A Colombian woman prepares flowers for export ahead of Valentine's Day in Tenjo, Feb. 11. (Reuters File Photo)

Before you buy your sweetie those roses for Valentine's Day, pause for a moment to consider where they come from, and at what cost--and what can be done to give a bit more joy not just to the flowers' recipients, but their producers.
Cut flowers are a highly globalized industry. The majority of cut flowers sold in the United States are imported, especially from Colombia and Ecuador. Kenya and Tanzania are the key overseas supplier for Europe.
Here's how the industry looks from the multinational corporate perspective: "In just a 24-hour period, each stem is cut, packed and loaded onto a temperature controlled UPS aircraft heading to Miami.
There, they clear customs and are distributed to florists and consumers across the country. Eighty-seven percent of all cut flower imports arrive in Miami." UPS reports that it imported more than 14.8 million stems of cut flowers into the United States last year from South American countries such as Colombia and Ecuador.
But on the ground in Colombia and Ecuador, things don't look so smoothly efficient and trouble free.
Olga Tutillo is secretary general of Rosas del Ecuador, a flower workers union in Ecuador. She has worked at flower plantations for 22 years. She is 38 years old and has five children.
Tutillo explains how hard the work is for Ecuador's roughly 100,000 flower workers, about 70 percent of whom are women--the faces behind Cupid. The International Labor Organization estimates about 20 percent of the workforce consists of children.
The workers generally earn the national minimum wage, $145 per month.
"It is extremely difficult to unionize in Ecuador," says Tutillo. Thanks to firings, blacklisting and other tactics--like increasing use of contract workers instead of full-fledged employees--the unionization rate in Ecuador is depressingly low. Among 300 flower companies in Ecuador, reports Tutillo, "only four have unions--the other attempts to unionize have been repressed."
The story is much the same in Colombia, says Ricardo Zamudio, president of Cactus, a Colombian organization that conducts research on issues related to the flower industry.
Unfortunately, as long as the repression remains intense, consumers have much more freedom to demand flower justice than do the flower workers.
In Europe, a flower certification program has taken hold that tells consumers whether flowers were grown on farms or plantations that respect minimal environmental and labor conditions. According to the International Labor Organization, a substantial portion of flowers grown in Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe receive certification under the Flower Label Program. The flower certification program is no panacea, but it does help modestly improve environmental and working conditions, and it gives workers more space to organize.
The program has had much less impact in South America, in considerable part because the Flower Label Program hasn't taken hold in the United States, where most Colombian and Ecuadorian flowers are shipped.
Just like with sweatshops, consumer pressure can make a significant difference in the lives of the flower workers. But the opportunity is in some ways greater, because of the concentration among both flower producers and sellers. ILRF is leading the way, trying to galvanize consumer pressure to force Dole and large cut flower sellers--Albertson's, Safeway, Costco and Wal-Mart, among others--to pressure flower suppliers to respect workers' rights to organize, protect employees' health and safety, and pay overtime wages.
So go ahead and give that rose for Valentine's Day. But be careful of the thorns--and to avoid sticking it to the flower workers, support the ILRF campaign.
ZMAG.ORG

Policy makers galvanized by recent proposals from the UN and others calling for a fast and substantial reduction in global poverty should consider one region that has already undergone a remarkable transformation in the space of just 15 years: post-Communist Eastern Europe. Though the region is unique in many respects, it may hold some important lessons for other developing countries. Crucial to its success has been the influence of multinational companies, whose potential role is often ignored in development strategies.
Since the fall of Communism in 1989, Eastern Europe has attracted some $300 billion of foreign direct investment. But the multinationals that arrived did much more than just invest money. They provided technology, know-how and access to foreign markets and, most importantly, introduced higher standards of performance, ethics and practices that have spread across the region.
Where these corporations have arrived in force--mainly in the new EU member states in Central Europe and the Baltics, and, increasingly, the Balkan countries--they have brought countless benefits. These include opening up global employment opportunities for the brightest of the new generation; retraining formerly mistreated work forces; improving the environment; rescuing collapsing factories and rotting company towns; establishing new industries; laying new telecommunications networks; stabilizing banking systems; regenerating local brands; driving economic growth through their exports; and facing down corrupt vested interests in governments that in too many cases had plundered their own countries. It's not a bad record for the supposedly rapacious, selfish enterprises, as so often portrayed by anti-globalization campaigners.
Take Temirtau in the steppes of Kazakhstan, which was a dying steel town facing the worst AIDS and drugs epidemic in Central Asia, before LNM, one of the world's largest steel companies, took over the mill and saved the town.
The behavior of multinationals in Eastern Europe has not always been exemplary in every way. But their overwhelmingly beneficial impact should give pause for thought to anti-globalization activists and development experts--many of whom view multinationals as part of the problem, not the solution.
Indeed, if development programs were to harness the multinationals' power as part of a more coordinated effort, while still recognizing the paramount nature of their profit motive, the benefits of foreign investment could be accelerated and accentuated enormously. Multinational companies are some of the most efficient, dynamic and talent-filled organizations that the capitalist world has to offer; and thousands of big-name global corporations are clearly willing and able to assist in improving the quality of life in the developing countries in which they operate, if guided in that direction.
Some companies have already made a start. More and more are signing up to a "publish what you pay" campaign to pressure authoritarian governments into greater accountability about where money raised in public tenders is spent, and are setting global codes of practice in labor relations and environmental protection that will also force local businesses, often the worst exploiters, to raise their standards as well.
But much more could be achieved. Big-name manufacturers can also act as a "reference" for their host country or municipality, by persuading other international firms to invest too, multiplying the sources of technology and training. They can provide mentoring programs and internships to raise the performance of those who fall short of international quality standards. Multinationals can even help to provide employment for minorities that face discrimination.
IHT.COM

An Iraqi man walks by posters celebrating the Iraqi historical general elections in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad, Feb. 14. (AFP Photo)

It is one of the more striking facts about the Iraqi election that it took two weeks from polling day to get the results that were announced Sunday. But it was highly unusual in another way too: rarely before has the outcome of an election in an Arab country been unknown in advance. In the days of the Ba'athist dictatorship votes regularly produced 99% or 100% in favour of the only candidate. The announcement by the electoral commission in Baghdad heralded a new era--whatever you think of how and why Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the motives and honesty of George Bush or Tony Blair, and whether it has all been worth the cost in blood, misery, chaos and endless international acrimony.
The uncertified results--still open to complaints amid doubts about their fairness--are no surprise. The Shia Muslims who make up 60% of the Iraqi population, excluded from power since the state was carved out of the Ottoman empire, have become the dominant political group, though with 48% of the vote (and the insistent encouragement of their religious leaders) they did not do as well as expected. Nevertheless, this amounts to a huge change that has generated palpable nervousness in the Middle East's Sunni-ruled kingdoms and republics.
With 130 of the 250 seats in the new national assembly, the United Iraqi Alliance inspired by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani will have to build a coalition--a far better outcome than one in which the Shia could rule alone. The result is even better news for the country's Kurds, living semi-independently in the north since the end of the first Persian Gulf war. Their 25% of the vote gives them 70 seats, huge leverage and a good chance that the veteran politician Jalal Talabani will be Iraq's president while a federal constitution is being written. The future of Ayad Allawi, the interim US-backed prime minister who won a disappointing 14% of the vote, remains in doubt.
The worst part of the result was also the most easily predictable: the very low participation by Sunnis, the 20% of the population who lost most with the overthrow of Saddam. Turnout in Al-Anbar province, which comprises towns like Falluja and Ramadi, was just 2%, though a far healthier 29% in mainly Sunni Salahadin. The pressures of insurgency and intimidation, especially targeting the fledgling security forces, were powerful disincentives to vote. And for many the very idea of holding an election under American bayonets was anathema.
That means that the key to the turbulent weeks and months ahead will be to encourage and entice leading Sunnis into government and into taking part in drafting the constitution. Signs are that some insurgent supporters may do this--especially if there is talk of a timeline for the departure of foreign forces. Friction is likely too over attempts by religious parties to replace British-derived civil codes with sharia law. But though there has been a sensible emphasis on the need to avoid Iranian-style theocracy, Ayatollah Sistani's vision of a more religious society may have a broader appeal than it did under the secular Ba'ath. The ayatollah has been widely praised for his counsels of restraint in the face of bloody sectarian Sunni attacks. He will need to muster all his skill and authority to help steer Iraq towards reconciliation. Without that, the future will remain bleak.
GUARDIAN.CO.UK

Royal marriages have traditionally been unhappy. One way or another, princes and princesses have almost always been forced to place national interest and international relations above personal inclinations.
Poor Henry VIII spent his life searching for the perfect queen. First, he was obliged to marry his brother's widow to maintain England's relations with Spain. He divorced her not because he didn't love her, but because she didn't provide him with the heir he needed. His second wife bewitched him, but was equally incapable of bearing a prince; his third gave him his longed-for son, but died in childbirth. Next time around, having earned a deservedly bad reputation among the eligible princesses of Europe, Henry was forced to take Anne of Cleves on spec. Unfortunately, the portrait Henry had commissioned of his fourth bride was so flattering that when he saw her in the flesh he refused even to attempt to consummate the marriage, and demanded a divorce on the spot.
As Caroline of Brunswick curtseyed to her betrothed, the future George IV, at their first meeting, he muttered to his valet: 'Harris, I am not well; pray get me a glass of brandy.'
Part of the problem has been the multitude of criteria which prospective royal spouses have had to meet. The monarch's wife (or husband), historically, was supposed to be young, fertile, untarnished, of good family and reputation, Protestant, hopefully useful in some way to the crown. On these counts, perhaps the best that can be said of Camilla Parker Bowles is that she is Protestant.
As the monarchy has lurched towards modernity, we have allowed the royals slightly more leeway in their choice of partner, and this approach has had mixed success. The problems inherent in being royal in an age where royalty is almost an anachronism are charted only too poignantly in the pages of the tabloids.
The fact that a man who expects to have his toothpaste put on to his toothbrush for him can find a woman who loves him despite that ought to be a cause for celebration, whatever their roles in life.
All too often, we view the royals as sport, their foibles and mistakes brutally spotlit and a scandal-hungry public passing judgment on them as if they were animals in a zoo. It demeans them to view them as a form of highly paid, hereditary entertainment.
For this reason alone, there is no excuse for being anything other than pleased that two people who have loved each other for many years have decided to make their commitment public.
But we can also be pleased that, in following his heart, in deciding to marry a divorcee, and in electing for his wife to use titles less stiff with protocol than previously, Charles has acknowledged the move towards the smaller, more informal monarchy that most Britons would like to see. And freed himself from one of the more absurd historical conventions of royal birth.
Lucy Moore
OBSERVER.CO.UK

Life sometimes imitates art. One of my all-time favorite films is the gripping drama, `Seven Days In May.Õ Made in 1964 and starring Burt Lancaster, the film depicts an attempted coup by far rightists in Washington using a top secret, Pentagon anti-terrorist unit called `Ecomcon.Õ
Last week, the respected former military intelligence analyst William Arkin revealed a hitherto unknown government directive, with the Orwellian sobriquet `JCS Conplan 0300-97,Õ authorizing the Pentagon to employ special, ultra secret `anti-terroristÕ military units on American soil for what the author says are `extra legal missions.Õ In other words, using US soldiers to arrest or kill citizens at home, acts that have been illegal since the US Civil War and are a grave violation of the constitution and tradition.
The above frightening news comes as Washington is gripped by retro-Cold War fever--`Muslims Under Our MatressesÕ having replaced the 1950Õs scare, `RedÕs Under Our BedÕsÕ--galloping paranoia, feverish threats of war against Iran from the real president, Dick Cheney, and a titanic bureaucratic battle just won by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Instead of being fired for the gigantic military-political-financial fiasco in Iraq and the shameful torture scandals that are still coming to light , Rumsfeld has just managed to create a new, spy/special ops organization under the Pentagon, blandly named `Strategic Support Branch,Õ that will replace or duplicate many of CIAÕs tasks.
CIA is being punished big-time. Too many CIA veterans criticized or contradicted Bush and CheneyÕs phony claims over Iraq and terrorism. The agency failed to back up CheneyÕs grotesque claims about IraqÕs alleged nuclear weapons and links to al-Qaida. So Bush and Cheney imposed a new, yes-man director on the agency, Porter Goss, slashed budgets, conducted massive purges of veteran officers, and downgraded CIA to third class status.
The PentagonÕs new spy arm will be largely excluded from Congressional oversight or media examination. Its special operations teams will roam the globe, killing or kidnapping at will, torturing suspects, and bringing down governments, all under cover of `deep blackÕ missions of which no records will be kept, and no questions asked.
Equally worrying, the PentagonÕs new special ops units are headed up by notorious religious fanatic and loudmouth, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who calls the US Army, `the house of God,Õ and Islamic insurgents, `agents of Satan;Õ and told Muslims `my God is bigger than your god, which is an idol. Õ
BoykinÕs command will now dispatch post-modern Christian crusaders to cleanse the world of Satanic Muslims and other miscreants. The PentagonÕs new special forces will be able to hire local armies and hit men, as well as run ops of which CIA knows nothing. The 9/11 Commission called for improved intra-agency cooperation and data sharing--what we will now get is far less cooperation, as the Pentagon goes its own, secret way.
Eric Margolis
ERICMARGOLIS.COM