-----------------------------------------------------------------
RROJAS DATABANK Vol. 1, No. 3/ 1995
( This set of articles on transnational corporations is
background reading for Dr. Robinson Rojas' teaching
on development )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS: THE RECORD [1]
1.- Corporate Greenwash
By Robert Weissman
2.- The World Bank's Assault on the Environment
By Vandana Shiva
3.- RTZ: The British Mining Monster
By Roger Moody
4.- Apartheid's Lingering Ties: Deceptive Divestors
By John Summa
5.- The Future's so Bright...You've Got to Wear Shades
By Kelley Griffin
6.- Global Dumping Ground: The International Traffic in Hazardous Waste
By Center for Investigative Reporting and Bill Moyers
Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks Press, 1990 144 pages,
Reviewed by David Lapp
7.- GE: Bringing Good Things to an End
By Patricia Kelly
8.- Israel: Arming Apartheid
By Samantha Sparks
9.- Net factor income from abroad (con.1992 US$)(millions)
(207 countries)
By Robinson Rojas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR VOLUME 11, NUMBER 4, APRIL 1990
1.- Corporate Greenwash
CHARGING THAT CORPORATE polluters are "trying to clean up their
image but not their act," environmentalists denounced the Earth
Tech '90 Technology Fair, held April 4-8 at the foot of the U.S.
Capitol. Greenpeace, the Nuclear Information and Resource
Service (NIRS), the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S.
PIRG), the Citizen's Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes and
Earth First! joined in condemning the fair.
Advertised as showcasing "the technologies, products and
strategies that may help achieve environmentally sustainable
development," Earth Tech featured displays from dozens of
companies, as well as several government agencies and
environmental organizations. Among the exhibitors at Earth Tech
were the American Nuclear Society, Arco, Bechtel Group, Inc.,
Chevron Corp., Du Pont, the National Coal Association, the
Society of the Plastics Industry and Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Earth Tech also included displays from several companies, such
as U.S. Windpower, involved in the development of "clean"
technologies.
By participating in Earth Tech, held in the weeks leading up to
the April 22 celebration of Earthday, some of the nation's worst
polluters sought to achieve "innocence by association,"
according to environmental critics. The environmentalists said
the corporations participating in Earth Tech tried to project
the image of being ecologically minded, even as they continue
their environmentally destructive practices. The largest
corporate polluters "sure look good, all dressed up here in
America's front yard," said Peter Bahouth, executive director of
Greenpeace, but "at the same time it's business as usual with
their pollution in our backyards."
The sponsors of Earth Tech dismissed such comments. Ken Murphy,
the executive director of the Environmental and Energy Study
Institute, the sponsor of Earth Tech, said the idea that
corporations could obscure their poor environmental records
through involvement with events like Earth Tech "assumes a level
of naivete on the part of the media, politicians and the public
which I just don't think exists." Earth Tech did not screen
participating companies, Murphy stated. Instead, Earth Tech co-
chairmen Senators John Heinz, R-Pa, and Al Gore, D-Tenn, "issued
a challenge to American business, non-profit organizations and
government agencies to come to Washington and show your stuff."
The plastics industry had a particularly large presence at the
fair, touting plastic as a recyclable substance. Bonnie Merrill
Linebach, director of external communications for the Society of
the Plastics Industry (SPI), said SPI attended Earth Tech to
"spread the word on plastic recyclability and the exciting
possibilities" it creates. David Rappaport, toxics campaign
director for Greenpeace, said it is understandable that
"plastics recycling is very exciting to the plastics industry,
since it is used as a tool to ensure the industry's continued
growth." He explained that the concept of plastics recycling is
misleading, because it does not conserve resources in the way
other forms of recycling do. "Because most recycled plastic is
not used for its original purpose, [but for] lower grade and in
many cases new purposes," he said, recycling requires the
"continued generation of as much plastic as [was produced in]
the first place."
Du Pont added to SPI's promotional efforts, displaying benches
made from recyclable plastic. And Earth Tech itself encouraged
visitors to separate their trash into two sets of trash cans:
one for ostensibly recyclable plastic; a second for other trash.
Du Pont also highlighted its phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) production. A Du Pont spokesman at Earth Tech acknowledged
that Du Pont had been slow to explore alternatives to CFCs, but
claimed that scientific concern about the dangers of CFCs dipped
in the mid-1980s and that no corporations realized the need to
consider substitutes. Carolyn Hartmann, a staff attorney with
U.S. PIRG, countered that Du Pont has been slow in phasing out
CFCs and was especially to blame for the lack of alternatives.
"Du Pont halted its search for alternatives for approximately
five years in the early 1980s," Hartmann stated. "In 1980, Du
Pont and other CFC producers and users joined together to form
the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy to fight against CFC
regulations. This certainly does not support Du Pont's claim
that regulatory concern was on the decline. Five years of
important research was lost, and today Du Pont cites the lack of
alternatives as a primary reason for why we cannot phase out
CFCs before 2000."
The nuclear power industry also maintained a high profile at
Earth Tech. At least 10 companies closely involved with
commercial nuclear power either had booths at the technology
fair or served on the Earth Tech organizing committee. The
American Nuclear Society (ANS) handed out a question and answer
booklet which attacked the idea of energy conservation by
asserting that having "more energy and more electricity [is]
very important. If we limit the amount of energy we have, we
lose our freedom and our democratic society." The booklet went
on to claim that "of all the electricity generating methods,
nuclear is the cleanest and least damaging to our environment.
This is true from mining of the uranium ore to final disposal of
waste." Environmental critics blasted the views presented by the
ANS, saying they directly contradict the record of the nuclear
power industry. "Nuclear power is one of the dirtiest energy
forms ever devised," stated Justine Gulledge of NIRS. "Nuclear
power kills people and contaminates the environment at every
step of the fuel chain: from mining and milling, through
processing, enrichment and fuel fabrication, to electrical
production and radioactive waste storage."
To counter the views of the worst polluting participants,
Greenpeace activists donned white lab coats and tried to stand
near targeted displays so they could speak to visitors. When
security officers attempted to escort the protestors out, they
handcuffed themselves to the displays. Nineteen were arrested
for demonstrating without a permit.
Earth Tech's environmental critics view the event as a precursor
to a burgeoning corporate strategy of capitalizing on and co-
opting growing public concern about the environment. "As
environmental awareness increases and citizens everywhere begin
to put polluters' feet to the fire, corporate America has
engaged in a campaign to paint [itself] green," commented
Bahouth. "To the polluters under the tents, you can be sure that
there are those who will continue to track your records on the
environment and won't let the public be fooled by your
greenwashing."
- By Robert Weissman
-----------------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR VOLUME 11, NUMBER 4, APRIL 1990
2.- THE WORLD BANK'S ASSAULT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
By Vandana Shiva
Dr. Vandana Shiva, originally a physicist and philosopher of
science, is now an activist/researcher on ecological issues. She
is part of the Third World Network. Her books include Staying
Alive: Women, Ecology and Development in India and the
forthcoming The Violence of the Green Revolution.
The World Bank's latest assault on the environment comes in
strange trappings. Although wrapped in green rhetoric, the World
Bank's new "environmental" projects bear striking resemblance to
the ecologically devastating projects it has funded as part of
the so-called "green revolution," which promoted the widespread
use of chemical-intensive agriculture in the Third World.
Tropical forests and the Third World countries that house them
are the targets of the Bank's new brand of environmentalism.
The Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP) is an $8 billion program
designed and implemented by the World Bank, World Resources
Institute, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization
and the United Nations Development Program. The program was
designed to protect the tropical forests and the tremendous
biodiversity contained within them. Yet the TFAP projects, in
conception and operation, are advancing deforestation and the
destruction of genetic diversity.
TFAP is replete with contradictory impulses. As a review done by
Marcus Colchester and Larry Lohmann for the World Rainforest
Movement (WRM) shows, most projects under this plan are
accelerating deforestation through commercial logging and
industrial forestry. The TFAP, for example, proposes a 400-600
percent increase in logging in the Peruvian Amazon and a 250
percent increase in industrial forestry in Nepalese Himalaya.
Single-species, single-commodity production plantations have
been the basis of the Bank's green revolution in forestry. But
monoculture plantations wreak havoc with the local environment
and people. They displace diverse tree species which fulfil
local needs for fodder, food, fertilizer, fuel and other
commodities. The planting of eucalyptus, a pulpwood species, is
a shining example of the faulty rationale behind the Bank's
lending. It has been the Bank's favorite monoculture and has
been planted, with World Bank encouragement, in countries
throughout Southeast Asia. "Greening" with eucalyptus leads to
desertification because the trees require large amounts of water
while the trees return few nutrients to the soil (see
Multinational Monitor, June 1987).
Ironically, the Bank views the continued spread of monocultures
and genetic uniformity as a means for "biodiversity
conservation." John Spears of the World Bank, for example, has
recommended intensification of monoculture practices in
agriculture and forestry for preserving biological diversity in
Asia. This conflicting approach destroys diversity in production
processes and attempts to preserve it in small "set-aside" plots
which are to remain undisturbed. Biodiversity cannot be ensured,
however, unless production itself is based on a policy of
preserving diversity.
The fundamental problem with the World Bank's approach is that
its "only way of valuing the forest is for it to benefit the big
companies," Lohmann told Multinational Monitor. According to
Lohmann, "The Bank says that in order for the forests to be
saved they're going to have to pay their way." In other words,
interest in preserving the forests will only occur if they yield
immediate financial rewards for forestry and other interested
companies and for indebted Third World governments.
Lohmann argues that the forests "are already paying their way"
environmentally and financially for indigenous people who earn
their livelihoods from them. He says that indigenous concerns
should play a decisive role in any effort to conserve the
forests.
The World Bank, however, "exists within a mindset beyond which
it can't see," according to Suzanne Head, a program manager for
the Rainforest Action Network. She says the Bank is "trying to
cure the illness with the same poison that caused it."
Critics argue that the Bank has not addressed the problems of
landlessness and land use which underlie deforestation and that
the programs it funds benefit local elites, not the environment
or those dependent on it. According to Korinna Horta, an
economic analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund who has
analyzed Cameroon's participation in TFAP, the Bank's priorities
are such that it "can't afford to lend just for the environment.
It must lend for things that get a rapid and easy [financial]
return," such as timber. The Bank's model of forest exploitation
is integrally related to the way the program was designed and
implemented. The WRM review concludes that TFAP's failure to
address the root causes of deforestation is primarily a result
of its emphasis on top-down planning. Colchester and Lohmann
contend that grassroots non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and indigenous peoples have very little input into TFAP planning
and implementation, and that severe restrictions have been
placed on access to relevant documents.
Ecologically sound management of the forest will require a
"devolution of power to the people who have the greatest
interest in the forest," such as indigenous forest dwellers and
those groups that exist on the periphery of the forests, Lohmann
says. He and other critics of TFAP want to see "the end of
imposed, top-down so-called solutions" to which, he believes,
the Bank is totally committed.
TFAP's destructiveness could be curtailed if NGOs were more
actively involved and provided with early and consistent access
to documents, says Horta. Specific arrangements between the
countries and the World Bank, however, are "all state secrets,"
she says.
Even proponents of TFAP concede that the system needs to be
opened. "My conviction is that the process should be as open as
possible both in planning and implementation," says Ralph
Roberts, director of forestry and conservation for the Canadian
International Development Agency and chairperson of the TFAP
forestry advisors group. Roberts even suggests that the advisory
group could disseminate TFAP planning documents to NGOs if
recipient countries cannot afford to do so.
Proponents disagree, however, with TFAP's critics on the origins
of the plan's problems and on the means of correcting them. For
instance, Roberts argues that "commercializing the forests is a
legitimate pursuit if done in a reasonable manner." He says that
it is a "ridiculous proposition" to stop all logging. "You're
not going to preserve two billion hectares of tropical forest,"
he says. Roberts acknowledges the need for reform of the Bank's
role, but does not believe TFAP should be abandoned completely.
World Bank staff say they are aware of TFAP's shortcomings and
fully support the idea of a review process. Raymond Rowe, senior
forestry advisor at the Bank, emphasizes, however, the economic
imperatives of forest resource issues. "There's a continual
trade-off between the conservation and production aspects of
forestry," he says. Since "developing countries have few
resources [other than] big forests, they will tap those
resources."
The consensus of the critics is that TFAP is fatally flawed and
should be financially suspended until a wholesale restructuring,
incorporating a grassroots perspective, is undertaken.
The World Bank and the green revolution
TFAP is not the first time that the Bank has played a key role
in obscuring the reality of, and thereby legitimizing, an
assault on biodiversity. The so-called "green revolution" in
agriculture, which the World Bank was instrumental in spreading
to the Third World through credits and advice, was an early
example of such a program.
The World Bank's involvement in the green revolution began in
1964 when it sent a mission headed by Bernard Bell to India. The
Bell mission called for a devaluation of Indian currency,
liberalization of trade controls and greater emphasis on
chemical-intensive and capital-intensive agriculture.
The Bank provided the credit that was needed to replace the low-
cost, low-input agriculture in existence with an agricultural
system that was both capital- and chemical-intensive. In a 1983
publication, the World Bank recalled the role that the
International Development Agency (IDA), the Bank's soft-loan
arm, played: "A number of foreign experts working in India for
the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations began pressing the Indian
government to import high yielding wheat varieties .... The
Indian government decided that the potential of the new
technology far outweighed the risks.... IDA was closely involved
with this decision."
The foreign exchange component of the green revolution strategy
for the five-year plant period (1966-1971) was projected to be
about $2.8 billion. This was more than six times the total
amount allocated to agriculture during the preceding third plan.
Most of the foreign exchange was to be spent on imports of
fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and farm machinery. World Bank
credit subsidized these imports. As a corollary to making the
credit available, the World Bank, along with the U.S. Agency for
International Development, exerted pressure to obtain favorable
conditions for foreign investment in India's fertilizer
industry, import liberalization and the elimination of most
domestic controls. The Bank financed the destruction of genetic
diversity in Indian agriculture most directly by advocating the
replacement of diverse varieties of food crops with monocultures
of imported varieties of seeds.
The preservation of biodiversity is vital for local populations
and ecosystems, as Jeffrey McNeely, Kenton Miller, Walter Reid,
Russell Mittermeier and Timothy Werner describe in the journal
Environment. Ecosystems suffering from a loss of biodiversity
"are losing their capacity to support the human populations
dependent upon them. [T]his degradation is exacting further
costs through soil erosion, siltation of reservoirs, local
climate changes, desertification and loss of productivity." The
introduction of monocultures exacerbates social inequities by
favoring wealthier farmers, they write. "[T]he substitution of
high-response cultivars for local varieties ... often handicap
small farmers who cannot afford the necessary expensive inputs
like fertilizer and pesticides."
In 1969, the Terai Seed Corporation was started with a $13
million World Bank loan. This was followed by two National Seeds
Project (NSP) loans. This program led to the homogenization and
corporatization of India's agricultural system. The Bank
provided NSP $41 million between 1974 and 1978. The projects
were intended to develop state institutions and to create a new
infrastructure for increasing the production of green revolution
seed varieties.
In 1988, the World Bank gave India's seed sector a fourth loan
to make it more "market responsive." The $150 million loan aimed
to privatize the seed industry and open India to multinational
seed corporations. Jack Doyle, director of the Agriculture &
Biotechnology Project for Friends of the Earth, notes, "The
first recognition that there was money to be made in the green
revolution came from the value placed on the seed itself." After
the loan, India announced a New Seed Policy which allowed
multinational corporations to penetrate fully a market that
previously was not as directly accessible. Sandoz, Continental,
Cargill, Pioneer, Hoechst and Ciba Geigy now are among the
multinational corporations that have major interests in India's
seed sector.
By making credit available for the purchase of seeds and
controlling the information and research system, the World Bank
made the green revolution appear to be the only available
alternative for countries attempting to meet their food needs.
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), an umbrella organization, was launched in 1970 on the
initiative of the Bank and has its offices in the World Bank.
The expansion of the international institutes coincided with the
erosion of the knowledge systems of Third World peasants and
Third World research institutes. The International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), for example, was set up in 1960 by the Ford
and Rockefeller foundations, nine years after India had
established its own highly regarded institute, the Central Rice
Research Institute (CRRI) in Cuttack. The Cuttack Institute was
working on rice research-based on indigenous knowledge and
genetic resources, a strategy clearly in conflict with the goals
of the U.S.-controlled IRRI. The director of the CRRI was
removed, under international pressure when he resisted handing
over his collection of rice germplasm to IRRI. He had also asked
for restraint on the hurried introduction of the High Yielding
Varieties (HYV) of rice from IRRI
-------------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR VOLUME 11, NUMBER 4, APRIL 1990
3.- RIO TINTO ZINC: The British Mining Monster
By Roger Moody
Roger Moody is director of Minewatch, a new community-based
consultancy on mining, land-rights and the environment. His
full-length study of RTZ, Plunder, will be published this fall.
In 1981, the Canadian subsidiary of the Rio Tinto Zinc
Corporation (RTZ), along with Denison Mines, negotiated a
ground-breaking agreement with the United Steelworkers of
America, empowering the union to appoint safety inspectors at
its Elliot Lake uranium mines. For RTZ, the agreement was a rare
concession to demands that human needs be given consideration in
the company's operations. Even so, the compact was reached only
after a government commission revealed that Elliot Lake miners
were laboring regularly under radioactive exposures seven times
higher than is considered safe and three subsequent years of
union agitation.
RTZ is a truly global corporation, however, and many of its
operations affect communities more vulnerable and less able to
protect themselves than the Canadian mineworkers. With 52 mines
in 40 countries, RTZ is one of the world's most powerful mining
companies. According to investment analysts Morgan Stanley
Capital International, RTZ's market capitalization stood at $5.7
billion in June 1988, putting it head and shoulders above its
competition. In addition, RTZ's 40 percent-owned Australian
associate, CRA, Ltd. ranked sixth with assets of almost $4
billion.
Having acquired a large number of properties in related
industries, RTZ with its subsidiary companies--known as the
Group--has interests in almost every major metal and fuel,
including aluminum and its products, borax, coal, copper, gold,
industrial chemicals, iron ore, lead, silver, specialty steels,
tin, uranium and zinc. A 1989 purchase brought RTZ most of
British Petroleum (BP) Minerals' mines and prospects, including
Kennecott Copper with its plum asset, the Bingham Canyon copper
mine in Utah, as well as several important North American and
Asian gold interests. The London-based Financial Times now rates
RTZ as the third most important gold producer outside of South
Africa. But this is only a small side-venture for RTZ; even
collapsing gold prices would leave the company's fortunes
largely intact. RTZ's core assets are sunk in minerals which,
while subject to cyclical fluctuations that have seen the
downfall of smaller miners, regularly return huge profits to a
company large enough to wait out the downturns.
RTZ excels in mining and marketing a range of minerals from one
lode, persisting in exploiting mines not generally viewed as
prospective money-makers and in overcoming political obstacles
to its projects. RTZ's financial success also stems from low
labor costs, inadequate environmental regulations, generous tax
allowances and leases which are literally dirt cheap.
The Rossing uranium mine
The site of some of RTZ's greatest successes as well as the
source of some of its most strident opposition, the Rossing
uranium mine in Namibia exemplifies many RTZ practices. The mine
enjoys the unenviable distinction of being the most condemned
mining project of the twentieth century. No other mine has been
the subject of UN resolutions, a UN-sponsored court case and
scores of demonstrations throughout Western Europe.
The Rossing mine, which by the early 1980s had become the
world's biggest uranium project, was constructed by hundreds of
Ovambo laborers who were separated from their families and
housed in what the Economist magazine called "appalling
temporary camps." Even when a more permanent black township was
constructed, conditions hardly improved; in 1979 (six years
after mine construction started) South African researchers
Gillian and Suzanne Cronje found them "akin to slavery." In a
speech delivered in early 1980, the General Secretary of the
Mineworkers Union of Namibia (MUN), Ben Ulenga, observed that
"92 percent of all black and 51 percent of all colored workers
still remain in the company's lowest income bracket, [which does
not] constitute a living wage.... [B]lack workers in the
Exploration Department have no house [and] no housing
allowance." Ulenga charged that the miners' living "conditions
in crowded army-style tents are, in fact, among the worst in the
mining industry." Under the spotlight of international pressure,
RTZ made a show of cleaning up its act in the 1980s, but the
changes were largely cosmetic.
Until South Africa's recent withdrawal from Namibia, RTZ's
Rossing operations violated the United Nations' Decree on
Namibia's Natural Resources and numerous other resolutions
prohibiting the exploitation of Namibia's resources. But because
Namibia' s economic fortunes are so dependent on mining, RTZ
gambled that the longer it held on in the territory, the more
likely it was that it would be invited to remain after
independence.
The illegality and immorality of RTZ's operations in Namibia
notwithstanding, the company gained a seal of approval from
successive British governments. When she visited the Rossing
mine in 1989, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "It makes me proud
to be British." Her uncritical view was hardly surprising,
considering the history of protection that several British
administrations (including her own) have afforded RTZ to plunder
Namibian uranium. Officials within the British Ministry of
Technology signed a secret contract enabling Rossing to supply
the country's uranium needs, although the British cabinet was
told that Britain would obtain the uranium from Canada.
Once Britain was committed to the illegal source, both Labor and
Conservative governments defied United Nations decrees in order
to maintain the supplies.
--------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR VOLUME 11, NUMBER 9, SEPTEMBER 1990
LETTERS
To the editor:
The April edition of Multinational Monitor has been drawn to my
attention since it contains an article about RTZ by Roger Moody
("Rio Tinto Zinc: The British Mining Monster").
To correct the voluminous misinformation which Mr. Moody
continues to tout, even though detailed, factual information has
been provided to him in person and in writing on all his points
over several years, would require far more space in your
publication than could be justified.
I hope, therefore, that you will permit me briefly to outline
RTZ's policy and make reference to a very different image of RTZ
and its activities from other third parties.
Firstly, what are RTZ's objectives? Our aim is to pursue
excellence on behalf of our shareholders, our employees, our
customers and the communities where we work. This means a desire
to be in the forefront of technology and of efficient management
practice. It means we wish to excel in environmental terms and
to be a good steward of the resources under our control. It
means we have high expectations of our workforce and in return
we look after them. It means that we aim to be responsible
members of each of the societies in which we work and to make a
positive contribution to them. In short, RTZ accepts the
responsibilities which inevitably accompany our world leadership
in supplying the metals and minerals on which industry relies
and which contribute to global economic prosperity.
Secondly, among the many who have recognized differing qualities
in RTZ to Mr. Moody, the investment analysts CS First Boston
wrote earlier this month under the heading "RTZ: the World
Leader:" "[RTZ] is quite easily the best run mining company in
the world, with an attractive diversified portfolio of mining
operations, all of which are world class."
Let me also give an alternative view of but one of our
operations which Mr. Moody so roundly criticizes from afar
--Rossing Uranium of Namibia. You may not recognize it as the same
place from the comments written in the visitors book there by
the then Mr. Sam Nujoma of SWAPO following his visit in November
1989, before he became President of Namibia: "The delegation of
SWAPO of Namibia is highly impressed by the process and progress
of the work done and especially the working relations between
management and staff and above all, health care for the
workers."
John G. Hughes
Head of Public Affairs
Rio Tinto Zinc
London, England
------------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR June 1987 VOLUME 8, NO. 6
4.- Apartheid's Lingering Ties: Deceptive Divestors
U.S. COMPANIES THAT HAVE PULLED OUT OF SOUTH AFRICA BUT RETAIN
LICENSING, DISTRIBUTION OR FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH A SOUTH
AFRICAN COMPANY
American Express
American Standard Inc.
Beatrice Companies Inc.
CBS Computer Sciences Corp.
Cooper Industries
CPC International Inc.
Cummins Engine Co. Inc.
Eaton Corp.
Engelhard
Exxon Corp.
Fairchild Industries Inc.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Foster Wheeler Corp.
GE Gelco Corp.
General Signal Corp.
General Motors Corp.
General Foods
Gilben Associates Inc.
Honeywell Inc.
International Business Machines Corp.
John Wiley & Sons
John Fluke
Kraft Inc.
Motorola
Navistar
Oak Industries
Opico
PepsiCo
Procter & Gamble Co.
Rohm & Haas Co.
Skok Systems Inc.
SPS Technologies Inc.
Stone & Webster Inc.
Sun Chemical Corp.
The Coca-Cola Co.
The Gates Rubber Co.
The Stanley Works
Tidwell Industries
TWA
VF Corp.
W.R. Grace & Co.
W.R. Stamler Corp.
Warner Comm., Inc.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Source: Investor Responsibility Research Center
On the heels of the corporate exodus from South Africa in 1986,
anti-apartheid activists are regrouping for a new battle against
U.S. corporate support of the South African economy.
At a meeting to review congressional sanctions against South
Africa in September, anti-apartheid activists are expected to
call for tougher measures to restrict indirect links maintained
by companies that have formally cut ties with South Africa.
"As U.S. companies sell their South African operations, the
anti-apartheid movement is working to insure that authentic
disengagement occurs and all supportive links to apartheid are
cut," said Tim Smith, executive director of the Interfaith
Center for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR).
Although successive announcements by U.S. firms last year
claiming they were "leaving" South Africa appeared to signal a
rupture in the decades-old alliance between U.S. business and
apartheid, anti-apartheid activists charge that many of the
pullouts were in name only.
Indeed, a number of U.S. firms that ostensibly cut ties with the
South African regime by selling their subsidiaries are now busy
securing new links to the South African economy. Profitable
licensing and distribution agreements are multiplying, as U.S.
companies try to maintain South African profits without
engendering consumer or shareholder opposition. With only
indirect links, U.S. companies can even requalify for
investments from cities, universities and organizations with
divestment clauses.
According to Bill Millar, a South Africa specialist formerly
with Business International, by leaving sufficient marketing
contracts behind, these companies are maintaining strong
positions in South Africa.
"Very few companies have actually pulled out. It's a facelift."
Millar said. "If the truth be known, they haven't really gotten
out. Everybody talks to each other to try to iron out what the
possibilities are to get around certain sanctions. It's almost
business as usual."
With links maintained, U.S. companies are in a position to
return to South Africa with ease should sanctions and public
pressure subside. Some of the agreements - those made by General
Motors and IBM, for example - include provisions which will
enable the parent company to repurchase the subsidiary in the
future.
Since many of the subsidiaries are still technologically
dependent on the parent corporation, the U.S. suppliers are
ensured a steady flow of royalty payments on patents licensed to
old affiliates. But continued links between U.S. companies and
South African subsidiaries, say anti-apartheid activists, will
result in increasing transference of technology, giving the P.W.
Botha regime time to further insulate itself from sanctions. By
supplying technology for industries that produce substitutes for
imports, U.S. companies are helping Pretoria reduce its foreign
dependency and therefore the country's incentive for reform.
According to the Washington-based Investor Responsibility
Research Center (IRRC), 49 U.S. firms announced they were
leaving South Africa in 1986, but only a few actually severed
ties with the country completely. At least 46 U.S. firms that
have pulled out of South Africa since 1984 are now licensing
technology to former subsidiaries or have distribution and
franchise agreements with South African firms.
"IBM reassured anxious South African customers that a whole
range of IBM products will still be sold there," according to
Smith. "IBM is unable to insure that the spinoff company will
not sell IBM products to the South African government or that
IBM products will not be used to sustain apartheid."
General Electric, one of the largest U.S. firms to leave South
Africa, will supply 95 percent of the products for its former
affiliate. And Coca-Cola's departure leaves intact a vast market
for its syrups. Coke earned $50 million in 1985 from syrup sales
to South African bottlers.
Of the 49 firms announcing that they were leaving South Africa,
say anti-apartheid activists, GM's divestment appears the most
spurious. The former subsidiary - which in 1977 secrecy agreed
to provide a "GM Commando" security unit at both its plants in
the event of civil unrest - was bought out by GM's South African
management with generous financial assistance from the parent.
The new owners will be led by a former GM executive, who will
arrive straight from Detroit. With the sale of GM's plant in
South Africa to local management, military and police sales to
the apartheid government can resume.
Since indirect licensing and distribution agreements have
weakened the impact of the divestment campaign, anti-apartheid
activists say they are refocusing their efforts to include the
new, more subtle part that U.S. corporations are playing in
South Africa.
"Now more than ever we must target those companies that continue
to provide much needed technology and products to the South
African economy through franchise and license agreements," said
Jennifer Davis, executive director of the American Committee on
Africa.
At the September review, anti-apartheid activists will ask
Congress for stepped-up sanctions against South Africa,
including a complete ban on technology transfers and trade, as
well as strengthened curbs on bank ties to South Africa
- John Summa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR June 1987 VOLUME 8, NO. 6
5.- The Future's so Bright...You've Got to Wear Shades
The Reagan administration may decide to break ranks with 31
nations on a tentative agreement to protect the ozone layer and
promote, instead, a "personal protection" campaign - urging
people to wear sunglasses, hats and tanning lotion to guard
against the dangers of the ultraviolet rays that a weakened
ozone layer cannot block.
Prompted primarily by Interior Secretary Donald Hodel, the White
House is now examining "non-regulatory" options to the
international agreement, which would freeze production of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) at current levels and reduce their
use by 20 percent over the next decade.
Scientists discovered in the early 1970s that CFCs in aerosol
sprays and other chemicals were reaching the stratosphere and
destroying the ozone, the layer of the stratosphere that blocks
the sun's most damaging rays and allows life to survive on
earth. More recently, satellite data showed that a piece of the
stratosphere above Antarctica was disappearing. This hole
appears to be increasing in size yearly by as much as 40
percent, according to Friends of the Earth.
In April, 1987, representatives of 31 nations tentatively agreed
to limits on CFC production to slow the destruction of the
ozone. CFCs are still permitted in many nations and are present
in several widely used products. CFCs are commonly used in the
computer and electronics industries as solvents. In the United
States, the main producers of CFCs are Dupont, Allied Chemical,
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, Raycon, and Pennwalt,
according to Steve Seidel of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). In Europe, Imperial Chemical Corporation (ICI) is the
major producer.
But while the Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy, a lobbying
group for CFC producers, is opposed to regulation reducing CFC
production, it is not supportive of the Hodel plan. "We're
certainly not advocating that ozone depletion be dealt with by
hats and sunglasses," said Kevin Fay of the Alliance.
The administration's turn-around surprised many State Department
and EPA officials because the White House had originally
supported reductions in CFC production as high as 95 percent.
Hodel's plan prompted several environmental groups to call for
his resignation. Dubbing the Hodel alternative the "Rayban
Plan," environmentalists said it overlooks the impact of ozone
destruction on plant and animal life. One environmentalist told
The Washington Post, "It's very hard to get fish to wear
sunscreen."
Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said Hodel's plan would be humorous
if it didn't represent such a grave misunderstanding of a
serious environmental hazard. Addressing the Senate, Wirth said
if Hodel's logic were applied to other environmental threats,
then the government would handle air pollution by giving
everyone respirators, treat water pollution by supplying people
with bottled water and respond to nuclear war by handing out
shovels.
-Kelley Griffin
----------------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR VOLUME 11, NUMBER 10, OCTOBER 1990
BOOK REVIEW GLOBAL DUMPING GROUND
6.- Global Dumping Ground: The International Traffic in Hazardous Waste
By Center for Investigative Reporting and Bill Moyers
Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks Press, 1990 144 pages,
Reviewed by David Lapp
Global Dumping Ground, a companion book to an excellent public
television documentary, is a horrifying tale of what may be
termed "environmental racism." It is the story of international
commerce in toxic cargo that runs from the United States to the
Third World, devastating the recipient countries' citizens and
environment.
Based on their investigative work, the Center for Investigative
Reporting (CIR) and Bill Moyers explain how hazardous waste
exporters legally and illegally ship industrial by-products and
other toxic waste, much of which is banned for use in the United
States, to unsuspecting Third World countries. By showing
Mexican children bathing in polluted waters, Brazilian workers
suffering the effects of lead poisoning, and Nigerian villagers
dying from PCB-contaminated rice, CIR and Moyers demonstrate how
U.S. toxic exports cause irreparable harm to the environment and
injure and kill Third World citizens. They found that this
inherently dangerous business results from weak workplace and
environmental regulations in the Third World and the desire to
avoid high disposal costs in the United States.
The hazardous waste trade is fuelled by mounting piles of toxic
waste generated by the soap, plastics, pesticides, medicines,
fertilizers and explosives industries. This deadly cargo
consists of toxic substances such as dioxins, organic chemicals,
heavy metals, PCBs and cyanide. CIR and Moyers point out that
the United States generates more than one ton of hazardous waste
annually for every man, woman and child. As a result, they
explain, "Both criminals and legitimate entrepreneurs sense
handsome profits from this excess of hazardous waste, from
steering the flow of harmful substances along the path of least
resistance toward what they hope will be a final resting place."
The authors argue that U.S. environmental regulations have
functioned to encourage the exportation of hazardous waste. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act specifies that a company
is responsible for its hazardous waste even after it is disposed
of in U.S. landfills. But when a broker exports the waste to a
foreign country, the responsibility is also exported.
Global Dumping Ground demonstrates the reluctance of Third World
countries to receive the industrialized countries' waste by
recounting the widely publicized saga of the Khian Sea, one
"poison ship" in a "seeming armada of toxic vessels unleashed by
the developed world in the late 1980s." In June 1986, loaded
with 13,000 tons of toxic incinerator ash from Philadelphia, the
Khian Sea headed for the Bahamas, where Amalgamated Shipping
Corp., the ship's owner, claimed the government had agreed to
accept the ash. But when the ship arrived at Ocean Cay in the
Bahamas, the Bahamas' Ministry of Health denied it permission to
unload. The Khian Sea set sail, embarking on an endless search
for a country which would accept the toxic ash. After sparking
congressional inquiries and a number of lawsuits, and wandering
through the seas for 27 months on a journey that took it to four
continents where country after country declined to accept the
ash, the ship, renamed the Pelicano, arrived in Singapore
without its cargo. The ship owners have refused to say where the
ash went and a Justice Department inquiry has so far been unable
to locate it. CIR and Moyers emphasize that the case of the
Khian Sea, which garnered international attention, carried only
one month's waste from one major U.S. city.
The authors also relate the stories of "entrepreneurs" who have
been convicted of illegally exporting hazardous waste. They
focus on brothers Jack and Charlie Colbert, who were convicted
in 1986 for exporting misleadingly labelled hazardous wastes.
CIR and Moyers found that the bulk of the hazardous waste the
Colberts shipped to over 100 countries, mostly in the Third
World, emanated from the U.S. government. It was legal for the
Colberts to buy poisons like DDT from the government and sell
them overseas, but they broke the law when they relabelled the
hazardous waste "surplus chemicals." The Colberts said they also
did business with numerous multinational corporations, including
Ford, Exxon, DuPont and Celanese.
In their most significant findings, the authors explore
loopholes in U.S. federal hazardous waste export laws which
allow dumping abroad. By tracing the paths of used acid-lead
batteries and non-ferrous scrap metals, the authors uncovered
processing plants which expose workers and nearby residents to
dangerously high levels of lead, PCBs, asbestos and other
toxins. Scrap metal and used car batteries are exempt from
federal hazardous waste export laws, although their health
dangers are well known. By processing used car batteries abroad
(over 70 million are discarded in the United States every year),
companies avoid stringent exposure limits in the United States.
The authors claim that millions of used car batteries were
shipped in 1989 to Mexico, Japan, Canada, India, Venezuela,
China, South Korea, South Africa and Taiwan. CIR and Moyers
found that at one lead smelting plant in Brazil, workers who
have been overexposed to lead complain of headaches, dizziness,
stomach cramps, nausea, kidney pains, a sense of weakness and
aching. The authors also document a growing scrap metal industry
in Asia, especially China, where labor is cheap and regulations
are lax. The scrap metal is covered with PCBs, asbestos and
other hazardous materials. This startling evidence on the
dumping of non-ferrous metals in Asia--probably the greatest
contribution of the book--has not previously been explored,
according to Jim Vallette, a hazardous waste expert with
Greenpeace.
The authors also discuss the hazardous waste trade between the
industrialized nations. Waste travels from the United States to
Canada, and from Western Europe to the United Kingdom. Canada
and the United Kingdom have "built flourishing businesses to
take in unwanted materials from other nations," CIR and Moyers
write. Canada, for example, has a booming business of importing,
processing, and exporting hazardous wastes to the First World
and the Third World. Truckloads from the U.S. arrive in Canada
daily, carrying the waste of companies like Monsanto, Dow
Corning, IBM, General Electric, and Ashland Oil.
While much of the information presented in Global Dumping Ground
has previously been documented, the book offers an accurate,
precise and accessible overview of a critically important issue.
But it does not provide an in-depth analysis of the export of
hazardous waste. For example, CIR and Moyers provide only two
examples of the illegal export of hazardous waste and fail to
extrapolate on the magnitude of this illicit business, leaving
it unclear whether the illegal acts described are rare or
common.
The book may dizzy the reader by jumping from one subject to
another. The first chapter, for example, begins by discussing
the environmental and human health effects of the trade on the
Third World and the "powerful economic equation" driving the
trade. The authors then explain that the United States is the
main producer of the waste, explore the defects in U.S.
environmental regulation and finally conclude with the Basel
Convention, a 1989 international meeting where the United States
successfully fought Third World attempts to enact measures which
would limit international hazardous waste commerce. Each one of
these subject areas could be a chapter, if not a book, of its
own.
The dangers exposed in Global Dumping Ground demand a
reassessment of hazardous waste production, regulatory standards
and international law. Accordingly, the authors conclude that
the human health and environmental dangers posed require not
only an overhaul of U.S. hazardous waste export controls and
greater enforcement measures, but technological changes to
reduce the generation of hazardous waste at it s source.
Although it is rarely discussed, source reduction is feasible,
as Joel Hirschhorn, a former Office of Technology Assessment
official, told CIR and Moyers: "The greatest misconception I
find among all sorts of people is the assumption that we have to
produce toxic waste. And that is simply wrong. We can run
American industry, we can operate industrial facilities, we can
make the kinds of products people want and we don't have to
produce so much toxic waste.... Waste is inefficiency. Waste is
non-competitive." And, most troubling, waste from the North
kills in the South.
-------------------------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR March 1987 VOLUME 8, NO. 3
UPDATES
7.- GE: Bringing Good Things to an End
General Electric, which manufactures everything from telephones to
torpedoes, is under fire for its role in stoking the arms race.
INFACT, the group that organized the successful international boycott of
the Swiss giant Nestle for its unethical promotion of infant formula, has
targeted the weapons maker for a national consumer boycott.
Protesting GE's "role in propelling and driving the nuclear arms race," the
group launched its campaign against GE in June, 1986. "To have an
intelligent debate about arms, you need to discuss companies, not just
Congress," said Nancy Cole, executive director of INFACT. Generous
political action committee (PAC) contributions by companies with vested
interests in arms have spurred weapons production, and in turn the arms
race, she said. With one of the largest lobbying offices in Washington and
an aggressive lobbying style, GE is able to create both the supply and the
demand for more nuclear weapons, she said.
"GE has an awful lot of money to spread around come election time," said
Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Col., at the boycott's launch. Schroeder, who serves
on the House Armed Services Committee, says GE's heavyweight lobbying on
Capitol Hill has compounded the problems of military waste and nuclear
proliferation. But General Electric says neither its weapons nor its
lobbyists make U.S. policy. "The number and kinds of arms needed by the
U.S. aren't going to be determined by INFACT or GE but by the U.S.
government," said a GE spokesperson.
In 1984, however, GE was the fourth largest corporate PAC spender among all
military contractors, contributing more than $200,000 to congressional
supporters of an increased defense budget for fiscal year 1987, including
key members of committees that handle military spending bills. With a staff
of 120 and housed in offices that cost $1.3 million a year to rent, GE
inundates Capitol Hill with specialized lobbyists for each of its major
weapons systems.
And the investment has paid off.
With sales of $28 billion in 1985, GE is involved in more major weapons
systems than any other company. In fiscal years 1984 and 1985 it grossed
over $6.4 billion from the taxpayers for its nuclear weapons related work.
Between 1981 and 1983, it earned $6.5 billion in profits, paid no federal
income tax, and claimed a refund of $283 million.
The company's long history in shaping nuclear weapons policy began in the
early 1940s during the Manhattan Project. In 1968, two members of GE's
board of directors helped establish the lucrative B-1 bomber program.
Today, GE is instrumental in supplying Congress with information on the
Soviet military budget. The company is the sole producer of the neutron
"trigger" for every U.S. nuclear bomb. It is involved in the manufacture
of primary components for virtually every first strike weapon, including
the MX missile, the Trident submarine and the Minuteman missile. And in
overall sales volume, it is the fourth largest military contractor and the
third largest maker of primary warfare systems.
INFACT argues that since GE is the largest military supplier which also
manufactures consumer goods, it is the military supplier that could be most
affected by a consumer boycott. Since 25 percent of GE's total revenues
come from consumer products while only 12 percent of its total revenues
come from nuclear-related sales, the boycott will strike at the core of
their revenue producing abilities, says Cole.
One in every 10 adults in the United States purchases a GE major appliance
each year, according to INFACT figures. The group is hoping that within one
year, 100,000 consumers will be supporting the boycott representing a $4.5
million loss for the company.
To launch its boycott campaign, INFACT has aired a new television
commercial that concludes with a twist on GE's consumer advertising: "GE,
Isn't it time they really bring good things to life?"
Throughout February, the group delivered boycott pledges to six key
locations: GE's Western Regional Corporate Relations Office in San
Francisco, its Customer Service Office in Minneapolis, the Midwest Regional
Sales Office in Chicago, the Space Division Complex in Philadelphia, the
Pinellas plant in St. Petersburg where the company manufactures its neutron
trigger, and finally the international headquarters in Fairfield,
Connecticut.
GE's main consumer products include light bulbs, lamps, batteries,
televisions, stereos, clocks, telephones, major appliances such as ranges
and washer/dryer units, and construction materials such as wiring, motors,
and controls.
Although it is GE's long list of popular consumer products that make it
especially vulnerable to a consumer boycott - a criteria that some of the
other major weapons producers lack, it is a consumer boycott's ability to
bring the debate on the arms race down to the individual that has won the
support of people like Retired Rear Admiral Gene La Rocque USN, now head
of the Center for Defense Information.
"The boycott of a single company is a useful method for calling people's
attention to the fact that companies are producing weapons - weapons that
are destructive, kill people, and make nuclear war more likely," said La
Rocque.
"GE markets nuclear weapons like it markets toasters," he added, "they are
just another normal commodity produced for profit." Through the boycott,
INFACT hopes to pressure GE to: cease its nuclear weapons work and its
interference in government decision-making on defense, stop all direct
marketing and promotion of nuclear weapons, and implement conversion plans
developed in consultation with employees, employee representatives and
affected communities.
The group's opposition to the production of all nuclear weapons has
alienated some of its initial supporters. Rep. Pat Schroeder has withdrawn
her support according to her administrative assistant, Dan Buck, because
she did not agree with the direction of the boycott. "Since Pat Schroeder
is not against nuclear weapons in general," he said, "she could not endorse
the boycott."
INFACT has organizing offices in Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Oakland,
and over 200 local groups are aiding the campaign. Additionally, 12
religious communities, seven Protestant denominations, Clergy and Laity
Concerned, the Shalom Center and Church Women United, are supporting the
boycott.
- PATRICIA KELLY-------------------------------
[] MULTINATIONAL MONITOR March 1987 VOLUME 8, NO. 3
8.- Israel: Arming Apartheid
A forthcoming State Department report on countries that violate the United
Nations embargo on arms shipments to South Africa pinpoints Israel as the
primary offender, according to State Department sources.
When the report is released it will put the Reagan administration in a
difficult position since the law which ordered it also calls on the
administration to terminate military assistance to countries found
violating the embargo.
Tel Aviv figures so prominently in the congressionally-mandated report that
State Department officials have dubbed it the "Israeli Report."
At the same time, officials said the intensely close relationship between
the United States and Israel makes it virtually inconceivable that the
Reagan adminstration would cut off its roughly $1.3 billion military aid
program to Tel Aviv.
To avoid a run-in, officials at the State Department say they are hoping
the Israelis will take the initiative and stop sending arms shipments to
South Africa.
The Israelis, however, have sent out conflicting signals on this score. A
recent press report from Jerusalem quoted Foreign Ministry sources saying
they were pressing to cut off aid. Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin
reportedly travelled to South Africa last December or January to discuss
reducing military links.
But the South African ambassador to the United States, Herbert Beukes, was
seen attending a reception for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who
visited Washington recently - an unusual public affirmation of Israel's
ties to Pretoria.
A South African embassy spokesperson, commenting on the report, said "One
will have to see whether [Israel] is prepared to have their internal
policies dictated by foreign interests."
No Israeli spokesperson was available for comment. The State Department
report, which Congress must receive by April 1, was ordered by lawmakers
as part of the 1986 Anti- Apartheid Act, which imposed sanctions and other
punitive measures against South Africa.
The administration was ordered to identify countries violating the U.N.
embargo "with a view toward terminating U.S. military assistance to these
countries."
Israel's military trade with South Africa was estimated at around $300
million in 1986. In 1985, their trade totalled about $225 million, of which
Israeli exports comprised about $65 million.
Tel Aviv has helped the South Africans produce the light weight, "Scorpion"
helicopter, the remotely piloted "drone aircraft", and the two nations
collaborated on the recently-unveiled Cheetah jet fighter.
In addition, Israel's military industry in cooperation with Pretoria has
produced Uzi submachine guns, Galil rifles, Reshef missile-firing boats,
and Scorpion missiles.
Although the United States is believed to have halted weapons shipments to
South Africa, Washington for many years allowed commercial exporters to
ship certain military-related items to Pretoria. Most of that trade was
terminated with passage of the sanctions act. The United States, however,
remains the only Western nation to maintain a military attache in
Johannesburg, a link that has been criticized by anti-apartheid groups.
- SAMANTHA SPARKS
------------------------------------------------------------------
[] RROJAS RESEARCH UNIT/ TABLES/ 1995
This data was compiled by Dr. Robinson Rojas from World Bank
Databank 1995.
9.- Net factor income from abroad (con.1992 US$)(millions)
1960-1992 per day 1960-1975 1976-1992
United States 1045233.73 86.7774 418528.91 626704.82
Switzerland 210241.48 17.4547 60287.60 149953.87
Japan 131235.33 10.8954 -31196.51 162431.84
Germany 112052.46 9.3028 963.59 111088.86
Israel 107979.55 8.9647 127250.01 -19270.46
United Kingdom 60155.06 4.9942 61886.90 -1731.84
Saudi Arabia 54157.89 4.4963 -67783.02 121940.91
Luxembourg 42007.46 3.4875 3276.77 38730.69
Uruguay 22057.28 1.8312 16150.37 5906.92
Greece 16303.10 1.3535 10021.18 6281.92
Pakistan 14543.55 1.2074 -635.10 15178.65
France 10647.75 0.8840 40862.70 -30214.95
Lesotho 8892.76 0.7383 1646.50 7246.26
United Arab Emirates 4552.86 0.3780 -3415.76 7968.62
Niger 4475.29 0.3715 4448.51 26.77
Mali 3547.37 0.2945 1816.50 1730.86
Malta 2783.15 0.2311 808.80 1974.35
Singapore 1981.36 0.1645 634.02 1347.34
Paraguay 1181.15 0.0981 327.58 853.58
Gabon 904.49 0.0751 4234.66 -3330.18
Chad 745.34 0.0619 270.92 474.42
Bermuda 713.44 0.0592 222.76 490.68
Burkina Faso 693.55 0.0576 803.37 -109.83
Swaziland 480.80 0.0399 244.29 236.51
Cyprus 445.56 0.0370 13.25 432.31
Guinea 399.63 0.0332 0.00 399.63
Kiribati 147.67 0.0123 0.00 147.67
Kuwait 117.84 0.0098 -75983.94 76101.78
Tonga 29.09 0.0024 0.00 29.09
Vanuatu 22.57 0.0019 0.00 22.57
Solomon Islands 19.58 0.0016 38.88 -19.30
Western Samoa 2.79 0.0002 0.00 2.79
Lebanon 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Latvia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Lao People's Democrati 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Kyrgyz Republic 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Guadeloupe 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Guam 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Gibraltar 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Greenland 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Hong Kong 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Kazakhstan 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Korea, Democratic Peop 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Iraq 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Isle of Man 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Slovenia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Tajikistan 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
San Marino 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Reunion 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Russian Federation 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Turkmenistan 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Yemen, Republic of 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Yugoslavia, Federal Re 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Virgin Islands (U.S.) 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Ukraine 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Uzbekistan 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Qatar 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Marshall Islands 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Martinique 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Macedonia, Former Yugo 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Lithuania 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Macao 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Mayotte 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
New Caledonia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Northern Mariana Islan 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Netherlands Antilles 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Micronesia, Federated 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Moldova 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Georgia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Cambodia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Brunei 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
American Samoa 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Afghanistan 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Eritrea 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Albania 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Andorra 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Aruba 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Armenia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Azerbaijan 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Croatia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Djibouti 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Angola 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Cuba 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Channel Islands 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Estonia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Belarus 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Faeroe Islands 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
French Polynesia 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
French Guiana 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00
Sao Tome and Principe -2.57 -0.0002 6.36 -8.94
Central African Republ -7.69 -0.0006 56.84 -64.53
Comoros -8.42 -0.0007 0.00 -8.42
Guinea-Bissau -34.26 -0.0028 6.17 -40.43
Equatorial Guinea -55.78 -0.0046 0.00 -55.78
Maldives -126.22 -0.0105 0.00 -126.22
Cape Verde -139.66 -0.0116 -88.61 -51.05
Seychelles -223.72 -0.0186 -13.59 -210.14
Ethiopia -375.97 -0.0312 -127.20 -248.78
Benin -378.36 -0.0314 -88.07 -290.29
Gambia, The -378.95 -0.0315 -70.62 -308.33
Mauritius -452.01 -0.0375 40.87 -492.88
Sierra Leone -480.91 -0.0399 -162.34 -318.57
Somalia -501.64 -0.0416 15.69 -517.33
Uganda -632.05 -0.0525 0.00 -632.05
Burundi -635.81 -0.0528 -290.46 -345.35
Togo -955.89 -0.0794 -178.07 -777.82
Liberia -969.31 -0.0805 -226.19 -743.11
Malawi -1153.64 -0.0958 -139.11 -1014.53
Namibia -1722.84 -0.1430 0.00 -1722.84
Mauritania -1816.29 -0.1508 -678.68 -1137.62
Mozambique -2110.23 -0.1752 0.00 -2110.23
Botswana -2333.12 -0.1937 -268.25 -2064.87
Tanzania -2631.03 -0.2184 -265.05 -2365.98
Rwanda -2676.15 -0.2222 -939.83 -1736.32
Ghana -3198.24 -0.2655 -1268.35 -1929.89
Madagascar -3199.74 -0.2656 -1194.55 -2005.18
Zimbabwe -4197.40 -0.3485 -603.96 -3593.43
Sudan -4297.09 -0.3568 2540.66 -6837.75
Senegal -4582.33 -0.3804 -1128.52 -3453.81
Congo -4984.19 -0.4138 -667.98 -4316.21
Kenya -8596.42 -0.7137 -2388.72 -6207.70
Zambia -9257.26 -0.7686 -4822.89 -4434.38
Tunisia -10026.66 -0.8324 -2596.37 -7430.29
Zaire -11194.16 -0.9294 -2331.88 -8862.28
Cameroon -16213.59 -1.3461 -4763.52 -11450.08
Morocco -19319.46 -1.6039 -3455.60 -15863.85
Cote d'Ivoire -39398.73 -3.2710 -13142.46 -26256.27
Libya -42663.95 -3.5420 -34819.81 -7844.14
Algeria -47229.09 -3.9211 -9414.41 -37814.68
Egypt, Arab Republic o -54219.13 -4.5014 -4145.69 -50073.43
Nigeria -71789.14 -5.9601 -21256.91 -50532.22
South Africa -262627.74 -21.8039 -172340.42 -90287.32
St. Kitts and Nevis -35.00 -0.0029 0.00 -35.00
Grenada -71.54 -0.0059 0.00 -71.54
St. Lucia -87.36 -0.0073 0.00 -87.36
Dominica -89.94 -0.0075 -8.24 -81.70
St. Vincent and the Gr -95.51 -0.0079 -0.15 -95.36
Belize -199.59 -0.0166 -42.73 -156.86
Antigua and Barbuda -285.30 -0.0237 0.00 -285.30
Haiti -681.41 -0.0566 -396.92 -284.49
Barbados -862.94 -0.0716 -160.52 -702.42
Guyana -2120.53 -0.1761 -654.12 -1466.40
Suriname -2432.94 -0.2020 -1634.73 -798.21
El Salvador -2641.20 -0.2193 -711.10 -1930.10
Panama -3247.04 -0.2696 84.17 -3331.21
Guatemala -3466.79 -0.2878 -1251.66 -2215.13
Honduras -3969.10 -0.3295 -771.47 -3197.63
Dominican Republic -4245.51 -0.3525 -349.01 -3896.50
Nicaragua -5178.99 -0.4300 935.57 -6114.57
Costa Rica -5728.93 -0.4756 -837.78 -4891.14
Bolivia -6026.20 -0.5003 -840.61 -5185.59
Bahamas, The -6088.03 -0.5054 -2971.79 -3116.24
Jamaica -6738.09 -0.5594 -1122.57 -5615.52
Trinidad and Tobago -9198.84 -0.7637 -191.53 -9007.30
Ecuador -15855.95 -1.3164 -2360.21 -13495.75
Peru -17909.33 -1.4869 2774.49 -20683.82
Colombia -29788.01 -2.4731 -5628.62 -24159.39
Venezuela -48299.76 -4.0099 -29625.42 -18674.34
Chile -109280.68 -9.0727 -65255.59 -44025.09
Puerto Rico -112113.83 -9.3079 -3610.78 -108503.06
Argentina -113909.90 -9.4570 -24376.85 -89533.06
Mexico -134992.73 -11.2074 -21997.30 -112995.44
Brazil -297797.79 -24.7238 -52181.85 -245615.94
Mongolia -462.76 -0.0384 0.00 -462.76
Bhutan -517.60 -0.0430 0.00 -517.60
China -755.80 -0.0627 -431.94 -323.86
Fiji -963.46 -0.0800 -391.95 -571.51
Bangladesh -1221.92 -0.1014 412.54 -1634.47
Nepal -2087.79 -0.1733 -626.59 -1461.20
Myanmar -3095.06 -0.2570 -1285.86 -1809.20
Sri Lanka -3115.24 -0.2586 -706.85 -2408.39
Jordan -3215.05 -0.2669 0.00 -3215.05
Papua New Guinea -4033.26 -0.3348 -1510.62 -2522.64
Bahrain -4773.13 -0.3963 0.00 -4773.13
Syrian Arab Republic -4854.84 -0.4031 -33.23 -4821.60
Viet Nam -5894.98 -0.4894 0.00 -5894.98
Philippines -6377.16 -0.5294 -1988.23 -4388.93
Thailand -19535.07 -1.6218 -984.36 -18550.71
Oman -24253.17 -2.0135 -5819.89 -18433.28
New Zealand -29071.44 -2.4136 -2507.48 -26563.96
Turkey -30565.67 -2.5376 -3185.11 -27380.56
Malaysia -38030.08 -3.1573 -6061.14 -31968.94
Korea, Republic of -41760.52 -3.4670 1153.79 -42914.31
India -44011.29 -3.6539 -14296.20 -29715.09
Indonesia -95863.27 -7.9588 -29473.45 -66389.82
Iran, Islamic Republic -152140.41 -12.6310 -33353.52 -118786.89
Slovak Republic -608.48 -0.0505 0.00 -608.48
Czech Republic -1433.12 -0.1190 0.00 -1433.12
Iceland -3726.77 -0.3094 -449.88 -3276.90
Netherlands -6203.19 -0.5150 -1115.01 -5088.18
Romania -6615.17 -0.5492 -47.36 -6567.82
Bulgaria -11709.85 -0.9722 0.00 -11709.85
Belgium -11810.30 -0.9805 10903.41 -22713.72
Portugal -14221.58 -1.1807 1958.92 -16180.50
Hungary -17890.10 -1.4853 -1028.46 -16861.64
Austria -24573.45 -2.0401 -5898.87 -18674.58
Poland -40572.06 -3.3684 0.00 -40572.06
Ireland -41618.00 -3.4552 5890.29 -47508.29
Finland -47519.45 -3.9452 -7107.15 -40412.30
Sweden -50309.83 -4.1768 2358.87 -52668.69
Norway -53256.45 -4.4215 -10489.55 -42766.91
Spain -66346.07 -5.5082 -8349.70 -57996.38
Denmark -66948.64 -5.5582 -2921.40 -64027.24
Italy -69590.25 -5.7775 25262.05 -94852.30
Australia -142003.10 -11.7894 -26232.81 -115770.29
Canada -290430.75 -24.1121 -59474.94 -230955.81
------------------------------------------------------------------
Net factor income from abroad (con.1992 US$)
1960-1992 1960-1975 1976-1992
TOTAL FLOW
TO surplus economies -3065221.19 -672230.50 -2392990.70
PER Day -254.48 -254.4808 -115.11 -385.66
PER HOUR -10.60 -10.6034 -4.80 -16.07
------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA/per hour -2.21 -2.01 -2.39
LATIN AMERICA/per hour -3.26 -1.52 -4.90
ASIA/per hour -1.79 -0.72 -2.79
INDUSTR>/per hour -3.35 -0.55 -5.98
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Net Factor Income From Abroad is the net amount for payments
to factors of production ( labour and capital). Mainly, it
records profits, interest and rent on direct investment and
wages for expatriate labour.
------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================
Multinational Monitor [ISSN 0197-4637] is published monthly by
Essential Information, Inc., P.O. Box 19405, Washington, DC
20036. Telephone: (202) 387-8030.
===============================================================
|
