war-torn Iraq. However, there remain grave doubts as to the effect that these companies are having on the conflict. By hiring large numbers of ex-military men for their protection, UK diplomats and corporations could be adding fuel to the kidnappings and assassinations that are destabilising Iraq.’

Hillary Benn, the minister for International Development, has written to the Independent attempting to rebutt the stories they published about corporations in Iraq (March 13th), which Corporate Watch contributed a major part of. Use of private contractors is essential in the rebuilding of Iraq Letters to the Editor BYLINE: HILARY BENN Sir: It is not the case that the Department for International Development is a "champion of privatisation in developing countries" ("The war dividend", 13 March). We do not have, as claimed by Corporate Watch, a policy to push British firms as lead providers. Every contract for which we invite tenders is subj ect to strict competition rules and is open to companies from other countries. The use of private contractors in Iraq is essential, given the varied skills and expertise required over a substantial period. Above all, this is about recognising the value of private-sector investment - not privatisation - as hugely important to help kick-start failing economies. Growth means jobs for local people and food for their families. Decisions about Iraq's future and its development are being made by the Iraqi people. To whom they go for help, advice and expertise is a matter for them. Iraq has already come along in a short time but there is a huge job to be done to change it from a dictatorship to a democracy. That's where we are helping. Our support is helping to build a political system so that people can vote and manage their own affairs' providing advice on how to rebuild the economy, which is based on massive state subsidies, and providing specialist expertise to help train people to install power and water systems. The UK, through its assistance to Iraq, is providing support where it can - including through private sector contractors - so Iraq becomes prosperous and stable. For instance, UK aid has helped to seal 4,880 leaks in water pipelines across the south-east of Iraq and has repaired electricity transmission lines from Hartha power station to Basra city, securing electricity supplies for 1.5 million residents. The UN, with UK support, has distributed education kits to more than six million students in more than 17,000 schools and has trained 2,000 health workers. HILARY BENN SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, LONDON SW1 LOAD-DATE: March 18, 2006

The FBI can't afford email.

The G8 summit wound up under the shadow of terror attacks in London. Many people, including Corporate Watch writers, have only just returned to work after the G8 protests. Here is, therefore, a brief analysis of some of the salient points of the G8 leaders' final declaration.

The Live8 pop stars Bono and Geldof were the only ones to endorse – almost unconditionally – the G8 summit's achievements. Even the Financial Times alluded to the possibility that 'the commitments on aid and trade may be worth less than they appear',¹ and this was certainly a position endorsed by several of the more radical NGOs present at the G8 summit. The University of Toronto's G8 media analysis felt that 'the suddenly more critical editorial evaluations of the G8 that appeared on the summit’s opening day were steadily transformed by the Olympic victory and London attacks to unanimous approval of Blair’s performance at the summit by the event’s end...this is all the more remarkable as the consensus included elite, mass and regional papers from across the political spectrum. '² The role of hype-merchants such as Bono and geldof can also be seen as counting towards this feel-good ending. Michel Chossudovsky has written a detailed report into the links between Live8 and their government and corporate backers (see http://www.ukwatch.net/article/732).

The G8 statement unconditionally embraces the private sector as the main potential economic saviour for Africa, with no mention of the many disasterous consequences of corporate involvement in areas of Africa. The only way they seek to moderate their enthusiasm is with the call to maximise (the thus already positive) 'contribution of local and multinational companies to peace and stability including through working with the UN Global Compact and developing OECD guidance for companies working in zones of weak governance'. The UN Global Compact and the OECD guidance are both voluntary initiatives, of the kind beloved by Mark Moody-Stuart, head of the G8 Business Summit and also of AngloAmerican, which has been accused of working with warlords in its search for gold mining rights in the DR Congo (see corporate watch news). In the area of bribery, the G8 statement again loks towards voluntary initiatives, rather than corporate regulation by 'encouraging companies to adopt anti-bribery compliance programmes'. There is a nod towards the need by states to enforce anti-bribery regulations, but this is thrown into doubt by the general acceptance of corporate bribery as the norm by many government departments. For example, Private Eye has reported, via emails released under the Freedom of Information Act, that at one meeting of the OECD concerned with tackling bribery the chair of the British defence sekect committee, Bruce George, bribery was inevitable, and that someotimes arms companies had to employ it in order to stay competitive in the world market.³

President Obasanjo of Nigeria believed that 'the continent's problems are going to be addressed realistically and effectively by the G8'⁴. In contrast, African civil society groups saw that 'The Summit has simply reaffirmed existing decisions'.⁵ Was President Obasanjo similarly disappointed? Unlikely, since he is one of the members of Africa's political and corporate elite who is likely to benefit from the free market policies pushed by the G8. He would also seem to be, paradoxically, a representative of the 'corrupt' African governing class that the G8 professes to oppose, having been accused of election rigging and sitting on a personal fortune that has never been opened to public scrutiny;⁶ but the G8 talk of 'corruption has always' been a codeword, that targets rulers they do not like while leaving scot-free the governments that are friendly to corporations.

Further Reading:

University of Toronto collection of G8documents

http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2005gleneagles/index.html

Mark Curtis on Brown and G8 development myth

http://www.ukwatch.net/article/726

Statement by African civil society organisations o the G8, via Action Aid

http://allafrica.com/stories/200507090002.html

1Financial Times, 'Now G8 leaders must follow up their words', July 8 2005, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7ea63e52-efe3-11d9-bd3b-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=de45700c-d82e-11d9-8fa7-00000e2511c8.html

2University of Toronto G8 Information Centre, 'Gleneagles G8 Boosts Blair at Home', Professor John Kirton, Sarah Brun, July 9, 2005, http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/evaluations/2005gleneagles/coverage.html

3Private Eye, 8^th July, 2005, page 3.

4University of Toronto G8 Information Centre, 'Statement on the Final Day of the Summit, Gleneagles, July 8, 2005 (midday)', http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2005gleneagles/statement.html

5Joint Statement From African Civil Society Organisations At The Conclusion Of The 2005 Summit, Gleneagles, Scotland 6-8th July , http://allafrica.com/stories/200507090002.html

6'I Challenge Obasanjo to Publicly Declare His Assets' May 9, 2005, Jude Igbanoi, Lagos, http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=935

Sugar coating the corporate agenda As the G8 Business Summit opens today, company heads are lining up to state the importance of really helping African countries out of poverty through trade. This summit is chaired by Mark Moody-Stuart, head of AngloAmerican, the mining giant that has recently been accused of working with warlords on the DR Congo (see Corporate Watch news). Although many of the companies involved in this summit are the same old names that have been exploiting African resources and destroying African society for many decades, the G8 Business Summit comes packaged in a winsome form, designed to seamlessly insert the corporate agenda into the debate over ending poverty. Business Action for Africa (BAA), the corporate coalition that will dominate the G8 Business Summit, declares that its aims is to 'promote a more positive, balanced view of Africa' and Africa's private sector. The 'negative' views of Africa that the BAA wishes to move away from probably includes the view that Africa is dogged by malnutrition (Nestle is one of BAA's core partners), by death squads (as funded in Nigeria by Shell, another BAA stalwart), and by civil wars in areas like Sierra Leone and DR Congo (both of which were fueled by diamond-hungry companies like De Beers, another BAA partner). In fact, the BAA is made up of all the old robbers who have bled Africa white, the roll call continues with names like Rio Tinto, GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever and British American Tobacco. The moves toward 'development' or support for African economies are covered by the inclusion of African companies in BAA. As we have mentioned in the Corporate Watch report on Scotland plc, corporations have no loyalty to their 'home' country, and enriching 'African' companies is no guarantee of a wealthier society; the BAA's plans for Africa will benefit a tiny corporate elite, in Africa and elsewhere. Arguments about social justice, however, mean little in the context of business policies. What is quite incredible is that these hard-headed business plans are being presented as humanitarian efforts. That fact that they are being so presented is largely due to the eagerness of certain multilateral organisations and big NGOs to offer corporations an ethical umbrella to hide under. One example is in todays Financial Times article, co-authored by Ibrahim Gambari, under-Secretary at the UN ('Political will, not just aid, can lift Africa out of despair), what stands out are calls by the authors to lower tariffs in Africa and to 'make the private sector the backbone of development', plus the firming up of property rights. This is essentially singing from same hymn sheet as UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who used very similar language when opening the G8 Business Summit today. The division between blue-washed UN corporate speak and Nu-Labour neo-liberals speak is that the PM has baldly called for the extension of corporate control through Africa through the use of private-public partnerships, essentially forms of privatisation that will leave African services in the hands of major companies. Of course, if the internal tariffs come down, we may see companies from Nigeria running services in Uganda...this will presumably be progress from the point of view of the PM and UN. The ethical sugar-coating of neo-liberalism continues in a series of adverts run in major papers yesterday featuring a map of Africa within which are arranged a hundred corporate leaders' names. These worthies -- including Richard Branson, and the ubiquitous Mark Moody-Stuart -- have been organised by the Live8 luvvie Richard Curtis to present their concerns about Afria to a wider public. I say wider, because the business elite traditionally get many clear channels to the G8 leaders before and during the G8 summit, in the CW report we point out that the Confederation of British Industry and International Chamber of Commerce will both be meeting TB before the summit. With the adverts, the aim is for buusiness to express its concern and to be seen to be doing so; hence what the FT has called and unprecendented and 'new approach by the business community'. Curtis and the Live8 organisers have offered the corporations a massive fig leaf to conceal their traditionally cosy relationship within the G8 summit -- company heads are also to be presented as a humanitarian pressure group 'urging' the G8 leaders to act in the right way towards Africa. So we are presented with the specacle of corporations cynically calling for action, safe in the knowledge that their own power will prevent any serious change.

And talking of business-led solutions to climate change... 'Finance Giant' Allianz Group has called on the G8 summit to establish a framework for dealing with climate change. The risks to financial markets that climate change could cause spell out worrying times for the fiancial sector. This point is further reinforced by a report published today by the Association of British Insurers, which states, in terms of cold hard cash, the possible implications of climate change -- increased costs for insureres when they have to pay out to affected areas, and the associated rise in premiums, which will hit all those who use insureance, thus making less money available to feed our consumer-led economy (see www.abi.org.uk/climatechange) This is the kind of argument that cororations can relate to -- and hence we also see calls from the 'International Climate Change Taskforce', a think-tank linked to the US and Uk governments, for some kind of G8 committment on climate change (see Evening Standard story) So are corporations adding their voices to the growing movement against climate change? Well not really. The kinds of changes or 'committments' that these corporations want to see all purely relate to the word of business, and relate to creating a suitable climate (ahem) for the financial markets to continue, without having to worry about unexpected insurance pay-outs or other hiccups. The G8 leaders can do all of this without cutting emissions to any great extent at all. Comforting pseudo-measures, such as the "reliable, transparent and internationally coordinated policy framework...." that Allianz has called for, will do the financial markets' confidence a lot of good, without seriously changing the ongoing and impending impact of climate change. Let's remember that the 20% cut on carbon emmissions that the Kyoto Protocol involves is far far short of what is needed to even stabilise the climate. And there is, of course, money to be made from the climate. As well as wanting "certainty for investment decisions" Allianz also asked for a G8 climate change policy that involved "business opportunities for clients". Once again, the G8 policy -- even at its most 'progressive' involves asking the very corporations that are destroying the planet and creating poverty, to reverse this process -- all in the name of profit.

A new report out by CarbonWatch highlights the kind of business-led 'solutions' to climate change that are likely to be tabled at the G8. ***************************************** "Hoodwinked in the Hothouse: The G8, Climate Change and Free-Market Environmentalism" Downloadable from www.carbontradewatch.org “What we call Man's [sic] power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with nature as its instrument.” - C S Lewis, British author and scholar (1898-1963) The new briefing from Carbon Trade Watch examines the relationship between free-market economic forces and climate change policy while scrutinising the rhetoric and reality behind promises on climate made by the most powerful politicians in the world - the G8. It also explores the origins of free-market environmentalism and analyses the conflicts and synergies that arise when the worlds of trade and environment collide.

Our team of Corporate Watch researchers will be reporting from the G8 summit and giving up to date information via this blog. Check back regularly for anaysis and comment on the latest G8 and corporate activity.