Over the years, I’ve read a number of books on the private mercenary industry and the use of military contractors in the so-called “War on Terror.” Most often, these books have focused on one or two companies–for example Blackwater–and used them to draw conclusions about the industry as a whole.
Rolf Uesseler’s Servants of War: Private Military Corporations and the Profit of Conflict takes a different approach and focuses on the industry as a whole and uses short case studies of specific companies in order to illustrate broader points. Instead of focusing solely on the “War on Terror” and the most recent wars of the United States, Uesseler takes a much broader view and looks at private military companies around the world. This may owe to the fact that the book was translated from German, but whatever the reason, it offers a welcome break from the typically U.S.-centered literature on the topic.
Uesseler examines how governments, intelligence agencies, private companies, warlords, drug cartels, and rebel groups have come to rely on private military companies to support a wide variety of activities. Private corporations use them to support resource extraction and to police sweatshops, states use them to prop up weak governments and enforce their rule, and intelligence agencies use them to facilitate illegal arms trades. States also use private military corporations to circumvent national laws. For example, a state can hire a private military contractor to fight a war or support one side in a war without needing to officially enter the conflict.
Through all of these activities, private military companies often operate in a legal gray area. The pursuit of profit is their main goal and all other concerns–including law–are often superseded by this goal. That is why in countries like Iraq we see mercenaries run amok–all the companies really care about is the constant flow of lucrative contracts. In many cases, there are no local laws that govern the conduct of mercenaries–as was initially the case in Iraq when they were granted immunity from prosecution–and the countries that send contractors often have little legal oversight of their activities. Moreover, in many cases private military companies subvert democratic notions and are able to conduct their activities with limited oversight and transparency.
In addition his examination of the contemporary activities of private military corporations, Uesseler also includes a brief overview of the historical evolution of mercenaries. He looks at their origins in Ancient Greece through the French Revolution when they largely went out of favor. However, with the end of the Cold War, they have experienced a resurgence. This resurgence is owed to many factors, among those Uesseler highlights a security vacuum with the collapse of the Cold War, conflicts in the Third World, a national energy policy in the United States that demands access to oil regardless of the cost, the increasingly technological orientation of warfare and militaries’ inability to keep up with the technological advances of the private sector, and similar technological gains in the intelligence sector.
Overall, Servants of War is one of the most comprehensive books on private military corporations. It’s very thorough and well-researched, and while that is good, it does make for reading that is a bit on the dry side of things. You will certainly walk away having learned a lot, but there are sure to be times when you wished the author wrote in a more engaging style. Nevertheless, it’s an important book that deserves to be read, especially by those who consider themselves anti-war.
Rolf Uesseler, Servants of War: Private Military Corporations and the Profit of Conflict , (Soft Skull Press, 2008).
A new study by the Health Care for America Now coalition criticizes the consolidation of the private health insurance industry, saying that it is creating skyrocketing premiums for both patients and employers. The study says that the majority of metropolitan areas–over 94%–are “highly concentrated” according to the Department of Justice. This means that insurers are essentially free to raise premiums or reduce services with impunity.
In Michigan, premiums increased 78% from 2000 to 2007 according to an analysis of private health insurance companies in the state. Wages have increased by only 5%, meaning that insurance premiums have risen 17 times faster than wages. Most areas in the state are “highly concentrated” and there is no real competition to the major private insurance companies. In fact, the state’s biggest health insurer–Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan–controls 65% of the state market. Here in Grand Rapids, Blue Cross and Blue Shield controls 46% of the market while the number two insurer, Priority Health, controls 46%. This gives the two companies 92% market share.
In order to increase competition and effectiveness of the insurance market, the group advocates increased regulation of private insurance companies and the development of a public health insurance plan.
A new study by labor expert and Cornell University Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner has found that employer opposition to labor unions has intensified in recent years and has become more punitive.
The new report–titled “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing“–looks at five years of employer behavior in elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Moreover, even in instances when employees are able to form a union, corporations are able to continue to drag their heels. 52% of employees are still without a contract a year after they win a union election and 37% remain without a contract after two years.
Bronfenbrenner compared the results of this study to past studies and found that employers are using a combination of ten common anti-union tactics in 49% of unionization drives, up from 26% twelve years ago.
The report also looks at the difference between private-sector and public-sector unionization rates. In the public-sector, 37% of workers belong to unions compared to just 8% in the private-sector. Public-sector workers often have more freedom to form unions as coercive anti-union tactics are considerably less common. In many cases, they can form unions through a majority sign-up process rather than through elections.
The report blames employers’ anti-union tactics for driving down the unionization rate to 12.4% in the United States.
Bronfenbrenner’s study and its conclusions will likely contribute to the ongoing debate over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The Act would make it easier for workers to form unions and would reduce the advantages that employers currently hold (such as using anti-union intimidation tactics). Moreover, it would mandate that contracts be signed quicker and allow unions to be formed either through the elections process–which has been thoroughly manipulated by corporations over the years–or through a majority sign-up.
Not surprisingly, the Employee Free Choice Act has been opposed by major corporations and business groups, including some here in West Michigan. The United States Chamber of Commerce rejected this study, saying that it was skewed in favor of labor, although it was peer-reviewed by other academics in the field.
Over the past several years, MediaMouse.org has regularly reported on efforts aimed at organizing Starbucks workers both here in Grand Rapids and around the country. The Starbucks Workers Union just celebrated its fifth anniversary despite an ongoing campaign of anti-union intimidation by Starbucks.
Since the union’s formation, Starbucks has been convicted multiple times of violating the National Labor Relations Act. At the same time it is waging this aggressive anti-union campaign, Starbucks is also working to prevent the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure that would make it easier to form unions. The Act would also increase sanctions against companies like Starbucks.
In addition to the film, Brave New Films has also launched a new website, StopStarbucks.com that aims to place the company under increased scrutiny.
As part of the new website, there is a petition that demands that Starbucks allow its employees to form unions and asks that it stop opposing the Employee Free Choice Act. Signing it is a great way to follow-up on the organizing done by the Grand Rapids Starbucks Workers Union.
And, things wrap themselves up in a neat little package – Michigan Liberal has perhaps the last word on the controversy surrounding Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and his canceled speech in Grand Rapids. When the Kent County GOP canceled it over Huntsman’s stance in support of civil unions, the DeVos family stepped in. It turns out that there may have been a practical reason for that–Huntsman was being consider to be Ambassador to China, a country where Amway has aggressively expanded in recent years.
Rep. Scripps and House Dems Introduce Health Care Package – The Michigan House Democratic Caucus has introduced a health care reform package that allegedly will guarantee access to health care by requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, reign in costs, ban unfair market practices, and insurance every child in Michigan by expanding the MiChild program. I’m not sure that this will do all that much to help cover all of the uninsured people in Michigan, but we’ll have to see.
Spurning Coal, Manistee Rides the Windspire – After rejecting a coal plant five years ago, Manistee is now a part of Michigan’s renewable energy future. Mariah Power is manufacturing its Windspire home wind turbine in the city.
Detroit juries losing color – In Wayne County, African-Americans are 42% of the population, yet they made up only 27% of the jury pool in 2004–that number has since fallen. Michigan Citizen has a great exploration of the issue.
Appeals court to hear Pinkney defense – This Michigan Citizen article is a good summary of the case of Reverend Edward Pinkney. Pinkney is a Benton Harbor community organizer who was convicted in 2007 on trumped-up charges of voter fraud. Pinkney has an upcoming court day here in Grand Rapids and supporters are invited to attend.
Hoekstra co-sponsors “Christian heritage” resolution – Representative Pete Hoekstra has taken a break from supporting torture in order to co-sponsor a resolution celebrating the United States’ so-called “Christian heritage” in Congress. It’s hardly a pressing issue and numerous historians have shown the resolution to be severely flawed.
Stabenow parties like it’s 1989 – Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow has joined with conservative Republican Senators to sponsor a resolution that seeks a federal amendment to ban flag burning. This has come up numerous times since the Supreme Court overturned state-level bans on the practice in 1989.
Amway celebrates golden anniversary with deep local roots and a global reach – This is the start of the Grand Rapids Press’ coverage of Amway’s 50th anniversary. As expected, this series will be full of a lot of hype with three days of major stories on the company. Surprisingly, this first article does focus a lot of attention on various lawsuits that the company has been a part of over the years–although the overall tone is positive. There was nothing in the article on how the fortunes made by Amway founders Jay Van Andel and Richard DeVos have been used to support conservative politics or how they have sought to use their money to influence public policy.
Twitter takes flight with lawmakers – The Detroit Free Press looks at politicians in Michigan who are using Twitter and how they use it. I suppose this is a good time to plug the MediaMouse.org Twitter account @mediamouse.
The Obama administration is currently considering plans to pass the Panama Free Trade Agreement (Panama FTA). The agreement–which is a NAFTA-style free trade agreement–was negotiated under the Bush administration but was not passed before he left office.
Presently, it is being pushed by a number of large banks–many of which received government bailout money. Obama’s trade representative has indicated that the administration is supportive of the agreement.
This is unfortunate as during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama expressed opposition to NAFTA, saying that he was open to having that treaty “renegotiated” to expand environmental and labor protections.
On behalf of our more than twelve million combined members, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the Panama “Free Trade Agreement” (FTA). This pact reflects the unsuccessful ending point of the past administration’s trade policy and should not serve as the starting point for the new Congress and administration.
Responding to broad public demand for change, more than one hundred candidates from both parties ran on platforms of trade reform in 2008. The past trade model has led to massive American job loss, downward pressure on wages, the loss of nearly 300,000 family farms and massive trade imbalances that have contributed to our current economic crisis. It has given broad, expansive new rights to foreign corporations to challenge our environmental and public health standards, and flooded the United States with unsafe imported food and products. And, it has devastated developing nations where millions of family farmers have been forced off their land and poverty, despair and desperation-driven mass migrations have grown.
Like many of the proposed free trade agreements in the Americas, the Panama FTA uses language that is almost directly replicated from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). This language is problematic and raises doubts about the extent to which environmental and labor standards will be enforced, limits access to medicines, and grants preferences to foreign investors that allow them to sue governments in order to create a more business-friendly climate.
Passage of the Panama FTA would not reign in these practices. In fact, Public Citizen argues it would take away regulatory provisions aimed at restricting the use of offshore tax havens.
More on the Panama FTA can be found on Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch website.
Michigan’s two largest utility companies–Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison–are hoping for double-digit increases in electrical rates. The utilities are hoping for rate increases through a new state law that allows for rate increases to be automatically implemented if the Public Service Commission–a state regulatory agency–doesn’t rule on the requests within six months. Both utilities put in rate increase requests late last year.
Under the increase, average utility bills would rise significantly. For Consumers Energy, the average bill would go from $89 per month to $99. For Detroit Edison customers, the average bill would increase from $63 to $70.
Three organizations–the Michigan League for Human Services, the Michigan Catholic Conference, and the Area Agencies on Aging Association of Michigan–are urging the Public Service Commission to block the requests. The organizations say that the proposed increases would hurt the poor and vulnerable in Michigan who are already struggling due to the state’s high unemployment rate. Moreover, the organizations point out that the increases are not tied to plans to build new power plants or expand renewable energy.
Last year, the Michigan Public Service Commission approved rate increases that were less than a third of what the two utilities were seeking. Rates are also gradually going up for Michigan residents as a decades long policy of subsidizing residential rates is being phased out.
Yesterday, USA Today reported that 16 of the 62 lawmakers who left Congress last year took jobs with lobbying firms.
According to Public Citizen, between 1998 and 2004, 43% of former lawmakers became lobbyists.