Here's more on Lawrence Summers' history ... from a piece I wrote a few
years ago ....

Lawrence Summers, Toxic Wastes, & New World Order Strategy
by Mitchel Cohen

The trade in toxic waste is more than a lucrative industry; it is also a
central strategy of the New World Order, an intentional way of enclosing
lands and resources -- the very air we breathe! -- previously held in
common, and setting up trade in "pollution rights". It is a means for
proletarianizing peasants and villagers, driving them into new forms of
exploitation of both labor and nature. As opposition to toxic dumping and
hazardous waste incineration ignites into massive political movements,
there is a growing understanding that "neither government regulations nor
the capitalist market is capable of providing adequate protection for
natural ecosystems or communities affected by environmental pollution."(16)

In the late 1990s, the Clinton/Gore administration's annihilation of
Yugoslavia's water and electric systems, schools, hospitals and sanitation
facilities, bridges, dams, refineries and factories, put the New World
Order's vast modern arsenal of death and ecological devastation on
display.(17) Its depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, graphite bombs,
supposedly invisible "Stealth" fighter jets, and so-called "Apache" and
"Black Hawk" helicopter gunships ravaged the recalcitrant populace. "Don't
Fuck With Us" is the message, as written on a bomb fragment found near
Pristina, in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. The US rulers, wrapped in the
Emperor's new line of clothing known as the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, scream to the world: "We are your master, do as we say."

And so, as beautiful cities such as Belgrade, Nis, and Pristina pass into
the most post-modernist of fantasies of what "stone age" landscape must
have looked like, a "second wave" has already been launched, the economic
bombs of "structural adjustment," to smack the region, and all areas within
the Empire's grasp, into the fold of its Brave New World Order. To oversee
this mission, and indeed, to oversee all of U.S. financial policy,
President Clinton has selected one Lawrence Summers as his new Secretary of
Finance, replacing the retiring Robert Rubin. Summers has now taken his
seat in the President's cabinet as one of his most trusted advisers.

In December, 1991, Lawrence Summers was the chief economist for the World
Bank. In that capacity, he issued a surprisingly forthright memorandum to
senior World Bank staff calling upon them to plan their structural
adjustment programs and renegotiated debt payment schedules in such a way
as to encourage relatively non-polluted areas of the world to, among other
things, accept a fairer "redistribution" of the industrial world's wastes
and pollution. This would go a long way towards, as he put it, rectifying
the current toxic "imbalance."

"I've always thought," Summers wrote, "that under-populated countries in
Africa are vastly under polluted; their air quality is probably vastly
inefficiently low [in pollutants] compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City."(18)

Summers, who edited the World Bank's World Development Report for 1992,
claimed to have worked out "the economic logic behind dumping a load of
toxic waste in the lowest wage country." He found that logic to be
"impeccable, and we should face up to that." In the upcoming confirmation
hearings, will a single U.S. senator ask Summers whether he still finds
that logic to be "impeccable" and, if not, what he now finds wrong with it?

"So much pollution is generated by non tradable industries (transport,
electrical generation) [which makes] the unit transport costs of solid
waste ... so high," Summers lamented. These non-tradable industries
unfortunately "prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and
waste" as stipulated for domestic polluters in the 1991 Clean Air Act.
Instead of outlawing dangerous pollutants and carcinogens, the Act granted
"pollution credits" -- ecological destruction quotas -- to corporations and
municipalities in the U.S. Those who "under pollute" may then sell their
"excess" pollution credits -- their "right" to ravage the environment -- to
companies that refused or were not able to cut back in toxic wastes and
still maintain their profit rates -- the "free market" at its most crass
and savage.

Nor did Summers stop there. He went on to mock complaints by the poor who
reported that their health was being shattered by the dumping of toxins in
their communities. Summers had his counter-argument spit-polished and shiny
as a boot upon the throat of the impoverished. Because of their poverty, he
argued, the poor would never live long enough to contract the diseases
exposure to dumped or burned wastes would ordinarily cause in people who
lived longer lives -- in other words, those living in the U.S., Europe and
parts of Asia. "The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million
change in the odds of prostate cancer," he wrote, "is obviously going to be
much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than
in a country where under five mortality is 200 per thousand." So, Summers
concluded, dumping toxic wastes in areas where people already have
abbreviated lifespans is no skin off their nose. Why find ways to help
people live longer -- that is, why eliminate the imperialist conditions
causing their poverty -- when they are providing such an inestimable
service to northern industrial states, therein making their miserable lives

In Summers' worldview, "poor countries should exploit their 'comparative
advantage' of low wages, or access to natural resources, or lower
environmental standards," explain Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, who
co authored "Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack
on Democracy." "While few countries have 'developed' with this approach, it
has proved very effective for companies like Nike, which has taken
advantage of low wages throughout Asia, or even G.M., which produces cars
and trucks in Mexico with the same technology as in Michigan but with lower
wage workers. Makers of polluting technologies such as incinerators that
are being phased out in industrialized countries have also benefited,
because they are able to stay in business by selling to third world
countries. U.S. manufacturers that wanted to escape environmental
regulations (like furniture makers who use toxic glues, solvents, and
paints) have capitalized by shifting from places like Los Angeles to

Former Greenpeace activst Jim Vallette (now with the International Trade
Information Service) picks up the same thread: Under World Bank,
International Monetary Fund and now World Trade Organization policies,
"world trade has burgeoned with imbalanced cargoes: banned pesticides,
leaded gasoline, CFCs, asbestos, and other products restricted in the North
are sold to the South; tropical timber, oil, coal, and other natural
resources flow from South to North with little or no benefit to the host
communities; and while regulations tighten around dirty coal and dangerous
nuclear power plants in the North, they are proliferating in Asia, Africa,
Eastern Europe and Latin America, where they are owned and operated by
Northern corporations.

"This trade has been facilitated through tens of billions of dollars of
financing by the World Bank, the U.S. Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, and the U.S. Export Import Bank, government institutions in
which Mr. Summers has wielded his economic logic. His 1991 memo can be
considered a working thesis behind this decade's dominant global economic

Back in 1992, people throughout the world saw through Summers' grand scheme
to further poison them in the name of the "free market." They raised a
ruckus. They understood that Summers' outrageous analysis was no aberration
in an otherwise sterling and positive career. For years Summers had blocked
initiatives by environmental organizations to make the World Bank more
ecologically and socially responsible. His "pollution" memo was simply the
latest and most public scheme by Summers on behalf of the World Bank.

Greenpeace and numerous defenders of the planet demanded that the World
Bank terminate Summers. Brazil's Secretary of the Environment, Jose
Lutzenberger, wrote to Summers directly: "Your reasoning is perfectly
logical but totally insane. ... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example
of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness
and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the
nature of the world we live in. ... If the World Bank keeps you as vice
president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often
said ... the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to

Lutzenburger was fired shortly after writing his letter.

Following the memo's publication in the London Economist in February 1992
and the consequent hue and cry against it from imperialized countries, the
World Bank was driven into an apologetic frenzy.

But instead of being shocked by the horror of the environmental devastation
Summers prescribed, the big corporations and governments of industrialized
countries looked upon Summers' proposal and argumentation rather favorably.
The expropriation of the environment and the privatization of public lands
is, after all, as central to the accumulation of capital as is the
exploitation of labor.

Just as NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was no accident,
toxic imperialism -- the coordinated and well managed global looting of
resources and labor, and the well-planned strategic disposal of toxic
wastes on an international scale -- is not some isolated happenstance of
industrial production that can be apologized for and dismissed, but is in
actuality a fundamental component of George Bush's and Bill Clinton's New
World Order, a weapon in the imposition of structural adjustment programs
upon the "third world."

Not understanding this class dimension, many environmental activists
thought that with the Clinton administration taking over in Washington in
1993, the environment would be saved, things would improve, peace would
reign and Summers, then of the World Bank, would go away. Instead, Clinton
and Gore were able to push through legislation in Congress -- NAFTA, GATT
and World Trade Organization founding measures, disgusting welfare
"reform," new laws that completely erode the Constitution (under the guise
of "anti-terrorism"), vast increases in military spending, the almost total
decimation of the last remaining old-growth and redwoods forests in the
United States, the defeat of Haiti's progressive movements and continued
U.S. military occupation of that country, huge promotion of genetically
engineered foods and biotechnology industry, the ongoing bombardment and
sanctions against Iraq and Yugoslavia, the attempted dismemberment of
organic standards, the legalization of irradiation of food, and the managed
collapse of a once-powerful movement for free universal health care) --
with a skill that even the odious former President George Bush is forced to
admire. Even before taking office, President Clinton sought to appoint
Summers to a national policy position: Chairman of the President's Council
of Economic Advisors.

Environmental and other radical groups were outraged and fought against his
appointment. For a time, they were successful. But Summers' work on behalf
of global capitalism would not go unrewarded. The day following Clinton's
inauguration as the 42nd President of the United States, he appointed
Lawrence Summers to the post of Undersecretary for International Affairs at
the U.S. Treasury, a position traditionally responsible for "the
formulation of U.S. economic policy in the Third World, including U.S.
policy related to the IMF, the World Bank and the regional development
banks."(22) By 1995, the environment was in worse shape than ever, and
there were record levels of profit taking on Wall Street.(23)

Other World Bank officials had helped to shape government policy as well.
Prior to his tenure as president of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981,
Robert McNamara had, you will recall, been the Secretary of Defense of the
United States and, in that capacity, the main architect of the "automated
battlefield," which the U.S. government applied in Vietnam, slaughtering
more than two million Vietnamese people and poisoning their crops,
farmlands and water supply for generations to come. It was McNamara who
approved the use of Agent Orange and other defoliants that poisoned the
land throughout the region, and along with it the lives of American GIs.
Moving to the World Bank, McNamara helped open up Thailand to the sex trade
industry and presided over World Bank policies oriented towards the
privatization of publicly used lands -- the commons -- there, and
consequent ecological catastrophes.

The revolving door between high level government appointments and
international banking, insurance and multinational corporate boards has
been spinning as freely as ever during the Clinton/Gore administrations.
After appointing Summers to his post Clinton selected Ron Brown, former
lawyer and public relations flak for Haitian dictator Jean Claude Duvalier,
as Secretary of Commerce. From that post Brown participated in setting up
the IMF's devastating Structural Adjustment Program for Haiti. Another of
Brown's roles was to oversee the transport of toxic wastes abroad.

These strategies rely on the acceptance of "debt restructuring" by
countries owing large amounts of money to western banks. (If they don't
accept that protocol, they get bombed and sanctioned until they do.) While
individual banks of course want to recoup their loans, global finance
capital as a whole -- and as reflected in government policy -- does not
want its loans repaid in full. It fosters indebtedness as leverage, to
accomplish a number of things critical to the continued expansion of
capital: 1) hammer the working classes in debt ridden countries into line;
2) obliterate ("enclose") longstanding communal ways of living; 3)
establish capital's new global managers -- NGOs -- to intercede in the new
movements "on behalf of" indigenous people, workers and community
movements, removing them from speaking in their own voice around their own
demands and negotiating away their victories against the imposition of
capitalist relations in exchange for immediate (and temporary) improvements
in their material situations within those relations; 4) drive down gains
made during decades of struggle; 5) present a pretext for "balancing the
budget" at home, and thus provide a pretext for attacking gains made in
workers' living standards here; and, 6) develop small indigenous capitalist
classes dependent upon global capital, and maintain them in power.

This is largely what the US/NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia is about -- the
reassertion of U.S. capitalist hegemony over the region. In his last act as
Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown was leading a coterie of corporate
executives, military personnel and defense contractors whose companies had
contributed generously to the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
Their search for corporate gain and expansion of their markets took them to
war-torn Yugoslavia, where they examined ways of "recouping" their
"investments" in Clinton and Gore by exploiting the break up of that
beleaguered country.

When the plane went down over Yugoslavia five years ago with dozens of
corporate moguls aboard (some say it was shot down, generating the sort of
personalized anger fueling President Clinton's insistent bombardment), down
with it went the immediate application of U.S. strategy "to bring the
region firmly into the American sphere of military and commercial interest.
[Brown's] was the tour to cash in the investment and bring home the

At stake, at the time, in addition to cheap labor, military parts, future
oil rights and a vast assortment of natural resources in already-developed
mines, was $5.1 billion in reconstruction funds (that figure tripled, and
by now has doubled again, to more than an estimated $32 billion), with the
World Bank set to dispense $1.8 billion for the region in corporate
giveaways in 1996 alone.

Treasury Secretary Summers has also been described as "the scheming
architect of an end-run around Congress that resulted in the $42 billion
Mexican bailout" of 1995, according to NY Times reporter David Sanger.
Around the time he condoned the 1995 Mexican bailout, Summers was working
under then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. In his May 24, 1995 testimony
before the Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, Legal Research
International Chief Financial Officer Christopher Whalen characterized the
Mexican bail-out in the following way:

"Early in 1995, the size of the collapsing emerging market bubble so
terrified official Washington that Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin ...
embraced a public bailout for private investors in Mexico. It is some
measure of the ethical laxity of Washington that this rescue for friends
and former clients of a sitting Treasury Secretary went almost completely
unchallenged. Rubin, lest we all forget, is the chief fiscal officer of the
United States. When a Treasury Secretary condones a public bailout for
private foreign debts, he commits an act of fraud."

In June 1998, Treasury Secretary Summers was the main economist shaping
U.S. financial aid to the government of Indonesia, as massive fires gutted
Indonesia's forests and while its military was preparing to again massacre
civilians in East Timor. In a June 25, 1998 statement, Clinton's Treasury
Secretary said:

"We welcome the announcement in Jakarta today that the International
Monetary Fund and the Government of Indonesia have reached agreement on a
revised economic program designed to stabilize the Indonesian economy. The
United States has a strong economic and national security interest in
seeing Indonesia succeed in these efforts, which will depend on its ability
to sustain both economic and political reforms. We will be consulting with
the international financial institutions and other countries around the
world to ensure that international support for Indonesia is sufficient for
it to meet the difficult challenges it currently faces. We look forward to
the timely board approval and disbursement of these funds, as well as those
from the World Bank.

"We also welcome the Asian Development Bank's announcement that it has
approved a substantial loan to improve financial sector governance in
Indonesia. This loan will support efforts to strengthen Indonesia's banking
system and is critical to restoring financial stability and growth."

This is capitalist newsspeak: Imperialism with a toxic face. The strategy
was most clearly articulated in Summers' "free market in toxics" memo to
the Brave New World Bank, an explicit strategy not only for dumping the
wastes of northern industrial countries in the global south, but, under a
variety of arrangements, for keeping the working classes within every
country in their place.

Incinerating Chemical Weapons

Add to the nightmare the U.S. military, which is by all accounts the
biggest polluter in the entire world. The military mindset is so insane
that even when forced to do the right thing -- say, decomissioning some of
the world's largest supply of chemical weapons -- it invariably uses the
most destructive means. In the following case, incineration is its method
of choice. The military chose Kalama -- Johnston Island, a National
Wildlife Refuge -- as the locale for incinerating old chemical warfare
missiles and similar weapons.

Kalama -- a U.S. territory 825 miles southwest of Hawaii and 1,400 miles
east of the Marshall Islands -- is a once-idyllic 56-acre island rich in
marine and bird life, that was expanded to 690 acres by the U.S. military
and is now contaminated with Agent Orange and plutonium. Known as JACADS,
the Johnston Island facility, which started operations in June 1994, is the
U.S.'s only full-scale chemical weapons incineration plant. It is designed
to burn blister agent HD ("mustard gas"), and nerve agents GB and VX -- the
latter being much in the news of late as the U.S. claims traces had been
found in the soil surrounding a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which
the U.S. then proceeded to bomb, as well as in Iraq, which had purchased
precursors to the nerve agent from the U.S. in the late 1980s and to whose
alleged presence the U.S. had the same irrational and murderous response.

The Army says JACADS is being used only: 1) to burn the stockpile of
chemical weapons shipped to the atoll in 1971 from Okinawa (Congress
prohibited moving the Okinawa weapons to the U.S. mainland), and, 2) to
burn over 100,000 rounds of GB and VX projectiles among the 30-year-old
stockpile of weapons shipped from Germany in 1990. Hawaii-based opponents
of JACADS point to a history of dangerous problems caused by incineration,
from 133 substandard welds in the pipework, to explosions in various parts
of the furnace which have already released small amounts of GB nerve agent
into the atmosphere (March 1994), to the generation of unexpected
byproducts of decomposed blister agent. They point out that the "open
ended" technology used by the Johnston Island incinerator (and all waste
incinerators) emits airborne toxic and carcinogenic substances such as
dioxins and furans. Such emissions, and any escaped nerve gas, settles on
the top layer of the surrounding ocean and can be carried by winds to
populated areas, including the U.S. mainland.

There are far safer, proven alternatives to incineration, just as there are
to insecticide spraying -- but, they are more expensive. Feasible
alternatives include bioremediation with natural enzymes, chemical
neutralization, and "supercritical oxidation" (using water). The U.S.
government, however, refuses to be "obstructed" in its plans by the
international outcry that has arisen over the incineration of chemical
weapons and storage of its residue. The U.S. government is trying to make
the case that such opposition constitutes a violation of the World Trade
Organization's regulations stipulating unhindered "free trade" in toxic

While the rest of the world tries to regulate the international trade in
hazardous waste, the U.S. government -- the leading waste producer in the
world -- has thus far refused to sign any of the main treaties limiting
shipments abroad. As might be expected, such "effluents of affluence" are
disastrous to the environment and to people's health. At a critical
international conference in Geneva Switzerland (March 21-25, 1994), the
United States stood with only a handful of waste-exporting countries
against the entire world and opposed a ban on shipments of hazardous wastes
to non-industrialized countries.

The U.S. government had also taken the lead in blocking a proposal by
then-U.N. environment chief Mostafa Tolba and many so-called "developing"
countries that would have prohibited all toxic waste exports from 24
industrial countries to the rest of the world. At the exact moment the U.S.
government was stonewalling an agreement at an international conference in
Uruguay to prohibit shipments of toxic waste a U.S. barge loaded with 8,000
tons of sludge from Hawaii was steaming towards a dumpsite in the Marshall
Islands, in the once idyllic South Pacific.(26)

Jim Vallette writes: "In 1994, by the way, virtually every other country in
the world broke with Mr. Summers' Harvard trained "economic logic"
ruminations about dumping rich countries' poisons on their poorer
neighbors, and agreed to ban the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to
non OECD countries under the Basel Convention. Five years later, the United
States is one of the few countries that has yet to ratify the Basel
Convention or the Basel Convention's Ban Amendment on the export of
hazardous wastes from OECD to non OECD countries."

Disposal of hazardous liquid wastes could cost as much as $2,000 per ton.
The total annual costs run into the tens of billions of dollars, rivaling
the drug trade in potential profits for middlemen. Much cheaper, then, to
dump or burn them abroad at only a fraction of the economic cost. Indeed,
industrialized countries are under constant pressure to find new regions in
which to dump their waste. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Somalia,
Haiti and Guatemala became the latest locations selected by George Bush's
New World Order for the disposal of huge quantities of industrial and
incinerated waste. In fact, hazardous waste disposal was one of the factors
propelling military intervention in such places as Somalia and Haiti.

Months before the United States sent troops to Somalia to supposedly
protect food supply lines from pilferage by "evil warlords," Italy -- a
significant NATO ally which had sent hundreds of troops to Somalia -- was
completing arrangements to ship southern Europe's wastes there, with nary a
protest from the U.S.

Italian companies led a consortium that were in the midst of building two
incinerators to be installed in Somalia, which were slated to handle at
least two 550,000-ton shipments of toxic waste each year for an estimated
profit of $4 million to $6 million.(27)

In addition, Nur Elmy Osman, the 'health minister' under Somalia's
president Ali Mahdi Mohamed, signed a 20-year commitment in late 1991 -- a
year before the U.S. military occupation there -- with a private company,
Acher Partners, to allow the construction of an additional incinerator near
Mogadishu and a landfill to hold as much as 11 million tons of the
industrial and hospital 'treated' waste, including "solid and liquid waste
of the toxic type."(28) U.N. environmental chief Mostafa Tolba condemned
the proposed dump, saying that it could aggravate the destruction of
Somalia's ecosystem and threaten further loss of life in the ravaged
nation. Acher Partners' phone was answered at the home of a young woman
near Lausanne, Switzerland. She said she did not know what the company

A slew of similarly enterprising "free trade" merchants and shadowy
companies dealing in industrial and hazardous waste sprang up virtually
overnight. When Ann Leonard, of Greenpeace, called Terra International -- a
company involved in shipments of hazardous waste to Guatemala -- she
repeatedly reached only a plastic surgeon's office in Miami. Through her
persistence, however, she found that Terra International, with billions of
dollars at stake, was run by a sole individual -- the plastic surgeon's
brother -- who used a desk in a back room of the surgeon's office. Yet
profits made by the traffickers in toxic waste amount to tens of billions
of dollars each year, rivaling profits from the international drug trade.

Many of the companies are run by right-wing expatriates of Central American
and Caribbean countries. The companies own little capital of their own;
they use political contacts in their native lands -- juntas often installed
in power by the CIA and maintained there through U.S. government financial
and military support -- to arrange toxic deals. Indeed, they see the
burgeoning waste catastrophe in the U.S., Europe and Japan as a "growth
industry," and the manufactured destitution in such places as Guatemala,
Somalia and Haiti -- leading to U.S. military intervention -- as a chance
to make a fortune in profits while incurring few risks themselves.

Terra International, for example, based in Florida, serves as an
intermediary for Energy Resources, N.V., of Holland. Energy Resources,
N.V., won agreements to sell 1.2 million tons of liquid toxic waste each
year to Guatemala, to be burned in an incinerator not yet built. That's
right, the recipient country would actually _buy_ the waste, as a means of
obtaining cheap energy! As incentive, Guatemala would be "allowed" to mix
in its own locally-generated waste and burn it for free, compress the toxic
debris into bricks and build houses from them.

In the early 1990s the government of El Salvador approved a hazardous waste
facility to be built in the town of La Union, which would take in three
times the volume of the Guatemalan unit. The Salvadoran regime began
widening its harbors to accommodate the anticipated waste barges from the
U.S., Europe and Japan. Meanwhile, despite attempts at international
agreements (which the U.S., Canada and Japan refused to sign), even Panama
is sniffing excitedly in the direction of incineration as Uncle Sam's hot
toxic breath tickles the neck of its Canal Zone. And if Panama comes, can
Colombia be far behind?

Instead of curtailing production of toxics and detoxifying the remaining
wastes, mostly by-products of industrial manufacturing, many companies have
taken the American Cyanamid route: Dump it overseas. To reduce the volume
of waste, many governments support incineration and ash-disposal -- mixing
in the ash as "inert ingredients," for instance -- as the more
"eco-friendly" option. But, as we have seen, incineration brings in
additional environmental risks -- it generates waste in the form of ash in
which heavy metals are concentrated, to say nothing of the dioxin and other
dangerous gasses released by burning. Yet countries competing for the
millions of dollars in "disposable income" invite deposits of industrial
waste, loosening what few controls there are. Poor countries are induced
into accepting the wastes in exchange for International Monetary Fund
loans, which mandate funds for incinerator construction projects that can
also be used as power plants.

The massive exploitation of the environment in the "Third World" includes
the commodification of and international trade in deadly wastes. It also
includes capital's imposition of debt-for-nature swaps, construction of
huge incinerators and disposal sites, and many other seemingly senseless
projects. But to capitalism's New World Order, these are anything but
"senseless." They are ways in which the international debt crisis expresses
itself. The waste trade is not an avoidable excrescence of imperial
domination and the globalization of capital but is essential to it,
requiring us, if we are effectively to resist it, to develop new forms of
struggle and new vision for reclaiming our lives.


16. Brian Tokar, "Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of
Corporate Greenwash," South End Press, 1997.

17. Mitchel Cohen, "Ecological Devastation in Yugoslavia," and "Bombing the
Bridge to the 21st Century," in "Against Nato's War on Yugoslavia," Radical
Philosophy Association, NY, April 2000.

18. London Economist, Feb. 1992.

19. San Francisco Bay Guardian.

20. Jim Vallette, International Trade Information Service.

21. Jose Lutzenberger, in "Greenpeace Waste Trade Update," no. 5.1, First
Quarter 1992.

22. The Development Group for Alternative Policies, Inc., "Statement on the
Appointment of Lawrence Summers," 1400 I St. NW, Suite 520, Washington D.C.

23. For more on Clinton and Gore's corporate cabinet appointments, see Doug
Vaughan, "The Clinton Cabinet: Affirmative Action for the Ethically
Challenged," in Covert Action Quarterly, Spring 1993, 1500 Massachusetts
Ave. NW, #732, Washington D.C. 20005.

24. Counterpunch, April 1996.

25. Information on the chemical weapons facility on Johnston Island can be
obtained from the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, (808) 696-5157, and
the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, (808) 599-2436.

26. Greenpeace, Dec. 2, op cit.

27. Associated Press story reported in the Oakland Tribune, Sept. 7, 1992.
It is also an Italian company, Tonali, which is the major lead battery
importer in Brazil. Workers went on strike against the company in 1991 to
protest the exceedingly hazardous lead contamination of their blood.

28. Jane Hunter, "Somalia, Politics of Famine," Covert Action Quarterly,
Winter 1993, citing a report by Reuters, Sept. 7, 1992.

29. ibid.