Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Marches Against Bush
Yet another large march against Bush occurred a couple weeks ago when he was down in Latin America trying to push the pro business, free trade policies that have been helping the rich and hurting the poor for decades. Argentinian Nobel Peace Prize winner, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, was among the protestors.
Untangling the Iraq War Debacle
this is a great article on how, even if we grant the Bush Admin all benefit of doubt in their intentions with the Iraq War (a very generous gift), we still must admit we've made errors on a grand scale. there are many links to other news articles here as well, and corroborating stories can be found in many other sources as well for these citations. read on please...
It wasn't just the intelligence, it was the War
Posted by Cenk Uygur at 10:37 AM on November 14, 2005.
Even if you believe that all the pre-war misinformation was just an honest mistake, the war was still counterproductive and wrong.
Throughout the last three years we have been given three principle reasons for the Iraq War by the White House.
We had to launch a pre-emptive strike to make sure we hit Iraq before they hit us with their arsenal of WMD.
Iraq is tied into the Global War on Terror that was brought to our shores on 9/11.
By bringing democracy to Iraq we will stabilize the region and make it friendlier to US interests, thereby defeating terrorism in the long term. All of these reasons might have sounded good at some point, but time has proven that they are all terribly wrong.
The first reason for the war seems the most comical in hindsight. At different points, the administration warned the American people about nuclear attacks, drone planes spraying us with chemical and biological weapons and imminent strikes against the United States. Let alone the hidden mustard gas on turkey farms (I'm not kidding). Condoleezza Rice told us that we could not wait for actual evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction because, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
As we all know now, Iraq did not have a plan to invade the US, or any drones, or nuclear weapons made in Niger, or even a single weapon of mass destruction. Whether you think that was an enormous fraud perpetrated upon the American people or you think it was unprecedented negligence leading to a terrible but honest mistake, the conclusion is beyond obvious - we were wrong.
We weren't just wrong on the intelligence - we were wrong to invade. We launched a pre-emptive strike against a non-existent threat. I don't remember the Iraqi people, let alone the American people, receiving an apology for this grave error. In the best case scenario, the administration invaded a country - invaded a country - based on an error.
If the intelligence was not manipulated by the administration for the express purpose of taking us into war, then they have committed the largest error in US history. Someone has to take responsibility for this act of colossal negligence. Usually the person ultimately responsible for this type of decision is the President. Has he ever accepted responsibility for this historic error?
The second reason given for the war was that Iraq was somehow involved with the Global War on Terror before we invaded the country. President Bush said on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech, "We've removed an ally of al-Qaeda." Really?
Then why did the 9/11 commission conclude that there was "no credible evidence" whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with al-Qaeda before the invasion? The commission reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq. How much clearer did they have to be?
In fact, before the Iraq war, the Pentagon gave the White House three different opportunities to take out the only person who might have been related to al-Qaeda in Iraq. All three times, the White House refused to order the air-strikes because it might undercut their reason for going to war. That person's name was Abu Musab Zarqawi.
The Bush administration, after specifically turning down all of those opportunities to strike Zarqawi, then claimed we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was giving shelter to Zarqawi. By the way, of course, this Saddam-Zarqawi link has also been debunked and discredited.
So, by letting Zarqawi go so that we could theoretically have a better case against Saddam, we wound up handing al-Qaeda a huge present in Iraq (according to most sources Zarqawi started working with al-Qaeda after the Iraq war began). After Saddam was toppled, Zarqawi was free to go on a campaign of terror he never came close to mustering under Saddam's rule.
Now, that al-Qaeda has been unleashed in Iraq by our gross negligence -- again, it is horrific negligence if you are being charitable and accepting that the Bush administration didn't want any of this to happen -- President Bush has the nerve to say that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place because it is now the central front in the war on terror.
At one point Vice President Cheney tried to justify the war by saying that through defeating Iraq, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Could you imagine if after Pearl Harbor, FDR launched an invasion of China because it was in "the geographic base" from which our enemies launched their attack, namely Asia?
Then, if he sent Truman to the talk shows to argue that starting a second war against a country that was not part of World War II was a great idea. That we should be busy fighting the Chinese instead of fighting the Japanese and the Germans. I imagine they would have been thrown out of office immediately. But since Iraqis look like "the terrorists" we think we're fighting, I guess attacking the wrong country these days while we're in the middle of the war on terror is no big deal.
Or could you imagine if President Clinton said after the Oklahoma bombing that we were going to invade Iraq because of the global war on terror? Iraq was as tied to 9/11 as it was to the Oklahoma City bombing. But since it was mainly Saudis who carried out the terror on 9/11 and white people who carried out the terror in Oklahoma City, invading Iraq in one case makes sense but doesn't in the other?
Knowing what we know now, isn't it obvious that there would have been a much smaller, if not nonexistent, presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq if we had not invaded? That there would have been far less acts of terror in Iraq and throughout the Middle East if we had not invaded? Even the CIA has acknowledged that we have created more terrorism through the invasion than we have stifled. Given these obvious mistakes, couldn't we at least expect our elected officials to admit we have made a grave error in launching this attack, even if they still hold on to the delusion that it was all an honest mistake?
Perhaps they are holding on to the third reason for invading as the one thing that will come to the rescue of their folly. I don't remember any grand speeches about democracy in Iraq before the invasion. Nonetheless, let's be charitable again and say that was their secret intent and that they thought we were too dense to comprehend such a global worldview (I believe the neocons did actually believe this, so I don't think we're being too charitable in thinking they had the intention of deceiving us for what they viewed to be our own good).
So, whatever became of this democracy? Now that we have had two and a half years of "tremendous progress" in the Iraqi political process, we should have less terrorism in Iraq, right? Apparently not, US government analysts told the Los Angeles Times recently that they realize the insurgency has not weakened as "democracy" has taken hold in Iraq.
General George Casey indicated to the Senate recently that the Iraqi insurgency might last a decade and that the US could leave before the insurgency is defeated. The Washington Post reported several months ago that inside administration sources have quietly given up on the idea of democracy in Iraq. Why that didn't make headlines everywhere I will never know. But that is a matter of the disheartening negligence of the American media, as opposed to the disheartening negligence of American politicians, which is the matter presently at hand.
The White House has given up on democracy in Iraq! What else is left then?
Apparently, the orchestrated leaks to the Washington Post were supposed to dampen the expectations of what could be accomplished in Iraq. Believe me, they were dampened already.
But this should have come as no surprise because the Washington Post also reported earlier that the White House at one point authorized the United States to rig the Iraqi elections -- or as they say, "influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office." There is disagreement on whether this plan was actually put into effect in the past January elections, with Seymour Hersh reporting in The New Yorker that it was. But again, being charitable, with all of the flowery talk about how the real reason for the invasion of was to bring democracy to Iraq, the White House at one point authorized a covert plan to influence the Iraqi elections, so that the people we supported won the elections rather than whoever might win without our "influence." Is it me or does that sound like colossal hypocrisy?
More importantly, it tells you that this White House never believed in bringing democracy to Iraq in the first place. On top of this, they have already admitted that they will not accomplish that goal or defeat the insurgency before we leave. We will leave Iraq a bloody mess without even coming close to any of the stated goals of the invasion.
There is nothing left. This war is indefensible. Yet, the administration has not admitted that they are responsible for a single mistake in the war, let alone the colossal mistake of invading in the first place.
It makes you despair of democracy. This invasion was so thoroughly wrong and so thoroughly botched that it not only makes you worry about democracy in Iraq, but it makes you worry about democracy here as well.
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
It wasn't just the intelligence, it was the War
Posted by Cenk Uygur at 10:37 AM on November 14, 2005.
Even if you believe that all the pre-war misinformation was just an honest mistake, the war was still counterproductive and wrong.
Throughout the last three years we have been given three principle reasons for the Iraq War by the White House.
We had to launch a pre-emptive strike to make sure we hit Iraq before they hit us with their arsenal of WMD.
Iraq is tied into the Global War on Terror that was brought to our shores on 9/11.
By bringing democracy to Iraq we will stabilize the region and make it friendlier to US interests, thereby defeating terrorism in the long term. All of these reasons might have sounded good at some point, but time has proven that they are all terribly wrong.
The first reason for the war seems the most comical in hindsight. At different points, the administration warned the American people about nuclear attacks, drone planes spraying us with chemical and biological weapons and imminent strikes against the United States. Let alone the hidden mustard gas on turkey farms (I'm not kidding). Condoleezza Rice told us that we could not wait for actual evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction because, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
As we all know now, Iraq did not have a plan to invade the US, or any drones, or nuclear weapons made in Niger, or even a single weapon of mass destruction. Whether you think that was an enormous fraud perpetrated upon the American people or you think it was unprecedented negligence leading to a terrible but honest mistake, the conclusion is beyond obvious - we were wrong.
We weren't just wrong on the intelligence - we were wrong to invade. We launched a pre-emptive strike against a non-existent threat. I don't remember the Iraqi people, let alone the American people, receiving an apology for this grave error. In the best case scenario, the administration invaded a country - invaded a country - based on an error.
If the intelligence was not manipulated by the administration for the express purpose of taking us into war, then they have committed the largest error in US history. Someone has to take responsibility for this act of colossal negligence. Usually the person ultimately responsible for this type of decision is the President. Has he ever accepted responsibility for this historic error?
The second reason given for the war was that Iraq was somehow involved with the Global War on Terror before we invaded the country. President Bush said on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech, "We've removed an ally of al-Qaeda." Really?
Then why did the 9/11 commission conclude that there was "no credible evidence" whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with al-Qaeda before the invasion? The commission reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq. How much clearer did they have to be?
In fact, before the Iraq war, the Pentagon gave the White House three different opportunities to take out the only person who might have been related to al-Qaeda in Iraq. All three times, the White House refused to order the air-strikes because it might undercut their reason for going to war. That person's name was Abu Musab Zarqawi.
The Bush administration, after specifically turning down all of those opportunities to strike Zarqawi, then claimed we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was giving shelter to Zarqawi. By the way, of course, this Saddam-Zarqawi link has also been debunked and discredited.
So, by letting Zarqawi go so that we could theoretically have a better case against Saddam, we wound up handing al-Qaeda a huge present in Iraq (according to most sources Zarqawi started working with al-Qaeda after the Iraq war began). After Saddam was toppled, Zarqawi was free to go on a campaign of terror he never came close to mustering under Saddam's rule.
Now, that al-Qaeda has been unleashed in Iraq by our gross negligence -- again, it is horrific negligence if you are being charitable and accepting that the Bush administration didn't want any of this to happen -- President Bush has the nerve to say that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place because it is now the central front in the war on terror.
At one point Vice President Cheney tried to justify the war by saying that through defeating Iraq, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Could you imagine if after Pearl Harbor, FDR launched an invasion of China because it was in "the geographic base" from which our enemies launched their attack, namely Asia?
Then, if he sent Truman to the talk shows to argue that starting a second war against a country that was not part of World War II was a great idea. That we should be busy fighting the Chinese instead of fighting the Japanese and the Germans. I imagine they would have been thrown out of office immediately. But since Iraqis look like "the terrorists" we think we're fighting, I guess attacking the wrong country these days while we're in the middle of the war on terror is no big deal.
Or could you imagine if President Clinton said after the Oklahoma bombing that we were going to invade Iraq because of the global war on terror? Iraq was as tied to 9/11 as it was to the Oklahoma City bombing. But since it was mainly Saudis who carried out the terror on 9/11 and white people who carried out the terror in Oklahoma City, invading Iraq in one case makes sense but doesn't in the other?
Knowing what we know now, isn't it obvious that there would have been a much smaller, if not nonexistent, presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq if we had not invaded? That there would have been far less acts of terror in Iraq and throughout the Middle East if we had not invaded? Even the CIA has acknowledged that we have created more terrorism through the invasion than we have stifled. Given these obvious mistakes, couldn't we at least expect our elected officials to admit we have made a grave error in launching this attack, even if they still hold on to the delusion that it was all an honest mistake?
Perhaps they are holding on to the third reason for invading as the one thing that will come to the rescue of their folly. I don't remember any grand speeches about democracy in Iraq before the invasion. Nonetheless, let's be charitable again and say that was their secret intent and that they thought we were too dense to comprehend such a global worldview (I believe the neocons did actually believe this, so I don't think we're being too charitable in thinking they had the intention of deceiving us for what they viewed to be our own good).
So, whatever became of this democracy? Now that we have had two and a half years of "tremendous progress" in the Iraqi political process, we should have less terrorism in Iraq, right? Apparently not, US government analysts told the Los Angeles Times recently that they realize the insurgency has not weakened as "democracy" has taken hold in Iraq.
General George Casey indicated to the Senate recently that the Iraqi insurgency might last a decade and that the US could leave before the insurgency is defeated. The Washington Post reported several months ago that inside administration sources have quietly given up on the idea of democracy in Iraq. Why that didn't make headlines everywhere I will never know. But that is a matter of the disheartening negligence of the American media, as opposed to the disheartening negligence of American politicians, which is the matter presently at hand.
The White House has given up on democracy in Iraq! What else is left then?
Apparently, the orchestrated leaks to the Washington Post were supposed to dampen the expectations of what could be accomplished in Iraq. Believe me, they were dampened already.
But this should have come as no surprise because the Washington Post also reported earlier that the White House at one point authorized the United States to rig the Iraqi elections -- or as they say, "influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office." There is disagreement on whether this plan was actually put into effect in the past January elections, with Seymour Hersh reporting in The New Yorker that it was. But again, being charitable, with all of the flowery talk about how the real reason for the invasion of was to bring democracy to Iraq, the White House at one point authorized a covert plan to influence the Iraqi elections, so that the people we supported won the elections rather than whoever might win without our "influence." Is it me or does that sound like colossal hypocrisy?
More importantly, it tells you that this White House never believed in bringing democracy to Iraq in the first place. On top of this, they have already admitted that they will not accomplish that goal or defeat the insurgency before we leave. We will leave Iraq a bloody mess without even coming close to any of the stated goals of the invasion.
There is nothing left. This war is indefensible. Yet, the administration has not admitted that they are responsible for a single mistake in the war, let alone the colossal mistake of invading in the first place.
It makes you despair of democracy. This invasion was so thoroughly wrong and so thoroughly botched that it not only makes you worry about democracy in Iraq, but it makes you worry about democracy here as well.
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
US Press Freedom Slipping
This is an interesting article. Not sure how well the survey questions were created or how well the surveys were administered, but still it's interesting that the US, supposedly the beacon of freedom for the world, is so far down on the list.
Coca Cola In Trouble Again: Found Guilty!
Coca Cola is in trouble again. Big surprise. This time they were found guilty on a number of counts of monopoly charges in Mexico, specifically trying to pressure small business owners with bully tactics. And of course, Coke issued the standard corporate denail even after being found guilty twice. Always Coca Cola, always the real unethical thing? Hmmm...the CNN story is below, just another in a very long list of human, environmental, and labor rights violations by the corporate giant.
Also, having been in Mexico for a couple of months, I can attest to the magnitude of Coke's beverage power here. If you go into a tienda, you have to avoid Coke, Fanta, & Fresca (for soda), and probably some other names for juices. There is sometimes an alternative orange soda brand, but that's usually about it for soda alternatives. Additionally, Fresca and tequila is a very popular drink here, and it's served at basically every bar, most likely without a Fresca alternative (I think I've seen a lemon lime alternative a couple times in tiendas though). It would be one thing to accept benefits to an economy when business ties are friendly, it's entirely another to help the economy at the expense of the rights of individuals,which is what Coke has been found guilty and observed by independent investigators to be doing for quite a long time.
Mexico shop owner beats Coca Cola
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico has imposed its biggest anti-monopoly fines ever, totaling about US$68 million (euro58 million,) against Coca Cola and dozens of its distributors and bottlers.
The battle was won by one woman who got tired of being told what to sell at her one-room store in an impoverished Mexico City neighborhood.
In a country where David-vs.-Goliath battles usually end with David getting crushed, Raquel Chavez's victory is no small feat.
The fines -- one batch amounting to about US$15 million (euro13 million) and another for US$53 million (euro45 million) -- will not be formally announced until a mandatory appeals period ends, but regulators and a Coca Cola representative confirmed them to The Associated Press.
It is no coincidence that the battle -- which resulted in some of the highest antitrust fines Coke has ever faced -- was waged in Mexico, with the highest per-capita soft drink consumption in the world.
Even Chavez, 49, expected to lose when a Coke distributor told her to get rid of Big Cola, an upstart brand that arrived in Mexico recently from Peru, or risk having Coke stop selling to her.
"I told them, 'You can't refuse to sell to me. That's unconstitutional'," Chavez told The Associated Press. "I didn't really know if it was unconstitutional, but I said it anyway."
Coca Cola denied that it has engaged in monopolistic practices.
"We respect the ... decisions," spokesman Charley Sutlive said. "However, we have used the appeal processes open to us to present arguments that our business practices comply with Mexican competition laws, and to demonstrate that our commercial practices are fair."
Coke, whose share of the Mexican soft drink market hovers around 70 percent, is a must-have item for small stores. Chavez still sells it. But she also resented being told what she could sell.
"You may call the shots everywhere else, but I'm the boss in my store," she told the distributor.
She put her three children through college with her 20-hour days at her store, called "La Racha," which means a streak of luck, and takes pride in the business.
In 2003, her customers began asking for "Big Cola," which had begun cutting into Coke's market with lower prices. Coke told her to get rid of the brand, but she refused.
"I am a common citizen who demands her rights, who won't allow herself to be stepped on, that's all," the vigorous, fast-talking Chavez said as she sat on an upturned Coke crate outside her shop.
The shop is tucked into the corner of a one-story brick building in the working-class Iztapalapa neighborhood. Its counters are protected against thieves with steel mesh.
Doing business here is tough. Chavez has been held up at gunpoint or with knives several times since she opened the store in 1992. But nothing had prepared her for the fight with Coca Cola.
First, she didn't know which government agency to turn to. Then, Chavez found the Federal Competition Commission offices on the swanky west side of town. After two months of inaction, she blew up at the anti-monopoly agency.
"I told them, 'What are you good for? What purpose do you serve?"' she said. "Are you here to protect Coke, or to defend us?"
They finally accepted her complaint, investigated it, and found evidence of similar incidents -- some documented by Big Cola, which later joined the case. Two years later, on July 4, the commission ruled in a closed-door session that 15 Coke bottlers had violated anti-monopoly laws in the case, and fined them about US$15 million.
"I was sure we would lose, because in Mexico for so long, people got away with anything," Chavez said.
Dark days
Just a few weeks later, on August 12, a similar case that had been held up in hearings for years was suddenly resolved -- again, with a ruling against Coke, this time against 54 distributors who were ordered to pay about US$1 million (euro860,000) each, the maximum fine allowed.
A copy of one of the rulings obtained by The Associated Press showed that some Coke distributors had threatened to remove company-supplied refrigerators and displays from shops that sold other brands.
They also allegedly shifted competitors' merchandise away from prime locations in some stores, bought it all up and dumped it, or offered Coke merchandise in return for not selling the other brands.
Alfredo Paredes, the communications director for Big Cola's parent company, Ajemex, credits the rulings with "giving us a sense of reassurance ... that these small business owners will no longer be subject to intimidation."
Chavez won't get any of the money -- the fines go to the government -- though her victory didn't come cheap.
For three months, she lost all her Coke deliveries. "I thought we were going to go out of business," she said.
Chavez was forced to buy Coke from wholesale centers and lug home dozens of cases in her 1979 Dodge Dart.
"My husband just watched me," she said. "He was mad."
Things have changed since those dark days.
Her husband now waits on customers as Chavez proudly shows off her court papers. Almost on cue, a bright red Coke truck pulls up and smiling, courteous Coke employees unload Chavez's twice-weekly delivery. They say she's a good customer.
"I thought that we would lose this case, and when we did, it was going to be like 'Look, little ant, we crushed you,' because the powerful always win," she said. "Now I feel proud. Maybe now people will start standing up for themselves."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Also, having been in Mexico for a couple of months, I can attest to the magnitude of Coke's beverage power here. If you go into a tienda, you have to avoid Coke, Fanta, & Fresca (for soda), and probably some other names for juices. There is sometimes an alternative orange soda brand, but that's usually about it for soda alternatives. Additionally, Fresca and tequila is a very popular drink here, and it's served at basically every bar, most likely without a Fresca alternative (I think I've seen a lemon lime alternative a couple times in tiendas though). It would be one thing to accept benefits to an economy when business ties are friendly, it's entirely another to help the economy at the expense of the rights of individuals,which is what Coke has been found guilty and observed by independent investigators to be doing for quite a long time.
Mexico shop owner beats Coca Cola
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico has imposed its biggest anti-monopoly fines ever, totaling about US$68 million (euro58 million,) against Coca Cola and dozens of its distributors and bottlers.
The battle was won by one woman who got tired of being told what to sell at her one-room store in an impoverished Mexico City neighborhood.
In a country where David-vs.-Goliath battles usually end with David getting crushed, Raquel Chavez's victory is no small feat.
The fines -- one batch amounting to about US$15 million (euro13 million) and another for US$53 million (euro45 million) -- will not be formally announced until a mandatory appeals period ends, but regulators and a Coca Cola representative confirmed them to The Associated Press.
It is no coincidence that the battle -- which resulted in some of the highest antitrust fines Coke has ever faced -- was waged in Mexico, with the highest per-capita soft drink consumption in the world.
Even Chavez, 49, expected to lose when a Coke distributor told her to get rid of Big Cola, an upstart brand that arrived in Mexico recently from Peru, or risk having Coke stop selling to her.
"I told them, 'You can't refuse to sell to me. That's unconstitutional'," Chavez told The Associated Press. "I didn't really know if it was unconstitutional, but I said it anyway."
Coca Cola denied that it has engaged in monopolistic practices.
"We respect the ... decisions," spokesman Charley Sutlive said. "However, we have used the appeal processes open to us to present arguments that our business practices comply with Mexican competition laws, and to demonstrate that our commercial practices are fair."
Coke, whose share of the Mexican soft drink market hovers around 70 percent, is a must-have item for small stores. Chavez still sells it. But she also resented being told what she could sell.
"You may call the shots everywhere else, but I'm the boss in my store," she told the distributor.
She put her three children through college with her 20-hour days at her store, called "La Racha," which means a streak of luck, and takes pride in the business.
In 2003, her customers began asking for "Big Cola," which had begun cutting into Coke's market with lower prices. Coke told her to get rid of the brand, but she refused.
"I am a common citizen who demands her rights, who won't allow herself to be stepped on, that's all," the vigorous, fast-talking Chavez said as she sat on an upturned Coke crate outside her shop.
The shop is tucked into the corner of a one-story brick building in the working-class Iztapalapa neighborhood. Its counters are protected against thieves with steel mesh.
Doing business here is tough. Chavez has been held up at gunpoint or with knives several times since she opened the store in 1992. But nothing had prepared her for the fight with Coca Cola.
First, she didn't know which government agency to turn to. Then, Chavez found the Federal Competition Commission offices on the swanky west side of town. After two months of inaction, she blew up at the anti-monopoly agency.
"I told them, 'What are you good for? What purpose do you serve?"' she said. "Are you here to protect Coke, or to defend us?"
They finally accepted her complaint, investigated it, and found evidence of similar incidents -- some documented by Big Cola, which later joined the case. Two years later, on July 4, the commission ruled in a closed-door session that 15 Coke bottlers had violated anti-monopoly laws in the case, and fined them about US$15 million.
"I was sure we would lose, because in Mexico for so long, people got away with anything," Chavez said.
Dark days
Just a few weeks later, on August 12, a similar case that had been held up in hearings for years was suddenly resolved -- again, with a ruling against Coke, this time against 54 distributors who were ordered to pay about US$1 million (euro860,000) each, the maximum fine allowed.
A copy of one of the rulings obtained by The Associated Press showed that some Coke distributors had threatened to remove company-supplied refrigerators and displays from shops that sold other brands.
They also allegedly shifted competitors' merchandise away from prime locations in some stores, bought it all up and dumped it, or offered Coke merchandise in return for not selling the other brands.
Alfredo Paredes, the communications director for Big Cola's parent company, Ajemex, credits the rulings with "giving us a sense of reassurance ... that these small business owners will no longer be subject to intimidation."
Chavez won't get any of the money -- the fines go to the government -- though her victory didn't come cheap.
For three months, she lost all her Coke deliveries. "I thought we were going to go out of business," she said.
Chavez was forced to buy Coke from wholesale centers and lug home dozens of cases in her 1979 Dodge Dart.
"My husband just watched me," she said. "He was mad."
Things have changed since those dark days.
Her husband now waits on customers as Chavez proudly shows off her court papers. Almost on cue, a bright red Coke truck pulls up and smiling, courteous Coke employees unload Chavez's twice-weekly delivery. They say she's a good customer.
"I thought that we would lose this case, and when we did, it was going to be like 'Look, little ant, we crushed you,' because the powerful always win," she said. "Now I feel proud. Maybe now people will start standing up for themselves."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)