Catalyst

Privatization Gone Amok

President Bush’s reasons for vetoing SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program)  are yet another example of the corrosive effect of the current economic theory of market fundamentalism that dominates U.S. policy domestically and globally.  We heard it first from Ronald Reagan:  “Get government off our backs!”  It is consistently reinforced with the questionable premise that private enterprise is more efficient than the government.  It is the belief that market forces work best and to everyone’s benefit when government gets out of the way.  President Bush even resurrected the great bugaboo of the last century – creeping socialism – when he gave as one of his reasons that the bill goes “too far toward federalizing health care.”

Never mind the number of uninsured children who would be covered by this bill:  an additional 4 million children over the already 6.6 million children who are already enrolled in the program. And this number of enrollees does not include all children in poverty in the U.S., nor does it extend coverage to legal immigrant children.

Never mind that the program will not be federal, but is a joint program of the federal and state governments, that is state-run and managed.  The President also is concerned that SCHIP will siphon off some children who are currently insured by private health insurance companies.  The number is amorphous.  Never mind that the American Medical Association and trade associations for private insurance and drug companies support expanding SCHIP to cover more uninsured children.  Nor does he allude to the reality that a primarily market-based approach to providing health care to individuals in the U.S. has been neither efficient nor comprehensive as the some 48 million uninsured attest.

But SCHIP is not the only example we have of our flawed commitment to privatization as the headlines in newspapers continue to reveal.  The extensive use of private contract workers to manage many of the logistics of the horrific Iraq war is a reality too little known by U.S. citizens until yet another disaster happens, such as the killing of 17 Iraqis citizens by Blackwater Security Guards or the shooting of two Iraqi Christian women returning home from work by an Australian Security company. All in the employ, and therefore in the name of the U.S.  We are now hearing from military spokesmen that the private security guards are thwarting U.S. efforts to create trust among Iraqi citizens.

Then we are consistently informed that the private contractors who provide supplies to the troops have overcharged for the services, or the building contractors have extensive cost over-runs not to mention shoddy workmanship and buildings which are uninhabitable when finished.  The mammoth new U.S. Embassy in Iraq has postponed its opening indefinitely while a Kuwaiti contractor fixes a long list of problems.  This delay will cost another $144 million.  Our Iraq experience clearly shows that the private sector is not necessarily more efficient than government.  One of the main difficulties is the lack of oversight and accountability of the private sector.  Other obvious difficulties are that the private sector is a for-profit sector seeking all the profit it can possibly grab, and it appears that there is no cost too great for the U.S. taxpayers to pay to fund this war.  The cost is in the trillions and rising.   

The reconstruction of the U.S. Gulf Coast after Katrina illustrates the same gross failures of the government “getting off peoples’ backs and letting the market hold sway.”  The list is long and depressing and the people who have been harmed by this approach are numerous.  But someone is benefiting.

Isn’t it time that we raise our voices in protest and challenge this economic model that is demoralizing to people and depleting our resources to the benefit of a few?  Private enterprise has its merits, but it demands checks and balances.  The government has a responsibility to ensure the well-being and security of its citizens as well as being a good steward of our resources.  The drive toward privatization evades that responsibility and erodes our sense of social solidarity in addressing the needs and problems of our people and the peoples whose lives we impact, such as the people of Iraq.

Posted by Maria Riley, OP - Senior Advisor, Global Women's Project.

Millions Starving for Debt Cancellation

Tomorrow, October 2, the Center of Concern staff joins in the Jubilee Cancel Debt Fast.

Today, millions of men, women and children around the world are literally starving for debt cancellation.  The 2007 Jubilee Act (HR 2634) would provide expanded debt cancellation for many countries that were not included in the 2005 G8 agreement and need debt cancellation to address extreme poverty.  Moving the Jubilee Act through Congress is the central goal of this fall's Cancel Debt Fast, a rolling 40-day fast for debt cancellation that is taking place since September 6 until October 15, 2007.

Nearly halfway through the Cancel Debt Fast, we are already seeing concrete results:

• More than 10,000 individuals have already committed to fast for a day or more and to contact their Member of Congress;
• More than 50 organizations have promoted the fast – on the web or via e-mail to their members;
• 30 high profile authors, religious leaders, and political leaders including 4 Members of Congress and 2 former African presidents have joined the fast as “conveyors;” check out http://www.jubileeusa.org/cdfpressroom0/cdfleaders0.html;
• The fast has also garnered significant press attention including coverage in the Washington Post, Religion News Service, the Christian Post, Sojourners, and more.  Rev. David C. Duncombe has been fasting since September 1st and shared his thoughts in an op-ed in the Florida Sun-Sentinel on this past Saturday at http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-fasting22forumnbsep22,0,7922243.story);
• There is already movement in the House towards one of the main policy goals for the fast: the scheduling of a hearing on the Jubilee Act – likely to be in November; and
• One member of the Senate has already committed to reintroduce the Jubilee Act in the Senate.

The Jubilee Act has been reintroduced, but it cannot be passed without your help.

You are still on time to join the Jubilee Cancel Debt Fast!

For more information on how to get involved, please visit www.jubileeusa.org.

For more information on the Jubilee Act, please visit http://www.jubileeusa.org/jubilee-act.html.

Posted by Aldo Caliari, Director of the Rethinking Bretton Woods Project, and Member of the Jubilee USA Coordinating Committee.

The Real End Game in Iraq

General David Petraeus delivered his much anticipated report to Congress on September 10.  While holding out hope that some U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Iraq by mid-2008, Gen. Petraeus admitted that the number of forces thereafter that would remain in Iraq will equal pre-surge levels – of up to approximately 160,000.

Why?  Part of the answer may come from looking at what is glaringly absent from this week’s commentary over Petraeus’ testimony – Iraq’s vast oil wealth.  The battle being waged in Iraq right now over Iraq’s vast oil wealth revolves around the passage by the Iraqi Parliament of a series of laws – known collectively as the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law 0 – that will restructure the oil industry and hand control of Iraqi oil to western oil companies for the first time in 35 years. 

There are two important implications for the future of the war if the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law is passed by the Iraqi Parliament.  First, the current Iraq regime will begin signing long-term contracts with U.S. and other western oil companies.  These oil companies, who have for years proudly shown the weight they carry in Washington, will undoubtedly pressure the U.S. government to maintain a large military presence in Iraq to secure their investment and activities in extracting Iraqi oil.

The second implication of this law is more long-term.  Should a future Iraqi government ever attempt to modify or change the very pro-corporate language in the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law (in order to assert more control over their own oil reserves), the U.S. will have a ready-made legal justification for a new military intervention. 

If passed, the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law will open Iraq’s oil reserves to oil companies– meaning that the wealth of Iraq will be in the hands of foreign investors for the foreseeable future.  So long as the oil is controlled by these entities, one can expect that General after General will be submitting reports to Congress, and that the hope for troop withdrawal will be something that stays with us for the next 35 years.

Posted by Dave Robinson, Executive Director, Pax Christi USA.

-------------

For more information on Pax Christi USA, see web site www.paxchristiusa.org.  Also, you can listen to the podcast of an interview with Dave Robinson on “Pax Christi USA, Preaching Nonviolence” on Provoke Radio (September 9, 2007 program).  Provoke is a weekly radio program on contemporary social issues sponsored by the Maryland Province of Jesuits: http://www.provokeradio.com/archives.cfm.

Darfur Mothers: Caught in the Conflict

How does one begin to understand the plight of mothers who are living in areas of conflict, war, great poverty?  How does one truly relate to a mother who has no food to give her crying, starving baby?  How does one stand in solidarity with a mother who can be prosecuted if she gives birth to a child that resulted from rape by her enemy, but who bravely births and then cares for her child?  In Darfur we find many of these mothers.

The Darfur mother may be a member of the semi-nomadic cow herding Arab Hotia tribe or the nomadic Arab Abala tribe.  For centuries these tribes lived in harmony with one another.  Then in February 2003, rebels took up arms against the Sudanese government, complaining that almost none of Sudan’s wealth was being distributed to the Darfur region.  In response, the government mobilized Arab militias, called Janjaweed.

Thus the lives of so many Darfur women changed.  The Darfur mother  is often confused by the politics and cannot relate to human rights organizations who fired the first shot.  Following murderous attacks on her village in which huts, animals and household belongings are torched, men are killed, and women are often raped, the Darfur mother treks, with her children,  many days across the barren desert, fleeing the enemy and arriving at a refugee camp where upwards of 15,000 are often gathered.  Thus she joins  the 2.5 million people who have been displaced during the past four years.

The Darfur mother at the refugee camp must start with scraps of plastic and cloth to construct a new home, which is not much more than shelter from the hot burning sun.  She awaits the arrival of trucks that bring basic food rations to feed her family, but even these trucks are often ambushed.  She can no longer rely on a few chickens or goats nor even a few vegetables from a garden plot to feed her family.  She has lost all she has and now is completely reliant on humanitarian aid for survival.  Water is a scarce commodity that also implies danger.  To access water, she must often go outside the relative safety of the refugee camp in order to go to a river or well.  Along the way, she may be captured by enemy forces, raped and branded.  The 12 liters per day that she is strong enough to carry is enough only for basic drinking and cooking, not for washing clothes nor bathing away the sweat of the day.

The Vatican, U.S. Catholic Bishops and world leaders have called on the Sudanese government to allow peacekeepers to enter the region.  As a result of these negotiations Sudan has agreed to an expansion of a small peacekeeping force of the African Union.  Special UN envoy to Sudan, Jan Eliasson reports that the regional government of southern Sudan plans to bring together Darfur rebel factions for a meeting in preparation for future peace talks with Sudan’s central government.  Eliasson at the same time expressed concern about three developments:   “land grabs, infighting among Sudanese tribes, and a radicalization and taking up of arms by refugee camp residents.  The U.S. government is considering the expansion of an airfield in Chad which borders the Darfur region.  [For more information refer to www.washingtonpost.com/world]

As the governments of the world consider their next steps, the women and children of the region remain vulnerable.  Perhaps putting a face on the situation – entering into solidarity with the Darfur mother – can quicken the process of intervention, which has been painfully slow and unproductive for many, especially the very real people being impacted each day by our delay.

Sources: ”Talks May Help Unite Rebel Forces in Darfur”, Nora Boustany, The Washington Post, May 17, 2007;  Oxfam America, Human Rights Watch, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights.

Posted by Sr. Janet Cashman, SCL - Intern, Center of Concern

Presidential Veto Threatens an Easter Resurrection in Iraq

In recent weeks, supplemental funding legislation for the war in Iraq has passed both the House and the Senate. Media attention focused on the inclusion in both versions of language around the withdrawal of troops: the House version included a timetable and the Senate version a “commencement date” for withdrawal from Iraq.

In the shadow of such significant statements, lesser-known aspects of the versions which would be important steps forward in Iraq did not receive the media attention they deserved. For example:

• Most importantly, both versions provide increased funding for the Community Action Programs (CAPs), small development programs run by Iraqis for Iraqis, which have been 98% effective at maintaining stability and development where they have been implemented.
• The Senate version allocates $100 million for restarting factories in Iraq—a move that would provide employment for 150,000 Iraqis if the 143 formerly state-run enterprises that Under Secretary of Defense Paul A. Brinkley has already identified are reopened.
• Both bills significantly increase the funding for assistance for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons.
• Both bills drastically increase funding for civil society, democracy, and peace-building support, to over $380 million.
• Both bills extend the mission of SIGIR, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, through December of 2008. SIGIR has been instrumental in uncovering billions of dollars lost to corruption and misuse of funds in Iraq.

My blog entry from December, highlighted some of the commonalities between recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group and the U.S. bishops for a new course of action in Iraq. Both proposals recognized a failure in U.S. policy in Iraq due to an inflated dependence on military efforts to end the conflict. Improved reconstruction efforts and international diplomacy were two key ideas in need of attention, both documents said. The funding priorities contained in the supplemental spending bills—for development programs, job creation, and humanitarian assistance, for example—would be a big step toward meeting the first of those goals.

What is missing from the policy arena now is any trace of a verbalized strategy to move the Iraq conflict into the global arena where an internationally or regionally-led solution can take the place of the U.S.-led efforts—which by now have lost the confidence of all meaningful observers in reaching a viable solution to the conflict.

Unfortunately, even if the House and Senate can now reconcile their versions of the supplemental spending bill and come up with a plan for meeting reconstruction needs, the final result is likely to be vetoed upon reaching the president’s desk because of the withdrawal date language. But the step in the right direction that the bill would provide is too important to let go of as a fleeting moment in congressional history.

The challenge for us as people of faith and concerned citizens is to ensure that our leaders acknowledge the importance of many positive and essential elements for reconstruction that are currently on the table and that these ideas last beyond the likely veto. Even if there can be no immediate political agreement on the issue of withdrawal, many of the provisions currently included in the supplemental bills could do a lot of good, and quickly. On the other hand, if we fail to provide funding for development, job creation, humanitarian assistance, and monitoring, things will only get worse.

As we, as Christians, celebrate one of the most important events of our faith this Sunday, the resurrection of Christ, we should also remember to make our voices heard: the Iraqi people are badly in need of an Easter Resurrection and unless we do something quickly, it may never come.

by Jill Rauh, Senior Program Associate, Education for Justice Project, Center of Concern

NOTE: Many thanks to Simone Campbell, of NETWORK for her concise but thorough briefing on the supplemental legislation passed in Congress.

New Year Resolutions for the New Congress

What would you like to see as the New Year resolutions for the New Congress?  Now I know we are supposed to make New Year resolutions for ourselves, but my need for reform pales in the light of Congressional needs, so I have turned my attention to what I hope from Congress in the coming year.

First, I hope the New Congress governs.  That is simple enough.  Didn’t “We the People” elect them to do that?  And there are so many things that we want attended to in our country: global warming, energy policy, health care, a living wage (forget minimum), social security, education, declining employment and the decline of the middle-class–the list is very long.  We also want to see a foreign policy that truly reflects our best values and instincts and attends to the many truly troubling issues around our globe.  Of course, we want to see as quick a resolution to the Iraq quagmire as possible.  So Congress, please get to work and govern.

I also ask that they return democratic processes to the act of governing.  Transparency, ethics, following time-honored rules for committee participation and voting, control of the special interests, elimination of ear-marking and whatever else needs to be done to bring back civility, integrity and bipartisanship in governing.  I am tired of the small souled “I gotcha” attitude that has ruled our legislative process for too many years while neglecting the truly important needs of the country.

Second, I ask that Congress begin to dismantle those recent laws that have reduced the civil liberties and human rights of our own citizens and residents and of the “enemy combatants.”  It is with great grief that I, and many others, have witnessed the destruction of our civic soul by the use of legalized torture.  In the process we have lost whatever shreds of moral authority that we may have had in the world.  Rather than the power of ideals and values, we now rule by unrestricted military, economic and political force.

Third, I ask that Congress exercise its responsibility of oversight and accountability—especially in financial matters.  Weekly, more reports come out of the abuse of government contracts and the wasting of millions and billions of dollars in the fiasco of Iraq reconstruction and the rebuilding of the U.S. Gulf Coast well into two years after Katrina.  This is our, the people’s, money that is being squandered or siphoned off by corrupt “private contractors.”  Who is following up on those reports and fining those who are “ripping off” the Government?  The myth we have been fed is that the private sector is more efficient and less expensive than Government.  Let’s examine that myth and redirect our precious resources towards the needs of people—domestically and globally.

PS.  Don’t waste essential accountability hearings on the misuse of intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq.  The country knows that story and is not interested in Congress again wasting its time.

That is the beginning of my wish list for 2007.  What are your wishes?

Posted by Maria Riley, OP, Coordinator, Engendering Economic and Social Justice Project.

Casualties of War

If the United States and its coalition forces are “winning the war in Iraq” as George W. Bush would have us believe through his repeated claims, what would losing the war in Iraq actually look like?  By every conceivable measure, there can be no use of the word winning, or victory in connection to what is happening in Iraq.  Over the past three years there has only been a steady spiral downward into chaos and now a looming civil war that will only exacerbate political instability in the region and most likely lead to greater violence and terrorism.

The President may use all the rhetoric he chooses, but the underlying reality reveals a very different truth.

• As of September 30, 2006, the current death toll of U.S. service men and women killed in the line of duty in Iraq stands at 2,715 and counting.[1] 

• The number of U.S. troops who have been wounded in Iraq continues to climb and as of August 30, 2006 stood at 19,910 wounded.[2]  Their lives will never be the same.

• The number of Iraqi civilians killed since the war began is estimated to be between 43,546 and 48,343.[3]  In military terms, the innocent civilians caught in the cross fire, or victims of roadside bombs are conveniently referred to a “collateral damage.”

• Iraqi security troops who have died number 5,468 as of September 30, 2006.[4]

Numbers by themselves will never tell the more personal story of specific lives lost, or of the thousands of lives of family members and friends whose futures are forever changed by the landscape of grief and the burden of their loss.  There is no way to communicate in number or otherwise the magnitude of destruction that visits all sides of this conflict.  The loss of human life alone prevents this from being any sort of victory.

If we are “winning this war” how should we account for the mounting losses?

If we are “winning the war” then how should we account for the unquestioned erosion of our own civil rights vis a vis the Patriot Act?  While we fight for greater democracy abroad, we stealthily erode its integrity here at home.

If we are “winning the war” then how should we explain that as human lives are lost the major oil companies and the U.S. defense contractors are actually recording record profits as a result of the war?

If we are “winning the war” then why is there greater instability in the region, and insurgency efforts are only getting stronger, not weaker?

If we are “winning the war” then how should we account for the lack of moral standing the U.S. now has in international arenas?  We have a president who is actually arguing for the use of torture and other tactics clearly banned by the Geneva Conventions.

If we are “winning the war” how do we tell our children that domestic spending priorities vastly favor the purchase of military equipment that will destroy life, over investment in education, which will actually better their lives?  How do we explain to them the skyrocketing deficit and diminished social spending  both of which weaken the very foundation of our own democracy?

The casualty list for this war grows greater every day.  In no way is there a victory at hand here.

The question surely arises, ‘so what must be done’?  The war in Iraq is a key election issue this fall.  Great efforts will be made to deflect attention from what’s happening in Iraq in order to distract us from the devastating reality.  As citizens, we must not let that happen. 

In this election season we must reclaim and reform the rhetoric that is being used against the American people.  We are not only losing the war in Iraq, we are losing a great deal more.  While we “fight for freedom and democracy” abroad, we must exercise our own hard won freedoms at home and reinvigorate our own democratic privilege by asserting our civil and moral voice through our own participation in the political process here at home.  If we allow apathy and ignorance to win out over careful consideration of candidates, we fail to use an opportunity to speak as people of conscience.  If we fail to participate in this upcoming electoral opportunity, we too may be casualties of the war.

Submitted by Katherine Feely, SND - Program Associate, Center of Concern

1 Source:  http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx
2 Source:  http://www.icasualties.org/oif/woundedchart.aspx
3 Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
4 Source: ibid.

Non-violence In A Violent New World

Because I have a three year old, I literally have to answer some of life's more complex questions. A few weeks ago it was a question about death, followed by questions asking what is war, and how do wars start.

I began by explaining to my daughter that everyone dies. If we are lucky we live a long time and have lots of people who love us and whom we love. I assured her that she was much loved and that there was nothing for her to be afraid of.

Then our conversation led to war. I told her that 'war' means killing, and that a 'war' is when people kill other people and that is unequivocally wrong. This led to more questions so I described what I meant in terms she already understood. I reminded her that hitting is wrong - she added that biting and kicking are wrong too - and I've taught her not to hit, even if she is hit first.

I understand that when small children get frustrated they don't have the tools to rationalize what's going on around them, lashing out and hitting is one of the ways they deal with conflicts or feelings they don't understand. But children must develop, so my daughter has been taught to use words and not hit. If she does hit I won't accept justification for it, and she gets in trouble.

Now, I have no idea how it came to be that the innocent nature of childhood was corrupted by the notion of war, nonetheless, I tried to give the most simple answers I could, not because I believe my daughter only understands simple terms, but because the truths I want her to know about violence are quite simple, as are the truths about peace.

Here is where the conversation with my daughter ends and my conversation with you begins, and if you are still reading this, I'm sure you'll foresee certain points I'm about to make about peace and security. The first and most obvious is that I believe war to be an abomination. This is not because I view the world as a simple place, or that I think it's inherent in the human condition to avoid conflict, it is simply because I believe in peace.

Because I believe in peace, I believe in being an advocate for resolving conflicts in new ways, creative ways, using any means at our disposal other than violence. After all, how can we ever abolish war if we never commit ourselves - and our leaders - to solving our problems nonviolently?

And in the complex world we live in, there are many crises and wars going on as we speak. But are there ways in which wars can be avoided? Do international organizations such as the United Nations operate effectively enough to prevent wars and resolve conflicts?

Can an institution like the International Criminal Court be accepted widely enough to both allow the world's citizens access to justice, and serve as a mechanism for holding citizens or governments accountable for their crimes?  What international institutions need to be created to offer security to those who are threatened, or enforce laws that are broken?

These are important questions I want to know the answers to, and though they may not have answers - or at least easy ones - I ask you this: What could you and I do to propel the ideas of peace and non-violence toward something meaningful that world leaders would acknowledge and embrace?

What will happen in the world if we don't?

I do not know how anyone who has faith guiding them as much as our President does can believe that killing will do anything other than lead to more and more killing. Our nation's response to the terrible wrongs of 9/11/2001 was to launch a "global war on terrorism" which its architects and prosecutors admit may not end in our lifetime. Wars were started first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, and I believe each of us as citizens is responsible for these wars in that they are made in our name.

As citizens we are obligated to hold the politicians whom we elect accountable to the same moral values that we hold. If we do not, we allow our democracy to become corrupt, and we - not those politicians - are responsible. A commitment to peace, in my mind is a commitment to discourse and democracy.

Of course I understand that declaring myself to be "pro-peace" while I sit at my desk in one of the richest countries in the world - where even after 9/11/2001 we enjoy the kind of security and freedoms that much of the world can scarcely imagine - is a very easy thing to do. As I've said, however, the truths about war and peace are very simple: The only way toward a world without war is by setting about to solve conflicts without resorting to violence.

My daughter is bright, beautiful, and challenging in all of the right ways, and I believe, at nearly four years old she is beginning to understand that her best interests are served by "using her words." I can say that she at least understands that it is expected of her.

Posted by Bob Lyon, Donor Outreach Coordinator, Center of Concern