The Bigger Picture

Streetwise
By Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
Business World
Vol. XXII, No. 163, Friday, March 20, 2009 | MANILA, PHILIPPINES

The headline of a widely circulated broadsheet screams, “Nicole recants, clears Smith”. For the first time, the face of the young Filipina raped by a US marine, who used the pseudonym Nicole to hide her real identity, is published in the front page with the caption “The Unveiling, Unmaking of Nicole”. The temptation to sensationalize the purported recantation; to accept it hook, line and sinker; and to thereafter condemn Nicole is so strong, many have succumbed to it.

Nicole is disparaged and scorned for either taking almost everyone, including a court of law, for a ride crying “Rape!” Or for changing her story and allowing herself to appear as the stereotypical slut and gold digger, out to hook an American soldier that the defense lawyers had tried to do during trial but failed.

Not a few are disappointed and disheartened. While they do not condemn her for caving in to tremendous pressure from all sides to give up the fight for justice, they secretly wish that she had been made of sterner stuff. At least, that she had some remaining sense of decency not to have reportedly flown off to the United States with a new-found American boyfriend, in order to pursue the foolhardy dream of the colonial-minded.

As for Smith’s lawyer, Atty. Jose Justiniano, what is important is not Nicole’s credibility nor reputation, nor the public’s affront at this distasteful turn of events, only that she has retracted critical parts of her earlier testimony, sufficient to jeopardize the legal victory she had attained in a lower court. The wily lawyer that he is, Mr. Justiniano knows that the defense has successfully thrown a monkey wrench into the overall equation, no matter that the predominant legal opinion is that Nicole’s latest affidavit is no better than a scrap of paper.

We leave it to the legal experts to explain why Nicole’s “recantation” is worthless going by the rules of court and the law on evidence applicable in this case. What must be exposed are the highly suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the affidavit that render it totally lacking in credibility despite the claims of the victim’s mother that Nicole signed it of her own free will and that it is not an out-of-court settlement.

Atty. Evalyn Ursua , Nicole’s dismissed lawyer, says that the affidavit has all the hallmarks of something the defense lawyers cooked up. For one it contains the line of defense used unsuccessfully by Smith at his trial. Moreover, going by what she knew about her client in the three years that she counseled her, Ms. Ursua says that the affidavit does not “sound” like Nicole at all. And why did it have to be one of the lawyers in the law firm that is defending Smith, to notarize the document? Nicole herself is conveniently unavailable to either corroborate or refute the contents of the affidavit.

Those who easily condemn Nicole forget what she has been up against in pursuing the rape case against US Marine Smith. They forget that Smith was fully backed by his government, the superpower USA. This is the same superpower that has ignored worldwide protests and has single-mindedly, as well as violently, imposed its imperial designs on sovereign countries. It is the same US government that has threatened sovereign states with economic sanctions to dissuade them from ratifying the Rome Statute. In so doing, US troops and civilian personnel are exempted from prosecution by the International Criminal Court for violations of human rights and international law.

Even worse, Nicole has had to contend with the Philippine government, her government, which has consistently been more concerned with not offending, but rather sucking up to, the US government, than defending its own citizen's rights.

Sec. Gonzales and his prosecutors have used the “recantation” to further assail the credibility of their own client, the person they are duty-bound to stand by considering that the criminal justice system from the police to the fiscals to the trial judge all found that the evidence presented proved Nicole to have been raped by Smith.

Recall how Sec. Gonzales badgered and threatened the fiscal in Olongapo and later, in Makati, with administrative sanctions when they stood their ground in finding that all four US servicemen who were at the scene of the crime be indicted. Recall how disparaging Mr. Gonzales was about Nicole.

See how the public prosecutors showed little understanding much less sympathy for the plight of Nicole then and now. Remember how Nicole’s mother then made public her disgust that the government prosecutors were pushing for an out-of-court settlement rather than a conviction.

In this light, Nicole's "retraction" is hardly worth considering. Nicole is clearly the victim twice-over: she was raped by US marine Smith and now she has somehow been duped to be a party to her own undoing by Smith’s lawyers with the collusion of the US and Philippine governments.

So what is the game plan here? First, the rape conviction. To have it overturned by the Court of Appeals by means of Nicole’s much-ballyhooed “recantation”, if not legally, then extra legally, by shaping the public’s and the justices’ opinion that there is now, at the minimum, doubt as to the guilt of Smith.

The fish is caught by the mouth. Sec. Ermita says that if Smith is set free then the issue of custody is rendered moot. The Arroyo regime will no longer have to engage in negotiations for custody and be subjected to the indignity of being ignored by the US government. He predicts that calls for abrogation of the VFA will loose steam.

Again, this regime and US foreign policymakers who have not changed gears despite US President Obama’s I-am-the-darling- of-the-American- people and I-am-the-friend- of-the-world’s peoples pose, grossly underestimate how the lesson in the Nicole rape case is getting hammered, little by little, into the Filipino people’s consciousness. That is, with the VFA, Filipinos are treated as second class citizens in their own country, no different from the victims of American soldiers’ abuse when the US bases were still around.

US Ambassador Kenney will do a song-and-dance number, kiss babies, hand over reward money to Abu Sayyaf bounty hunters and lecture the Philippines ever so sweetly about how democratic elections should take place in the grand tradition of the US of A. But she, as the principal representative of an overweening, aggressive Superpower out to corner the best business deals and the world’s resources, will deny Nicole and other Filipino victims of crimes perpetrated by the US armed forces their due justice.

Outrage as to how the Arroyo government sells out the country’s sovereignty and the people’s rights to a former colonizer, acting now as neocolonizer, will accumulate over time, to an extent and to a degree, much more than the outrage at the abuse inflicted on this unfortunate individual Filipino who goes by the name Nicole.#

Nicole Did Not Fail Us. The Justice System Did

by: Rob Ty
Mar 18, '09 12:34 PM

Sen. Francis Pangilinan's words, not mine. But I completely agree with him.

Let's one thing straight: We are not the victims here. She is. We've never been raped. Never been exposed to an overblown media circus. Never been agitated in court. Never been harassed by reporters, lawyers and embassy men.

So when someone like Korina Sanchez announces on her AM radio station that Nicole is a disgrace to Filipino women everywhere (translated from tagalog), you can't help but shudder.

So this is justice, this is hate. It's no wonder she left the country.

We are not the victims here. Yet, we are the ones who cannot forgive. Here we are, sitting in our armchairs, waving our nation's flags, our gender's hopes, our nurtured concepts of justice.

But the thing is, we did nothing. We let people like Raul Gonzalez change the prosecutors of the case. We let people like NSA Norberto Gonzales change custody of Smith in the dead of the night. We let the US embassy exert pressure on Nicole by withdrawing her US VISA. We allowed countless women like Nicole to be gobbled up by the system, by the politics.

So who are we to judge? Who are we to cast the first stone?

Truth be told, we've already used her up. We got the conviction - which allowed us to question the VFA in the Supreme Court. We got the Supreme Court decision.

What more do we want? Maybe just more blood, sweat and tears.

What Can We Do?

Right now, if you really care for Nicole, you will support the drafting of a disbarment complaint against Daniel Smith's lawyer.

Why? At the time of the affidavit (March 12), Evalyn Ursua was still Nicole's lawyer. She was only fired last Monday (March 16). Smith's lawyer violated a cardinal rule of legal ethics by talking to Nicole behind her lawyer's back. Why is this unethical? The legal reason is that it undermines a fellow attorney's ability to handle her client's case. It's a form of disrespect for a colleague. The practical reason is to prevent people from being tricked since the best defense against the opposing lawyer, is your own lawyer.

In the case of Camacho v. Pangulayan, a UP law professor accused some lawyers of directly negotiating with his clients in order to obtain an amicable settlement. In effect, they ignored him even though he was the counsel on record. The Court agreed with the professor and said that the failure to inform opposing counsel is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. The erring lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for three months.

Fast forward to the present: Smith's lawyer prepares a statement, has a junior associate (who, by the way, is a UP law graduate) notarize the document, and then asks Nicole to sign it as a condition for the release of her VISA and 100,000 pesos. All this WITHOUT EVER consulting her counsel on record.

If Nicole had a lawyer, she might still have signed the affidavit. But it would have never looked this bad. Take a look at paragraphs 6-10, which incorporate all the arguments the defense raised during trial. ALL OF THEM.

And then take a look at the last sentence of the affidavit: "I would rather risk public outrage than do nothing to help the court in ensuring that justice is served." The sentence brings a whole new low to the legal profession. I admit I am ashamed of what we have become.

Nicole left everything behind so she could start anew, and I don't blame her. Not one bit.

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES FOR THE SENTOSA 27++ NURSES

News Release
March 18, 2009

Reference: Atty. Felix Vinluan, Justice for the Sentosa 27++ Campaign,
email: nafconusa@yahoo.com

Community Forum Pledges to Struggle for Complete Justice for Wronged Healthcare Workers

"It's time to up the ante...."

This was the sentiment posed by community supporters of the Sentosa 27++ Nurses who will be holding an important forum on the ongoing Justice for the Sentosa 27++ Nurses Campaign this Sunday, March 22nd, 2pm at Jing Fong Restaurant in Chinatown . Entitled "Up the Ante Towards Full Justice for the Sentosa 27++ and All Victims of Illegal Recruitment" the dinner event will feature highlights from the community campaign for the trafficked healthcare workers from the Philippines who came to the United States in 2006 under direct hire nursing contracts with SentosaCare LLC. But after tenets of the Sentosa contracts were not honored, the 26 nurses and a physical therapist fought back with the help of their lawyer, Felix Vinluan.

Sentosa's CEO Bent Philipson retaliated against 10 of the nurses who resigned from his Avalon Gardens Nursing home in Suffolk County , Long Island and Vinluan by filing criminal charges of so-called patient endangerment. In a historic court decision earlier this year, the criminal charges against the 10 Avalon Nurses and Vinluan were formally prohibited. This was after supporters, such as the Legal Aid Society, the National Employment Lawyers Association of New York, New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA), the American Nurses Association (ANA), SEIU 1199, and the Suffolk County Defenders Association filed their respective amicus briefs to support the Article 78 prohibition petition filed by lawyers James Druker and Oscar Michelen for the nurses and Vinluan.

"Justice has not been fully served. We still need to fight for the shutting down of SentosaCare LLC. The former Sentosa nurses represent millions of Filipino migrant workers who fall victim to illegal contractualization and other forms of human trafficking because contractors like SentosaCare LLC prey on their desire to escape joblessness and poverty in the Philippines . Every year, tens of thousands of Filipinos enter the US as healthworkers or teachers duped by fraudulent contracts signed in the Philippines ," states Rico Foz of the National Alliance for Filipino Concerns or NAFCON.

NAFCON, along with supporters from the Philippine Nurses Association of America (PNAA), NYSNA, Movement for a Free Philippines (MFP), formed the Justice for the Sentosa 27++ Campaign (J4S27), a grassroots community campaign in support of the nurses as early as 2006, at a time when the nurses plea for justice was largely shunned by others in the Filipino community. "Unfortunately, there were those who refused to offer help to the nurses back then that are only speaking out now in support because of the Avalon 11's recent victory against criminalization," Foz added.

In 2007, the Justice for the Sentosa 27++ Campaign marched as one large contingent down Madison Avenue during the annual Philippine Independence Day Parade in New York City after holding several community forums at the NAFCON office in Queens . NAFCON, PNAA and NYSNA members also held outdoor demonstrations in the freezing cold winter of 2007 outside the Suffolk County Courthouse during the hearings on the Avalon 11's case. Congressional hearings were held in Manila through the J4S27's campaign's Philippine-based partners investigating the Sentosa Recruitment Agency, the agency who contracted the nurses from the Philippines to work at Sentosa-owned facilities in New York State . A campaign website was generated with a petition calling for six basic demands, which include the dropping of all civil and criminal charges against the nurses and shutting down of SentosaCare LLC. "For as long as all six demands have not been met, we will continue to up the ante on this important struggle for justice," Foz ended.

Jing Fong Restaurant is located at 18 Elizabeth Street , between Canal and Bayard Streets in Chinatown . The Justice for the Sentosa 27++ Campaign site can be accessed at www.s27plus.com. ###

Leftist Victory in El Salvador Closes an Historic Cycle

by: Marc Cooper
The Huffington Post
Special Correspondent, frmr Editorial Director of OffTheBus
Posted March 16, 2009 | 09:08 AM (EST)

The apparent victory of leftist candidate Maurico Funes in Sunday's presidential election in El Salvador finally closes out the Cold War in Central America and raises some serious questions about the long term goals of U.S. foreign policy.

With Funes' election, history has come full cycle. Both El Salvador and neighboring Nicaragua will now be governed by two former guerrilla fronts against which the Reagan administration spared no efforts in trying to defeat during the entire course of the 1980's. We will now coexist with those we once branded as the greatest of threats to our national security. Those we branded as "international terrorists" now democratically govern much of Central America.

Funes, once a commentator for CNN's Spanish-language service, comes to power representing the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), a Marxist guerrilla group-turned-political -party, an organization that the U.S. government once described in terms now reserved for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah.

From the late 1970's until a negotiated peace settlement in 1992, the FMLN fought a bloody civil war against a series of U.S.-backed right-wing regimes. Those Salvadoran regimes engaged in horrific massacres and deployed savage death squads, taking a massive human toll. While the FMLN also perpetrated atrocities, all independent analysts agree that the overwhelming majority of the 75,000 who were killed in the war in El Salvador were victims of government-sponsored violence.

This same FMLN which now comes to power in El Salvador was once declared as the primary perpetrator of "international terrorism" by the Reagan administration who deployed hundreds of U.S. military advisors to the tiny Central American country and who quadrupled the size of the Salvadoran Army. In this all-out quest to crush the FLMN, U.S. authorities, at best, turned a blind eye to the bloody excesses of the Salvadoran regime. At worst, it encouraged them.

At the same time in history, the U.S. spent billions creating a "contra" army to destabilize and dislodge the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) which had taken power in Nicaragua in 1979, overthrowing the dynastic and dictatorial rule of the Somoza family - another U.S.-backed ally.

During the entire eight years of the Reagan era, defeating both the FMLN and the FSLN were the absolute top priorities of U.S. foreign policy as the administration argued that the Texas border was a short hop from the fields of Central America and that all must be done to stop the northward march of hemispheric revolution. The sort of inflammatory rhetoric used to describe the Central American guerrilla movements was an eerie precedent for the overheated war of words against "The Axis of Evil" that would emerge earlier this decade.

The Nicaraguan Sandinistas were eventually defeated by an American-backed opposition in elections in 1990 and democratically and peacefully transferred power (something the Reaganites claimed could never happen). But the Sandinistas returned to power last year re-electing its historic leader Daniel Ortega as president. Almost twenty years of rule from the pro-U.S. coalitions that had succeeded the Sandinistas had failed to implement any meaningful social change.

The Salvadoran FMLN, meanwhile, which has acted as a parliamentary opposition party since the 1992 Salvadoran peace accords, now comes to power ending twenty years of uninterrupted rule by the country's ultra-conservative ARENA party - a political organization born directly from the death squads of the 1980's and, yes, a close ally of the U.S.

All of this raises the question of why so many lives were spent and so many billions in U.S. dollars were burned in an attempt to expunge these leftist forces twenty years ago? Wouldn't it have been possible in 1989 to find some sort of accommodation with these radical forces and not postpone the inevitable for twenty years?

In the case of Nicaragua, the year-old reborn and duly elected Sandinista administration--while far from a model of democratic ethics-- hardly poses any threat to U.S. interests. Though President Ortega, saddled with governing one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, still clothes his actions in revolutionary rhetoric, he has headed up what many think is essentially a conservative regime which recently outlawed all abortion (a move that could warm the deceased Ronald Reagan's heart). Ortega campaigned successfully for the presidency last year by quoting from scripture and has not flinched from pacting with the most conservative of political elements.

In the case of El Salvador, President-elect Funes has pledged to maintain close and cordial relations with the U.S. And while the FMLN--like the Sandinistas - clings to some of its Cold War revolutionary rhetoric, no one expects any radical moves by the incoming government. Fighting widespread poverty aggravated by the global slump and a chilling crime wave, the FMLN will have its hands full just keeping the government on keel. President-elect Funes holds distinctly moderate views and in an American context would be little more than a liberal Democrat. In any case, the FMLN can point to its recent governance of several Salvadoran cities (including until recently the capital of San Salvador) as its democratic bona fides.

The resurrection of the FMLN and the FSLN at this time in history raises a troubling irony regarding U.S. foreign policy. Yesterday we were told they were our greatest enemies. Today, now in power, they hardly garner any U.S. press coverage, let alone much attention from Washington. Likewise, the right-wing forces we bankrolled with blood and treasure and who we were told were a bulwark of Western Civilization, utterly failed in solving the basic existential questions that bedeviled their respective countries. Twenty years from now, we have to ask, what will Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria look like? Might we find ourselves peacefully co-existing with the same undefeated forces who today we proclaim our mortal enemies? Might we be better off using our soft power, our economic and diplomatic clout to force negotiation and moderation with those we perceive as irrational and radical enemies? Or do we only reach that conclusion after the dissipation of prolonged, bloody and ultimately unsuccessful armed intervention and war?

'Daddy O' brings parenting into politics

By: Andie Coller
The Politico, December 27, 2008 07:37 PM EST

Just call him Daddy O.

Most leaders’ playbooks take at least a page or two from “The Art of War,” but President-elect Obama’s rhetoric seems to be torn from very different kind of text: the modern parenting manual.

The “change we can believe in,” it turns out, shares a lot with the revolution in thinking about child-rearing sprung from the work of Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler, which centers on principles such as mutual respect — or what the president-elect has called “the presumption of good faith” — fostering independence (“Team of Rivals,” anyone?), and encouragement (“Yes we can!”).

This passage from Obama’s victory speech, for example, is a family meeting waiting to happen, complete with attempts to acknowledge his own limits, make room for dissent, make sure the listeners feel heard, and stress the importance of everyone’s contribution:

“There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years — block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.”

These and other progressive parenting principles are reflected not only in Obama’s rhetoric, but also in his approach to leadership — an approach that already seems to be rubbing off.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), for instance, recently called Senate Democrats’ decision not to strip Sen. Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship a “direct result of the tone [Obama] set.”

“The old school was that you reward your friends and punish your enemies,” she said. “But it’s a new day, and there is no reward and punishment going on.”

No rewards or punishments? Alfie Kohn, whose book “Unconditional Parenting” is subtitled “Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason” approves:

“The most respectful — and effective — approach to parenting consists of working WITH children rather than doing things TO them,” he says. ‘Working with’ parents talk less and listen more. They regularly try to imagine how the world looks from the child's point of view. They bring kids into the process of decision-making whenever possible. ‘Doing to’ parents, on the other hand, impose their will and use some combination of rewards and punishments in an attempt to elicit obedience.”

Kohn says a “working with” approach in the political realm is “essentially more democratic” — particularly if it offers real choices, and not just the illusion of them.

A progressive parenting approach also means taking responsibility for your own role in a conflict, says Jane Nelsen, author of the classic child-rearing handbook “Positive Discipline.” She compares Obama’s vow to end the “partisan bickering” in Washington or his determination to use diplomacy as a primary tool in international relations to the efforts of parents who want to break out of power struggles or revenge cycles with their kids: “In order to stop them, someone has to recognize what it is, and say, ‘I can even see what my part has been in the power struggle,’ and find solutions that work for everyone.”

It would be easy to bash Obama’s enlightened-father philosophy as an insulting new extension of the nanny state, but the truth is that the exercise of power in any form shares a lot in common with the parent-child relationship.

As President Bush’s former chief of staff Andy Card said of his boss during the 2004 Republican National Convention: “This president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child.”

Bush’s rhetorical model, however, is typically more “Father Knows Best” than T. Berry Brazelton.

Consider these words from the 43rd president, back when he was keeping his secretary of defense:

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

His choice of words suggests a more no-nonsense, SuperNanny-style approach to his job (“It’s in their nature to test the boundaries and it’s up to you to make sure they don’t cross the line”) that also has its proponents: Bush’s tough, take-no-guff rhetoric led many, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to praise him as a “strong leader” during a time of war.

But progressive parenting experts argue that the “love and reason” approach to leadership is not only more respectful — it might also turn out to be more effective.

According to Kohn, children who feel listened to, respected and understood, and who are allowed to take real responsibility and develop internal motivation, tend to care more and work harder than those who are rewarded for their achievements.

On the other hand, says Nelsen, while rewards and punishments may work in the short term, in the long run children who are raised to respond to them rather become either “praise junkies” or “rebels.”

As Kohn puts it in “Unconditional Parenting”: “One reason that a heavy-handed, do-what-I-say approach tends not to work very well is that, in the final analysis, we really CAN’T control our kids — at least not in the ways that matter. ... It’s simply impossible to force a child to go to sleep, or stop crying, or listen or respect us. These are the issues that are most trying to parents precisely because it’s here that we run up against the inherent limits of what one human being can compel another human being to do.”

“Sadly, though, that doesn’t stop us from trying newer, cleverer, or more forceful strategies to get kids to comply. And when these techniques fail, that’s often taken as evidence that what’s needed is ... more of the same.”

More of the same? There’s one phrase that’s definitely not in the new top pop’s vocabulary.

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

1st CNA for Academic Union and 3rd for the Workers Union Signed Today

In the 100 year history of the University of the Philippines (UP), the first ever collective negotiation agreement (CNA) between UP and the union of UP’s rank-and-file faculty and REPS (research, extension and professional staff) will be signed today, December 12, Friday at 10 to 11 am at the Lobby of Quezon Hall, University of the Philippines. The University will be represented by President Emerlinda R. Roman and the rank-and-file academic personnel will be represented by Dr. Erlinda Castro-Palaganas, National President of the All UP Academic Employees Union.

The third CNA between UP and the university’s rank-and-file administrative staff will be signed simultaneously. President Roman will sign for the university and Arnulfo Anoos, National President of the All-UP Workers Union will sign on behalf of the administrative staff.

The CNA is equivalent to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in the private sector.

The two CNAs will be in force for five years and include provisions recognizing the All UP Academic Employees Union and the All UP Workers Union as the sole-and-exclusive representative of the rank-and-file academic personnel and administrative staff, respectively. Provisions on union representation in university committees, union rights and privileges, leaves, incentives and gender responsiveness are among the salient provisions of the CNA.

The signing of the two CNAs is one of the remaining major activities in the state university’s observance of its centennial year, now dubbed as the Philippine's National University under its new charter (R.A. 9500) that was enacted on April 2008.

Public Education at Risk of Privatisation by Stealth

By Guntars Catlaks

A new study commissioned by Education International reveals that a growing trend towards privatisation of public education is often camouflaged by the language of "educational reform," or introduced stealthily as "modernisation. " Hence the title of the study: Hidden Privatisation In Public Education.

The research was undertaken by Prof. Stephen Ball and Dr. Deborah Youdell, both of the Institute of Education, University of London. The authors explore two key types of privatisation: one in which ideas, techniques and practices from the private sector are imported to make schools more business-like; and another in which public education is opened up to private sector participation on a for-profit basis. The former type often paves the way for the latter.

Both types of privatisation have profound impacts upon the way education is delivered, how curriculum is decided, how teachers are trained, how students are assessed, and indeed on the fundamental values underpinning public education in both industrialised and developing countries.

"A central issue, as this report so clearly shows, concerns the very ethos of education," said EI General Secretary Fred van Leeuwen. "To put it in the starkest possible way: is education about giving each child, each young man or woman, the opportunity to develop his or her full potential as a person and as a member of society? Or is education to be a service sold to clients, who are considered from a young age to be consumers and targets for marketing?"

Teachers and their unions around the world actively defend the concept of quality public education as a fundamental right of child. Therefore, this stealthy transformation of education from a public good into a commodity to be used for private profit is of deep concern.

"Education International commissioned this study to shine a spotlight on the trend towards privatisation. We need greater transparency and we need to get a better understanding of what is happening, so that we can engage in an open public debate about the future of education in our societies," van Leeuwen said.

A preliminary report was published for the World Congress in Berlin in July 2007, and was presented by the authors at a break-out session. The EI Research Institute commissioned the report, and the EI Research Network met twice to discuss issues of privatisation and to evaluate the emerging findings. The final report was launched 17 June at the Trade Union Centre in London.

John Bangs of the National Union of Teachers and a member of the board of the EI Research Institute, said: "It's the first genuine analysis of the global impact of these trends toward privatisation on public education systems." Referring to the lately deceased General Secretary of the NUT, he added: "Steve Sinnott would have been absolutely delighted to see this report."

"This is the first blast of the EI trumpet against the monstrous impact of the privatisers in education," said Jerry Bartlett, General Secretary of the NASUWT and a member of the EI Executive Board. "Privatisation is an abdication of the state's responsibility to provide a fundamental right. This will be a really useful tool to use to campaign against the loss of the public sector ethos in education."

Stephen Ball noted that the so-called education industry is enormously profitable. "Education services are the single largest export industry for the UK, valued at about 28 billion pounds a year," he said. "This is big business!"

And within this big business, the newly emerged class of "edupreneurs" are set to reap the biggest profits. Testing companies, for example, are multi-million dollar enterprises in countries that place high priority on test results as a measure of educational quality. Under George Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation in the United States, about 45 million tests are administered annually at a profit of up to US $517 million to the private sector, he said.

And, at a global level, the World Bank is also actively promoting private corporate involvement in public education systems. "The World Bank is placing the private sector at the centre of its policy in the developing world," Ball said.

Youdell added that in many developing nations privatisation tendencies are often more prevalent in newly-established World Bank or aid-funded educational projects. Because they are more dependent on external funding, developing nations are inevitably also more vulnerable to privatisation in all its forms, she said.

In many countries, privatisation has proceeded so far that it is seen as inevitable or simply "common sense," Ball warned. He urged educators to be sceptical of private initiatives, and to look more deeply beyond the immediately apparent benefits of, for example, "free" computers, equipment, or learning resources.

The most insidious effects of hidden privatisation, Ball found, were the ways in which relationships between teachers, students and parents are changed. When education is commodified, the results—including the accomplishments of students—become seen as products. In this way, school leaders become business managers, teachers become technicians and students—depending on their test results—become assets or liabilities in a school ranked against all its neighbours.

He emphasized that there is a strong need for "ethical audits" to evaluate the impact of private involvement in public education.

Bob Harrris, EI Senior Consultant, welcomed the report and praised its potential as a tool for teacher unions to develop their strategies and resist the most egregious forms of privatisation. Harris emphasized the need for trade unionists to gain a deep understanding of the threats posed to public education (and indeed all public services) by the pressures of privatisation, and to act energetically to implement counter-proposals.

"The debate should not be about whether education reforms are needed, but rather about the kind of reforms and the conditions for success," he said.

This article was published in Worlds of Education, Issue 27, September 2008.