Thursday, December 29, 2005
It was, in fact, deja vu over again. Twelve months ago, in the immediate aftermath of the Tsunami, I was being ferried around the studios to discuss the shock and horror of UN Humanitarian Affairs chief Jan Egeland calling the US 'mean.'
Mere technical details like the fact that he had said no such thing did not dam the tidal wave of indignation bouncing off the walls of the conservative echo-chamber.
Egeland had actually said that the developed countries had almost all failed to meet their own targets of 0.7% of GDP going to Overseas Development Assistance, which is indisputably true. He did not specify that of all of them, the US was the meanest, but I had no compunction about reminding viewers.
In fact the US had offered an initial $30 million at the time of the Tsunami, which the talking heads all considered as the height of generosity. As the scale of the tragedy broke, the administration added several zeroes to its initial offer. However the purpose of the show was not to congratulate me on my prescience, it was to find another excuse to attack the UN.
In fact, I am somewhat surprised that no one has yet found a way to link the Hurricane Katrina debacle to the UN. But somehow the right does not want to remind people about the New Orleans debacle.
I doubt that we have heard the last of this newly launched Tsunami canard, not least since Bill Clinton's position as UN Special Envoy makes it a double whammy for the right. The UN is always wrong, it is simply a question of pinning its inherent wrongness to a topical peg.
However we can draw some comfort. Could it be that that 'Oil for Food' as a subject has lost its appeal even for the rabid right?
On one level, this is probably no bad thing, since the voluminous but vapid Volcker Report finally said all there was to say, and probably a lot more than was worth saying, about the alleged scandal.
De minimis Lex non curat, says the old legal saw, 'The law does not concern itself with trifles.' If only we could say the same of much of the media, which of course concerns itself with little else.
For a year every minute item about the Oil For Food Program has been bellowed breathlessly from the conservative media.
And suddenly, there is silence. Last month Kojo Annan, son of Kofi ,was awarded large damages against the Murdoch-owned London Sunday Times, which has to admit that its story connecting him to Oil For Food contracts had no substance. You did not see the story on Fox, MSNBC, or any of the usual cabal.
In December, the US charged two colonels who had worked for the 'Coalition Provisional Authority' with accepting bribes of $200,000 a month for steering contracts to companies that were seemingly just shells. They worked with someone whom the Coalition Provisional Authority hired as comptroller with a budget of $82 million - despite a previous felony conviction for fraud.
It did not make the headlines. Senator Norm Coleman and Congressman Henry Hyde did not call for the resignation of the chief executive of the organization involved, one George W. Bush.
And no one mentioned that much of the money involved presumably came from the $10 billion surplus that the UN Oil For Food Fund had handed over to the Development Fund for Iraq, controlled by the CPA. During its blessedly short life span, the American dominated CPA spent nearly $20 billion of the $23.34 billion of Iraqi funds it had under its control for just over a year. It spent just $300 million of the US taxpayer funding pledges of $18.4 billion for Iraq's reconstruction.
At a press conference at the UN on Wednesday 28 December the members of the International Accounting and Monitoring Board set up by the Security Council to monitor CPI spending of DFI funds, reinforced the impression that the Pentagon's efforts to freeze them out were a waste of effort. The body bared its gums and refused to bark at the clear evidence of gross waste, mismanagement and corruption by the CPA.
The board simply examined 24 sole sourced contracts that the CPA awarded worth more than five million dollars. In fact, we discovered during the press conference, they had paid KPMG to 'audit' 23 of them, representing some $600 million which it was suggested was mostly a process of examining American government audits.
The Pentagon had heavily censored what they provided to the IAMB until Congressman Henry Waxman posted their devastating reports on his website.
The biggest sole-sourced contract was Kellogg Brown Root, the Halliburton subsidiary which walked off with $1.6 billion. KPMG recused itself from this, so the IAMB relied on the work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq as well as the Pentagon audits.
Just consider. The US gave a sole sourced contract to a subsidiary of the company that had had Vice President Dick Cheney CEO from which he is still rolling up deferred compensation. The audit was carried out by Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General, appointed by President George W. Bush, whose lawyer he had been in various forms way back to his time as Governor of Texas.
Through almost complete media silence about this ultimate in potential whitewashes, one cannot help but hear echoes, of the febrile demands for transparency from the UN, on the need for external checks. If Kofi Annan had appointed his own lawyer to conduct the Inquiry that Volcker actually headed, can you imagine the frothy indignation?
It also emerges that the IAMB did not examine the other contracts at all, not even to check the open-ness and fairness of the bidding, let alone to see if the money from the Development Fund was in fact spent on behalf of the Iraqi people as mandated.
In fact, even Bowen's report managed more indignation than the IAMB has so far mustered. Almost the only admonition from the Board has been to suggest mildly that the US reimburse the $200 million plus that KBR overcharged for fuel supplies to Iraq. Bowen found a massive $8.8 billion of Development Fund for Iraq money could not be accounted for
That was the result of Defense Department Audits that the Pentagon tried to conceal from the IAMB, and which were only revealed by Waxman who has managed far more indignation about it than the IAMB's public statements display. One cannot help suspecting that some of the board's five members have had words with US administration officials. Even Bowen complained about this one.
As Waxman said back in June, 'there has been a stark and telling contrast between Congress' approach to the Oil For Food Program and the DFI. Five separate congressional committees have been investigating U.N. mismanagement of the Oil for Food Program, and more than a dozen hearings have been held. But before today there was not a single hearing in Congress on U.S. mismanagement of the Development Fund for Iraq,' which, as he points out, is the successor to the Oil For Food program.
(see http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050629132455-23867.pdf )
Waxman reported that the CPA withdrew no less than $12 billion in cash from the New York Federal Reserve Bank DFI and flew it to Iraq, comments - no less than 363 tons of $100 bills, the largest cash withdrawal in history. In its final feeding frenzy, in the last month the CPA took out $4 billion from the mother of all ATM's in New York including the largest cash withdrawal in history, $2.4 billion.
In a partial audit of $120 million of the $600 million handed out to US military officials for local reconstruction, more 80% could not be accounted for, and $7 million was simply missing.
When I raised the fate of these funds at Kofi Annan's press conference just before Christmas, I was later berated by John Bolton's press officer as an 'apologist for the UN,' as he questioned my journalistic integrity and accused me of 'blurring the line' between the Oil for Food kickbacks and what he characterized the CPA's accounting irregularities. I told him that I was not blurring the line. I was drawing a straight line between them.
If Benon Sevan's $160,000, alleged by the Volcker Inquiry, is headline news for the best part of the year, then I think it is a legitimate question to ask why the CPA's attested multi billion scandal scarcely merits a paragraph in the back pages.
Or is the profession saying that this is a dog bites man/man bites dog scenario? That if the UN is corrupt it is unusual, but massive corruption is too commonplace in this Bush administration to merit mention?
I suspect that this is not what the news editors and producers are saying. But it would be interesting to hear an explanation about what news values mandate that the mote in the UN's eye deserves minute attention but that the beam in the White House's can be overlooked.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
I join in on the strength of a Scottish great grandparent, a partiality to a drop of malt, and a positive love of haggis - a spiced pudding of sheeps' entrails, lungs and blood mixed with cereal and boiled in a sheep's stomach.
Apart from such obvious culinary attractions, Rabbie Burns wrote one of the most pithy lines that every writer about international affairs should have carved on their desk.
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!
It is a telling warning against double standards, and nowhere is this more potent than in the case of Hugo Chavez where even the most urbane of American commentators show the pervasive effects of wall-to-wall invective from the right. BusinessWeek's Geri Smith wrote this week, in an otherwise fair article, "What's worrisome is that Chavez, though democratically elected, has consolidated his grip on power by packing the Supreme Court, electoral council, and Central Bank with his followers."
Now let us see ourselves in the US as others see us -indeed as many of us see ourselves when our minds are not befogged by 24 hour cable diatribes. Hugo Chavez, a veteran coup leader, clearly has an authoritarian streak, but let us pause to consider another President we know all to well.
George W. Bush was originally elected in a dubious election where the Supreme Court, acting as the electoral council, had a partisan majority, created in part by his father, which koshered the exotic voting customs of the state where this brother controlled the electoral machinery. And not content with that, George W. Bush is busy trying to pack the Supreme Court to make it even more complaisant.
Alan Greenspan, the veteran poodle Bush reappointed as head of the Central Bank, has never found a Democratic deficit he can applaud, nor a Republican one he can condemn.
And as for authoritarian! Does breaking the constitution on habeas corpus, defying legislation against domestic spying, and organizing third party torture sessions across the globe qualify?
Chavez, as an ex-military man appears too often in military garb, but then so does George W. Bush whose own military career ended up in ignominious war-time desertion from whose consequences he was saved only by his plutocratic and nepotistic connections.
Chavez also currently stands accused of supporting the election of the first indigenous President of Bolivia ever. Unlike, of course, all the electoral assistance from the US to the various rainbow revolutions in the former Soviet Union and Lebanon.
The old principle of "My enemy's enemy is my friend," is a very dubious one. Some of those people who US money helped overthrow richly deserved their going, and based on Chavez's previous record I will not go overboard in my support.
He is blessed with some very stupid enemies, however. Between the opposition's stupidity in not contesting the elections, Pat Robertson's incitement to assassination, and George W. Bush's chronic inability to understand that good works can lead to good friends, Chavez has some world class idiots ranged against him.
But one cannot help admiring someone who is putting oil-money to good use at home and abroad. The cries of "unfair" are actually pretty rib-tickling. Imagine the low cunning of helping cash-strapped developing countries lower their debt burden: the fiendish Machiavellianism of extending health care and education to people at home and abroad who have never had it! Imagine the diabolical duplicity of supporting the election of people in other countries who want to do the same. Just consider the chutzpah of helping poor people in the richest country in the world survive the winter with cheap heating oil.
Whatever reservations I have about Chavez tend to disappear in the face of such praiseworthy deeds,
In fulfillment of the Burns' suggestion of seeing ourselves as others do, I often suggest to diehard nationalists to substitute the names of their own country and tribe with the enemy in their declarations, and see if it makes as much sense when reversed. Somehow, the equations of sacred rights, divine promises and historical destiny never seem as self-evident when they are reversed in this way. Every argument raised for regime change in Venezuela applies with equal and more force to the wannabee Caudillo from Texas currently in the White House.
And by the way. Happy Hogmanay.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
It was after the visits of the ghosts of Christmas, past present and future and Scrooge had become a kind, considerate and model employer that Dickens wanted people to emulate him.
The day before Christmas Eve, the agent for the debt collection agency who has been trying to recoup unpaid fees from an overseas publisher called me up. Of course it is asking a bit much for a debt collection agency to show any great signs of Christmas Spirit, but he and all his colleagues had just been told they had ten days to move across the continent to another office, or collect their pink slips on New Year’s Eve.
There was no offer of help to relocate their homes and families, and no redundancy package. Instead, there was a combined threat, or promise, that if they stayed to the very last day, they would retain health insurance for a further thirty days, but if they left a day early, their coverage would be cut off immediately.
Of course there was no union in the place, so what we saw was “Labour Market flexibility” of the kind that European emulators of American barbarism are trying to force through. Employers should be able to fire workers at a whim, with little or no notice, no consultation – and precious few benefits for those thrown on the street.
Of course, in that other outstanding example of Christmas spirit Governor George Pataki did come across unions. He essentially engineered a Transit strike in the week before Christmas so that he could come across as a tough guy for the impending Republican presidential primaries. I think it was Pataki I heard on the radio eulogizing the sacrifice of troops fighting for freedom in Iraq, while the Transport Workers, by implication, were backing the insurgents by demanding the same pension rights for new workers as existing staff.
I gather that the freedom to strike was not one of the freedoms for which the troops are fighting. Indeed, the International Labour Organization has in the past considered the laws in American states like New York banning strikes by public workers as in violation of the conventions against forced labour.
Remember, the management could go to the courts to get fines against the union for refusing to work without a mutually acceptable contract, but there is no legal mechanism for the unions to take the management to court for worsening existing conditions. As Anatole France said over a century ago, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
And remember the background. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is controlled by the Governor, beholden to Republican rural counties in upstate New York who do not use the system. If they come into Manhattan, they are driving SUV’s or using the proportionately more heavily subsidized commuter railroad system.
It is of course a telling subtext that they are overwhelming white while a good proportion of MTA passengers, and a distinct majority of the transit workers, are not. So when they call Roger Toussaint, the Trinidadian Transport Workers Union leader “thuggish” they were using coded language. I mean, it is bad enough white white-collar workers expecting pensions and healthcare, but they can be fired. But when uppity black blue- collar workers want to keep them, who do they think they are!
The citizens of the city of New York were not asked about whether they agree that the MTA can hide a billion dollar surplus when it was raising fares and then spend it down rapidly so they could plead poverty before the wage negotiations. And they will not vote for Pataki anyway. I trust the ghost of Christmas present will haunt the rest of his presidential primary campaign and consign him to the political oblivion he has worked so hard to deserve.
Merry Christmas Governor Scrooge.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Apart from the Bush rhetoric, I based my prophecy of doon on the steady attrition of leaks and briefings from the NeoCon edge of the administration. At least they could come up with a credible motive – taking out Iraq would be good for Israel. Apart from George W. Bush’s aside that Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate his father, no one else has really come up with an excuse for the war that would hold water, let alone all the oil and blood that has been spilt.
So when in aftermath of the invasion in 2003 I began to see signs of a similar move on Syria, I warned about the impending invasion. My evidence was that there were demands for it from Israel, and ever an administration has proved to be a tail-waggable canine, then this is it. There were also the leaks and briefings: the missing weapons of mass destruction had been seen heading across the border into Syria; the insurgent Jihadists had been seen heading across the border from Syria; Damascus supported Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
At one point, famously George W. Bush even discovered that, shock, horror, there were Baathists in Damascus. That the founder of the Baath party was a Christian, and that the secular (albeit fascistic) programs of the party made it a very unlikely supporter of Al Qaida were mere technical details, quibbles from realists with no standing in faith based circles.
The Syrians did support Hizbollah, whose successful long term war of attrition against Israel had cleared the occupation from Lebanon, which led to long standing grudges against the regime in Damascus, compounded by Syrian ineptitude in keeping the Shaba Farms issue hot. Of course their ambivalent attitude to Lebanon did not help either.
However, my Cassandra-like prophesy of an attack on Syria did not come to pass – yet. The casualty rate in Iraq sapped any domestic US enthusiasm for it.
But like the end of the world, it is only postponed, not cancelled. Looking at the intensive activity over Lebanon at the United Nations, it is highly likely that the road to Damascus now goes through Beirut.
The pattern is the same as it was over Iraq, equally aided by the ineptitude of its rulers. Now the US has the support of the French, who for their own reasons are interested in restoring Francophiles to power in Beirut, but who seem insouciantly unaware that they may be getting taken for a ride – to Damascus.
Of course it is possible that Washington is just concerned about Lebanese independence, and sovereignty in the face of Syrian occupation. The test for such altruistic support for national boundaries would of course be strong US resolutions against the Occupiers of the West Bank, Golan and Western Sahara, or even pressure on Ethiopia to honor its commitments to the settlement of the border dispute wit Eritrea.
In absence of any such signs of concern from Washington, we can safely assume that regime change in Syria is indeed back on the agenda. Somewhere between Foggy Bottom and Capitol Hill, I am confident that there are planning groups working on the hypothesis that it would take hardly any troops at all to roll over Syria, and that the key to stemming the insurgency in Iraq is to do just that. All the previous excuses still apply. And of course, well timed unequivocal victory in Syria, a pushover they would say, may play well next year with the mid term elections.
Between the gullibility of other UN members and the stupidity of the Syrians, it may even have some degree of UN approval!
Equally worrying, but meeting more resistance, are the signs that Iran is getting the same treatment. And the new government there seems equally cooperative in providing plausible excuses. But we should remember what it looks like to the reality based world. John Bolton, the US Ambassador, who is on the record with profound skepticism about both the United Nations and international law, wants the UN Security Council to take action against Iran for alleged violations of the Non-Proliferation treaty whose strengthening he opposed the year before. It may be worth mentioning that Iran is not in violation of the treaty – but that the US and UK are, while Israel, which is pushing for action against Iran has not even signed the treaty.
No matter, it may not be a full-scale invasion of Iran since even the looniest NeoCon may baulk at that. But they do think that some sort of regime change is effectible and that as in Iraq (and Syria) the masses are just waiting for their oppressive regimes to be gone to declare their undying love for George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon. In Iran, of course, the masses have just ditched the reformers, who were anyway scorned and isolated by the US for hardliner they now have to deal with. He may not be nice, but neither is George Bush. And both were elected by their faithbased constituencies.
I really do not see why need to waste money on NASA when we have a government that is so clearly mentally in orbit, and certainly looking at another planet when they make their plans
Monday, December 05, 2005
When I was called to go on Fox's Neil Cavuto show, I had only just finished reading "Stalin andf his Hangmen," a recent book by Donald Rayfield, who charts the horrific results of the Bolsheviks' determination that ends will not be tainted by means. History has proven differently.
The thesis that I was called upon to rebut was that Europeans are ungrateful for the USA saving their lives from terrorists. Condoleezza Rice was going to read the riot act to the Europeans for suggesting that they disapproved of Secret Police kidnapping people, transporting them anonymously without trial in sealed airplains across Europe and then torturing them either in secret prisons run by the CIA, or by less scrupulous allied police forces in the Middle East.
Well, I mean, between ETA, the Red Brigades, Bader Meinhof and the rest, it is hardly as if the Europeans had to wait until September 11 2001 to discover terrorism.
If anyone can explain how what the CIA is doing is different from what the KGB or the Gestapo did, I would like to hear. If in doubt, remember that the administration has been trying to exclude the agency from Congressional strictures on torture, while backstopping that effort with an attempt to redefine torture. Mock drownings don't count it appears.
More potently, it shows that the US leadership is running mad. If there is one successful terrorist tactic, it is to provoke governments into repressive and unjust actions that unite populations against them. Levelling Fallujah is, perhaps, a localized example. But every time someone is kidnapped this way, it is almost proving Osama Bin Laden's point about the US.
Firstly, it mostly happens to Muslims, secondly it convinces billions that all the talk of democracy and rule of law is persiflage, covering up entirely different motives and thirdly, it sets a very ominous precedent for a government for dealing with other types of opposition.
The means shape the ends. Effectively abrogating the Geneva Conventions, violating internatonal conventions on torture, and breaking every constitutional guarantee of due process is a funny way to set an example to the world.
Below is the News Hounds version of the show. My heart goes out to these people. I cannot even watch TV, but wall to wall Fox --- these guys are on the line for us all.
We watch FOX so you don't have to.
Fox Turns CIA Rendition Issue into a Fairy Tale
Fox turned the issue of CIA kidnappings, secret prisons, and torture into a fairy tale about an ungrateful Europe today (December 5, 2005) on Your World w/Neil Cavuto.
Ian Williams, the UN correspondent for The Nation magazine was Cavuto's guest. The title of the segment, reflected in a chyron that repeatedly appeared on screen, was, "Are Europeans Ingrates When it Comes to the War on Terror?" Cavuto opened the segment by telling the audience that Condoleezza Rice would be in Europe this week where she "will be pressed by a number of EU leaders" about "those secret CIA prison allegations" (the full extent of the background given on the topic). Cavuto said that Rice claims the "people of Europe are safer because of the US war on terror and its intelligence gathering. So, we ask," he said, "instead of the questions from Europe, where is the thanks?"
Williams did a fantastic job of talking about the larger issue despite Cavuto's repeated attempts to make Europe's alleged lack of gratitude stay front and center, "whether we question these guys harshly or not." Williams repeatedly made the point that, "The worst thing the terrorists can do is provoke governments into behaving unreasonably. Once they've done that, they're succeeding and in this case, Osama bin Laden and all the others, they've provoked the United States into illegal detentions. They're kidnapping people. We are arresting the wrong people."
Comment: In the fall of 2004, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) released a study titled, "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters." The study showed that Fox News watchers had more misconceptions about the War on Terror and other national and international issues than those who got their news from other sources. Given the way the CIA torture matter morphed into one about an ever ungrateful Europe on Fox today, Fox's viewers undoubtedly continue to have misconceptions about what's going on in the world. And that, I'm sure, is precisely the objective.Reported by Melanie at December 5, 2005 07:28 PM
Friday, December 02, 2005
Rum: Fuel For the Modern World
Ian Williams knows rum, and he knows it far better than you, or I, or anyone we know.
His interest in the libation began as a boy growing up in a Liverpool, England council estate -- the American equivalent of a housing project. Williams' dad couldn't afford much at Christmastime, but he always scrounged up enough to buy a sole, special bottle of rum ("Usually Demerara," Williams recalls) to help stay warm during the snowy season.
A frequent AlterNet contributor and a U.N. correspondent for The Nation, Williams delves into the drink's remarkable history in his latest book, Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776.
Hopping the globe from Haiti to Cuba to Boston to explore various countries' unique rums and their backgrounds, Williams uncovers historical connections most Americans never knew existed. He studies the liquor's sordid ties to the slave trade, and the ways rum contributed to the decimation of many of New England's native populations. Most importantly, he examines how rum "put a whole new light on the motives of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic."
From his New York home, Williams spoke with AlterNet about his beloved beverage -- he collects bottles of rum from around the world, as well as labels, advertisements and paraphernalia -- and its distinguished role as "the lubricant and fuel for the whole engine of commerce that made the modern world."
Where did you find the inspiration for this book?
I have always associated rum with Christmas, for reasons to do with post-war rationing in Britain and my father's time as a merchant seaman. But I was recently in the Caribbean, and as I was sampling the fine rums of Martinique, I realized that the island was filled with graveyards of British soldiers. It occurred to me that the 18th-century Caribbean was the Persian Gulf of its day. This is where hundred of thousands of foreigners came to fight each other for control over small islands. And the reasons were similar: sugar was money. It was sugar and rum that made the British Navy what it was. It allowed the British treasury to pay the national debt and to effectively win wars with the French.
How did you go about researching the book?
I don't really regret to say that a lot of the research I did was absolutely irrelevant to the book, but it taught me a lot about rum. It was fascinating because it took me into a lot of history -- particularly about the American Revolution. I developed an appreciation for how the modern world developed the way it did around the Atlantic seaboard.
Rum was such an integral part of it. This has been written out because of Prohibitionism and temperance. The founding fathers' connection to booze was omitted from American history books, along with the whole role of rum in the American Revolution, the development of the northeast colonies, and its tie-in with slavery. We all in the north look down on the south as the old slave-holding stronghold, but the north actually transported most of those slaves and paid for it with rum.
Can you explain the north's role in this trading cycle?
The northeast is very barren. Agriculturally, it has very low productivity. The Yankees traded all over the world and often doubled as smugglers. They smuggled molasses from the French colonies that they made into rum. They drank prodigious quantities of it themselves on a per capita basis, because it was a major food item, especially in the winter.
Then they would use some of it to trade with the Native Americans, and a significant portion of it was taken to the west coast of Africa where they traded it for slaves with the local kings. That was where the American triangle trade came in: rum from New England for slaves, and molasses up from the Caribbean. It was a pretty unholy commerce, but it was what developed the northeastern states, both commercially and industrially.
What role did rum play in relation to Native Americans?
Well, to some extent it was a cultural thing. They had never been introduced to hard liquor on this scale before, and they had completely different ideas about it. It was a sort of spiritual experience. They just knocked the stuff back, and from what I can gather, in Native American tribal custom, a person who was drunk was not responsible for his actions. In fact, the British colonial officials also made it a rule that they wouldn't recognize any treaties or land sales that were conducted with Native Americans when they were drunk.
Basically, the Native Americans' economic role was to provide furs from trapping. They paid for that in rum. The traders' excuse was that if they paid the Native Americans in clothes and food that they had enough of, they wouldn't do it. Whereas rum was a desirable commodity that they had access to, and there was no end to what they could drink.
This also devastated the ecology because they trapped out and had to go further and further infield. It was unsustainable for the Indians because they were at the tail end of massive harvesting.
And getting drunk messed up their society as a social structure, making them vulnerable to diseases, attacks, cheating and takeover. Benjamin Franklin actually described it as something that was pretty much designed by providence to clear "the savages" away from these territories.
Where did you travel to research your book?
In my travels, I picked up rum from India, Nepal, Kazakhstan, Croatia, Czech Republic - rum from almost everywhere. But most of the research was in the Caribbean. In the Caribbean, you have this sort of microcosm of the world. You have the Dutch, the French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Americans, and Danes. They all had colonies in the Caribbean. And the region shares this common thread of rum -- that's the bedrock similarity. The development of the drink varies from place to place.
The English-speaking countries were way ahead, because there was no serious domestic spirit industry for them to compete with. The French, Spanish and Portuguese inhibited rum production in their colonies because it competed with brandy production back home. They didn't get in to the better quality stuff until much later on, which left the field free for the British and the Americans to develop, drink and appreciate it.
What impact do you think rum has had on the modern world?
It's just another commodity. In America, in particular Bacardi -- during Prohibition and afterwards -- developed a huge position as a very bland spirit to be used for mixing. [Bacardi has] basically used their monopoly position to swamp out other entrants into the market, which is a shame.
Rum could be a development tool for the Caribbean. The islands can do much better by selling their high value-added premium spirit than they could by trying to sell sugar onto a world market dominated by heavily subsidized high-fructose corn syrup and European beet sugar. It makes much more sense for these islands to make rum, brand it and sell it on the world market. But always, with the world trade stuff, they meet a lot of resistance. Such was the case of Bacardi and Fidel Castro with Havana Club.
Can you discuss the feud between Castro and the Bacardi family?
Bacardi and several of the other big rum producers actually supported Castro financially when he was up in the mountains. When Castro marched into Havana with his column with Che Guevara, there was a big banner on the Bacardi building in downtown Havana with a placard saying "Gracias a Fidel," for getting rid of Batista. And the first trade delegation to the U.S. actually included several leading members of the Bacardi family.
But when things fell out, and Fidel took a pro-Soviet turn, he nationalized Bacardi. It's interesting because it didn't have that much of an effect. Bacardi was the original trans-global corporation. It had already shifted its headquarters to the Bahamas so that it got British Empire preferences. It had also opened its biggest plant in Puerto Rico so that it had that point of access to the American market.
Cuba was already almost just a branch office for the actual industrial empire because they had distilleries around the world and technically they were headquartered elsewhere. But there was a grudge. Bacardi bankrolled the Cuban American National Foundation for many years, thereby buying Congress.
It came as no surprise that when Havana Club was launched onto the world market, with the help of the French spirits company, Bacardi did everything they could legally in the U.S. to frustrate it -- hence the big battles about the trademark for Havana Club, which Bacardi keeps losing in the courts and then winning in the Congress because they keep buying an amendment that covers whatever case they lost.
Talk a little bit about how rum is marketed and advertised.
It's almost the subject for another book -- an illustrative book. I've collected a lot of labels, and some of them, especially the French ones, are not at all politically correct. There are caricatures of black people - that's one whole line of iconography. Then there is the nautical connection: sailors and pirates. And the Spanish have this conquistador image which is slightly strange because the conquistadors didn't drink rum until much later, but what the hell, we're talking marketing here.
Do you think trends in rum's marketing and advertising has shifted over the years? Are there different images now?
Well, Captain Morgan has been transformed from the iconic pirate into a swashbuckling, romantic, and mischievous figure. Now he's a sort of lifestyle model for the young 20s-to-30s set who are supposed to drink high-value-added spirits.
There are lots of rum companies coming along now which are struggling with how to market it, how to get these people to buy rum as opposed to vodka. Vodka is essentially alcohol and water. That's always a triumph in marketing: when you can take something that is two very simple ingredients and persuade people that this bottle is better than the other.
With rum, you really can taste the difference. There are so many different ways of making it and ageing it.
What I really like is sipping rums -- the ones that you don't need to mix. You can roll them around your mouth and drink [them] like a single malt.
Of course, when you taste rums, you're supposed to roll it around your mouth and then spit it out. But I always feel that part of the tasting experience is to feel it hitting the esophagus, the liver, and then the brain cells. The experience isn't complete without it.
What are some of your favorite rums? How do the mainstream liquor-store versions like Captain Morgan and Bacardi stack up?
Personally, I think they're awful... My particular favorite is Rum Barbencourt from Haiti. I went to the distillery in Haiti, which is pretty much the only industry working there. They produce this brand that you actually have to strain hard just to get the "rum-ishness" out of. It could almost be old single malt or a cognac.
The French Islands -- Martinique and Guadalupe -- make some really nice aged rums. Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guatemala also produce some really good rums. I tasted one last night from Venezuela called "Diplomatico" and I wondered if, post-Chavez, they were going to introduce a brand called "un-Diplomatico."
What's rum's connection to folklore?
Rum has a lot more history than any other drink. And it's still the biggest, most widespread spirit in the whole world. My slogan, which I haven't charged the Caribbean Tourism Organization for, is "rum is the global spirit with its warm, beating heart in the Caribbean."
The biggest myths are all connected with pirates. I thought it was all summed up with Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, when he's wandering around saying, "It's the sun, sand, and rum ... it's the Caribbean," and then he falls over backwards.
I was in upstate New York this time last year, going to a friend's house, and I tried to buy a bottle of rum for him but the liquor store owner had sold out, and he said, "Oh well; it's winter."
It's self-explanatory. The people bought rum in winter. There's a strong folklore that it's good against colds and flu, and that it keeps the winter chill out.
The French government in WWI actually nationalized the entire stock of rum in the Caribbean for use for the troops to fight the Spanish flu. It was official endorsement. For many years in America, British rum was regarded as specific for colds -- a spoonful of rum with sugar or black currant juice to fight off a cold. I don't think it actually does anything about the virus but it certainly makes you feel a lot better.
What about rum's connection to the navy?
The British instituted rum by giving rum rations to the sailors. At the height of the British Empire, British sailors were given over half a pint of rum every day. It's always been a great mystery to me how they got the ships out of port, let alone won battles.
It was a big bonding ritual on the ships as well. It was an entitlement. The British admiralty resisted interfering with the sailors' sense of entitlement. The American Navy swapped rum for whisky in the early 19th century, during the Civil War, and then abolished the ration entirely.
But the British didn't abolish it until the 1970s. One of the convincing things they did for a PR stunt was to breathalyze the people who were driving the nuclear submarines for Britain. After they'd had their rum ration, they weren't fit to drive their cars home from the naval base, but they were being considered fit to drive around with submarines filled with nuclear missiles.
What was most surprising thing you discovered in your research?
With the Puritanical, self-righteous image of America, the idea that the founding fathers were a bunch of lushes doesn't sit well. Even when I've done readings, I've said that people think that the standard of American politics has declined, and present-day politicians don't match up to the founding fathers. Well, they do.
The founding fathers were rogues and scallywags. It's a different look from the Disney World version of American history and world history. One of the particular points that came up, and hasn't really been picked up, is just how much of colonial American institutions came from the Caribbean.
It was Barbados in the mid-17th century that first produced the slogan, "No taxation without representation." "The President" was the title of the leaders of the legislatures in all of these colonies. They were all fairly autonomous, and people like George Washington visited Barbados and actually considered settling there. It was actually in Barbados that the British Empire first legalized black slavery.
Up until then, they were indentured -- people signed up for five or seven years and worked for one person. They were considered free, but they couldn't run away. That's how they originally staffed the colonies in the south before they started bringing slaves. British law had ruled in the 16th century that there was no such thing as slavery in Britain anymore.
So after Barbados, the colonies actually began to develop a black code which ruled that Africans, by their very nature, were unfit to be free. This put them in a separate position from the white indentured servants. They basically invented slavery in the Anglo Saxon sense. And it was from there that it went north along the coast and up into the southern colonies. It all came from the Caribbean, and it all came on the trade winds along with the sugar and molasses.
Laura Barcella is an associate editor at AlterNet.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
In the interests of self enrichment, I have indeed been pushing my book on rum, and at various readings I have pointing out that folk wisdom, which is of course never wrong, holds that rum is great against viruses. In fact at the end of World War One, the French government appropriated the entire empire's stocks of rum to protect its armies against Spanish flu.
So with Christmas approaching, Avian flu hovering, snow falling, and Caribbean development depending on it, everybody should be knocking back the stuff - and of course because we favour informed consumption, they should read the book about it first.
While at the moment it appear that I am looking at the world through a glass of rum as we race to unload books for seasonal gifts, be assured that the world be getting the dubious benefits of my attention -without malware, or even too much malice. Although some irony and sarcasm may occasionally intrude.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
It probably confirms the worst fears of the dour Leninoids who think that Slobodan Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein are the last of the great socialists and regard people like me as class traitors for thinking that human rights have anything to do with progress.
In some small defense, I did take time out last year to explore George W. Bush’s military career. It could have been a very short book, but Deserter, George Bush’s War on Military Families, Veterans and his Own Past, went beyond his all too short military record into how that ignominious episode was obscured and inflated until far too many Americans think that the drunken wimp is a bemedalled war hero.
It also touches on Bush’s substance abuse problems, although I have no direct evidence to suggest that rum was ever snorted by the guy. In any case, it is clear that he neither drank nor abstained in moderation.
Incidentally, Castro himself has inveighed against the perils of rum drinking in Cuba of all places, so maybe he and W should start a joint world-wide temperance movement.
So back to rum. It reveals a lot about the history of the modern world, how this country was established and the global economy became global.
And more to the point, it is fun stuff to drink. In the strange cultural wars of modern America, the right rallies social conservatives against the hedonistic hippy liberals who it confuses with the far left. Why can’t we rally the six-pack brigade against the dry evangelists and the guy in the White House who goes white-knuckled at the sight of a Bud Lite? It’s a massive constituency.
So as a snifter, here is my latest piece from the Nation site. You will note my ambivalence. Havana Club is better rum than Bacardi – but Fidel doesn’t drink!
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
With no crystal ball, we also forsaw the impending disaster of the Iraqi occupation at the hands of the malicious incompetents in the administration.
Over the years, many colleagues have asked me, why not do a Blog? Well, I was very busy, and somewhat prejudiced. I thought, writers who can write, publish, those who can't, blog. That prejudice was reinforced by the anonymous attacks of conservative bloggers, like the eight grade school teacher from California whose grey and undistinguished career is spent tracking my writings and attacking the journalistic integrity of myself and colleagues from behind the shelter of anonymity. It made me think that those who can, do,and those who can't, teach, while those who are too arrogant for the honorable teaching profession, blog anonymously.
But then I saw distinguished colleagues who do indeed put their names on their Blogs, and I decided to take the plunge.
So since I am busy writing for money today, and I am an ecological journalist, I will begin by recycling a piece from the Washington Spectator.
For the benefit of obsessive conservative would-be media critics, I should point at that once upon a time when I worked for British Rail (RIP) I was the conductor on the Royal Train, but the experience did not influence my writing on this subject at all.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Washington Spectator November 15, 2005
A TALE OF TWO POLITIES
Why George W. Bush Is Really Our King
No one could blame President Bush for wanting to get out of town after the end of October. He'd just experienced what non-partisan political observer Charles Cook dubbed "the worst week of the worst month of the worst year of the Bush presidency." The president's approval ratings sagged to an all-time low of less than 40 percent; he suffered the humiliation of having his Supreme Court nominee torpedoed by opposition from his own party; the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq passed 2,000; he was lambasted for yet another slow response to a hurricane disaster, in Florida; and influential White House aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, resigned after being indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Unfortunately for Bush, his early-November travel plans took him to Argentina for a two-day hemispheric trade summit of 34 nations, where despite his coaxing, no agreement was reached on resuming stalled negotiations on establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The lesson from that weekend seemed to be that, as bad as things are at home, Bush is even less popular in Latin America. Strikes and mass demonstrations by anti-Bush protesters exploded outside the fortified gates of the hotel where the summit was held.
These days, Bush is bashed from Argentina to Australia, but it is rare to encounter a reasoned critique of the man and his administration presented as a means of enlightening the American public. Our colleague Ian Williams has the talent to do just that. Williams is a busy freelance writer, born in Liverpool but since 1989 based in New York. He serves as The Nation's U.N. correspondent and has been a regular contributor to many of Britain's major newspapers. His latest book, Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776, was published this summer.
Not long ago we criticized the Electoral College method of electing a president as an anti-democratic anachronism. In this issue Williams makes a more far-reaching argument: He sees the presidency itself—embodying the roles of both chief executive and head of state—as an unfortunate relic that the Founding Fathers would have done better to reconsider. Of course, such a critique has no hope of resulting in transformation of any sort. But taking the opportunity occasionally to see things through the eyes of a brilliant foreign correspondent can give us a fresh perspective on the state of our democracy—where we are today and how we got here.
The stately arrival of Prince Charles and his most recent spouse at the White House in early November, shortly after the unstately departure of Vice President Cheney's aide Lewis Libby from the same place and, one hopes, shortly before presidential adviser Karl Rove gets the bum's rush as well, was a thought-provoking event. Americans tend to assume that they have the finest democracy in the world—just as they assume that they have the best health care. It often takes an outside perspective to show up the eminently falsifiable nature of these suppositions, but it is always an uphill struggle.
To celebrate the royal visit, I was invited onto the Fox News channel to tut-tut on TV about the anachronistic nature of England's Windsor line. But alas, since Fox thinks that irony is what they used to make in Pittsburgh, my tongue-in-cheek defense of constitutional monarchy fell somewhat flat. I had forgotten that the untitled Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox, is a republican as well as a Republican. But I notice that he did not exactly exclude his male heirs from the management of News Corp.
When the people at Fox asked me if the monarchy represented privilege, of course I said I could agree in principle, but I pointed out that in the constitutional monarchies of Scandinavia, the Low Countries and Britain, poor people have far more access to health care and education than in the current Georgian America. In fact, in every measurable way these societies are more egalitarian than the United States.
For all his eccentricities, Charles is a convinced environmentalist, who supports the Kyoto Protocol, while George thinks global warming, like evolution (and indeed probably gravity as well) is just a theory, despite the hurricanes that batter hardest at the states that gave him the presidency.
With that in mind, I told Fox that the hereditary principle is indeed a dubious way to fill jobs, but that even if the prince were eccentric or barking mad, the world would be safe when he becomes Charles III, even if he only makes it because he's his mother's son. However, I cautioned, it made one hell of a difference to the world that George W., with more than a few psychological question marks of his own, had become George II just because he was the fruit of his father's loins. After all, no rational person would believe that the spoiled legacy brat who deserted from the Air National Guard and sank business after business would ever have succeeded in politics without strong dynastic backing.
AN 18TH-CENTURY ANTIQUE—In fact, when the putative Charles III shook hands with George II of the Bush dynasty, he was meeting someone who has pretty much all the powers of Charles's ancestor, the Hanoverian George III. An equestrian statue of King George was erected in 1770 by the colonists of New York, grateful for the repeal of the Stamp Act, and was toppled in ingratitude by the same people after a public reading of the newly written Declaration of Independence, just six years later.
Essentially unchanged since then, the American political system has escaped the reforms of the British and other democracies. While the powers of the European monarchs have become more and more diluted with each passing year until the kings and queens have all the significance of a team mascot for their nations, the presidential office has retained all those quasi-monarchical powers of centuries past.
As a Hanoverian monarch subject to election every four years, the American president appoints civil servants, ambassadors, and the whole Cabinet, on the same basis as the patronage system of eighteenth-century England. The Cabinet members he chooses need not have any independent political standing whatsoever. Indeed, as we saw with the heads of the Homeland Security and FEMA, not much in the way of professional standing is required either.
Having such an intensely political personage as the head of state confuses issues. The American media and even the political classes show far more deference to the president of the United States than their British counterparts do to the queen of England and her numerous offspring. In fact, most people in the UK tend to ignore the monarchy except as a continuing royal reality show. I have heard Americans say, "I must support my president," but never heard anyone in Britain say, "I must support my prime minister."
When the U.S. separated from Britain, the institution of prime minister was in its infancy, and so it was not too surprising that the rebellious colonists overlooked the office in their Constitution, not least since they saw the prime minister of their day, Lord North, as a tool of the king.
Indeed the title of prime minister itself was not formally adopted until 1905, even in Britain. However, as the office of prime minister has developed in Britain and other places, it has become clear that it is no bad thing for the chief executive to come from the ranks of legislators—and to be accountable to them. The roles of head of state and chief executive are separate. But with its political system frozen in 1789, the United States missed out on this idea.
It is not only a question of much needed political experience. We have to ask, how far would George W. Bush's political career have advanced if he had to stand up for a Capitol Hill version of "Prime Minister's Question Time" and actually explain and defend his policies on the hoof against unscripted questions? On the other hand, looking at the docility of so many of the U.S. legislators one may wonder whether they could come up with any killer questions on the spur of the moment without a team of aides whispering in their ears.
IMPORTANCE OF OPPOSITION—The offenses for which Libby was indicted suggest that in one major respect, the American political system is not only not reforming, but is actually devolving. To score petty domestic political points against an individual who had crossed them, high-ranking officials in the White House were quite prepared to compromise secret agents and national security, putting possibly scores of lives at risk. For the Bush team, opposition is always disloyal, and the law is no protection for that opposition.
If a democracy is to function and survive, the major protagonists within it must, in the end, believe in the concept of a "loyal opposition." It does not take too much examination of the world's politics to see that in many countries this is a complete oxymoron, and of course, there were times in American history, from the Federalist period onwards, when it did not operate too smoothly as a concept. The current White House has clearly abandoned the quaint idea entirely.
This is only the latest manifestation of the idea. Many conservatives, for example, never accepted that Clinton was really president. The mere accident of election did not persuade them that someone with his views could legitimately hold the office. Similarly, when it came to George W. Bush's assumption of office, the technical detail that he may not have actually won the election was for them no conceptual barrier at all to his taking the oath.
In their own idiosyncratic way, many Democratic legislators have also shown signs of abandoning the concept of a loyal opposition. They have emphasized the loyalty at the expense of the opposition. Being excluded from power does not make you an opposition: opposing the incumbents does. Though Harry Reid's marshaling of a serious look at the road to the Iraq War was a heartening sign, and the resistance to John Bolton's nomination as U.N. Ambassador was as well, these examples stand out because of their rarity.
THE PRIMARY PROBLEM—Their lack of feistiness is not the only problem. Democratic legislators must contend with one of the few innovations in the American political system since 1789: the electoral primaries. The original idea behind primaries was to take politics out of the smoke-filled rooms of the party bosses, where as Tammany Hall's Boss Tweed once said, "I don't care who does the electin', so long as I do the nominatin'." Apart from anti-smoking laws, all that has happened since is that check writers have taken over for ward heelers.
The primaries are now responsible for much of the evil in modern American politics, from apathy and lackluster political platforms to the power of money. We now take it for granted, almost as constitutional, in fact, that the race is much more likely to go to the richest than the worthiest. To gain access to party funding, a candidate has to first win a primary, and to do so needs to raise money as an individual. As we can see, this not only gives a head start to the Mike Bloombergs of this world, it also means that candidates begin their political life in hock to business interests.
Europeans are never sure whether to be amused or horrified at the role of campaign contributions, in the U.S., in buying legislation. In most other countries this would be considered criminal corruption and outright bribery, but the American convention is to assume that as long as the bribes are spent on political expenses rather than going into the candidates' pockets, all is well.
Primaries are flawed in principle as well as in effect, but Americans are so used to them that even the most radical tend to overlook just how bizarre and essentially undemocratic they are. In few other democracies are a party's candidates chosen by non-party members. In a sense, it makes a mockery of the secret ballot for voters to declare their party allegiances on the electoral registers, and in many countries it would be regarded as a shocking intrusion to have citizens' political opinions recorded publicly in this way.
While they are anomalous enough in the states where voters at least have to declare which party they support in order to participate, primaries reach the level of outright insanity in states with "open primaries," where supporters of one party can actually choose another's candidates. We saw the results of that recently when Cynthia McKinney was defeated in an open primary in Georgia by a combination of cross voting from Republicans and out-of-state money. When she was able to present herself in a later, general election, she won handsomely, demonstrating presumably how ineffective the primaries are at representing the intentions of the electorate as a whole.
In other democratic countries, the candidates are picked by party members who have paid dues and declared support for the party's principles. Of course, the association of party and principle seems a contradiction in terms to many disgruntled Americans, but maybe the primaries have had something to do with that as well.
Another direct consequence of this is that as far as the public is concerned, the Democrats will be leaderless until the primaries. There is no leader of the opposition, loyal or otherwise, in the American political system. In more developed parliamentary systems, the scores are settled right after an election. The losing party decides whether the leader of that party is worth another try, or whether to pick someone else quickly to lead the opposition back to power.
But in the U.S., the Democrats will be rudderless for most of the presidential term until at the end, for a long and tedious year the contending candidates will exhaust their wealth and the patience of potential supporters in trashing each other, so that the one with the most money and least mire sticking to him emerges as the winning candidate, to be adopted at the content-free circus that passes for a party convention. If half the energy that went into opposing each other in the primaries went into the task of opposing the incumbent over his term of office, it would be a big step forward.
FACING THE FACTS—Americans often take some convincing that there is much wrong with their system, apart from the wrong people being elected. While the European monarchies were evolving, the American Republic became fossilized in its eighteenth-century form. The United States could benefit from a constitutional monarchy that no one cares very much about, and an established church that no one believes in; but sadly the Bush dynasty, beginning pre-Katrina, has shown many signs of developing into an unconstitutional de facto monarchy, with the White House controlling the legislators and the judges and the military every bit as firmly as George III ever did. And the U.S., for all the talk of separation of church and state is increasingly intolerant in its religion. However, while you could live with an attenuated monarchy inherited and adapted, no rational person save Karl Rove would try to implement one from a standing start.
So, is there an easy way to bring the American political system into the twenty-first century? Sadly, probably not. Even the primaries, enshrined as they are in so many state legislatures, would take a long time to disentangle. However, the Plamegate affair does offer an unrivaled opportunity for the Democrats to stake out a position for the loyal opposition, and to establish the question of to what, or whom, loyalty is due. All too often, the Democrats have acted as if in their hearts they secretly believed that the Republicans were indeed the natural governing party of the United States in some metaphysical way.
Loyalty to the nation and its people now demands an exposure of the disloyalty of the governing party. Its preparedness to lie and invent facts in order to procure a war that it has yet to explain adequately; its willingness to compromise national security to protect its lies; its confusion of loyalty to the Bush family and to its cronies with loyalty to the country, all capped with a willingness to retaliate at once against any liberals who speak out.
In fact, it demands the application of European standards of political conduct, which, even if they are more often honored in the breach than the observance, would pay dividends for a revived American democracy that currently shows signs of ignoring decent standards altogether.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Rum has always tended to favor and flavor rebellion, from the pirates and buccaneers of the seventeenth century to the American Revolution onward. In addition, sugar and rum pretty much introduced globalization to a waiting world, tying together Europe, the Americas, Africa and the Caribbean in a complex alcoholic web of trade and credit. Not until oil was any single commodity so important for world trade. So it is not surprising that the Bacardi Corporation has become one of the world's first transnationals.
Even before Fidel Castro took power, the Bacardi family moved its headquarters from its Cuban home to the Bahamas, allowing it to get British imperial trade preferences, while opening a large distillery in Puerto Rico to allow penetration of the American market. Now its management is mostly living in exile in Florida, monopolizing the local markets across the Caribbean and the world with its bland, branded spirit. Fifty years of marketing have made Bacardi almost synonymous with rum in much of North America, and as Thierry Gardère, maker of the acclaimed Haitian rum Barbancourt, pointed out with a pained expression to me once, "They always advertise it as mixed with something else."
In Prohibition-era America, lots of thirsty Americans went to Cuba, and what they drank there, in keeping with the ambience, was rum, usually in cocktails and often in bars favored by Fidel's onetime fishing partner, Ernest Hemingway. He made a clear distinction: "My mojito in La Bodeguita, my daiquiri in El Floridita."
Cuba made great rums and had some of the world's most renowned bars. Bacardi had really risen to prominence after the American occupation, or "liberation" (sounds familiar?), of Cuba, at the turn of the twentieth century, when the island became the playground for its northern neighbor. Barcardi built its market position during Prohibition, edging out the old New England rum. When the Eighteenth Amendment took force, Bacardi USA sold 60,000 shares, closed down the company and distributed its assets, coincidentally 60,000 cases of Bacardi rum, to the stockholders.
During the dry years the company's order books would suggest that there were unquenchable thirsts in Shanghai, Bahamas and tiny islands like the French enclave of St. Pierre and Miquelon, off Newfoundland. But of course, shiploads of Bacardi went to rendezvous with the rum-runners just outside American territorial waters. As soon as repeal was in sight, Bacardi litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court to open its business in Puerto Rico, where it was eager to get Caribbean costs combined with American nationality. Its rivals in Puerto Rico used the same style of targeted retrospective legislation that Bacardi later did against Castro's Cuba in an attempt to keep Bacardi out. In the first year after Prohibition, Bacardi sold almost a million bottles to the United States. But soon it was not selling it from Cuba. Despite the family's overt and noisy Cuban patriotism, the company pioneered outsourcing and supplied the United States from Puerto Rico. Cuba's share of American rum imports dropped from 52 percent in 1935 to 7.3 percent in 1940.
In 1955 Bacardi moved its trademark to the Bahamas, perhaps in gratitude for the islands' help in keeping the product moving during Prohibition, and also because that made it eligible for British Commonwealth preferences. Its offshoring from Cuba proved very prescient when Castro nationalized the Cuban operations in 1960, which was as much a shock to Bacardi. The Bacardi building had greeted the arrival of Fidel, Che and the compañeros with a banner saying simply "Gracias, Fidel!" In common with some other rum producers, they had supported the rebels financially. In 1959, Castro's trade delegation to the United States had included Juan Pépin Bosch and Daniel Bacardi, two of the family's heads. Neither side dwells on these happy days any more. The company is still held by 600 descendants of the founder, so it does not have to file financial statements or submit to valuations as if it were listed on stock exchanges, and in any case, with sales in 200 countries adding up to 200 million bottles, no one could be sure which stock exchange it would list on.
As its record shows, Bacardi is the original multinational. Its trademark is now held in Liechtenstein, one of the most secret and secure banking centers in the world, which contrives to be "offshore" in the middle of the Alps. However, while attending to business, the Bacardi family has never missed a chance to get its own back on Castro. Bacardi clan chief Juan Pépin Bosch brought a touch of the old connection between buccaneering and rum back to life in 1961 by buying a surplus US Air Force B-26 Marauder medium bomber in order to bomb a Cuban oil refinery. Later he was the money behind a plot to assassinate Castro. For many years Bosch was a major financier for the Cuban American Lobby and a major litigator who brought the United States to the verge of trade wars with the rest of the world. The technique has been to lobby legislators to exercise their anti-Cuban prejudices, regardless of general principles of international or indeed domestic law, and then to pay lawyers to implement the resulting legislation.
Bacardi was spurred into action when Castro's government went into partnership with the French liquor giant, Pernod Ricard, to market the renowned Havana Club internationally. Even though excluded from the US market by the embargo, Pernod was able to sell 38 million bottles of Havana Club in the first few years. In anticipation of an end to the Cuban embargo, it was gearing up for big sales in the United States. This was a challenge both political and commercial to Bacardi, which set to firing retaliatory legal broadsides and to the rediscovery of its Cuban roots.
Bacardi, wherever it is made, had for some decades tried to bury its Cuban origins, but in the 1990s it went into reverse. Its labels began to mention prominently that the company was founded in Santiago de Cuba in 1862 while eliding mention of where the rum was actually made currently. In 1998, "rum and Coke" or "Bacardi and Coke" suddenly became known as a Cuba Libre again. To match the myths, various stories were circulated to celebrate Cuba Libre, claiming that it had been invented by an American in 1898 to celebrate the American victory over the Spanish in Cuba.
The original makers of Havana Club, the Arechabala family, had fled the country after the Revolution, leaving the distillery and the brand behind. The family did not renew its trademark, which lapsed in 1973, and in 1976, the Cuban state export company registered the century-old brand with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Twenty years later, Bacardi sought out the Arechabala family members and bought out whatever suing rights they may have had. Reportedly, Bacardi paid them $1.25 million after the family had spurned offers from Pernod Ricard, which was attempting to cover its back. Bacardi, happy to tweak Fidel's beard, began selling a rum with the Havana Club label (made in the Bahamas) in the United States in 1995, and Pernod sued. The case was going in Pernod's favor, as the Manhattan judge initially made her rulings based on existing law. Then the Bacardi family cut the Gordian knot. Using political clout in Florida, it got the law changed by persuading lawmakers to smuggle a clause into a large spending bill specifically to exempt trademarks nationalized by the Cubans from the usual international protections unless the original owner had agreed to hand them over. And of course, the Arechabalas had not.
In the end, the judge broke new legal ground by accepting this retrospective and clearly privileged legislation as binding, since Pernod wanted an injunction against future use of its trademark. Judge Shira Scheindlin decided: "At this point, because plaintiffs can sell no product in this country and may not be so able for a significant length of time, they suffer no impairment of their ability to compete as a result of defendants' actions. Any competitive injury plaintiffs will suffer based upon their intent to enter the U.S. market once the embargo is lifted is simply too remote and uncertain to provide them with standing."
It was yet another case of the United States flouting treaties and international law, and the judgment is not recognized anywhere else in the world--a point emphasized by the World Trade Organization shortly afterward.
Even so, the US patent office threw out Bacardi's attempt to register other names containing Havana, because the company was claiming a spurious connection to Havana, which could have confused drinkers who thought they were buying rum from Cuba.
When Pernod pushed the European Union into filing a dispute with the WTO, Bacardi complained, in a manner that almost defines the term "disingenuous" from a family that had just secured private legislation: "Pernod Ricard has pressured the EU into filing a claim with the WTO in an attempt to politicize a purely civil dispute. Bacardi views this as a private civil matter and one that is not connected in any way to world trade laws or the WTO." Others begged to differ, not least when Castro announced that Cuba could abrogate US trademarks, such as Coca-Cola, in retaliation. The WTO itself found in 2001 that the American law violated free-trade agreements, and the US trademark office has refused to revoke Pernod's registration despite even more litigation and lobbying by Bacardi, helped by alleged illegal campaign contributions to Congressman Tom DeLay, yet another politician who might be laid low by the demon rum.
Perhaps the ultimate weapon was used when Castro threatened in 2001 to start producing a rum in Cuba called Bacardi. The US State Department, not good at seeing itself as others see it, promptly declared this to be a provocation. In the meantime, the European Union has effectively been bullied into taking no action to enforce the case it has won at the WTO. Castro himself has an occasional talent for expediency. One of the first winds of change that he got from the Soviet Union was when Mikhail Gorbachev cut back imports of Cuban rum as part of his anti-booze campaign. In 1999 the Cuban leader, who had already given up the trademark cigars that regularly put him on the cover of Cigar Aficionado magazine, went one step further; he urged Cubans to give up rum as well and warned that anyone who wanted rum over the New Year "will pay dearly for it." He asked an assembly of medical students, "How much damage has rum caused in any society?" He even lamented that there were "supporters of the revolution who like to toss down a few once in a while." Cynics assumed that the supplies for the growing export market for Cuban rum were threatened by domestic demand.
While Fidelistas may berate Bacardi for its feud with Havana Club, rum aficionados almost universally deplore the company for the effect it has had on rum. Gresham's law observes that bad money drives out good; Bacardi has achieved this with rum. Its bland ubiquity has been driving the distinctive rums of the world from the mass consumer market. It is the equivalent of American cheddar driving out the 300 cheeses of France. Its monopoly power has been used to keep much better, genuinely local Caribbean brands from reaching takeoff. The islands cannot compete with subsidized and tariff protected high fructose corn syrup and Floridian sugar grown by former Cuban barons, so their one chance to market a value-added branded commodity is frustrated by the transglobal black bat.
Republicans used to inveigh against the Democrats as the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion," but now Bacardi has the GOP in its pocket, it symbolizes the complete turnaround of political positions.