Many believed right along that the major motivator for the Bush administration to invade and occupy Iraq is all the oil that sits beneath Iraq. That has been my belief as well. However, understanding the reason for the Bush administration’s anxiousness to invade may benefit from a trip back in recent history, before it is forever rewritten by the neo-cons.

Starting in late Summer 2000, there was a significant break down of support for the economic sanctions against Iraq. In August 2000, Baghdad Airport reopened. Lots of international flights started to come in from many different countries, including Iraq’s former archenemy, Iran. An annual trade fair was held in Baghdad, and the response was astonishing— over 1500 companies from 45 countries took part. France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Turkey and most Arab nations were well represented. On the UN Security Council, three of the five permanent members voiced opposition to the economic sanctions.

The outgoing Clinton administration, though faithful for eight years in continuing the sanctions policy that many called “genocidal”, was not prepared to invade Iraq as a last act of the administration. Both Clinton and Madeline Albright stated toward the end of their days in office that the sanctions would remain in place until Saddam Hussein was gone, or until the end of time, which ever came first. Not so surprising from an administration that said “the price is worth it” when asked about UNICEF figures of over a half million children dying from effects of the sanctions.

As soon as Bush and company took over the White House, Mr. Bush sent Colin Powell off on a mission to shore up support for the sanctions. Bush complained that the sanctions were “like Swiss cheese. That meant that they weren't very effective.” Despite leeway made by anti-economic sanctions activists in bringing a clear picture of the sanctions’ effects on innocent civilians in Iraq, Mr. Bush’s “revised” policy would clearly not be focused on helping the Iraqi people.

Powell traveled to several Arab nations and came back by way of Europe. Though countries continued to speak out against sanctions, they stopped the huge influx of flights to Baghdad, and attempts at cutting business deals were disrupted or even stalled.

Still, mainstream media in the United States assisted in putting a humanitarian spin on the situation. On February 27, 2001, CNN reported that “[f]ollowing three days of talks with leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, Powell said the United States was in the process of shaping new sanctions, which would target Iraq's military exclusively and not the Iraqi people.”

Meanwhile Mr. Bush accidentally clarified that the sanctions would remain a US-centric policy: “Sanctions that work are sanctions that when a -- the collective will of the region supports the policy; that we have a coalition of countries that agree with the policy set out by the United States. To me, that's the most effective form of sanctions.”

Powell stated the objective of his trip more frankly: “So this wasn't an effort to ease the sanctions; this was an effort to rescue the sanctions policy that was collapsing. We discovered that we were in an airplane that was heading to a crash, and what we have done and what we are trying to do is to pull it out of that dive and put it on an altitude that's sustainable, bring the coalition back together.”

I have to wonder how diplomatic these ‘talks’ really were. Perhaps as diplomatic as the United States’ UN representative during the lead-up to the first Gulf War, when Yemen voted `no' on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The US representative told the Yemeni representative, `That's the most expensive vote you'll ever cast.' Shortly thereafter, all US aid to Yemen was stopped.

Following Powell’s trip, the US and Britain then began talking about “smart sanctions”, which was yet another cynical policy with a friendly sounding name. The revision that was allegedly designed to ease the effects of economic sanctions on Iraqis actually produced a voluminous list of products that would not be allowed into the country.

Ultimately, support for the sanctions was gone. The United States and Britain stood alone in the UN, demanding that the policy be strengthened. Around the world companies in other countries were negotiating business deals with Iraq, including oil deals. The US stood to miss out on a very big piece of a very big pie if it did not do something quickly.

Then came 9/11. After bombing Afghanistan, the Bush administration ushered in an intensive campaign, with much assistance from an unquestioning mainstream media, to gain support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As this campaign raged in 2002, Iraq’s trade fair drew numbers similar to those drawn in 2001.

Control over the second largest oil reserve in the world and massive rebuilding contracts were very nearly grabbed up by companies from other countries before the Bush administration took power. That, I believe, was a major factor in why they wouldn’t wait to attack Iraq. Today huge contracts are handed uncontested to Halliburton, Bechtel and other friends of the administration.

The Bush administration has made every attempt to revise history with regard to their belligerent worldview. The attacks of September 11, 2001 are cynically used to justify hostility on any front, “at a time and a date of our choosing”. Speaking the truth about events that took place in Iraq during autumn 2000 may help to dispel the ongoing myth that Bush & company became hostile toward Iraq and much of the rest of the world as a response to 9/11.

So much of what Martin Luther King, Jr. said and did rings as true today as it did in the '60s.

I think it is so important that his words continue to be heard--- not just "I have a dream"-- that's only part of one of many amazing speeches.

Today, much of what he said in his April 4, 1967 speech at Riverside Church keeps coming back to me. Please read the text of that "Beyond Vietnam" speech.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKapr67.html

Mr. Gregg was introduced a few minutes after 8:00, and he spoke until about 8:20. From early on in his speech, I could hear the language of racism and fear mongering. In his speech, and in response to my question later on, Mr. Gregg invoked all of the now standard responses of the hawks who are benefiting from the so-called war on terrorism the most.

He echoed George W. Bush’s first speech following the attacks of September 11, 2001 saying that “Islamic fundamentalists” hate our way of life, hate our freedom, we are at war, etc. They hate our way of life. I hated that lie the first time I heard it, and I hate it still. What about years of US support for vicious dictators around the world, including Saddam Hussein for several years? What about US military presence in 4/5 of the countries in the world? What about strong-arm business tactics by US business that exploit people and environmental resources throughout the world? On the other hand, when the phrase, “they hate our way of life” is spoken by George W. Bush or Judd Gregg, there is some truth to it. I suspect that people anywhere in the world who are angry at the policies of the United States do hate the way of life of those in power here today. Make no mistake; our leaders’ lives are profoundly different from that of most of us. Does that give terrorists a right to kill? Of course not. But in the pursuit of a criminal, law enforcement doesn’t shy away from looking for a criminal’s real motive. In fact, I suspect that our Federal government is fully aware of the reasons for anger and resentment worldwide. This knowledge should be used to show that our policies for how we treat the rest of the world should be changed.

When I had my chance to ask Mr. Gregg a question, I first thanked him for being there and wished him happy holidays. I then expressed my concern for our troops over seas, and also for Iraqi civilians. I asked him to urge the Bush administration to reverse the new policy of not counting Iraqi civilian casualties, and explained that I understood that this policy announced yesterday came from an Iraqi ministry, but it was under pressure of the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority. Mr. Gregg said he wasn’t aware of the change in policy and that he doubted the administration would approve of such a policy. Some people hear what they want to hear, but his response just made me angry. As if the Bush administration doesn’t have control over all policy moves in Iraq today.

I went on to my question. I noted the disparity in resources being put into Afghanistan and Iraq. These were both countries which were beaten down and suffered for years under repressive regimes. The main significant difference that jumped out at me is that Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world. So, I asked, are US service people dying every day in order to make Iraq a safe place for companies like Halliburton to make hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Gregg explained that we are first fighting the war on terrorism. He then said that we are talking about “an entire culture” that hates us and wants to kill us. When he took a breath I stood back up and said, “But, Mr. Gregg, with all due respect, we are not talking about an entire culture here by any means. We are talking about a very tiny percentage of people who are willing to resort to this kind of violence.” He said that he was just going to say that. He then went on to say that there are “over a billion Muslims in the world. If we’re talking 10%, that’s 100 million people who are willing to resort to this kind of violence. Even if we’re talking about just 1%, that’s 10 million people who are willing to fly planes into buildings and kill Americans.” The language of racism and fear mongering come together. Add ignorance and you’ve got yourself a whole lot of supporters.

He then discussed the need to stabilize the Middle East. The way they are doing this is to rebuild Iraq and show them that our way of life works best. “Market economy.” “Democracy”. He finished his statement by saying that “oil has absolutely nothing to do with it.” A real trooper, that Judd. He will not give an inch on that one. So, while he never directly addressed the part of the question about Halliburton, in a sense he confirmed that it is about making lots of money. That’s why young men and women in the US armed services, as well as uncounted Iraqi civilians are dying.

Being confined to only one question, I didn’t get to publicly point out that most people in the room would probably take up arms if our country were occupied, and that I simply did not believe that all the attacks in Iraq against US troops were coming from Saddam sympathizers or foreign terrorists. While I don’t think this makes it okay for anyone to kill anyone else, it seems to me that we are being lied to on a daily basis to hold support for the occupation.

After the program was over, I went over to speak with Mr. Gregg. His face turned a slightly deeper shade of red when he saw me. I shook his hand and thanked him for addressing my question, and I told him that I had concerns over many aspects of his response. I expressed my opinion that Hussein and anyone else responsible for the gassing of the Kurds should be tried for war crimes. He interrupted, saying, “If we can find him.” Automated response? Perhaps. I let it slide.

One of my greatest concerns related to his response, I explained, was that in 1988 after Hussein gassed the Kurds, the United States actively blocked other countries that wanted to bring sanctions against Iraq at that time. At this point Mr. Gregg turned an even deeper shade of red and began to turn away from me. I asked him how we could account for such hypocrisy. He told me in an annoyed voice that “the point is, he had weapons of mass destruction”, and for some reason I thought he had jumped into the present tense. “We haven’t found them,” I countered. “Why don’t you go tell a Kurd that,” he said, and walked off. To anyone who’s paying attention, this kind of jumping back and forth between historical realities and policies is absolutely bizarre. Unfortunately, many in the US public know very little about the history of US-Iraq relations, so hawks have been able to blur reality, successfully avoiding the issue that it took the US government almost 15 years to at least pretend that they were outraged over the gassing of the Kurds.

There are other important truths to be told with regard to Mr. Gregg’s supposed concern for the Kurds. During his 1997-98 campaign for Senate, Mr. Gregg accepted large amounts of campaign contributions from weapons manufacturers who were bidding at the time for one of the largest weapons contracts in history, to sell weapons to Turkey, which were ultimately used against the Kurds.

The Turkish government has committed some of the greatest acts of terrorism against the Kurds. US State Department documents show that in the past, the Turkish military has used US equipment against innocent Kurdish civilians, including attacks on civilians in northern Iraq, in the so-called "No Fly Zone", where the US Air Force was supposedly protecting the Kurds.

From 1995 to 2001, weapons manufacturers Sikorsky, Boeing, Bell Textron, and Northrop Grunman competed for one of the largest arms deals in history--- a $4 billion dollar contract to construct 145 attack helicopters for Turkey. The contract was eventually awarded in to Bell Textron, but will require approval by Congress and the president. The companies lobbied congress for support in the arms deal, and its eventual approval.

During his 1997-1998 campaign for senate, Judd Gregg accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Boeing, Bell Textron, Northop Grunman Corporation, and Lockheed Martin.

By accepting money earned through the sale of arms to Turkey for use against the Kurds, Senator Gregg endorsed the murder of innocent Kurds in Turkey and Iraq. He personally profited from "the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children". Mr. Gregg may deny any knowledge, but that is specious at best. Even if he didn’t know about the blood on these campaign contributions, any responsible leader should check his sources. But, based on everything that I heard during breakfast with Judd, I am convinced he either just doesn’t want to know, or worse.

The level of hypocrisy emanating from Washington today is absolutely astounding. As long as crucial facts are kept out of the public eye, as long as ordinary people are willing to let the dogs of war run free, the language of hate—the language of racism and fear mongering—will shape tragic destinies for millions world wide, including here in the United States.

The commentary is called "What I saw in Iraq convinces me we are winning the fight". Take a look at it:

http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=28902&archive=1

Here's the response that Joe Public producer Tom Jackson wrote on behalf of Seacoast Peace Response and sent to New Hampshire newspapers:

Jeb Bradley’s November 14, 2003 guest commentary in the Union Leader, in which he gives an account of his visit to Iraq was a classic example of reliance on unreliable sources for information.

Many facts are left out of Bradley’s account. He mentions the barbaric dictatorship. He doesn’t mention past US support for that same barbaric dictatorship. “Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people and Iranians, and started two wars”, states Mr. Bradley, and leaves out three important words: with our support. When Hussein gassed the Kurds and Iranians, our government actively fought off other UN member countries that called for sanctions against Iraq at that time. Let us not allow Mr. Bradley, Mr. Bush, or anyone else to rewrite history for their own benefit.

Bradley throws a typical US government curveball with regard to sanctions which were put in place against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait in 1990. He mentions the debriefing of former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, “who indicated Hussein was ready to reacquire WMD the instant sanctions expired.” Characterizing whatever Aziz actually said in this manner is extremely misleading. First and foremost, none of the permanent members of the UN Security Council who were the overseers of these sanctions were planning on simply letting the sanctions “expire”. Second, there were two kinds of sanctions in place against Iraq—military and economic. There had been some discussion of bringing the economic sanctions to an end, because it was clear years ago that they were only hurting the ordinary civilians in Iraq. However, the United States said for years that it would veto any attempt to end the economic sanctions, despite public outcry. With regard to military sanctions, the chances of them ever being taken off while Hussein was in power were absolutely zero. None of the Security council members called for it. So, that being said, IF Aziz said anything remotely akin to the paraphrasing Bradley provides, he may have stated the obvious--- that if for some reason military sanctions were lifted, Hussein would have started buying up weapons. But that would never have happened.

Bradley goes on to parrot the party line regarding weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq actually possessed this level of weaponry, they would have used it to try to stop the invasion. Give up that argument, Mr. Bradley. Fewer and fewer people believe a word of it as each day passes and the alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction is nowhere to be found.

Seeing Hussein’s palaces was disturbing for Mr. Bradley. Without a doubt, one of those palaces was the one that the US occupying government now works out of in Baghdad. Our representative fails to mention that little detail. Though security may be a legitimate argument in this case, imagine how the average Iraqi perceives the occupying military government living in the same palace as the former military dictator.

We also find it interesting that “facts” jump from one era to another. Bradley mentions that “[t]roops and CPA employees told us that commerce is returning to Baghdad, evidenced by electronic appliances, food supplies and restaurants.” First, this makes it clear that he’s willing to believe anything that CPA employees and troops tell him, as if they have no incentive to lie. But, one has to ask, are these electronic appliances and other goods the same ones that made it on our TV screens during the build up to the invasion, to try to reduce sympathy for Iraqis? Major networks showed these products two years ago, and the BBC produced a report called “Baghdad is Booming”. Is it possible that these are the same products which, truth be told, were not affordable to most Iraqis two years ago, and which will probably continue to sit on the shelves for some time to come?

Bradley expresses confidence that attacks on US troops will soon be thwarted. Until the Bush administration admits the truth about the current situation in Iraq, we believe peace there is unlikely. The Bush administration continues to insist that the attackers are Saddam sympathizers and foreign terrorists, while ignoring our own intelligence which has stated that opposition to the occupation is widespread and is more about Iraqi independence than anything else.

Many Iraqis believe that the US occupation is about oil and power in the Middle East, not about “liberating” the Iraqi people. The Iraqis want their country back. That doesn't make it okay for anyone to go around killing people, but one needs only to look at history to figure out that some people will react to an occupation with violence. A look at history also reveals that invading, occupying countries always try to justify what they do by saying that it is in the best interest of the people of the invaded country.

The congressman’s picture of troop morale is just as rosey as the rest of his story. Again, the source of “information” always comes into play. We have heard interviews with troops who wonder why they are still in Iraq, particularly in light of the fact that Iraqis “don’t want us here.” Even if all the troops with whom he spoke came across as very positive about the situation, US troops are under a contractual obligation to refrain from criticizing US foreign policy. They aren’t going to badmouth the situation to a Senator.

Bradley shows his hand very clearly in the article: “My observations rely on this experience and many conversations with commanders, troops from New Hampshire, and Americans working for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).” What about conversations with ordinary Iraqis? He states that he could not go to hospitals or schools due to “security concerns”. Too bad, he might have been able to hear from a real Iraqi. A couple of our members have been to Iraq, and they assure us that it is never difficult to find Iraqis who can speak at least enough English to get by. Clearly Mr. Bradley simply took the word of occupying officials. The only Iraqis to whom our government has listened in the past have been Iraqi ex-patriots with hopes of power in “a new Iraq”.

Before our country invaded Iraq last March, one of our members encountered many Iraqi ex-patriots living in the US, who escaped the dictatorship. These were ordinary people wanting to live a quiet life, not ambitious power seekers saying whatever their benefactors want to hear. To a person, every one of them said they would be glad to see Saddam gone, but they do not want any country occupying Iraq. When did our government officials or the press ever hear or report their voices?

Finally, Bradley perpetuates the lie that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. “Americans must remember we are fighting the type of people who crash jet liners into skyscrapers.” Not one of the hijackers was from Iraq. There is absolutely no proof that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks. So what does Mr. Bradley mean by this statement? He goes on to say that “Iraq has become the frontline of terrorism”. He leaves off a few words again, if this statement even holds any truth— ‘since we invaded and took over.’

In closing, Mr. Bradley’s guest commentary should be called what it really is—propaganda. We must face the truth about the few who are leading our country.
They lied to us to get support for the invasion of Iraq, and they are still lying to keep support for the occupation. Many people die each day because of those lies. Bush and others in his administration should be held accountable.

http://atlanta.indymedia.org/

Sounds like some nasty stuff closed out the FTAA protests in Miami. Some Indy Media folks, among others, were arrested-- basically just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, while big media cranked out loads of crap on the arrest of Michael Jackson, other things happened elsewhere. Things that really effect all of us. How about that?

The Web is far and away the best resource for information.

I'm listening to FTAA protest coverage on an Indy Media link.
There's a few links to choose from at:
http://ftaaimc.org/en/static/radio_en.shtml

The translator who's talking on the broadcast sounds amazingly like Mike Boudreau from Compas de Nicaragua. He and his wife Ana are speaking at University of New Hampshire tomorrow night.

It's great to listen to a webcast like this. We are not going to hear what people from around the world have to say about the FTAA on U.S. mainstream media. Mainstream media will not provide a voice for most people. It's doubtful that they'll even give more than a passing mention to the fact that people are protesting, and they certainly won't give the general public a clear idea as to why one might be against the "free trade" of the FTAA.

The new video, shot in Nicaragua at the end of the summer, is moving along, though it's gone a bit slower than I'd hoped. "Attacking the Commons" (Part1), as it's being called, is now in the hands of editor Jan Muller. He'll put together the first hack that I've mapped out, and then the translations will happen for real. There will be all-Spanish and all-English versions. The video looks at the Nicaraguan people's stand against water privatization. World Bank & IMF are applying the pressure to the Nicaraguan government to privatize, but given the results of having their electrical service privatized by the Spanish company, Union Finosa, the Nicaraguan people are overwhelmingly against privatizing water (services, infrastructure or the resource itself).

The Joe Public blog will continue to be an open forum. I will, however, delete SPAM-- a charming blog phenominon that is new to me.

Megan Bartlett, founder of Ground Zero for Peace invited me to the event. We met up at the Square. She had been on Democracy Now earlier in the day. That was just one of twenty interviews she had on the 10th. She limited the 11th to four more. Megan was an EMT who responded at Ground Zero on 9-11. Her descriptions of the hell that she saw are deeply moving. Megan and the other rescue workers who are Ground Zero for Peace have, like Peaceful Tomorrows, called for nonviolent responses to the attacks. Their courage and dedication is amazing.

I did quite a bit of videotaping. One moment in particular stands out for me. When we arrived at Ground Zero, someone up in the front of the procession held up his hand, giving the peace sign and standing in silence. Little by little, most people did the same, ranging as far back into the crowd as I could see.

Thursday morning I checked online for press coverage of the march and vigil. It seemed that the press was substantial at Union Square, all along the march, and at Ground Zero. As far as the print media that I found, Reuters threw a couple of mischaracterizations into their article. They said that "hundreds" of people turned out. I'm no expert on judging the size of crowds, but I am confident that we were into the thousands, not just hundreds. Reuters also characterized the point of the march and vigil as being primarily to protest building on the site. While there were a few people who focused on that issue, the overwhelming purpose was a message of peace, consistent with the motives of the two groups that were the main organizers. Newsday said there was "more than 1,000". NYC Indy Media just had a very small piece on its site, and said nothing about numbers.

Before I left NYC, Megan gave me a copy of a new book about Peaceful Tomorrows. It's called "September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows: Turning Our Grief Into Action for Peace".

Back in Portsmouth, NH where I live, I arrived in time to join the two hour vigil and speak-out in Market Square. I told folks about the march and vigil in NYC, and showed them the Peaceful Tomorrows book. Just as I was finishing, a very drunk young man came up and started telling us what he thought. He said he had been to Iraq twice, loading the huge guns on war ships. He said he didn't know how many Iraqis he had killed. He said he couldn't understand what we were thinking, calling for peace and referring to war as terrorism. His angry, racist, repetitious talk was peppered with profanity-- sometime every other word. Such a contrast to what I had just seen in New York. For a few moments much of the hope that had been fostered by Peaceful Tomorrows and Ground Zero for Peace was washed away. But now it's back. I'm reading the Peaceful Tomorrows book.

Today we talked to two law students who have been at a conference on water issues in El Salvador for the past week. Countries from North, Central and South America participated. Based on what they were telling me, it sounds as though there's many common problems related to water, and not just accessibility and quality issues.

There's hording by those who have the economic and/or financial power to do so. There's interplay with other privatized utilities such as electricity--- so if your water pump is electric, and you can't afford to pay your bill, you may suddenly find yourself without electricity and water. The fact that a country may have a provision in their law that says individuals can't be denied water (Nicaragua has sucha provision) may not be as air tight as you'd hope. There are loopholes, and the young law students are already learning to watch out for carefully crafted language, illusory promises, and other such lawyerly manipulations of words.

The students expressed their concern over the concept of "letting the market decide". After all, "the market" is really just a relatively small group of individuals with interests of their own. The students inspired me with the sharpness of their minds, and their full belief in their ability to change things.

As we drove from the Network's office back to Mike & Ana's place in the barrio of La Primavera, I thought of the kind words the students gave me as we said goodbye. They were looking forward to seeing the documentary, and using it in the work of the Network. They seemed inspired, and I thought, who's inspiring who? I want to have as much belief as they do that my work can facilitate change. Maybe it's their age, maybe it's where they come from. Whatever the case, their enthusiasm is contageous.

If you have the chance to come to Nicaragua, I encourage it. Look up the Consumer Network. Look up Mike & Ana at Compas de Nicaragua. I intend to come back for a more relaxed visit sometime-- take in a baseball game, go to the islands on Lake Nicaragua, and revisit many places and people that have made this a great couple of weeks.

Their kindness, openness, and generosity (though so many of them have next to nothing to offer, they'll gladly give a visitor what they have) is such that I shared my amazement one evening in Managua with Paul Baker of the Nicaragua network. We marveled at the way people who had seen so much dispair, violence, disappointment, etc. could be so filled with joy, laughter, and easy going friendliness. How? And once again, I recall a similar conversation taking place between the members of the Voices in Basra delegation three years ago. How do these people have such resiliance?

I don't have an answer. What I have is an inspiration-- from the Nicaraguan people, from the Iraqi people, and I'm sure when I have the pleasure of meeting folks in other countries in the future, I'll be inspired once again.

Today as Mike Boudreau of Compas de Nicaragua, who has been an absolutely phenominal guide and translator for me during these two weeks, and I drove out of a town on the Pacific coast that has been suffering with some serious water access problems, I was thinking about the inspiration I've received from Nicaraguans. And suddenly I had the simple and profound revelation that I have no excuse to be any less happy than Nicaraguans. Or Iraqis.

In fact, it's arguable that me and my fellow USA-ers should be even happier. But I don't think we are. I don't get a sense or a vibe when I walk into a massive grocery store, or drive on our good roads with great big SUVs wizzing by me, or see people with blank expressions watching large screen TVs that we are happier, or even as happy as some of the poorest people on Earth.

In a couple of days I leave this place. It has been a great and productive visit-- I can't wait to start putting together this new video. There are things that I can't wait to get home to. And it is hard to leave here.

Nicaragua is, in some ways, not the same place it was 20 years ago. Back then, as several people here have mentioned, it seemed like everyone was involved and aware. An alert and knowledgeable citizenry. Now activists face the same kinds of apathy and ignorance that we face in the U.S., and I´m sure most activists in most places encounter. One Nicaraguan summed it up by saying that nowadays lots of people in his country just sit around watching stupid TV shows and listening to sappy songs. Sound familiar?

As passionate as he is about his work, Gonzalo faces the same frustrations. One glaring difference between Nicaragua and the U.S. is, of course, the immense poverty in Nicaragua. Unemployment is at 70%. The country is deep in debt. So, as Gonzalo says, in addition to general apathy, there is also the fact that most people are thinking about today--- What are they going to feed their family? How are they going to survive?

Gonzalo believes that the distinction should be made between privatization and investment. A person or group that invests in something rightfully has a say in how things are done. But when a company acquires something-- like water-- it´s theirs, and they´re going to do what they want with it. Of course, what they want is to make money.

If the Network can reach people, and help them to realize that the water, for now anyway, is theirs--- and if they can get people to invest there time and energy, even if they have no money, then that´s a great start for pressuring the government to act responsibly in the face of the World Bank and IMF´s pressure to privatize Nicaragua´s water. At the same time, the Network is working on the government to invest in its people by finding ways to improve water quality and access. One suggestion (among several) that Gonzalo is for involves government officials (who are paid on a par with U.S. federal politicians) cutting their pay to half of what it is today, and putting the money into making improvements. It may sound far fetched to us in the U.S., but here where the disparity in income is even more glaring for most people, it may be a pressure point that will get some results when combined with concerns over water which is so essential to life itself. Anyone can relate to the importance of water, so Gonzalo and the rest at the Network press on.

To date, I have talked to only one Nicaraguan who thinks that the solution to Nicaragua´s water woes might come from huge multinational companies taking things over. Distribution, quality, and other issues have been discussed with people from a variety of backgrounds. In relative terms, there is a tremendous amount of fresh water in Nicaragua, though much of it is badly in need of treatment.

Why the lack of trust in ´letting the market decide´? Well, one surprise for me has been that Nicaraguans don´t even need to look outside their own country to answer that question. I came here thinking that they might make reference to what happened in Cochabamba, Bolivia a couple of years ago when the people there protested increased prices and worse accessiblity under Bechtel than what they had with public water. (One aside; a very reliable source stressed to me recently that the people of Cochabamba did not ´riot´ as our mainstream media stated. They protested-- nonviolently.) In fact Nicaraguans can simply point to other utilities that have been privatized in their country recently. Higher prices, decreased accessibility. Why should they believe that water will be any different? And since water is so essential to life, why should they ´take their chances´?

There is also an invading hegemony here in Managua. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the invasion has already taken place. Pepsi, Coke, McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Shell, Esso... on and on it goes. They're here. There are Nicaraguans who see this as progress. There seem to be more who, no matter what their political position on the matter, simply cannot afford to take part in the changes in any way.

Part of an effective invasion seems to involve erasing as much of a culture or country's history as possible. I have already heard from many people that most of the young Nicaraguans have no sense of history. They have no knowledge of the revolution that took place in the late 70s/ early 80s. And now, though a Sandanista minority still exists, it seems they may have lost their vision. More on that later.

The Consumer Network is a very dynamic group who work on, among other issues, water privatization issues. The network has referred me to many people and places where I can get more information on concerns being raised by what seems to be the impending beginnings of privatization of Nicaragua's water. It will be a busy couple of weeks, and I am very excited about it!