MARCH 18, 2011 Benjie Oliveros
The peoples’ uprisings in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and the brewing unrest in Saudi Arabia have been in the headlines lately. Sadly, nothing much is being written about the reasons behind the uprisings except that people are rising up against their long-time rulers because of the worsening unemployment and poverty in these countries. And because these rulers have responded with violence and repression, the uprisings have likewise intensified.
Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi wrested power in 1969, but not being said much in the news is the fact that since 2003, Libya had been ruled by two prime ministers: Shukri Mohammed Ghanem from June 2003 to March 2006, then Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmudi from March 2006 up to the present. While it could be argued that Qaddafi still exerts considerable influence, he is no longer the head of state and has, thus, lost much of his power and authority,
The US has reportedly been observing the turn of events closely and in the case of Libya, has been gearing to act decisively as the self-proclaimed policeman of democracy in the world. What is not being said is the fact that the US exerts considerable influence on, and has been supporting and propping up these autocratic governments, with the exception of Libya.
Gone are the days when Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have been at odds with the US over its policy regarding Israel and the Middle East. Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have become the closest allies of the US in the Middle East. Egypt gets considerable support from the US. Israel and Egypt combined receive one-third of all US aid: military and economic. Jordan signed a non-belligerency agreement with Israel in 1994. Before that, it has signed a bilateral free trade agreement with the US in 2001, being the first Arab country to do so. And the US has been providing $6 billion in development assistance to Jordan since 1952. The US is the leading arms supplier to Saudi Arabia. In 2002, Saudi Arabia became the second largest trading partner of the US in the Middle East.
The US has a history of working with and providing USAID assistance to Yemen even when it was still divided into the Yemen Arab Republic and the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen. But the US later included the latter in its list of countries supporting terrorism and broke relations with it. During the border conflict between the two in 1979, the US supported the Yemen Arab Republic under President Ali Abdullah Saleh by cooperating with Saudi Arabia in supplying it with F-5 aircraft, tanks, vehicles and training. Saleh visited the US in 1990 and since then, the US has been providing Yemen, which was then united into one state, with development assistance which, in 1990 amounted to $42 million and by 2010 $48 million. Other US support to Yemen included assistance to agriculture, health , water, education and US government scholarships. While US assistance dipped temporarily after it was displeased with Yemen’s position on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, aid increased again since 2003. The US also actively supported the 1993 parliamentary elections and the 2006 presidential and local elections.
The US has developed a closer “strategic partnership” with Bahrain since 1991. The US provided defense, technical and military assistance to Bahrain’s armed forces during the Gulf War. In return, Bahrain provided basing and logistical support to US military incursions into Iraq. Bahrain also helped enforce the embargo on oil exports from Iraq ,its pilots participated in air strikes against Iraq during the Gulf War, and it has sent troops during the US occupation of Iraq in 2003.
Tunisia’s Zine Ben Ali was trained in military schools in the US specifically, the Senior Intelligence School (Maryland, USA) and the School for Anti-Aircraft Field Artillery (Texas, USA). Since March 26, 1957, Tunisia has been receiving economic and technical assistance from the US. The US and Tunisia have established a Joint Military Commission and have been regularly conducting joint military exercises. Tunisia hosts a regional office of the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which is being run by the US.
Since Qaddafi took power and nationalized the country’s oil industry, Libya had been at odds with the US. The US even sponsored several assassination attempts against Qaddafi, with one attempt claiming the life of his infant daughter and injured his wife and seven other children. However, Libya has granted a lot of concessions to the US since 2003, in an effort to prevent the US from attacking it and to push the UN to lift its sanctions and embargo on Libya. Libya’s adherence to IMF-WB impositions led to the lifting of the sanctions and the normalization of US-Libya relations. However, the US would not rest until Qaddafi has been totally removed from Libya and his influence in the government and the region has been effectively curtailed.
It is also true that these countries have been grappling with worsening unemployment and poverty problems. In Yemen, 40 percent of the population live on less than $2 a day, and a third of the population experience chronic hunger. In Tunisia, the official unemployment rate is 14 percent but analysts believe it is much higher. In fact, the protests were triggered after Mohammed Bouazizi, an unemployed man, poured gasoline on himself and lit a match in front of the town hall in the central Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. In Egypt, 40 percent of the population live on less than $2 a day and food prices soared by 17 percent. Egypt’s youth unemployment rate is at 25 percent. Jordan’s official unemployment figure is at 14 percent and the official poverty figure is at 15 percent. Unemployment in Saudi Arabia is around 10.9 percent. Bahrain claims that it has reduced unemployment in the country from 16 percent in 2002 to 3.7 percent in 2010 through its Unemployment Insurance System.
In Libya, from 1.4 percent in 1995, the unemployment rate soared to 15 percent in 2005 and 20.7 percent in 2009. The single biggest cause of unemployment in Libya is the privatization of state enterprises in 2003, which was a demand of the IMF-WB.
This is again what is not being said in news reports about the uprisings. All of these countries have been implementing the IMF-WB imposed Structural Adjustment Program. Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt were even touted as IMF success stories in the 1990s.
Tunisia passed a privatization law in 1989, privatized banks and insurance companies in August 1994 and by November 1994 created the Tunis Stock Exchange. Egypt, together with Colombia, was declared as the World Bank’s “top global reformer” in 2010 praising its performance during the previous four years. Egypt implemented aggressively the structural adjustment program beginning in March 1990. Import restrictions were removed and tariff reductions of up to 100 percent were implemented. By 1992, the IMF-WB instructed Egypt to remove its subsidies on basic food stuffs such as sugar and flour. The World Bank was so pleased with Egypt that it established an office in Cairo.
In compliance with the IMF-WB prescriptions, Jordan removed most fuel and agricultural subsidies, passed legislation targeting corruption, and begun tax reform. It liberalized trade by joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2000, signing an Association Agreement with the European Union (EU) in 2001, and signing the first bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) between the U.S. and an Arab country. Under the terms of the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which was signed in 2001, the United States and Jordan agreed to reduce tariffs toward completely eliminating import duties on nearly all products by 2010. In 1996, Jordan signed an “open skies” agreement with the US.
Yemen signed an agreement with the IMF-WB to implement a structural adjustment program right after the north-south unification in 1990. As part of the agreement, Yemen agreed to remove all subsidies, reduce the budget deficit, and float its currency. And of course, it agreed to liberalize trade and investments and deregulate the economy. When the government rescinded its agreement with Hunt Oil, which had been exploring and producing oil in Marib, a central Yemeni province, for 20 years, the company sued it before the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce in 2005. Hunt Oil was able to continue operations in Marib, which currently produces 120,000 barrels of oil per day.
Saudi Arabia has been the most resistant to IMF-WB impositions although it has applied membership with the World Trade Organization. As a precondition to the approval of its membership, the U.S. State Department is requiring the Saudi government to initiate “substantial reforms,” such as removing its tariffs on imports, opening up financial services (insurance and banking) to foreign investors, allowing competition in telecommunications and other services, and better protection of intellectual property rights.
Bahrain has been diversifying its economy from its dependence on oil exports along the lines of IMF-WB prescriptions, although it is not dependent on IMF-WB financing because it is able to use its income from oil exports. Bahrain awarded oil exploration rights to Malaysia’s Petronas and Chevron Texaco of the US. It has liberalized the banking and insurance sectors. Bahrain hosts over 370 offshore banking units and representative offices, as well as 65 American firms. It dismantled the state-owned Batelco and granted 63 telecommunications licenses. Bahrain has also been privatizing the power and water industries. It signed a bilateral free trade agreement with the US in 2006.
Libya has been implmenting the IMF-WB structural adjustment program since 2003, albeit slowly. The following is a description by the 2011 Index on Economic Freedom – being published by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation – of the “reforms” being implemented by Libya –
“Libya’s weighted average tariff rate was 0 percent in 2006. In 2005, the Libyan Customs Administration cancelled duties on more than 3,500 product categories; however, a flat 4 percent ‘service fee’ is levied on most imported products. Additional consumption and production taxes, import bans and restrictions, other import fees, non-transparent and discretionary regulation, aging infrastructure, state trade in petroleum products, subsidies, and customs corruption also add to the cost of trade.”
Thus, unemployment and poverty in these countries worsened in the context of an economic program patterned after the structural adjustment program of the IMF-WB and the liberalized and deregulated regimen of globalization.
The wiiw published a study by Doris A. Oberdabernig, University of Innsbruck, with the title “The Effects of Structural Adjustment Programs on Poverty and Income Distribution,” in March 2010. The study included Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, among 202 other countries, which included the Philippines. The conclusion was, to quote:
“This paper gives evidence that IMF programs tend to harm countries in terms of poverty levels and income distribution. Rich people seem to profit from the participation in IMF programs, poor people seem to lose, falling even deeper into poverty. One of the arguments of the IMF is that, although there might be a negative impact on poverty levels in the short run, the situation tends to improve in the long run. It does not disclose however, how long IMF programs need to show positive outcomes.”
Coupled with the debilitating crisis and spike in prices of basic goods and services, it is no wonder that uprisings are spreading like wild fire in North Africa and the Middle East. The only question is, where will it spread next?
Janess Ann J. Ellao On March 12, 2011
This was not the first time Gil Lebria, 37, had gone abroad for work. Unfortunately, this was also not the first time that he and others like him encountered a major problem that the Philippine government had ignored and, as a result, they were forced to return home earlier than planned, empty-handed.
“I feel terrible because for a while our situation in Libya had seemed better compared to my previous overseas postings,” Lebria told Bulatlat.com in an interview. He is “happy to be home” and to be “far from the trauma and the war” but he was worried and sad for other Filipinos left there to fend for themselves.
Even though Lebria’s overseas career had been unsuccessful from the start, he said he could not help but continue applying for jobs abroad each time he was repatriated. While many would think of him as hardheaded, he reasoned that working abroad is his only way of surviving because a job with decent salary is rare in the Philippines.
A Personal Struggle
Gil Lebria, Migrante International regional coordinator of Libya, returns home.
(Photo by Janess Ann J. Ellao / bulatlat.com)
When finally he landed a job as storekeeper in Saudi Arabia in 2000, his employer, unfortunately, did not remit their salaries for a year, forcing the migrant workers, including Lebria, to launch a company-wide strike. In retaliation, the company sent them to prison and, later, back to the Philippines.
Five years later, Lebria applied again and was deployed to Taiwan, where their company, like in Saudi Arabia, did not pay their salaries. On top of being denied their salaries, Lebria and his co-workers were also overcharged with placement fees and forced to agree to a “contract substitution.” They struck to protest this, succeeding in completely paralyzing the company’s operations. This forced their employer to favorably respond to the workers’ concerns but the company singled out Lebria, who had stood as the workers’ leader.
His employers tried twice to bribe him, he said, asking him to stop leading protest actions that paralyze the company’s operations. Lebria said the last bribe offered to him amounted to more than a million New Taiwan dollars. When he refused, the company guards abducted Lebria and 15 other overseas Filipino workers on Aug. 2, 2005 and were beaten up minutes before they were forced to take a flight back to Manila.
“I was vomiting blood,” Lebria told Bulatlat.com. It was just his luck that two doctors among the passengers demanded to have him brought to a hospital. Their airplane landed in Hongkong and Lebria was brought into the intensive care facility of St. Princess Margaret Hospital. He eventually returned to Taiwan to complain and file for damages against his former employers. Upon returning to the Philippines, he attended congressional inquiries about their case, which caused the recall of top Philippine diplomats in Taiwan.
After his complaint hearings in Taiwan was done, Lebria applied for work in Kuwait in 2006. This time, he became a coordinator for Migrante International, the largest OFW group. While working for the upliftment of conditions of migrants, the OFW group invariably criticizes the inept services of the Philippine embassy in handling cases of abuses against Filipino migrants in Kuwait.
On Sept. 3, 2008, the company’s project secretary told him that he had been fired. No reason was cited. Migrante-Middle East said they have basis to suspect that Lebria’s dismissal from work was instigated by “those who got furious with (his) exposé and statements” against the Philippine embassy, calling it a an “employment sabotage.”
Four months later, Lebria applied for work in Qatar. Even before he arrived there, his co-workers had already been asking their company to release their salaries on time. When Lebria arrived, being a natural leader, he spoke in behalf of the migrant workers. He ended up in a fight with his supervisor. He said he only defended himself from his supervisor who had beaten him up.
In Libya
Lebria went to Libya on April 24, 2010, working as head of the logistics department of a German-owned company. He said that his working conditions, after winning their struggle for their salaries, were relatively better. His salary was about $1,750 a month. But, he said, they had no choice but to move out of Libya when the violent protest actions erupted between supporters and critics of Moammar Gaddafi.
“Everyone (locals) was armed,” Lebria said, adding that if they get killed in the middle of the desert, “How would the embassy know of it?” He managed to contact the Philippine embassy in Libya, which promised them that they would send a vehicle to fetch the Filipinos from their worksite. But when the violence intensified, Lebria said they received a call from embassy officials, telling them they could no longer send vehicles due to security reasons. The Filipinos were instead advised to “remain calm” and to “stay inside their worksites” as they were in a relatively peaceful area compared to other areas.
“But we were not. We were in 100 percent danger,” Lebria said, referring to possible bombing of the oil tank of their company.
Gil Lebria has a history of protesting injustices against OFWs.
(Photo by Janess Ann J. Ellao / bulatlat.com)
“Is hunger an indication of safety? Water shortage? Losing contacts with our families? Is that considered as safety?” Lebria said.
On February 24, they left for Tripoli, capital of Libya, aboard a coaster provided by the company. Two days later, they left for Djerba, Tunisia. On March 1, they moved to Malta where they caught a flight back to Manila on March 4.
“If not for our company, all 430 (co-worker) Filipinos would have been dead by now,” Lebria said. He said it was their company who had paid for everything, from their food to hotel accommodation, as they exited Libya via Tunisia and then Malta. Their company also covered all their transportation fees, including their airfare to Manila.
Back home, he said the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) and other government agencies welcomed the OFWs and presented them to the media like some sort of trophy. They were given red caps with the OWWA acronym embroidered on it and they were given a special lane out of the airport.
During his stay in Tunisia, Lebria said that China sent two chartered planes to fetch their nationals. “When we arrived in the boundary, other nationals were welcomed by their diplomats, doctors and nurses. In our case, there was no one,” he said.
“It seems the whole world was alarmed with the violence in Libya, all except the Philippines,” Lebria said.
Future Plans?
So far, OWWA has offered a one-time cash grant of about $230 to each OFW. But Migrante International said that such program is not sustainable “in the light of the recent spate of price hikes of basic commodities.” The OFW group added that even as the conflict in the Middle Eas rages, the Department of Labor and Employment was already “providing them with options to go back abroad even to conflict-ridden Middle East countries”.
“We are gravely concerned that the Philippine government continues to send our workers abroad when they fail to protect the welfare of our OFWs during critical times,” Martinez said. “But above all, Malacañang has not offered any clear and concrete response.”
“The best economic alternative is to implement genuine agrarian reform program and nationalization of basic industries that would become our local economy’s backbone coupled with a well-planned, pro-people economic structural policy towards the desired economic development,” Migrante-Middle East regional coordinator John Monterona said.
Martinez said that the government should “get their act together and prepare in earnest” for implementing a truly sustainable program” for repatriated OFWs. Migrante-Middle East said that unless the government dropped its “neo-liberal policies of globalization such as liberalization, deregulation and privatization, the Filipino workers’ misery will worsen, pushing them to accept dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs overseas.”
When asked if he has plans to work abroad again, Lebria replied in jest: “Yes. To Afghanistan.”
February 25, 2011
Jerry E. Esplanada; Philippine Daily Inquirer
Unlike the Israelites’ escape from Egypt that was led by Moses and is commemorated each year by Jewish people worldwide during their Passover festival, the ongoing evacuation of Filipino workers from Libya is "not likely to be fondly remembered" by the workers and their families here.
So noted some militants and overseas Filipino workers' groups, who assailed the government's OFW repatriation program for being "ridiculously slow" and "usad-pagong (turtle’s pace)."
By Thursday, only 13 of the more than 26,000 Filipinos in Libya had been evacuated by staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
In an e-mail, Monterona claimed that "as early as last week, OfW groups like Migrante had been urging the Aquino administration to start evacuating our kababayan in Libya, reminding them ‘daig ng maagap ang masikap."
But "the government ignored our call," he said.
Terry Ridon, chair of the League of Filipino Students, said "the Aquino government is setting the stage for the slaughter of our OFWs in Libya."
"If a single OFW lays dead in Libya, President Aquino can fault no one but his administration for their foot-dragging on the urgent matter," said Ridon.
According to the LFS leader, "Aquino's lip service of action is not what OFWs need."
Renato Reyes Jr., secretary-general of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, said "it seems the DFA is not prepared or has adopted a wait-and-see attitude on the crisis."
"This doesn't seem to be the correct approach. Troubled OFWs need decisive action from the government. Immediate evacuation is in order," Reyes said.
ACT party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio said, "The crisis in Libya highlights yet again the appalling gap between the government's responsibility to protect the OFWs it exports as a matter of state policy and its actual ability to do so."
Tinio added, "there are over 26,000 OFWs in Libya and it is simply beyond the capability and resources of the Aquino government to ensure their safety."
For his part, Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino said, "For a country that claims to be a model of effective policy-making on labor migration and a country with a long history of sending workers abroad, our government seems to be inept, lax and ridiculously slow in evacuating our OFWs."
"This is a wake-up call for the government to review its policies on OFW repatriation and rescue missions in all countries where Pinoys are based," Palatino added.
Meanwhile, DFA spokesman J. Eduardo Malaya clarified that 34 Filipino employees who were earlier reported to have been abducted by unidentified Libyan nationals were safe.
"The Philippine Embassy in Tripoli received a call from Agustin Noble, who is part of the group. He reported they were not kidnapped. The suspects merely took their food provisions," Malaya said.
MARCH 18, 2011 Benjie Oliveros
The peoples’ uprisings in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and the brewing unrest in Saudi Arabia have been in the headlines lately. Sadly, nothing much is being written about the reasons behind the uprisings except that people are rising up against their long-time rulers because of the worsening unemployment and poverty in these countries. And because these rulers have responded with violence and repression, the uprisings have likewise intensified.
It is true that in most of these countries, those in power have been imposing their autocratic rule on its citizens for a long time: Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are ruled by their respective kings; Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak had been Egypt’s president for 29 years until he was ousted recently; Tunisia’s Zine Ben Ali was in power for 24 years before being ousted on January 14 this year. President Ali Abdullah Saleh has ruled Yemen for 32 years.
Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi wrested power in 1969, but not being said much in the news is the fact that since 2003, Libya had been ruled by two prime ministers: Shukri Mohammed Ghanem from June 2003 to March 2006, then Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmudi from March 2006 up to the present. While it could be argued that Qaddafi still exerts considerable influence, he is no longer the head of state and has, thus, lost much of his power and authority,
The US has reportedly been observing the turn of events closely and in the case of Libya, has been gearing to act decisively as the self-proclaimed policeman of democracy in the world. What is not being said is the fact that the US exerts considerable influence on, and has been supporting and propping up these autocratic governments, with the exception of Libya.
Gone are the days when Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have been at odds with the US over its policy regarding Israel and the Middle East. Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have become the closest allies of the US in the Middle East. Egypt gets considerable support from the US. Israel and Egypt combined receive one-third of all US aid: military and economic. Jordan signed a non-belligerency agreement with Israel in 1994. Before that, it has signed a bilateral free trade agreement with the US in 2001, being the first Arab country to do so. And the US has been providing $6 billion in development assistance to Jordan since 1952. The US is the leading arms supplier to Saudi Arabia. In 2002, Saudi Arabia became the second largest trading partner of the US in the Middle East.
The US has a history of working with and providing USAID assistance to Yemen even when it was still divided into the Yemen Arab Republic and the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen. But the US later included the latter in its list of countries supporting terrorism and broke relations with it. During the border conflict between the two in 1979, the US supported the Yemen Arab Republic under President Ali Abdullah Saleh by cooperating with Saudi Arabia in supplying it with F-5 aircraft, tanks, vehicles and training. Saleh visited the US in 1990 and since then, the US has been providing Yemen, which was then united into one state, with development assistance which, in 1990 amounted to $42 million and by 2010 $48 million. Other US support to Yemen included assistance to agriculture, health , water, education and US government scholarships. While US assistance dipped temporarily after it was displeased with Yemen’s position on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, aid increased again since 2003. The US also actively supported the 1993 parliamentary elections and the 2006 presidential and local elections.
The US has developed a closer “strategic partnership” with Bahrain since 1991. The US provided defense, technical and military assistance to Bahrain’s armed forces during the Gulf War. In return, Bahrain provided basing and logistical support to US military incursions into Iraq. Bahrain also helped enforce the embargo on oil exports from Iraq ,its pilots participated in air strikes against Iraq during the Gulf War, and it has sent troops during the US occupation of Iraq in 2003.
Tunisia’s Zine Ben Ali was trained in military schools in the US specifically, the Senior Intelligence School (Maryland, USA) and the School for Anti-Aircraft Field Artillery (Texas, USA). Since March 26, 1957, Tunisia has been receiving economic and technical assistance from the US. The US and Tunisia have established a Joint Military Commission and have been regularly conducting joint military exercises. Tunisia hosts a regional office of the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which is being run by the US.
Since Qaddafi took power and nationalized the country’s oil industry, Libya had been at odds with the US. The US even sponsored several assassination attempts against Qaddafi, with one attempt claiming the life of his infant daughter and injured his wife and seven other children. However, Libya has granted a lot of concessions to the US since 2003, in an effort to prevent the US from attacking it and to push the UN to lift its sanctions and embargo on Libya. Libya’s adherence to IMF-WB impositions led to the lifting of the sanctions and the normalization of US-Libya relations. However, the US would not rest until Qaddafi has been totally removed from Libya and his influence in the government and the region has been effectively curtailed.
It is also true that these countries have been grappling with worsening unemployment and poverty problems. In Yemen, 40 percent of the population live on less than $2 a day, and a third of the population experience chronic hunger. In Tunisia, the official unemployment rate is 14 percent but analysts believe it is much higher. In fact, the protests were triggered after Mohammed Bouazizi, an unemployed man, poured gasoline on himself and lit a match in front of the town hall in the central Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. In Egypt, 40 percent of the population live on less than $2 a day and food prices soared by 17 percent. Egypt’s youth unemployment rate is at 25 percent. Jordan’s official unemployment figure is at 14 percent and the official poverty figure is at 15 percent. Unemployment in Saudi Arabia is around 10.9 percent. Bahrain claims that it has reduced unemployment in the country from 16 percent in 2002 to 3.7 percent in 2010 through its Unemployment Insurance System.
In Libya, from 1.4 percent in 1995, the unemployment rate soared to 15 percent in 2005 and 20.7 percent in 2009. The single biggest cause of unemployment in Libya is the privatization of state enterprises in 2003, which was a demand of the IMF-WB.
This is again what is not being said in news reports about the uprisings. All of these countries have been implementing the IMF-WB imposed Structural Adjustment Program. Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Egypt were even touted as IMF success stories in the 1990s.
Tunisia passed a privatization law in 1989, privatized banks and insurance companies in August 1994 and by November 1994 created the Tunis Stock Exchange. Egypt, together with Colombia, was declared as the World Bank’s “top global reformer” in 2010 praising its performance during the previous four years. Egypt implemented aggressively the structural adjustment program beginning in March 1990. Import restrictions were removed and tariff reductions of up to 100 percent were implemented. By 1992, the IMF-WB instructed Egypt to remove its subsidies on basic food stuffs such as sugar and flour. The World Bank was so pleased with Egypt that it established an office in Cairo.
In compliance with the IMF-WB prescriptions, Jordan removed most fuel and agricultural subsidies, passed legislation targeting corruption, and begun tax reform. It liberalized trade by joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2000, signing an Association Agreement with the European Union (EU) in 2001, and signing the first bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) between the U.S. and an Arab country. Under the terms of the U.S.-Jordan FTA, which was signed in 2001, the United States and Jordan agreed to reduce tariffs toward completely eliminating import duties on nearly all products by 2010. In 1996, Jordan signed an “open skies” agreement with the US.
Yemen signed an agreement with the IMF-WB to implement a structural adjustment program right after the north-south unification in 1990. As part of the agreement, Yemen agreed to remove all subsidies, reduce the budget deficit, and float its currency. And of course, it agreed to liberalize trade and investments and deregulate the economy. When the government rescinded its agreement with Hunt Oil, which had been exploring and producing oil in Marib, a central Yemeni province, for 20 years, the company sued it before the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce in 2005. Hunt Oil was able to continue operations in Marib, which currently produces 120,000 barrels of oil per day.
Saudi Arabia has been the most resistant to IMF-WB impositions although it has applied membership with the World Trade Organization. As a precondition to the approval of its membership, the U.S. State Department is requiring the Saudi government to initiate “substantial reforms,” such as removing its tariffs on imports, opening up financial services (insurance and banking) to foreign investors, allowing competition in telecommunications and other services, and better protection of intellectual property rights.
Bahrain has been diversifying its economy from its dependence on oil exports along the lines of IMF-WB prescriptions, although it is not dependent on IMF-WB financing because it is able to use its income from oil exports. Bahrain awarded oil exploration rights to Malaysia’s Petronas and Chevron Texaco of the US. It has liberalized the banking and insurance sectors. Bahrain hosts over 370 offshore banking units and representative offices, as well as 65 American firms. It dismantled the state-owned Batelco and granted 63 telecommunications licenses. Bahrain has also been privatizing the power and water industries. It signed a bilateral free trade agreement with the US in 2006.
Libya has been implmenting the IMF-WB structural adjustment program since 2003, albeit slowly. The following is a description by the 2011 Index on Economic Freedom – being published by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation – of the “reforms” being implemented by Libya –
“Libya’s weighted average tariff rate was 0 percent in 2006. In 2005, the Libyan Customs Administration cancelled duties on more than 3,500 product categories; however, a flat 4 percent ‘service fee’ is levied on most imported products. Additional consumption and production taxes, import bans and restrictions, other import fees, non-transparent and discretionary regulation, aging infrastructure, state trade in petroleum products, subsidies, and customs corruption also add to the cost of trade.”
Thus, unemployment and poverty in these countries worsened in the context of an economic program patterned after the structural adjustment program of the IMF-WB and the liberalized and deregulated regimen of globalization.
The wiiw published a study by Doris A. Oberdabernig, University of Innsbruck, with the title “The Effects of Structural Adjustment Programs on Poverty and Income Distribution,” in March 2010. The study included Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, among 202 other countries, which included the Philippines. The conclusion was, to quote:
“This paper gives evidence that IMF programs tend to harm countries in terms of poverty levels and income distribution. Rich people seem to profit from the participation in IMF programs, poor people seem to lose, falling even deeper into poverty. One of the arguments of the IMF is that, although there might be a negative impact on poverty levels in the short run, the situation tends to improve in the long run. It does not disclose however, how long IMF programs need to show positive outcomes.”
Coupled with the debilitating crisis and spike in prices of basic goods and services, it is no wonder that uprisings are spreading like wild fire in North Africa and the Middle East. The only question is, where will it spread next?
Janess Ann J. Ellao On March 12, 2011
This was not the first time Gil Lebria, 37, had gone abroad for work. Unfortunately, this was also not the first time that he and others like him encountered a major problem that the Philippine government had ignored and, as a result, they were forced to return home earlier than planned, empty-handed.
“I feel terrible because for a while our situation in Libya had seemed better compared to my previous overseas postings,” Lebria told Bulatlat.com in an interview. He is “happy to be home” and to be “far from the trauma and the war” but he was worried and sad for other Filipinos left there to fend for themselves.
Even though Lebria’s overseas career had been unsuccessful from the start, he said he could not help but continue applying for jobs abroad each time he was repatriated. While many would think of him as hardheaded, he reasoned that working abroad is his only way of surviving because a job with decent salary is rare in the Philippines.
A Personal Struggle
Lebria’s first two attempts to apply for a job abroad – first to Australia, then to Taiwan — were both frustrated by illegal recruiters. He spent nearly $2,300 per application only to find out the recruiters were fake. This, he said, saddled his mother with huge debts and, this, in turn, pushed him even more to find work abroad. Debts had to be paid, he said.
Gil Lebria, Migrante International regional coordinator of Libya, returns home.
(Photo by Janess Ann J. Ellao / bulatlat.com)
(Photo by Janess Ann J. Ellao / bulatlat.com)
When finally he landed a job as storekeeper in Saudi Arabia in 2000, his employer, unfortunately, did not remit their salaries for a year, forcing the migrant workers, including Lebria, to launch a company-wide strike. In retaliation, the company sent them to prison and, later, back to the Philippines.
Five years later, Lebria applied again and was deployed to Taiwan, where their company, like in Saudi Arabia, did not pay their salaries. On top of being denied their salaries, Lebria and his co-workers were also overcharged with placement fees and forced to agree to a “contract substitution.” They struck to protest this, succeeding in completely paralyzing the company’s operations. This forced their employer to favorably respond to the workers’ concerns but the company singled out Lebria, who had stood as the workers’ leader.
His employers tried twice to bribe him, he said, asking him to stop leading protest actions that paralyze the company’s operations. Lebria said the last bribe offered to him amounted to more than a million New Taiwan dollars. When he refused, the company guards abducted Lebria and 15 other overseas Filipino workers on Aug. 2, 2005 and were beaten up minutes before they were forced to take a flight back to Manila.
“I was vomiting blood,” Lebria told Bulatlat.com. It was just his luck that two doctors among the passengers demanded to have him brought to a hospital. Their airplane landed in Hongkong and Lebria was brought into the intensive care facility of St. Princess Margaret Hospital. He eventually returned to Taiwan to complain and file for damages against his former employers. Upon returning to the Philippines, he attended congressional inquiries about their case, which caused the recall of top Philippine diplomats in Taiwan.
After his complaint hearings in Taiwan was done, Lebria applied for work in Kuwait in 2006. This time, he became a coordinator for Migrante International, the largest OFW group. While working for the upliftment of conditions of migrants, the OFW group invariably criticizes the inept services of the Philippine embassy in handling cases of abuses against Filipino migrants in Kuwait.
On Sept. 3, 2008, the company’s project secretary told him that he had been fired. No reason was cited. Migrante-Middle East said they have basis to suspect that Lebria’s dismissal from work was instigated by “those who got furious with (his) exposé and statements” against the Philippine embassy, calling it a an “employment sabotage.”
Four months later, Lebria applied for work in Qatar. Even before he arrived there, his co-workers had already been asking their company to release their salaries on time. When Lebria arrived, being a natural leader, he spoke in behalf of the migrant workers. He ended up in a fight with his supervisor. He said he only defended himself from his supervisor who had beaten him up.
In Libya
Yet, Lebria still considers his experience in Libya better than what he had gone through before in other places. “It was no ordinary war,” he said. “Everyone, even those in the desert, were affected. We were harassed (by the locals) because they were going hungry and knew that our company has sufficient food supply.”
Lebria went to Libya on April 24, 2010, working as head of the logistics department of a German-owned company. He said that his working conditions, after winning their struggle for their salaries, were relatively better. His salary was about $1,750 a month. But, he said, they had no choice but to move out of Libya when the violent protest actions erupted between supporters and critics of Moammar Gaddafi.
“Everyone (locals) was armed,” Lebria said, adding that if they get killed in the middle of the desert, “How would the embassy know of it?” He managed to contact the Philippine embassy in Libya, which promised them that they would send a vehicle to fetch the Filipinos from their worksite. But when the violence intensified, Lebria said they received a call from embassy officials, telling them they could no longer send vehicles due to security reasons. The Filipinos were instead advised to “remain calm” and to “stay inside their worksites” as they were in a relatively peaceful area compared to other areas.
“But we were not. We were in 100 percent danger,” Lebria said, referring to possible bombing of the oil tank of their company.
Gil Lebria has a history of protesting injustices against OFWs.
(Photo by Janess Ann J. Ellao / bulatlat.com)
(Photo by Janess Ann J. Ellao / bulatlat.com)
“Is hunger an indication of safety? Water shortage? Losing contacts with our families? Is that considered as safety?” Lebria said.
On February 24, they left for Tripoli, capital of Libya, aboard a coaster provided by the company. Two days later, they left for Djerba, Tunisia. On March 1, they moved to Malta where they caught a flight back to Manila on March 4.
“If not for our company, all 430 (co-worker) Filipinos would have been dead by now,” Lebria said. He said it was their company who had paid for everything, from their food to hotel accommodation, as they exited Libya via Tunisia and then Malta. Their company also covered all their transportation fees, including their airfare to Manila.
Back home, he said the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) and other government agencies welcomed the OFWs and presented them to the media like some sort of trophy. They were given red caps with the OWWA acronym embroidered on it and they were given a special lane out of the airport.
During his stay in Tunisia, Lebria said that China sent two chartered planes to fetch their nationals. “When we arrived in the boundary, other nationals were welcomed by their diplomats, doctors and nurses. In our case, there was no one,” he said.
“It seems the whole world was alarmed with the violence in Libya, all except the Philippines,” Lebria said.
Future Plans?
Now that Lebria is back in the Philippines, he is attending congressional inquiries regarding the handling of the Department of Foreign Affairs and other government agencies of the repatriation of OFWs from the strife-torn country.
So far, OWWA has offered a one-time cash grant of about $230 to each OFW. But Migrante International said that such program is not sustainable “in the light of the recent spate of price hikes of basic commodities.” The OFW group added that even as the conflict in the Middle Eas rages, the Department of Labor and Employment was already “providing them with options to go back abroad even to conflict-ridden Middle East countries”.
“We are gravely concerned that the Philippine government continues to send our workers abroad when they fail to protect the welfare of our OFWs during critical times,” Martinez said. “But above all, Malacañang has not offered any clear and concrete response.”
“The best economic alternative is to implement genuine agrarian reform program and nationalization of basic industries that would become our local economy’s backbone coupled with a well-planned, pro-people economic structural policy towards the desired economic development,” Migrante-Middle East regional coordinator John Monterona said.
Martinez said that the government should “get their act together and prepare in earnest” for implementing a truly sustainable program” for repatriated OFWs. Migrante-Middle East said that unless the government dropped its “neo-liberal policies of globalization such as liberalization, deregulation and privatization, the Filipino workers’ misery will worsen, pushing them to accept dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs overseas.”
When asked if he has plans to work abroad again, Lebria replied in jest: “Yes. To Afghanistan.”
February 25, 2011
Jerry E. Esplanada; Philippine Daily Inquirer
Jerry E. Esplanada; Philippine Daily Inquirer
Unlike the Israelites’ escape from Egypt that was led by Moses and is commemorated each year by Jewish people worldwide during their Passover festival, the ongoing evacuation of Filipino workers from Libya is "not likely to be fondly remembered" by the workers and their families here.
So noted some militants and overseas Filipino workers' groups, who assailed the government's OFW repatriation program for being "ridiculously slow" and "usad-pagong (turtle’s pace)."
"Moses and company were a lot faster in freeing the Israelites from slavery in Egypt....To think the Moses-led evacuation took place during biblical times," said John Leonard Monterona, regional coordinator of the Riyadh-based OFW group Migrante-Middle East.
By Thursday, only 13 of the more than 26,000 Filipinos in Libya had been evacuated by staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
In an e-mail, Monterona claimed that "as early as last week, OfW groups like Migrante had been urging the Aquino administration to start evacuating our kababayan in Libya, reminding them ‘daig ng maagap ang masikap."
But "the government ignored our call," he said.
Terry Ridon, chair of the League of Filipino Students, said "the Aquino government is setting the stage for the slaughter of our OFWs in Libya."
"If a single OFW lays dead in Libya, President Aquino can fault no one but his administration for their foot-dragging on the urgent matter," said Ridon.
According to the LFS leader, "Aquino's lip service of action is not what OFWs need."
"He should immediately and unconditionally send chartered flights to repatriate our migrant workers from Libya," Ridon said.
Renato Reyes Jr., secretary-general of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, said "it seems the DFA is not prepared or has adopted a wait-and-see attitude on the crisis."
"This doesn't seem to be the correct approach. Troubled OFWs need decisive action from the government. Immediate evacuation is in order," Reyes said.
ACT party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio said, "The crisis in Libya highlights yet again the appalling gap between the government's responsibility to protect the OFWs it exports as a matter of state policy and its actual ability to do so."
Tinio added, "there are over 26,000 OFWs in Libya and it is simply beyond the capability and resources of the Aquino government to ensure their safety."
For his part, Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino said, "For a country that claims to be a model of effective policy-making on labor migration and a country with a long history of sending workers abroad, our government seems to be inept, lax and ridiculously slow in evacuating our OFWs."
"This is a wake-up call for the government to review its policies on OFW repatriation and rescue missions in all countries where Pinoys are based," Palatino added.
Meanwhile, DFA spokesman J. Eduardo Malaya clarified that 34 Filipino employees who were earlier reported to have been abducted by unidentified Libyan nationals were safe.
"The Philippine Embassy in Tripoli received a call from Agustin Noble, who is part of the group. He reported they were not kidnapped. The suspects merely took their food provisions," Malaya said.
No comments:
Post a Comment