Idiotprogrammer Blog

Category: World Affairs

  • Don’t Eat Chocolate from Ivory Coast!

    I can’t believe I forgot to blog about this important story. Last February, Christian Parenti broke a great story about the exploitative nature of the chocolate industry.

    The big cocoa exporters – Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM, Fortune 500), Barry Callebaut and Saf-Cacao – do not own plantations and do not directly employ child workers. Instead, they buy beans from Ivorian middlemen called pisteurs and treton. These middlemen own warehouses and fleets of flatbed trucks that travel deep into the jungle to buy cocoa from the small independent farmers who grow most of the crop. But labor and human rights activists charge that Big Chocolate has an obligation to improve working conditions on the farms where so many children toil. They argue that the exporters and manufacturers bear ultimate responsibility for conditions on the farms because they exert considerable control over world cocoa markets, essentially setting what is called the farm gate price.

    …

    Tulane recently released its first report, and though the tone is polite, the picture isn’t pretty. Researchers found that while industry and governments in West Africa have made initial steps, such as establishing task forces on child labor, conditions on the ground remain bad: Children still work in cocoa production, regularly miss school, perform dangerous tasks and suffer injury and sickness. The report criticized the governments of Ivory Coast and Ghana for lack of transparency. And it said the industry’s certification process "contains no standards."

    In some respects the situation only got worse after Harkin-Engel. From 2002 to 2004, Ivory Coast was gripped by civil war. As militias and renegade soldiers killed and raped their way across the lush interior, income from cocoa exports helped fuel the fighting. Like diamonds and timber, cocoa became a so-called conflict resource. "Blood chocolate" was providing fast cash for armed groups and creating misery for common people. Since 2004, Ivory Coast has settled into an armed peace, with French and UN troops keeping the warring factions apart. But chocolate exporters and manufacturers say the war and its aftermath have hampered their efforts to eradicate child labor.

    The industry’s two main trade groups, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association and the National Confectioners Association, say tens of millions of dollars have been spent on building a socially responsible cocoa sector across West Africa. But the Tulane report criticizes the industry for not providing specifics to back up those assertions. And on the ground there is little evidence anyone is paying much attention. "What protocol?" asks Ali Lakiss, the director general of Saf-Cacao, the largest cocoa exporter in Ivory Coast, which controls about 20 percent of the trade. "The farmers don’t get the best price. If the cocoa price is good, then kids go to school. No money, and kids work at home."

     

    Democracy Now had a dialogue about chocolate exploitation in Ivory Coast after the  the Fortune article. Parenti adds:

    You can’t hide behind the fact that they’re small family farmers. You completely control—the industry controls the market in Cote d’Ivoire. No one can sell without going through one of the large corporations that are members of the international chocolate organizations. And if you really wanted to improve conditions for farmers, there would be an agreement to raise prices by ten or twenty percent, and what that would mean would be that large firms like Cargill and ADM and those who buy from them, like Hershey and Nestle, would have to pay more money and would make less profits. It’s that simple.

    And they don’t want to do that, because they’re in the business of making money. They’re not in the business of developing Cote d’Ivoire and keeping children out of poverty. That is fundamentally not what they’re about. And it’s very simple, what could happen. They could agree to regulations of their industry that would translate into price controls for farmers, and they don’t want to do that. And so, they will do everything except that, because what they are about is fundamentally making as much money as they possibly can off of the people of Cote d’Ivoire. And if that forces independent farmers to take their children out of school, as happened again and again, and exploit them and work them, so be it.

     

    …

    The fact of the matter is, 40 percent of world cocoa is produced in Cote d’Ivoire. The international cocoa firms control the ports, they control the market there. It would not be hard at all to have higher prices. In fact, until 1991—I mean, until 1999, there was a structure for ensuring minimum prices for farmers, and US firms lobbied hard to eliminate that. And due to a debt crisis, that was eliminated. And since then, prices have gone through the floor.

    Now, whatever the price in London is is one thing. What matters to the farmers in Cote d’Ivoire is what the price is at San Pedro, or, more to the point, what the farm gate price is. And unless you guys make an effort to pay higher prices, that’s not going to happen. And we have to be realistic: they don’t want that to happen. And that’s why—

    … there needs to be some accountability. You can’t just consistently say, oh, we partner with these NGOs, we partner with these NGOs. What NGOs? The only NGO that your one—the International Cocoa Initiative’s single employee in Ivory Coast would send me to was Mesad, an orphanage, where the head of the orphanage said only a handful of children from the cocoa sector had been there. This is hardly an education program for farmers. This is hardly some sort of social welfare program. I mean, there’s nothing that you can point to, but yet you continually just roll out these claims that you’re partnering with this group, you’re partnering with that group. And usually you don’t even mention the groups.

    (Here are links to other Parenti articles).

    In June, 2008, the World Cocoa  Federation released its updated report about labor conditions in Ivory Coast. (The Press release is here . The actual PDF report on Ivory Coast chocolate production  is here. Some conclusions:

    • Cocoa production is the main economic activity in three-quarters (78%) of the villages surveyed
    • 53% of villages have no electricity. Just 15% of households have electricity;
    • there is limited access to potable water; only 40% of villages have access. 8% have no source of potable water;
    • Access to education is limited: 9% of villages do not have a primary school, with the nearest school an average distance of 3 km away. No village has a secondary school, with the nearest located at least 10 km away.
    • Most of the farmers surveyed own small plantations (94%), with the average size of plots varying from one to three hectares. Labour essentially comes from within the family, confirming trends seen in national agriculture surveys conducted in 1974 and 2001. The average number of children per household is six; however, 35% of households have between 6 and 10 children. In these family businesses, children usually play a role.
    • 89% of children work in cocoa production. Fewer than 2% of children who work in cocoa production are not members of the household. This confirms the predominance of family labour in the production of cocoa in Cote d’Ivoire.
    • many children are involved in dangerous work. 53% are involved in carrying heavy loads,  16% are involved in burning. Many children between 6-14 are involved in this kind of work.
    • More than half of heads of households have no formal education (53%). Moreover, 21% have not completed primary school. Barely one-quarter (27%) of men and 7% of women have completed primary education. 63% of children attend school, while 27% had never been to school. 10% have dropped out of school. In a context of relatively low levels of school attendance, more than half of children in school (60%) cannot read while 22% read with difficulty.

    (See also this superficial collection of articles about the issue on Wikipedia).

    Since February, I have pretty much abandoned purchasing anything from Ivory Coast until I see visible results from the Harkin-Engel protocol. The Ivory Coast report prepared by the trade group seems balanced and accurate (let’s thank intrepid reporters like Parenti for being skeptical). Here is a case where the industry is contributing to the problem, but now finds that any kind of certification process is difficult. In the meantime, stores like Whole Foods and even my local HEB offers chocolate from other countries (Guyana, Ghana, etc). I’ve been enjoying Endangered Species chocolate bars (which sell for $2.50 each).

  • A real Thanksgiving treat…would be freedom

    One of the most appalling things about the Bush Administration is the fact that so many people have been locked in Gitmo for no reason at all. Roger Cohen writes, “Of the 770 detainees grabbed here and there and flown to Guantánamo, only 23 have ever been charged with a crime. Of the more than 500 so far released, many traumatized by those “enhanced” techniques, not one has received an apology or compensation for their season in hell.”

    One of the most egregious cases is the 17 Uighurs who have been falsely imprisoned since 2003. The Bush Administration already cleared them 100% of charges, but haven’t released them because they know that the Chinese government would take reprisals  against them if released into their home country. This is true for at least 20% of the remaining prisoners, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights.  The Bush Administration could easily grant them citizenship as political refugees, but that would require the humiliating step of acknowledging a gross injustice has been been committed.  Despite the fact that a federal judge has ordered them released immediately, the Bush Administration is still dragging their feet.

    (Related: see  also my previous posting about Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost. an Afgani poet who was wrongly and falsely imprisoned for 3 1/2 years in Gitmo despite the fact that his captors basically admitted early on that he didn’t need to be there).

    Here is my proposal to remedy this situation (quite apart from closing Gitmo, etc).

    1. Appoint a commission to identify the egregious cases of prisoners being falsely held.
    2. Offer these prisoners a compensation package of $500,000 for each year they were falsely imprisoned.
    3. Alternatively, if they accepted a smaller package (say $100,000 per year), the U.S. government would offer them and their immediate family automatic citizenship.
    4. All prisoners identified as being held on false pretenses should be received by the US president Obama on the White House lawn, where he will make a public apology for what has happened.

    We need to acknowledge the terrible injustice that was committed here. To those who suggest that my solution is overly generous, we are talking about restoring the value of the American brand, which  has eroded tremendously since the Bush Administration took power. This loss of prestige and moral credibility is incalculable; it has far reaching implications on how most of the world treats us in business and diplomacy.  A cash compensation of this amount by the new administration would be universally acknowledged as being fair and even generous.  It certainly seems like a better  use of taxpayer money than providing a financial backstop for bad gambling debts of Citigroup execs.

  • Look for the American Flag

    This is not a subject I normally get excited about, but two days I bought the most incredible tennis shoes! Skechers has some incredibly stylish and comfortable shoes.

    Question: How do you know if a pair of tennis shoes has been made in China? Check for a picture of the American flag or the words “USA” on the box.

  • Ron Suskind’s Allegation & Office of Special Plans

    A week or two ago, Tom Tomorrow blogged about Ron Suskind’s allegation that the CIA forged a letter supporting the spurious claim that 9/11 terrorist Attar met with Iraqi intelligence. This letter was leaked to a a British newspaper and later cited as evidence in American media (and alluded to by public officials). Apparently the letter forgery was ordered by Douglas Feith (in the Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense). In his interview with Democracy Now, he says:

    And at that point, interestingly, we have a relationship with this man, Habbush, who has been in on this high-risk mission, and we’ve agreed to resettle him. Alright, well, the fact is, we invade Baghdad, Baghdad falls, Habbush gets out to a safe house in Amman, Jordan, as according to plan.

    And then, during that spring and summer of 2003, as it becomes clear to all the world what the White House was briefed earlier, that there are no weapons, of course, this Habbush character becomes, let’s just say, radioactive inside of the White House. What are we going to do with Habbush? And as one of the key CIA officials says—and, of course, the White House has denied none of this, and they certainly—you know, they can’t deny any of this—is that everyone was terrified that Habbush would pop up on the screen during that summer of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. At that point, we dotted the “I”s and crossed the “T”s on his deal and agreed to pay him $5 million.

    AMY GOODMAN: Who agreed?

    RON SUSKIND: The White House, the administration. It’s—the United States government pays him $5 million. At this point, even those inside of CIA say it can only be considered hush money, because we didn’t use him for anything. You know, the CIA was saying, “Look, he’s an expert on Iraq. Go talk to him.” But, of course, as the summer progressed, he’s the last person the White House wants to talk to.

    But come fall of 2003, they come up with some way he might be useful, and that’s when the genesis of this letter clearly emerges. I have it dated around September, because people involved recall exactly where they were. And the White House orders the CIA to have a letter fabricated from Habbush to Saddam, as you said, backdated July 2001, which solves all of the White House’s political problems. As one person at the CIA said, it was a check-the-box for all of the White House’s yawning political nightmares at that period. At that point, of course, they’re being accused of going to war under false pretenses, an enormous historical charge.

    The letter pops up just as planned. The mission is carried through, and everyone sees it, roiling the global news cycles. Tom Brokaw goes on and on on Meet the Press about it. William Safire writes about it in the New York Times. CNN—of course, O’Reilly flaunts it for four days straight.

    That is illegal. It is illegal for the CIA to run disinformation campaigns on the United States. It is against CIA statutes and amendments. That’s why we have such a crisis right now—certainly the White House does—because this is the kind of illegality that, frankly, they’ve dodged up to now. At this point, the evidence is clear, and they can’t dodge it.

    The radio interview contains a lot of incendiary rambling (including one of his research assistants being detained by federal officials), but his main charges are in his book. The Washington Post and other MSM sources are coming late to the party. Geez, the only way to get a reporter’s ears this day is to have a book to sell. Look at the weasel words in the CIA’s official response to his charge. (My remarks are in parenthesis)

    If that were not enough, Suskind also alleges that the United States knew before the start of hostilities with Iraq that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of WMD. That, too, is both false and wrong. False because the Intelligence Community assessed  (wrongly and falsely)that Saddam Hussein had such weapons. Wrong because it implies the Community chose to ignore information of which it was genuinely convinced (the question of choosing is irrelevant. CIA did ignore lots of information. That’s been well-documented). Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor did CIA pay or resettle Tahir Habbush, Saddam Hussein’s intelligence chief (This simple statement leaves open the possibility that another body may have accomplished this, such as Office of Special Plans) . That conclusion comes from a review of our files and checks with our officers. Indeed, our government considers Habbush to be a wanted man (irrelevant; just because parts of the government considers this does not disprove the thesis that CIA may have collaborated with him in some way).

    What the CIA statement does not address:

    1. Was Mr. Habbush paid $5 million?
    2. Did CIA know at the time that the document was false, and did they attempt to correct the record publicly?
    3. What is the relationship between Office of Special Plans and CIA (i.e, was the CIA called upon to do their dirty work)?
    4. Suskind’s on-the-record CIA sources say they saw and heard about this request to produce forge documents. That is the smoking gun, not that the CIA actually did the job.

    Phillip Giraldi, a conservative blogger/reporter adds:

    The Suskind account states that two senior CIA officers Robert Richer and John Maguire supervised the preparation of the document under direct orders coming from Director George Tenet.  Not so, says my source.  Tenet is for once telling the truth when he states that he would not have undermined himself by preparing such a document while at the same time insisting publicly that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.  Richer and Maguire have both denied that they were involved with the forgery and it should also be noted that preparation of such a document to mislead the media is illegal and they could have wound up in jail.

    My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment.  Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job.  The Pentagon has its own false documents center, primarily used to produce fake papers for Delta Force and other special ops officers traveling under cover as businessmen.  It was Feith’s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq.  Unlike the Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public.  Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith’s office specialized in such activity.

    The question seems to be not whether the US government performed this action, but which governing body did it. Stay tuned for more.

  • Minimum wage is now $6.55

    According to Tony Pugh, the federal minimal wage rose yesterday to $6.55 (It has been in the $5 range for over a decade).

    Robert Reich thinks the problem lies in depressed worker productivity:

    But there’s also a limit to how many hours Americans can put into work, so Americans turned to a third coping mechanism. They began to borrow. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster from 2002 to 2006, they turned their homes into piggy banks by refinancing home mortgages and taking out home-equity loans. But this third strategy also had a built-in limit. And now, with the bursting of the housing bubble, the piggy banks are closing. Americans are reaching the end of their ability to borrow and lenders have reached the end of their capacity to lend. Credit-card debt, meanwhile, has reached dangerous proportions. Banks are now pulling back.

    As a result, typical Americans have run out of coping mechanisms to keep up their standard of living. That means there’s not enough purhasing power in the economy to buy all the goods and services it’s producing. We’re finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever more concentrated wealth.

    Stephen Dubner interviews an agricultural economist Daniel Sumner:

    Farm subsidies that lower prices hurt farmers in poor countries by helping consumers in these countries. My best estimate in the case of cotton is that the world cotton price would be about 10 percent higher if U.S. farm subsidies for cotton were eliminated. The impact is likely smaller for most other commodities. So the impacts would be a modest improvement of farm incomes, but as we show in our paper for Oxfam, cited in my introduction, even most improvement of farm prices can make a measurable difference to the living standards of the very poor.

  • Crazy Dubai!

    Here are some photos and artist rendering of what Dubai looks like now and will look like in the next decade. This is pretty astounding.

    For starters, here’s a photo of its underwater hotel (to be finished in 2009).

    image

  • Lowered fertility rates

    Kay S. Hymowitz on Fertility rates and Carrie Bradshaw:

    Demographers get really excited about shifts like these, but in case you don’t get what the big deal is, consider: in 1960, 70 percent of American 25-year-old women were married with children; in 2000, only 25 percent of them were. In 1970, just 7.4 percent of all American 30- to 34-year-olds were unmarried; today, the number is 22 percent. That change took about a generation to unfold, but in Asia and Eastern Europe the transformation has been much more abrupt. In today’s Hungary, for instance, 30 percent of women in their early thirties are single, compared with 6 percent of their mothers’ generation at the same age. In South Korea, 40 percent of 30-year-olds are single, compared with 14 percent only 20 years ago.

    At the end there is an interesting conclusion:

    That raises an interesting question: Why are SYFs (single young females) in the  United States—the Rome of the New Girl Order—still so interested in marriage? By large margins, surveys suggest, American women want to marry and have kids. Indeed, our fertility rates, though lower than replacement level among college-educated women, are still healthier than those in most SYF countries (including Sweden and France). The answer may be that the family has always been essential ballast to the individualism, diversity, mobility, and sheer giddiness of American life. It helps that the U.S., like northwestern Europe, has a long tradition of “companionate marriage”—that is, marriage based not on strict roles but on common interests and mutual affection. Companionate marriage always rested on the assumption of female equality. Yet countries like Japan are joining the new order with no history of companionate relations, and when it comes to adapting to the new order, the cultural cupboard is bare. A number of analysts, including demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, have also argued that it is America’s religiousness that explains our relatively robust fertility, though the Polish fertility decline raises questions about that explanation.

    (NYT did a similarly longish piece on European fertility; can’t find the link). The Hymowitz article talked about the cultural reasons behind the trend, linking it to Sex and the City (a show I find to be of immense social significance).

  • Deconstructing Satire

    Tom Tomorrow notes that in the satirical Obama cover for this week’s  New Yorker,  the NYT coverage of the scandal interviewed several TV hosts but no political cartoonists. Here’s his great lesson on how to deconstruct (and degut) a piece of satire .

    Here’s a good interview with Obama by Farreed Zacharia. I wish someone would appoint him to be secretary of state.   It always is amusing to watch him be a guest star on  ABC’s This Week and to see him undermine every argument made by George Will. Alas, I have stopped watching that show.

    A commenter lampoons the attitude that we should bomb Iran in order to “awaken the international community from its slumber and force it to finally engineer a solution to the crisis.”

    This is a theory that cries out for broader application: The next time you’re sitting around a conference table at work and things aren’t going anywhere fast, just go ahead and randomly deck someone on the other side. Or maybe cut one of his or her fingers off with a plastic knife from the sandwich tray. That should really stir the pot and push the problem toward resolution.