Open Letter by Yasmine Motarjemi , Former Corporate Food Safety Manager (2000-2010), Assistant Vice President to Mr Peter Brabeck-Letmathe Chairman of the Board of Directors Nestlé, S.A 55 Avenue Nestlé CH-1800 Vevey
"Nyon, 4th Septembre 2010 Dear Mr Chairman, I was your Corporate Food Safety Manager from 2000 to 2010. I write to you today for two reasons: first, to share with you my concerns regarding a culture and management practices in Nestlé, which undermine food safety; and, second, to inform you of my personal experiences while attempting to improve the situation. I long nourished the hope that you would be interested in meeting the person responsible for dealing with everyday problems of the Company in an area as important as the safety of Nestlé products. However, to my regret we have never had the opportunity to meet and discuss the food safety situation in the Company. As both corporate-level management of food safety and my professional status deteriorated to the point of being unacceptable, I was compelled to report my concerns to Management with the expectation that a fair evaluation of the situation would be undertaken. In the event, my efforts were in vain. Mr Chairman, I always found listening to your speeches a source of motivation and inspiration. Moreover, Nestlé Policies and Management Principles portray a model Company, with the most laudable corporate values. A glance at the Company building, offices and facilities is enough to make any outsider believe that this is an ideal working environment. However, after only a short time, I was profoundly disappointed at how people are managed, the discrepancies between your public statements and the private deeds of managers; between the Company’s policies and management principles and actual practices; and between the proclaimed values and the prevailing fear culture (including mobbing and intimidation) that managers nourished. I was particularly saddened by the growing realisation that Management was not only aware of this situation but that it was also fully accepted by the very people who should have been, in fact, the inhouse guardians of policy compliance.I failed to see the flawless execution of policy that you promoted in your speeches. Didn’t you state that the management of food quality and safety depends on the quality of management? What can be said about food safety management when the members of Management themselves do not respect Company policies and principles? If I dared challenge the Company’s food safety and human resource practices I can assure you that it was not out of disrespect. On the contrary, it was because of my loyalty to the Company, my colleagues and the consumers we served. It was also because for me the safety of our products and respect for our colleagues were non-negotiable values. Involving staff in building a better company unavoidably includes exposing shortcomings. But surely it is better to receive timely feedback from within than to be publicly embarrassed later by failures. You have often expressed your commitment to food safety. Please allow me to share with you my own vision in this regard. Over and above the technical and scientific aspects, the foundation of good food safety management is an equitable system of people management that is based on professionalism, fairness, objectivity, open-mindedness, respect for staff and, most importantly, for their dignity. I regret to say that I failed to see this approach implemented at the Nestlé Head Office. My own situation is a case in point. On several occasions I reported – first to members of Management and then, in November 2009, to Mr Paul Bulcke – serious shortcomings in food safety management, the professional difficulties I faced, and the shameful treatment that I experienced in Nestlé. I hoped that I would be given the opportunity to provide a full and accurate account of events during the period 2005-2010. In response, my contract was terminated with no opportunity to provide details of my experience. Nevertheless, I am prepared to meet with you, at your convenience, to share my observations on practices in Nestlé and their eventual repercussions on Nestlé’s reputation and consumers. I would also hope to use this opportunity to identify an equitable solution for my personal difficult situation, another consequence of the past events in Nestlé" source : http://www.rts.ch/info/3989665.html/BINARY/Mr+CEO.pdf more here (in french) http://www.rts.ch/info/economie/3988696-une-ex-responsable-de-la-securite-alimentaire-depose-plainte-contre-nestle.html more again (in french) more (in german ) : http://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/nestle-im-keim-erstickt
Letter: According to 59% of respondents to the ComRes poll, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis died as a result of the war.
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
Poll on deaths in Iraq ignored by British media: Op-Ed:In May 2013 the reputable polling company ComRes asked a representative sample of the British public the following question: "How many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/poll-deaths-iraq-ignored-media
#Syria Whose Sarin? - Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when ...
By Seymour M. Hersh
December 08, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "LRB" - - Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
In his nationally televised speech about Syria on 10 September, Obama laid the blame for the nerve gas attack on the rebel-held suburb of Eastern Ghouta firmly on Assad’s government, and made it clear he was prepared to back up his earlier public warnings that any use of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line’: ‘Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people,’ he said. ‘We know the Assad regime was responsible … And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.’ Obama was going to war to back up a public threat, but he was doing so without knowing for sure who did what in the early morning of 21 August.
He cited a list of what appeared to be hard-won evidence of Assad’s culpability: ‘In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighbourhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.’ Obama’s certainty was echoed at the time by Denis McDonough, his chief of staff, who told the New York Times: ‘No one with whom I’ve spoken doubts the intelligence’ directly linking Assad and his regime to the sarin attacks.
But in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’
The complaints focus on what Washington did not have: any advance warning from the assumed source of the attack. The military intelligence community has for years produced a highly classified early morning intelligence summary, known as the Morning Report, for the secretary of defence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; a copy also goes to the national security adviser and the director of national intelligence. The Morning Report includes no political or economic information, but provides a summary of important military events around the world, with all available intelligence about them. A senior intelligence consultant told me that some time after the attack he reviewed the reports for 20 August through 23 August. For two days – 20 and 21 August – there was no mention of Syria. On 22 August the lead item in the Morning Report dealt with Egypt; a subsequent item discussed an internal change in the command structure of one of the rebel groups in Syria. Nothing was noted about the use of nerve gas in....
A stunning new report compiles extensive evidence showing how some of the world's largest corporations have partnered with private intelligence firms and government intelligence agencies to spy on activist and nonprofit groups.
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
Report: One in Four 'Activists' May be Corporate Spies:A stunning new report compiles extensive evidence showing how some of the world's largest corporations have partnered with private intelligence firms and government intelligence agencies to spy on activist and nonprofit groups. Environmental activism is a prominent though not exclusive focus of these activities.http://www.popularresistance.org/report-one-in-four-activists-may-be-corporate-spies/
What happens to whistle-blowers after the whistle is blown
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
Government whistle-blowers to Edward Snowden:Don't come home: Kiriakou, a former CIA agent, is serving 30 months in prison. He emailed a freelance reporter the name of a covert CIA officer, violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The name was never published, but Kiriakou became one of eight people charged by the Department of Justice since 2008 for leaking classified information under the Espionage Act.http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/5/jailed-whistleblowerstoedwardsnowdendonatcomehome.html
News: Israeli foreign minister says Israel, Palestinians are at 'dead end'.
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
Lieberman: No chance for deal with Palestinians":Israeli foreign minister says Israel, Palestinians are at 'dead end'. Ahead of meeting with US secretary of state, Lieberman stresses Israel must not rely solely on US, should diversify in foreign policyhttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4462288,00.html
MERSIN, Turkey – Zigga and his seven companions, fighters with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Aleppo’s scorched Old City, have given up their arms, selling them to another militia.
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
Disillusioned Fighters Abandon Frontlines as Syria's Revolution Goes Awry:Zigga and his seven companions, fighters with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Aleppo's scorched Old City, have given up their arms, selling them to another militia. They packed a few possessions and drove past checkpoints manned by bearded al-Qaeda loyalists, out into Turkey.http://rudaw.net/NewsDetails.aspx?PageID=28345
From the White House to the halls of Congress, U.S. government officials have responded to the death of Nelson Mandela with a hail of testimonials to the late South African president’s leadership in the struggle for freedom and human rights.
Sources within Libya, including intelligence sources within the Libyan Tribal system have reported that the American shot in Benghazi today Ronald Thomas Smith II was not a teacher as was widely repo
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
American shot in Benghazi is allegedly CIA agent - Libyan sources :Sources within Libya, including intelligence sources within the Libyan Tribal system have reported that the American shot in Benghazi today Ronald Thomas Smith II was not a teacher as was widely reported. Tribal elders report that currently there are no foreign teachers employed in Libya and that Ronald Smith was in Tripoli meeting John McCain on Tuesday and Wednesday according to sources who were present during the meetings.http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_12_06/American-shot-in-Benghazi-is-allegedly-CIA-agent-Libyan-sources-6835/
Report: Israeli police volunteer 'changes story' about border killing:The Israeli border police volunteer who shot and killed a Palestinian worker on Nov. 30 has retracted his original claim that the Palestinian tried to stab him with a sharp object, Israeli media reported Saturday.http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=655464
Noam Chomsky: The Dangerous Rogue States Operating in the Mideast -- U.S. and Israel
By Noam Chomsky
December 08, 2013 "Information Clearing House - An interim agreement on Iran's nuclear policies that will provide a six-month period for substantive negotiations was announced on Nov. 24.
Michael Gordon, a reporter for The New York Times, wrote, "It was the first time in nearly a decade, American officials said, that an international agreement had been reached to halt much of Iran's nuclear program and roll some elements of it back."
The United States moved at once to impose severe penalties on a Swiss firm that had violated U.S.-imposed sanctions. "The timing of the announcement seemed to be partly intended to send a signal that the Obama administration still considers Iran subject to economic isolation," Rick Gladstone explained in The Times.
The "landmark accord" indeed includes significant Iranian concessions - though nothing comparable from the United States, which merely agreed to temporarily limit its punishment of Iran.
It's easy to imagine possible U.S. concessions. To mention just one: The United States is the only country directly violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (and more severely, the United Nations Charter) by maintaining its threat of force against Iran. The United States could also insist that its Israeli client refrain from this severe violation of international law - which is just one of many.
In mainstream discourse, it is considered natural that Iran alone should make concessions. After all, the United States is the White Knight, leading the international community in its efforts to contain Iran - which is held to be the gravest threat to world peace - and to compel it to refrain from its aggression, terror and other crimes.
There is a different perspective, little heard, though it might be worth at least a mention. It begins by rejecting the American assertion that the accord breaks 10 years of unwillingness on Iran's part to address this alleged nuclear threat.
Ten years ago Iran offered to resolve its differences with the United States over nuclear programs, along with all other issues. The Bush administration rejected the offer angrily and reprimanded the Swiss diplomat who conveyed it.
The European Union and Iran then sought an arrangement under which Iran would suspend uranium enrichment while the EU would provide assurances that the U.S. would not attack. As Selig Harrison reported in the Financial Times, "the EU, held back by the U.S. ... refused to discuss security issues," and the effort died.
In 2010, Iran accepted a proposal by Turkey and Brazil to ship its enriched uranium to Turkey for storage. In return, the West would provide isotopes for Iran's medical research reactors. President Obama furiously denounced Brazil and Turkey for breaking ranks, and quickly imposed harsher sanctions. Irritated, Brazil released a letter from Obama in which he had proposed this arrangement, presumably assuming that Iran would reject it. The incident quickly disappeared from view.
Also in 2010, the NPT members called for an international conference to carry forward a long-standing Arab initiative to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region, to be held in Helsinki in December 2012. Israel refused to attend. Iran agreed to do so, unconditionally.
The U.S. then announced that the conference was canceled, reiterating Israel's objections. The Arab states, the European Parliament and Russia called for a rapid reconvening of the conference, while the U.N. General Assembly voted 174-6 to call on Israel to join the NPT and open its facilities to inspection. Voting "no" were the United States, Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau - a result that suggests another possible U.S. concession today.
Such isolation of the United States in the international arena is quite normal, on a wide range of issues.
In contrast, the non-aligned movement (most of the world), at its meeting last year in Tehran, once again vigorously supported Iran's right, as a signer of the NPT, to enrich uranium. The U.S. rejects that argument, claiming that the right is conditional on a clean bill of health from inspectors, but there is no such wording in the treaty.
A large majority of Arabs support Iran's right to pursue its nuclear program. Arabs are hostile to Iran, but overwhelmingly regard the United States and Israel as the primary threats they face, as Shibley Telhami reported again in his recent comprehensive review of Arab opinion.
"Western officials appear flummoxed" by Iran's refusal to abandon the right to enrich uranium, Frank Rose observes in The New York Times, offering a psychological explanation. Others come to mind if we step slightly out of the box.
The United States can be held to lead the international community only if that community is defined as the U.S. and whoever happens to go along with it, often through intimidation, as is sometimes tacitly conceded.
Critics of the new accord, as David E. Sanger and Jodi Rudoren report in The New York Times, warn that "wily middlemen, Chinese eager for energy sources and Europeans looking for a way back to the old days, when Iran was a major source of trade, will see their chance to leap the barriers." In short, they currently accept American orders only because of fear. And in fact China, India and many others have sought their own ways to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran.
The alternative perspective challenges the rest of the standard U.S. version. It does not overlook the fact that for 60 years, without a break, the United States has been torturing Iranians. That punishment began in 1953 with the CIA-run coup that overthrew Iran's parliamentary government and installed the Shah, a tyrant who regularly compiled one of the worst human rights records in the world as an American ally.
When the Shah was himself overthrown in 1979, the U.S. turned at once to supporting Saddam Hussein's murderous invasion of Iran, finally joining directly by reflagging Iraq ally Kuwait's ships so that they could break an Iranian blockade. In 1988 a U.S. naval vessel also shot down an Iranian airliner in commercial airspace, killing 290 people, then received presidential honors upon returning home.
After Iran was forced to capitulate, the United States renewed its support for its friend Saddam, even inviting Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production. The Clinton administration then imposed sanctions on Iran, which have become much harsher in recent years.
There are in fact two rogue states operating in the region, resorting to aggression and terror and violating international law at will: the United States and its Israeli client. Iran has indeed carried out an act of aggression: conquering three Arab islands under the U.S.-backed Shah. But any terror credibly attributed to Iran pales in comparison with that of the rogue states.
It is understandable that those rogue states should strenuously object to a deterrent in the region, and should lead a campaign to free themselves from any such constraints.
Just how far will the lesser rogue state go to eliminate the feared deterrent on the pretext of an "existential threat"? Some fear that it will go very far. Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations warns in Foreign Policy that Israel might resort to nuclear war. Foreign policy analyst Zbigniew Brzezinski urges Washington to make it clear to Israel that the U.S. Air Force will stop them if they try to bomb.
Which of these conflicting perspectives is closer to reality? To answer the question is more than just a useful exercise. Significant global consequences turn on the answer.
An exclusive Occupy.com investigation reveals that Srdja Popovic, one of the leading architects of the overthrow of Slobodan Milodevic, has served as an intelligence gatherer for Strator and the U.S. government, informing on activists worldwide.
US whistleblower Edward Snowden is to give video evidence to the European Parliament, a German assembly member claims. A parliamentary committee session will examine mass-surveillance by intelligence agencies.
Palestinian teenager shot dead by Israeli sniper near Ramallah:Wajih Wajdi al-Ramahi, 14, was shot with live bullets in the back by an Israeli sniper in front of his school. Al-Ramahi was taken to the hospital, and placed in the ICU until he died.http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=655072
Washington lays out steps to boost US-friendly states’ ability to counter Iran’s ballistic missiles, even as nuke deal inked
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
Hagel outlines new weapons sale plan for Gulf:US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel opened the door for the US to sell missile defense and other weapons systems to US-friendly Gulf nations, with an eye toward boosting their abilities to counter Iran's ballistic missiles, even as global powers ink a nuclear deal with Tehran.http://www.timesofisrael.com/hagel-outlines-new-weapons-sale-plan-for-gulf/
MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) — Iraq's top diplomat warned Saturday that the "toxic" proliferation of extremist groups among Syria's rebels raises the prospect of a jihadist-ruled territory at the heart of the region.
Former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to South Africa for Nelson Mandela's memorials next week,while former President George H.W. Bush will be staying home.
Juan Carlos Hernandez's insight:
pas sûr que ça ferait plaisir à Nelson de voir cette brochette de criminels de guerre à son enterrrement ..
Nelson Mandela funeral: George W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton to attend Mandela memorial