CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Friday, October 24, 2014

And the beat goes on.  Here in rural New Jersey we see lists of small time pushers and users busted. No, it is not the crack cocaine epidemic that we had to fund the Contras, but if Gary Webb was still alive he would still have much news to investigate.  CIA means Cocaine Importers of America.


Insider: CIA Orchestrated Operation Fast and Furious -gov allowed Mexican drug cartel to import tons of cocaine

Federal government allowed Mexican drug cartel to import tons of cocaine into United States

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, August 12, 2011
Insider: CIA Orchestrated Operation Fast and Furious tumblr lp2nzqsBbt1qij8k6
Washington Times journalists Robert Farago and Ralph Dixon cite a “CIA insider” to make the claim that Operation Fast and Furious was a Central Intelligence Agency-orchestrated program to arm the Sinaloa drug cartel, a group that was also given the green light to fly tons of cocaine into the United States.
“In congressional testimony, William Newell, former ATF special agent in charge of the Phoenix Field Division, testified that the Internal Revenue Service, Drug Enforcement Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “full partners” in Operation Fast and Furious. Mr. Newell’s list left out the most important player: the CIA. According to a CIA insider, the agency had a strong hand in creating, orchestrating and exploiting Operation Fast and Furious,” report Farago and Nixon.
The program, with its designated cover of tracking where guns went so drug lords who purchased them could later be arrested downstream, was actually a deliberate effort to prevent the Los Zetas drug cartel from staging a successful coup d’etat against the government of Felipe Calderon by arming rival gang Sinaloa, according to the Times writers, a relationship that extended to “(allowing) the Sinaloas to fly a 747 cargo plane packed with cocaine into American airspace – unmolested.”
“The CIA made sure the trade wasn’t one-way. It persuaded the ATF to create Operation Fast and Furious – a “no strings attached” variation of the agency’s previous firearms sting. By design, the ATF operation armed the Mexican government’s preferred cartel on the street level near the American border, where the Zetas are most active,” states the report.
The notion that Fast and Furious was used as a cover through which to arm the the Sinaloa cartel would explain why the feds showed little interest in following up where guns ended up once they left the United States.
The Obama administration and the ATF claim that the Fast and Furious program was part of a sting operation to catch leading Mexican drug runners, and yet it’s admitted that the government stopped tracking the firearms as soon as they reached the border, defeating the entire object of the mission.
It would also account for the fact that the federal government failed to prevent Sinaloa importing tons of cocaine into the U.S.
Back in April, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the “logistical coordinator” for the Sinaloa drug-trafficking gang that was responsible for purchasing the CIA torture jet that crashed with four tons on cocaine on board back in 2007 told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago that he had been working as a U.S. government asset for years.

    According to court transcripts, Niebla was allowed to import “multi-ton quantities of cocaine” into the U.S. as a result of his working relationship with the FBI, Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

    But the notion that Fast and Furious was solely an effort to isolate the Los Zetas cartel isn’t consistent with the fact that one of the gang’s kingpins recently told Mexican federal police that the group purchased its weapons directly from U.S. government officials inside America.

    “They are bought in the U.S. The buyers (on the U.S. side of the border) have said in the past that sometimes they would acquire them from the U.S. Government itself,” Rej√≥n Aguilar told police.
    As we reported years ago, former DEA agent Cele Castillo has blown the whistle on how the US government controls the Los Zetas drug smuggling gang and uses it as the front group for their narco-empire.

    With the gang having first been trained at the infamous School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, Castillo affirms that Los Zetas are still working for the US govern... in protecting drug routes to keep the wheels of Wall Street well-oiled. Castillo has gone on the record to state that the commandos are working directly for the US government drug cartel in carrying out hits on rival drug smugglers who aren’t paying their cut.

    Fast and Furious may have served a dual purpose for the Obama administration.
    Some evidence indicates the program was a plot on behalf of the administration to discredit the second amendment. While the feds were selling guns to Mexican drug gangs, Obama was simultaneously blaming drug violence on the flow of guns from border states to Mexico.

    Even after the revelations surrounding the program became public, the ATF cited the trafficking of guns to Mexico as justification for a new regulation that has led to ATF intimidation of both gun sellers and purchasers, a policy which arrived months after President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that his administration was working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment.

    During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

    The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley.

    *********************
    Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
    -

    Thursday, October 23, 2014

    There is a movie that the CIA does not want you to see.  The movie is "Killing the Messenger", which is about the Crack Cocaine Epidemic and the Contras.  This was put in the San Jose Mercury News by investigative reporter Gary Webb.  It is difficult to find the movie.  There is no theater within 20 miles of me that are showing it.  Just outside of that radius there is one that has one showing every night at 10:35 PM.  We had to drive about 40 miles to see it in the afternoon.  See it is worth seeing.

    Here is the beginning of his articles:

    Welcome to Mercury Center
    Postscript
    Dark Alliance
    Frames: [ Enable | Disable ]

    Dealer's sentencing postponed

    Lawyer gets time to seek documents on alleged CIA-crack link Published: Sept. 14, 1996 BY GARY WEBB
    Mercury News Staff Writer
    SAN DIEGO -- U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff postponed the sentencing of former Los Angeles cocaine king ''Freeway'' Rick Ross on Friday and agreed to allow Ross' attorney to seek classified government documents relating to the potential involvement of CIA operatives in selling cocaine in black neighborhoods during the 1980s. Huff, who said it ''would be outrageous for the government to infect this country with drugs,'' also suggested that federal prosecutors seek a sworn statement from CIA Director John Deutch regarding the spy agency's knowledge of such activities. Deutch, in a press release last week, disclaimed any CIA involvement in cocaine trafficking. Ross' defense lawyer, Alan Fenster of Los Angeles, filed motions this week seeking a dismissal of Ross' recent cocaine-trafficking conviction, based on the Mercury News series ''Dark Alliance,'' which detailed how members of a CIA-run guerrilla army imported thousands of kilos of cocaine into South-Central Los Angeles during the past decade, helping touch off the nation's crack cocaine epidemic. Dealer was key witness One of those drug dealers, former Nicaraguan government official Danilo Blandon, was the key witness against Ross during his trial last March. Blandon, who now works as an undercover informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, has admitted under oath that he began selling cocaine in Los Angeles in 1982 to raise money for the Nicaraguan Democratic Force, the largest component of the rebel force commonly known as the Contras. Fenster, during a three-hour court hearing Friday, argued that Ross' conviction should be thrown out on the grounds of outrageous government conduct, because Justice Department lawyers withheld information about Blandon's involvement with the Contras and cocaine until it was too late for him to make any use of it at trial. The only reason he had any idea of Blandon's past activities, Fenster said, was because one of his investigators spoke to a Mercury News reporter about Blandon two weeks before the trial. ''If I had had that information when I needed it, I could have convinced a jury of 12 U.S. attorneys to dismiss this case,'' Fenster argued. Instead, he said, the Justice Department ''stonewalled it. They kept you in the dark and they kept me in the dark. (Ross) is a victim of the most outrageous government conduct known to man.'' Government lawyer scoffs But Assistant U.S. Attorney L.J. O'Neale scoffed at Fenster's claims of CIA involvement, calling them ''the worst sort of supposition ... it's all innuendo and supposition.'' He also said the Mercury News' series did ''not make a solid case'' of CIA involvement. Moments later, though, O'Neale acknowledged that ''when Blandon says he sold cocaine for the Contras, yeah, he did ... we have never found his credibility to be lacking in the slightest.'' O'Neale also agreed that ''Mr. Blandon thought the CIA was running things. Whether that's accurate or not, I don't know, but that's what he thought.'' In March, Blandon testified that before he began selling drugs for the CIA's army, he met in Honduras with Col. Enrique Bermudez, a longtime CIA operative who was selected by the agency to be the Contras' military commander. Also attending that meeting, Blandon testified, was Nicaraguan cocaine trafficker Norwin Meneses, who was the head of intelligence and security for the Contras in California.
    Other stories Congressional Black Caucus demands investigationPublished:
    Sept. 13, 1996
    Pair arrested while urging probePublished:
    Sept. 12, 1996
    Jackson calls for investigationPublished:
    Sept. 8, 1996
    Series leads to CIA probePublished:
    Sept. 6, 1996
    Waters calls on Attorney GeneralPublished:
    Sept. 4, 1996
    Boxer calls for CIA probePublished:
    Aug. 29, 1996
    Black groups seek probe of CIA drug linksPublished:
    Aug. 24, 1996
    Editorial: Another CIA disgrace: Helping the crack flowPublished:
    Aug. 21, 1996
    Gary Webb radio and TV appearancesLast updated:
    Sept. 16, 1996
    document link
    Biographical information on Oscar Danilo Blandon, Norwin Meneses, Enrique Bermudez and Rick Ross Photo link
    More photos of Rick Ross

    Inner-city dealings Blandon said Bermudez told him the Contras needed money and that ''the ends justified the means,'' after which he began dealing cocaine in inner-city Los Angeles. During that time, he testified, he was receiving instructions ''from ... other people.'' He told a federal grand jury in 1994 that at some point the CIA decided it didn't need any more drug money because the Reagan administration had begun giving the Contras taxpayer dollars. While O'Neale strenuously denied that the CIA was in any way involved with Blandon or his cocaine dealing, he also admitted to Judge Huff that he did not know if any CIA documents existed regarding Blandon or Meneses, who was Blandon's boss in the Contra drug ring. ''Whatever files the CIA has are not available to an assistant U.S. attorney,'' O'Neale said. ''I'm not privy to that.''
    audio link
    Blandon's testimony
    100K AIFF
    301K WAV
    document link
    Grand jury testimony of Danilo Blandon
    Before Blandon's testimony at Ross' trial, O'Neale filed a motion asking the judge to bar defense lawyers from questioning Blandon about his involvement with the CIA, saying that if it were true, ''it would be classified and if false, should not be allowed.'' Huff told Fenster on Friday that she had taken the motion under submission and had never actually made a formal ruling; Fenster said he was under the impression that he was not allowed to ask about the CIA, and he never did.
    document link
    Motion to preclude references to CIA

    Huff agreed to let Fenster file a motion under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) seeking documents regarding the CIA's connections to Blandon. Timing at issue But O'Neale argued that it didn't have any bearing on Ross' case if Blandon was involved with the spy agency, since Ross' conviction involved crimes committed in 1994 and 1995, not during the Nicaraguan civil war.
    Ross, whom O'Neale called ''the Wal-Mart of crack cocaine,'' was arrested after Blandon lured him into a DEA sting involving 100 kilos of cocaine. No matter what Blandon did in the past, O'Neale argued, it did not excuse Ross' involvement in crack dealing. ''If there was great evil, and there was, regardless of who started that evil, (Ross) was Santa's little helper,'' O'Neale said.
    Photo link
    Drugs used in DEA's bust
    ''If the United States government was involved in selling cocaine in the United States,'' Huff asked, ''don't you think that would be outrageous government conduct?'' ''In this case, no,'' O'Neale answered, prompting laughter and loud grumbling from the courtroom spectators. Huff set another hearing for Nov. 19.

    We will continue to post the rest of the stories.

    I have to thank Tom Bias for pointing out this song to me.  It tells it all as we are nothing more in than pawns in their game.  No matter where we live or the color of our skin, the language that we speak or the beliefs that we have, for to them we are but tools to be used, abused, and thrown away.

    The goverment then and now uses us as they damn well please.


    https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7315543258281792782#editor/target=post;postID=1032521189931571989

    Wednesday, October 22, 2014

    We would like to thank Stratfor for the following article. 

    The Similarities Between Germany and China

    Print Text Size
    By George Friedman
    I returned last weekend from a monthlong trip to both East Asia and Europe. I discovered three things: First, the Europeans were obsessed with Germany and concerned about Russia. Second, the Asians were obsessed with China and concerned about Japan. Third, visiting seven countries from the Pacific to the Atlantic in 29 days brings you to a unique state of consciousness, in which the only color is gray and knowing the number of your hotel room in your current city, as opposed to the one two cities ago, is an achievement.
    The world is not getting smaller. There is no direct flight from the United States to Singapore, and it took me 27 hours of elapsed travel to get there. There is a direct flight from Munich to Seoul, but since I started in Paris, that trip also took about 17 hours. Given how long Magellan took to circumnavigate the world, and the fact that he was killed in the Philippines, I have no basis for complaint. But the fact is that the speed of global travel has plateaued, as has the global economic system. There is a general sense of danger in Europe and Asia. There is no common understanding on what that danger is.
    I was in Seoul last week when the news of a possible wave of European crises began to spread, and indications emerged that Germany might be shifting its view on austerity. It was striking how little this seemed to concern senior officials and business leaders. I was in the Czech Republic when the demonstrations broke out in Hong Kong. The Czechs saw this as a distant event on which they had opinions but which was unlikely to affect them regardless of the outcome.
    There has been much talk of globalization and the interdependence that has flowed from it. There is clearly much truth in arguing that what happens in one part of the world affects the rest. But that simply was not evident. The eastern and western ends of the Eurasian landmass seem to view each other as if through the wrong side of a telescope. What is near is important. What is distant is someone else's problem far away.

    Germany and China as Economic Centers

    There is symmetry in this view. Europe cares about Germany and Asia about China. In some fundamental ways these countries have a substantial amount in common. China is the world's second-largest economy. Germany is the world's fourth-largest exporter. Both countries are at the center of regional trade blocs -- Germany's formal, China's informal. Both trade on a global basis, but both also have a special and mutual dependency on their regions. China and Germany both depend on their exports. Germany's exports were equivalent to 51 percent of its gross domestic product, or about $1.7 trillion, in 2013, according to the World Bank. China's exports equaled 23.8 percent of a larger GDP, or about $9.4 trillion.

    The two countries at the center of their respective regional systems have both been extremely efficient exporters. The United States, by comparison, exports only 14 percent of its GDP. But it is precisely this ability to export that makes both Germany and China vulnerable. Both have created production systems that outstrip their capacity to consume. For Germany, increasing consumption can be only marginally effective because it is already consuming at near capacity. For China, there is more demand, but much of it is among the roughly billion people who lack the purchasing power to the buy the goods China produces for the regional and global market. China's society lives on a steep cliff. On top of the cliff is a minority who can purchase goods. In the deep valley are those who cannot -- and also cannot readily climb the cliff. Thus, like Germany, China's effective demand cannot absorb its exports.
    Therefore, economic viability for both Germany and China depends largely on maintaining exports. No matter how much they import, their exports maintain domestic social order by providing a significant source of jobs right away, rather than in some future scenario involving the rebalancing of their work forces. For Germany, which has memories of massive social dislocation in the 1920s, maintaining full employment cuts to the heart of the country's social order. For China, whose Communist Party was shaped by the rising up of the unemployed in Shanghai in 1927, maintaining full employment is a bulwark in defense of the government. Both countries look at unemployment not only in terms of economics, but also in terms of social stability and governmental survival. Therefore, exports are not simply a number, but the foundation of each country.

    An Economic Model's Shortcomings

    The problem with an export-based economy is that the exporter is the hostage of its customers. Germany's and China's well-being depend not only on how they manage their economies, but on how their customers manage their own economies. If the customer's economy fails, the customer cannot buy. It doesn't matter whether the problem is a policy failure or a cyclical downturn -- the exporter will pay a price. Both Germany and China exist in this precarious position.
    Germany and China are dealing with the fact that their customers' appetites for goods are declining -- whether because of price competition or because of economic decline. Europe is in economic turmoil. Southern Europe is suffering from massive unemployment, and the rest of Europe is experiencing slower economic growth, no growth, or even decline. Demand in this market is essential to Germany, and it is difficult to maintain demand under these circumstances. It is not surprising, then, that the German economy appears to be moving to recession.
    China's problem is different from Germany's, if somewhat more hopeful in the long run. The 2008-2009 global financial crisis decimated China's low-end export sector. The crisis halted the decadeslong low-cost export boom that the Chinese government had kept alive well beyond its natural life span through years of systematic wage repression and wasteful subsidies, both direct and indirect, to manufacturers. As a result of the crisis, the portion of China's GDP tied to exports collapsed almost overnight, from 38 percent in 2007 to just under 24 percent now. This collapse has forced Beijing to keep the economy on life support through massive expansion of state-led investment into housing and infrastructure construction. The housing boom is showing signs of having finally run its course.
    Beijing is pinning its hopes, in part, on a revival of China's export manufacturing might -- not of the low-cost, low-value added goods that were once the country's mainstay, but increasingly of the kind of value-added goods proffered by more-advanced export economies such as South Korea and Germany. However, this evolution is a long-term goal, not one that can be realized in one, two or even five years. In the meantime, Beijing will struggle to maintain stable growth and high employment in the face of an anemic low-end export sector, a deflated housing and construction bubble, less-than-robust domestic consumption, and inadequate services and high-end manufacturing sectors.
    Germany's and China's regional partners may not, in the long run, benefit from German and Chinese export power. It is interesting that in general, everyone fears the major readjustment that might be coming. Germany's power and ability to flood markets are seen regionally as problems that need to be corrected. At the same time, Germany's regional trade partners understand the instability that readjustment would bring and are content, particularly among the corporate and financial communities, to maintain the current order with Germany at the center. The same might be said for China. When I spoke of China's weakness, there was no longer any resistance to the idea, as there was a few years ago. At the same time, no one was eager to see a changing of the guard. The western and eastern parts of Eurasia were each built around the power of a single country: Germany in the west and China in the east. Each region understands the economic price it pays for German and Chinese power, and each region understands that pivoting around these two countries provides an element of stability.

    Variables in East Asia and Europe

    Another wild card exists in each region. In Europe, it is Russia. In East Asia, it is Japan. Russia has already become active in asserting itself. It is not challenging German power, as Russia is not an industrial competitor with German exports. Rather, the country is an exporter of energy needed by Germany and Europe, and it is a significant, if regional, military power. In Eastern Europe where I travelled, the discussion frequently turned on the question of whether Germany and Russia had reached some sort of secret accord that was playing out around the Ukraine crisis. If there is an agreement, then the region will have to dance to the Moscow-Berlin tune. If there is no deal, then no one wants to see Germany destabilize. But there is also a sense that there is nothing to be done about it.
    In East Asia, there was also a sense that Japan is reappraising its postwar pacifism and preparing to take a more active military role in the region. Concerns about Japanese remilitarization were much less visible in Singapore than in Korea, and it is not an overwhelming concern anywhere. But there was still the feeling that as China enters an unpredictable phase economically, it enters one socially and politically as well. All of Japan's forays among the small islands to China's east may portend more aggressive moves. My own view -- that China is not nearly as capable militarily as it might appear -- was at once acknowledged and brushed off. In the region, risks can't be taken. Japan was seen as the wild card. Still the world's third-largest economy, with a substantial military establishment already, Japan might find it necessary to be a counterweight to China. There is as much enthusiasm for this in East Asia as there is for Russian aggressiveness in Europe.

    Seeing Both Sides of Eurasia

    A trip to both East Asia and Europe allowed me to see two things I never quite noticed before. The first is the symmetry between the two ends of Eurasia. Both are built around a strong exporting power that is now in very dangerous waters. Neither export powerhouse is loved in its home region, but few regional trade partners are eager to deal with the risks that instability might bring. And in each region there is an actor just off stage that is flexing its muscles and potentially changing the way the regional game is played.
    The second thing I noticed, which I don't think I would have seen without flying first to Singapore, then to Europe and then to South Korea, is the degree to which the two ends of Eurasia are decoupled. We talk about global interdependence, and it is real. But while, whatever the economic dynamics, each region is intellectually aware of what is going on at the other end of Eurasia, each sees the other as distant and ultimately unconnected from its concerns. They are aware of each other, but not concerned about each other, as each region plays its own game. What makes this ironic is how similar the two games are.
    The primary question that people on both sides of Eurasia asked was, "What is the United States going to do?" I was always asked about the decline of the United States and then, in the next sentence, asked about what the United States will do in Ukraine, Iraq or the South China and East China seas. There is a sense that Europe and China are far apart, but the United States is near. There was also a frustration that the United States is not prepared to play roles that would serve these regions' best interests and instead insists on pursuing what is seen as its own foolish ends. It was good to hear this, as it assured me the world has not completely uncoupled.
    Distance does seem to disconnect people. Money might flow in milliseconds, and flights can be made in (too many) hours, but human lives are built around what is nearby and therefore familiar. Each region saw itself as unique. I might have been startled by how much they have in common, and Europe's and Asia's fates might be similar. But I have the sense that despite all we say about a small planet, similarity is not the same as being linked.


    Read more: The Similarities Between Germany and China | Stratfor
    Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

    Tuesday, October 21, 2014

    If you wonder why Barack H. Obama or Barry Soetero is still in the White House, read the link below.

    http://rt.com/usa/197680-immigration-blank-cards-obama/

    He is still there as the ACTING President, and doing what he was selected for, and that is the destruction of the United States of America.  He is doing that real well. 

    Friday, October 17, 2014

    Water As a Human Right


    Privatization Everywhere

    It is happenning evrey where.  The rich want more and more.  They want to live off of our blood, sweat and tears.  What is our own they want, and then have us pay for it.  Please see the following article:

    Euro-wide citizen’s petition launched in Ireland amid fears that Irish water services could be privatised

    A Europe-wide ‘right to water’ campaign, which aims to attract a million petition signatures including 30,000 from Ireland, was launched at the IMPACT biennial delegate conference in Killarney, County Kerry today (Thursday). The initiative was recently accepted under the EU’s European Citizen Initiative (ECI), a new legal tool introduced as part of the Nice Treaty, which forces European institutions to consider issues that win the necessary public support.
    The ‘right to water’ campaign calls on the European Commission to recognise water as a human right, exclude water and sanitation services from EU internal market rules, and legislate to ensure water and sanitation assets remain in public control even where private companies operate them. The launch comes amid fears, voiced at the IMPACT conference earlier today, that the establishment of a new national water authority called Irish Water could eventually lead to the privatisation of Ireland’s water and drainage services.
    Delegates at the IMPACT conference expressed strong opposition to water privatisation and unanimously backed motions calling for Irish Water to remain in public ownership. IMPACT national secretary Peter Nolan backed reform of water provision but said the best way to prevent privatisation was for local authorities to retain legal and operational control of capital assets. He said Irish Water should be established as a not-for-profit organisation with a strategic role in raising investment funds, developing infrastructure, and ensuring that local authorities met robust standards of water quality and value for money.
    Despite Government assurances that it intends Irish Water to remain in public hands, unions believe plans to rationalise water assets in a single organisation will make future privatisation more likely, particularly once water charges trigger a lucrative income stream.
    IMPACT national secretary Peter Nolan questioned the funding and charging assumptions underpinning the Government’s plans and argued strongly that local authorities should retain control of the water infrastructure. “Water is a human right and you don’t have to be suspicious of the Government’s intentions to see the obvious risk inherent in its plans. Once Irish Water is established, with an income stream from water charges, the temptation to privatise would be immense, particularly if economic circumstances change for the worse and Ireland comes under international pressure to sell more State assets. In any case, Irish Water would be ripe for privatisation by any future Government that chooses not to make a commitment to continued public ownership,” he said.
    The European Citizens’ Initiative was launched at the conference by Jerry Van Den Berge of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU). He said the European Commission currently favoured ‘marketisation’ of water despite international opinion shifting against privatisation, mainly because of concerns over quality, price and value for money. “Over two-thirds of the EU’s water is supplied by local authorities, water has returned to public ownership in Paris,Vienna and Hungary, and Holland has passed legislation preventing water privatisation. Even in the USA 85% of water services are run by municipal companies,” he said.
    Speaking at the launch, IMPACT deputy general secretary Kevin Callinan said: “The European Citizens’ Initiative can help determine the principles and values that underpin the Europe we want, not simply a Europe that serves the interests of international finance and global capitalism. IMPACT is taking part in this Europe-wide initiative in order to deliver a strong message to the EU Commission and governments that citizens value water, and that public ownership protects water as a human right.”
    Among other things, the campaign calls on the European Commission to:
    * Exclude water and sanitation services from EU internal market rules
    * Exclude water and sanitation services from trade agreements
    * Legislate to ensure that water resources remain in public control even where private contractors provide services
    * Put measures in place to help prevent disconnection of households unable to pay water bills
    * Ensure that protection of water services prevails over commercial priorities
    * Insist on transparency and openness where private companies provide water and sanitation services
    * Support companies that invest in water partnerships with developing countries and
    * Recognise water as a human right.
    Earlier this year, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) pledged to resist any proposal to privatise the Irish water sector and called for investment and strategic planning in the sector. In a submission to the Government’s consultation on the establishment of Irish Water, ICTU said infrastructural problems with Ireland’s water networks were a product of years of under investment by successive governments. “Given the disaster we witnessed following the privatisation of Eircom, the privatisation of the former state banks and the recent difficulties associated with the privatisation of the bin collection service in Dublin, we believe that any attempt to privatise the water sector or any of its component parts will also be resisted by citizens,” it said.
    The IMPACT conference also passed motions calling for jobs, pay and working conditions to be protected if the Government presses ahead with its plans to transfer water operations from local authorities to Irish Water.