Issue 269 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published December 2002 Copyright © Socialist Review
News |
Review |
![]() |
| The Prestige meets its warery end |
Back in the 1970s, tanker owner Aristotle Onassis was the richest man in the world, and as infamous a personification of big capital as Bill Gates is today. Many other shipowners wanted a slice of his action, and the world is now living with the results, often in the form of beaches and seas covered with thick black sludge.
The Prestige--which broke up off the north west coast of Spain last month--was just one of many vessels mass produced in Japan during the spectacular over-ordering seen at the time. So was the Erika, which sank off the coast of Britanny in late 1999, losing 30,000 tonnes of oil in the process. So was the Braer, cause of a devastating 85,000 tonne spill off the Shetland Islands in 1993. So was the Aegean Sea, which grounded in almost the same Spanish waters as Prestige a decade ago, gushing out 74,000 tonnes of crude. The regularity of such occurrences points to something beyond bad luck.
These ships are all products of Japan's emerging shipbuilding industry of 30 years ago, geared to churning out technically unsophisticated vessels as quickly and cheaply as possible. Internationally agreed regulatory standards of the day were met, but only just. To keep costs down, steel thickness was often cut to the minimum permissible. Yet many of them still trade. Pre-1980 Japanese vessels make up around 300 of the 1,800-strong world oil tanker fleet.
Some tankers are even older. Although merchant ships are designed to last 20-25 years, a considerable minority of owners happily work vessels for as long as they find willing charterers. Tankers dating back to the 1950s are still out there.
Last year the International Maritime Organisation--a notoriously bureaucratic United Nations agency--was stung by the threat of unilateral action from the European Union into ordering the phase-out of single hull tankers of the Erika or Prestige type. Gradually they will be replaced with vessels based on the more recent double hull design, undoubtedly better able to resist impacts.
But owners pleaded that they built ships to the standards applicable at the time of construction, and that their early demise would penalise them unfairly. Moreover, an immediate ban would have crippled the oil industry's ability to move its product around the planet. Few governments dare risk upsetting the oil majors.
Under the resultant compromise, older single hulled tankers will go between 2003 and 2007; Prestige, for instance, could not have traded beyond 2005. Yet other single hull tankers that meet certain anti-pollution standards will still be afloat as late as 2015. The upshot is that few vessels will be scrapped before they would probably have gone to the breaker's yard anyway. In the meantime, single hull oil tankers continue to make up the majority--around 60 percent, in fact--of the world fleet. Nor will double hull ships eliminate future accidents. Maritime history--from the Titanic to the Derbyshire--is littered with examples of the finest vessels of their day succumbing to the elemental powers of the sea. Also, naval architects point to the theoretical danger of gas build up between the two skins, which could result in an explosion.
Meanwhile, substandard ships continue to hide behind the flag of convenience system. Often it is impossible to establish who controls a ship registered to a brass plate company in Panama or Liberia, deemed legally to be owned by whoever is carrying the so called 'bearer shares'. Where ownership cannot be established, law cannot effectively be enforced.
The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) deserves credit for its 50-year campaign against flags of convenience. Yet despite such efforts, almost all western shipowners now register in the Third World, benefiting from massive tax breaks and deregulated labour standards. In the process, they have sacked European and North American crews and replaced them with Filipinos, Indians, Eastern Europeans and Chinese nationals, willing to work for a fraction of their predecessors' salaries. Paradoxically, payment in hard currency makes even these pay packets worth a fortune in their home countries, with seafarers often reluctant to organise effectively for fear of losing lucrative employment. In some cases, their unions are little more than de facto employment agencies, completely in the shipowners' pockets.
Where ITF-affiliated dockers were once able to black unsafe ships, the employers' offensive of recent years--smashing the TGWU in ports such as Liverpool and Tilbury--has largely put a stop to this rudimentary form of workers' control. Although governments mount some safety inspections, few countries meet the target of checking one vessel in four calling in their ports. In Britain, resources for surveyors have been considerably cut back under New Labour. Capitalism and shipping safety evidently mix like, well...oil and water.
David Osler
MARTIN'S WEB |
WEAPONS INSPECTORSSaddamned if you do...How's this for a choice: admit you have weapons of mass destruction--and we bomb you. Or deny that you have such weapons--and we bomb you anyway, because you're lying. These are the options facing Saddam Hussein as UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq. While many around the world might hope that these inspectors will bring peace, the aims of the US and British governments are clear--they mean war sometime very soon. The US in particular is desperate to find 'tripwires' which can end the inspections and allow it to bomb with impunity. It plans 60 days and nights of bombing Iraq before a land invasion which will result, it believes, in colonial occupation of the wartorn country. Already it is flying its planes low over the 'no fly zones' in the hope that they will be shot at by the Iraqis and so start a war. The US has already claimed that shots fired at its bombers (acting completely outside of any UN resolution) are a breach of the latest UN resolution. That was even too far-fetched for the British government to support. Have no illusions about Jack Straw and Tony Blair, however. They are conscious that opposition to war in Britain is still very high and so they need to couch their language more cautiously than Bush. But they are 100 percent behind this war. While they are holding back public spending in other areas, there are unlimited funds to kill. Most Labour MPs went along with a government motion to support the UN resolution in the erroneous assumption that this would bring peace closer. Instead, it strengthens Blair's resolve to go to war and shows his contempt for parliament in refusing to allow the simple question 'for or against war' to be put to the vote. The costs of this war will be astronomical. A new report from the US Congress estimates that deploying US troops to Iraq would cost between $9 billion and $13 billion dollars. In addition it would cost $6 billion to $9 billion per month. A postwar occupation of Iraq could run to $4 billion a month. Remember that when they tell you the money's not there. National demonstration called by the Stop the War Coalition, 15 February 2003 in London |
The perfect cureOne of the biggest problems facing users of the internet is viruses. They cause billions of pounds of damage each year. But viruses are not only a big problem--they are also big business. The anti-virus company Sophos detects between 600 and 700 new types of virus a month--and is making serious money from it. Last financial year Sophos's revenue increased by 40 percent--a profit of over $14 million. You can imagine the corporate glee with which it penned a press release www.sophos.co.uk announcing a similar bonanza in 2001, titling it 'Fighting Viruses, Making Profits'! While there is no doubt that viruses can cause huge problems, the sensationalism that creeps into anti-virus company press releases and media stories no doubt contributes to an increase in sales. Headlines about the recent Bugbear virus concentrated on how it could allow 'hackers to scan computers for banking details and passwords entered after it arrived'--see the Guardian article at www.guardian.co.uk. In reality, the virus was much more likely to corrupt files and cause network disruption, but hundreds of computers requiring the reinstallation of system files doesn't make for interesting headlines. Viruses cause so much damage and spread so quickly because they exploit weaknesses in commonly used software. Once again the finger of blame is pointed towards Microsoft, whose Windows operating system and e-mail packages contain security holes and problems galore for virus writers to exploit. There are many sites dedicated to explaining why Microsoft should be avoided--the 'Reasons to Avoid Microsoft' page at www.lugod.org is particularly good at pointing out problems.
So if you use e-mail, get yourself some anti-virus software--you don't have to pay for it, as there are a number of free packages available on the web--and make sure you keep it updated. Don't rely on software that came with your PC when you bought it--anti-virus companies often stop supporting older software so that the unhappy user has to fork out more cash in order to protect themselves. |
![]() |
| French trade unionists recently. |
French trade unionists (above) sent a 'social alert' to the right wing government of Jean-Pierre Raffarin recently. Public sector workers, led by striking air traffic controllers, staged a mass demonstration in defence of pensions and wages and against privatisation. The action was mirrored in Italy, where Fiat workers struck to defeat planned job losses, while public sector unions announced strikes for 6 and 13 December over wages and spending cuts.