For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

When presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai pulled out of last week’s election in Zimbabwe, was it an act of integrity or a failure of moral courage?

By all accounts, Zimbabwe is a mess. The African nation’s aging strongman, former terrorist leader Robert Mugabe, came in second to Tsvangirai in the initial round of voting on March 29. With the run-off election approaching, Mugabe was so determined to hold onto power that he bragged that “only God” could remove him. So he unleashed his thugs in a campaign of violence and intimidation against supporters of Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

Five days before the June 27 election, with an estimated 80 or more MDC supporters murdered, some 10,000 injured, and more than 200,000 people displaced, Tsvangirai withdrew from the race. His reasons were twofold. He could no longer ask Zimbabweans to go to the polls when, he said, “that vote could cost them their lives.” He added that the election had degenerated into “a one-man competition” that bore little relationship to democracy.

Yet there were plenty of reasons to remain in the battle. Staying the course could have inspired his followers and possibly brought an end to the economic disaster that Zimbabwe has become. That’s how reform often happens. Somebody stands in front of a Chinese tank in Tiananmen Square. Nelson Mandela risks assassination by assuming a high-profile role in apartheid South Africa. Boris Yeltsin leaps onto a Russian tank to bring an end to a coup.

As the world inches its way toward democratic governance and human rights, we’re rightly fascinated by revolutions and reforms. We study them from various angles — political power, constitutional law, tribal tensions, religious divides, economic incentives, military might — hoping to glean useful lessons. But we tend to overlook the ethics angle until, as in Zimbabwe last week, the moral issues rise so powerfully to the surface that they can’t be ignored.

In this case, those issues fell into two categories. The first, journalistically compelling but conceptually uninteresting, concerns questions of right versus wrong. How the world responds to what the Economist calls “the ogre that has shamed an entire continent” makes headlines. In the past week, Queen Elizabeth II stripped Mugabe of his honorary knighthood, President Bush ordered tougher sanctions in light of what he described as “a sham election” conducted by “an illegitimate government,” and the United Nations called for the first-round elections to be respected — a position that could leave Tsvangirai the winner. But nobody has debated whether murder, rape, threats, bribes, pillaging, self-dealing, nepotism, fraud, theft, and arson are anything but wrong. On that question, there’s nothing left to say.

The second ethics category concerns right versus right. As Tsvangirai decided whether or not to withdraw, the world-class dilemma he faced pitted his loyalty and responsibility to the MDC — he is, after all, their candidate — against the truth that his followers were being attacked and murdered. It found him in an individual-versus-community struggle about saving himself versus bringing his people to power. It forced him to ask whether a short-term retreat would create a long-term loss, or whether the only way to achieve long-term success would be through intense short-term suffering that could cost him his life. And it pitted the need to defend justice and democracy for his nation against the need to show mercy and compassion for his followers.

Which of those arguments is right? All of them. So how to decide? If Tsvangirai stood by the ethical precepts of the ends-based, utilitarian construct — “do the greatest good for the greatest number” — he could argue for estimating the consequences of his actions and backing away. If, on the other hand, he followed the leanings of rule-based, Kantian logic — “follow the principle you want to see become a universal law” — he could argue that the principles of democracy were worth more than any single life, even his own. Finally, if he honored the care-based ethic of the Golden Rule — “do to others what you would want them to do to you” — he might say, “I want leaders who know how to keep fighting” — though he might say instead, “I want leaders who know how to stay alive.”

There is, in other words, a moral case for staying in the race and a moral case for withdrawing. Tsvangirai couldn’t do both. He had to choose what for him seemed to be the higher right. Will history show that he did the right thing? If things turn out well, the ends-based thinkers who judge by outcomes will applaud — just as, if things go badly, they’ll chastise him. By contrast, the rule-based thinkers will care only about the principle, not the consequences. In their eyes, he’ll be right whatever happens, as long as he stood by his highest principles.

And that’s the tough judgment. There is a high principle in standing up to tyranny and fighting to the finish. It is also highly principled to care about the lives and well-being of your followers. Either way, for Tsvangirai, last week took courage.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

EPA documents “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases. That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

– A senior official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), speaking to the New York Times last week about White House efforts to water down findings supporting the regulation of greenhouse gases. The EPA emailed its original analysis to the White House last December after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to determine any danger posed by greenhouse gases. The White House refused to open the email, replying that the EPA’s findings would not be acknowledged. After six months of pressure from the White House, the EPA’s original findings have been slashed and weakened, eliminating “large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years,” reports the Times.

* * *

“I find it troubling, not only that the Department of Defense is in flagrant violation of final orders issued by the EPA, but that DOD is now attempting to circumvent the law and Congress’ intent by calling on the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and the Budget to intervene. The EPA is the expert agency charged by Congress with enforcing our environmental laws, and the Administration needs to allow them to do their job to protect the public health and safety.”

– Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a statement criticizing the Pentagon for refusing to cooperate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cleaning up toxic and pollution-ridden sites that pose “imminent and substantial” dangers to the public health and the environment. The Department of Defense (DOD) has refused to sign agreements, known as final orders, requiring the cleanup of 12 military sites, and is resisting cleanup orders for three other badly damaged sites, asking the Justice Department to block enforcement efforts by the EPA, reports the Washington Post.

Sources: Washington Post, June 30 — New York Times, June 25.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 29, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 13, 2005.

In wake of discredited election, many nations call for sanctions; businesses and institutional investors also expected to turn up heat, say analysts

HARARE, Zimbabwe
In a scenario that has raised fundamental questions about ethics, human rights, and the responsibilities of the international community, Robert Mugabe took the oath of office for a sixth term as Zimbabwe’s president over the weekend. The ceremony followed an election condemned as a sham by, among other nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

Mugabe won the runoff election after opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew, citing violence against his supporters, Bloomberg reported. While Tsvangirai won more votes in the first round of polling, a runoff was required since neither he nor Mugabe won an outright majority of the popular vote.

Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe since the nation gained independence from Britain in 1980. Critics say his regime is thoroughly corrupt and that he has retained power by intimidation and torture.

In the immediate aftermath of the election, U.S. President George Bush called on the United Nations to impose an international trade embargo on Zimbabwe.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also called for sanctions, reported the London Daily Mail.

Canada condemned the election, with foreign minister David Emerson saying “the government of Zimbabwe’s systematic use of violence and intimidation represents a grave violation of human rights and democratic principles,” reports the Agence France-Presse.

The stance of leaders of various African nations remains unclear. As the Christian Science Monitor reports, while many African leaders have supported Mugabe’s goals of ridding Africa of the vestiges of colonial rule, events at a meeting of African leaders convening this week in Egypt may signal a change.

“We are saying we want the African Union to send troops to Zimbabwe,” Kenya prime minister Raila Odinga said on Saturday, according to the Monitor. “The time has come for the African continent to stand firm in unity to end dictatorship.”

The call was echoed by South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, reports the Monitor, while several East African nations are calling on Mugabe to share power with opposition leaders.

At the same time, many multinational businesses are evaluating their involvement with Zimbabwe, reports the U.K. Guardian: “It’s tough doing business in Zimbabwe. Corporate executives operating in the basket-case economy have so much to worry about: 1,600,000-percent inflation, power and water outages, an unpredictable legal environment and bad politics. And for some managers, things just got harder…Multinational corporations operating in Zimbabwe are increasingly the target of human rights campaigners.”

The paper predicts that institutional investors, who “nowadays ask more questions about governance, ethics, and human rights,” also are likely to turn up the heat for reform.

Sources: Christian Science Monitor, June 30 — Bloomberg, June 29 — AFP, June 29 — Daily Mail, June 29 — Guardian, June 25.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 28 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 17 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 2, 2004 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22, 2003 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 26, 2002.

Of particular concern: Many in poor nations are forced to pay bribes for access to water or other basic services

VARIOUS DATELINES
Corruption is intensifying in two-fifths of the world’s nations, growing in tandem with poverty, political instability, and crime, according to a report from Transparency International (TI).

Graft also is causing disruption of the world’s water supply, the international watchdog claims.

Transparency International annually rates countries on perception of corruption, surveying country specialists, businesspeople, human rights monitors, and other experts. Nations are rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with the lower numbers indicating a higher rate of corruption.

Forbes reports that the corruption ratings generally follow economic fault lines, with 40 percent of the countries rated under 3 classified as low income by the World Bank.

This year’s index rates the least corrupt countries as New Zealand, Denmark, and Finland, each tied at 9.4. The nations perceived as most corrupt are Somalia and Myanmar, each with a ranking of 1.4.

The United States ranked as the fourth least corrupt, and the United Kingdom as the fifth least corrupt. Canada was number 7, according to Forbes.

In its report, Transparency International notes that more than one billion people worldwide do not have reliable access to drinkable water or sanitation, often as a result of corruption. The group predicts that by 2025 more than three billion people may be living in water-stressed countries, reports the CBC.

Graft often increases the cost of connecting a household to a water network by more than 30 percent, TI maintains. Connecting to a water utility can cost about six months of income for the poorest residents of Kenya, reports the Sunday Nation of Nairobi.

In Pakistan, nearly a quarter of the rural population pays bribes to obtain irrigation water, according to the TI report, notes the Daily Times of Lahore.

Corruption also extends to other basic services, claims TI, with one out of three families living below the poverty line in India being forced to pay a bribe in order to admit a family member to the hospital, file a police report, or enroll a child in school, reports CNN.

Sources: Lahore Daily Times, June 28 — Forbes, June 28 — Forbes, tabulation of results of survey, June 28 — CBC, June 28 — CNN, June 28 — Nairobi Sunday Nation, June 27.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 6 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 1, 2007 — Related Newsline story, July 30, 2007 — Related Newsline story, May 29, 2007 — Text of TI report.

In other news, Chinese officials make scores of arrests in corruption probes

BEIJING
Three ethics-related stories from China made news this week:

• A teacher who ran away from his post, leaving his students behind during China’s recent earthquake, not only has become the target of national scorn but is apparently the motivating factor behind a recent revision of China’s ethics rules for educators. A draft of revised ethics regulations specifically states for the first time that teachers have a moral responsibility to protect their students, according to official state media. Teacher Fan Meizhong, now nicknamed Runner Fan, ignited a firestorm of controversy when he fled his classroom and then justified his actions on his blog, according to China Daily.
• Chinese authorities say they have punished or fired more than 40 officials because of irregularities in distribution of relief supplies following the quake, the Voice of America reports. China, in the midst of large-scale anticorruption efforts, vowed it would crack down hard on those who misused relief supplies.
• Antigraft authorities in the southern Chinese city of Dongguan are mining what is turning out to be a rich vein of information: intelligence from mistresses of suspected corrupt officials. Reuters reports that mistresses are common among government officials in China and are blamed often for fueling bribery because of their financial demands on their powerful boyfriends. State media say at least 80 percent of the officials charged with corruption in Dongguan had mistresses, and those mistresses gave up important information that otherwise would have been difficult to obtain.

Sources: BBC, June 28 — Reuters, June 26 — China Daily, June 26.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 23 — Related Newsline story, June 16 — Related Newsline story, June 9 — Related Newsline Commentary, June 2 — Related Newsline story, May 27.

Agency also says it might toughen requirements on disclosure and could expand regulation to require broadcast news organizations to inform viewers when using ‘video news releases’ from third parties

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week indicated that it may crack down on the use of props on popular television shows when those items — such as cookies, soft drinks, and sneakers — are really paid pitches.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin told the Washington Post that so-called product placement has increased in recent years, primarily as a result of viewers using digital recording devices to fast-forward through standard commercials.

The ethics issue now surfacing, reports the San Francisco Chronicle, is the recent trend among TV producers to manipulate plot lines in order to accommodate profitable prop products.

“This often subtle but always insidious blurring of the line between content and commerce is an issue not just for the creative community but for the American viewing public as well,” said Writer’s Guild member Philip Rosenthal, creator and executive producer of “Everybody Loves Raymond,” during testimony before Congress on the topic last year, according to a report from ABC News.

While there are requirements that certain product placements be disclosed on broadcast TV shows, the FCC may require more large-print notifications to be displayed for longer period. The agency also is pondering extending product-placement notification regulations to cable TV, feature films, and children’s TV, according to the industry trade journal Broadcasting and Cable.

In addition, the FCC is looking at tougher regulations that would require “video news releases” — segments prepared by companies, organizations, and the government, which are aired by TV news organizations often without disclosure — be labeled on-air, reports Broadcasting and Cable.

Sources: Washington Post, June 27 — ABC News, June 27 — San Francisco Chronicle, June 27 — Broadcasting and Cable, June 26.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 16 — Related Newsline story, May 27 — Related Newsline story, May 19 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 21, 2005 — Related Newsline story, May 24, 2004.

Deal would allow trading information for law enforcement and security operations; legal liability issues still remain to be worked out

WASHINGTON
The United States and the European Union are close to an agreement on the complex legal and ethical issues surrounding sharing personal information for law enforcement and security.

According to a report from the New York Times, the expected agreement will allow law enforcement agencies to trade information such as credit card transactions, travel histories, and Internet browsing habits both ways across the Atlantic.

But UPI reports that a few points remain to be negotiated, including whether citizens on either continent should be able to sue other governments for misusing data.

The United States previously had sealed several bilateral deals with individual European nations, including a deal with Germany to facilitate the automatic exchange of information about suspected terrorists, reports the Berlin-based news service Deutsche Welle.

Europe generally has much more stringent restrictions on the handling of personal data than does the United States, reports the San Jose Mercury News.

Sources: Deutsche Welle, June 27 — San Jose Mercury News, June 27 — New York Times, June 27 — UPI, June 27.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 9 — Related Newsline story, June 2 — Related Newsline story, May 19 — Related Newsline story, May 5 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 28.

BAE Systems is facing bribery allegations; CEO Ian King says first order of business will be addressing problems cited in recent ethics report

LONDON
The new chief executive of British defense contractor BAE Systems promised a break from the company’s troubled history, according to press reports last week.

The U.K. Guardian reports that new BAE Systems CEO Ian King, promoted from his post as the company’s chief operating officer, will assume as his first task the process of addressing a major report that recommended sweeping changes in the firm’s ethics.

Harry Woolf, a former British law lord hired by BAE to chair an independent committee, said the firm had not paid enough attention to ethics, making 23 specific recommendations for bolstering best practices and avoiding bribery, reports the International Herald Tribune.

Among other current problems, BAE faces an upcoming hearing into whether the government should resume a probe of allegations of impropriety in arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The original investigation was halted in 2006, reports the Times of London, over the government’s fears that it would endanger national security.

Also, reports the Financial Times, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched a separate investigation into whether U.S. bribery laws were breached. BAE has denied wrongdoing.

Sources: Financial Times, June 28 — Times of London, June 27 — International Herald Tribune, June 27 — Guardian, June 27.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 12 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14 — Related Newsline story, July 30, 2007 — Related Newsline story, May 14, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 18, 2006.

Some hospitals are reviewing composition of ethics committees, which mediate agonizing end-of-life decisions

NEW YORK
While hospital medical-ethics teams increasingly are called on to help resolve agonizing end-of-life decisions, such as mediating among family members who disagree about removing a patient from life support, there is escalating concern about the qualifications of committee members, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Journal reporter Laura Landro writes: “The complex ethical issues arising from new life-prolonging medical technologies are throwing up new challenges. And hospitals face potential legal liability if patients and families feel they haven’t been properly counseled or provided with all the information they need to make decisions.”

Landro reports that several hospitals have “taken note of deficiencies in their bioethics consulting and are taking steps to fix them.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs, she writes, is asking the 153 hospitals in its system to evaluate ethics consultants for competency and provide mandatory training for consultants.

But there are critics of mandatory bioethics training and credentialing, some of whom argue that health care personnel gain adequate on-the-job training from handling ethical issues over years of practice, according to the Journal.

Source: Wall Street Journal, June 27.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 16 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 28 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 17 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 7.

But majority of U.S. public also ‘favors stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns’

From Harris Interactive:

“The United States Supreme Court today reversed Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, ruling that the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to own a handgun….

“When The Harris Poll showed wording from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the survey’s sample and asked whether U.S. adults think the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms or a state’s right to form a militia, the same question the Supreme Court just answered, we found:

• “By 41 percent to 17 percent, a two to one plurality believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms agreeing with the Supreme Court….
• “By political party affiliation, Republicans by 51 percent to 9 percent believe the Second Amendment supports individuals’ right to bear arms. Democrats also agree, though by a closer 41 percent to 22 percent margin;
• “Independents are even more closely divided with 31 percent to 22 percent thinking that the Amendment supports and individuals’ right to bear arms.

“And with regard to gun control:

• “A relative majority of U.S. adults – 49 percent – favor stricter gun control with 20 percent wanting less strict gun control and 21 percent wanting no change;
• “By 54 percent to 18 percent a majority favors stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns and another 18 percent want no change..

“So What?

“Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has issued its decision, the debate over guns in this country is far from over. While Americans are more likely to believe the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to bear arms, they also do favor stricter gun control….”

For the full press release, June 26, click here.

“It is never safe to look into the future with eyes of fear.”

– E. H. Harriman (U.S. railroad executive, 1848-1909)

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

It’s said that people buy more chocolate during economic downturns. Maybe it’s the only fun they can afford. Maybe it’s a cheap pick-me-up, or an escape mechanism, or a longing for simple childhood comforts. Whatever the reason, chocolate apparently is countercyclical: As the economy slows, chocolate sales rise.

I’m beginning to suspect that ethics also is countercyclical. Over the years, I’ve sensed a deepening of public concern over moral issues whenever the economy falters.

If that’s so, this past week not only should benefit Hershey’s and Cadbury; it also should drive ethics higher up the national agenda. With stocks sliding, oil prices rising, the housing market dragging, Midwest crops flooding, and global food shortages appearing, we well may see a greater interest in returning to ethics basics.

But why? Is there a link between moral insolvency and an economic slowdown? That suspicion was renewed last week with the arrests of two former executives at Bear Stearns (which was bailed out by the feds in March in a high-profile effort to stabilize the housing market) on charges of fraud related to the credit debacle. Last week, too, Canadian investigators brought criminal charges against three former top executives of Nortel, the Toronto-based telecommunications company long revered as a safe investment, in connection with an accounting scandal that severely rattled Canadian markets in 2004.

There also may be a link between political ethics and the economy. The Gallup Organization has just released data from its May 2008 survey showing that Republicans are particularly concerned about “the overall state of moral values.” This year and last, 51 percent of Republicans felt the nation’s moral condition was “poor” — up from a steady 36 percent between 2002 and 2006. Views of Democrats and independents, however, still sit at the 36-percent level.

The result puzzled Gallup’s analysts, who could find no apparent reason for this anomaly. But surely there are a few options:

1. Quagmire. Gallup asked participants about 16 issues, including abortion, homosexuality, cloning, gambling, polygamy, and divorce. Unlike their liberal colleagues, conservatives may feel stalemated on many of these fronts, leading to pent-up frustration that finally surfaced in this poll.
2. Skew. Gallup’s list didn’t include national security, education, immigration, or other current issues fraught with ethical overtones. Those issues might have given Republicans more reasons to applaud.
3. Definition. Listing only topics in the news, Gallup effectively defined morality in public-policy terms. Had Gallup used a virtues-based lens — asking about values such as honesty, respect, responsibility, fairness, or compassion — would Republicans have expressed less concern?
4. Exhaustion. President Bush’s approval ratings are in the cellar, even among some conservatives. With little time left to address ethics issues — and little visible appetite in the administration for doing so — once-loyal Republicans may be throwing in the towel.

But suppose Gallup got it right. Suppose a newly energized slice of the nation is, countercyclically, sounding the moral Klaxon. Have they recognized that unethical executives who deliberately wreck their companies may inadvertently be destroying whole economies as well? Are they sensing that while economic downturns can stem from broad, global forces, this one may have been abetted, at least in part, by local chicanery and turpitude? Are they realizing that a politics of divisiveness, animosity, and stalemate is not only inefficient and negligent but fundamentally immoral? Are they recognizing that when times are good, nobody wants to rock the boat with this “ethics stuff” — but that when times are tough, we face hard questions from the helmsman of our conscience? Are they feeling that perhaps we’ve overdosed on global resources — and that the globe finally may be pushing back?

If ethics is increasingly in demand, what the seekers will need most aren’t platitudes and surveys but ethical pathways and decision-making frameworks — structures to help embed integrity and resolve moral dilemmas all the way from the kindergarten couch to the CEO suite. But they’ll also need to be assured of something else: This didn’t need to happen. We didn’t have to wait for an economic shock to wake us up. We’re not so dumb that we can’t contemplate and correct our ethical future before it catches us unawares. And we’re not so hedonistic that we happily trash the moral long term as long as the short term feels great.

How do we know we’re not? Because, apparently, when times get tough we still care enough to be morally countercyclical.

[display_podcast]

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong.”

– CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredman, speaking to military and intelligence officials gathered at the U.S.-run detention camp in Guantánamo, Cuba, in 2002, according to minutes from the meeting. “The document, one of two dozen released by a Senate panel investigating how Pentagon officials developed the controversial interrogation program introduced at Guantánamo Bay in late 2002, suggests a larger CIA role in advising Defense Department interrogators than was previously known,” reports the Washington Post.

Source: Washington Post, June 18.

* * *

“We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques.”

– Now-retired military lawyer Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, as recorded in minutes from an October 2002 meeting at Guantánamo Bay. According to McClatchy Newspapers, newly released documents show that the “U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny” of the Red Cross.

Source: McClatchy, June 17.

* * *

“They had a gigantic amount of costs they couldn’t justify. Ultimately, the money that was going to KBR was money being taken away from the troops, and I wasn’t going to do that.”

– U.S. Army official Charles Smith, talking to the New York Times last week. Smith, who oversaw the U.S. government’s multibillion-dollar contract with KBR during the first two years of the Iraq war, says he was summarily removed from his post after threatening to withhold payments and bonuses to KBR over the company’s inability to justify more than $1 billion in questionably charges. Smith says KBR refused to act on his warning until he directed one of his deputies to hand-deliver a letter to the company. Two days later, Smith and the woman who delivered the letter were both summarily removed from their jobs and reassigned. They were replaced by a contractor, RCI Holding Corporation, which approved the payments and bonuses for KBR, once a subsidiary of Halliburton, the firm formerly run by U.S. vice president Dick Cheney. This spring, both KBR and RCI were awarded new contracts, notes the Times.

Source: New York Times, June 17.

Developments include compromise spy legislation, a report that Justice Department lawyer was reassigned because he opposed administration views on harsh interrogations, the ethics debate over offshore drilling, and a New Orleans congressman who will seek reelection despite corruption charges

WASHINGTON
Several ethics-related news stories garnered headlines last week in the Beltway press. Among them:

• The U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a spy law that would shield telecommunications companies from legal liability for opening their records and networks to government investigators in apparent violation of existing wiretap laws. The technology news network CNET reports that the threat of lawsuits to telecoms had been a major sticking point in revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Telecoms face lawsuits over their participation in the warrantless surveillance program started by President Bush after the 9/11 terror attacks. While not granting complete retroactive immunity, the bill will allow courts to dismiss suits if telecoms present written documentation that the government asked a company to participate and assured the firm that its actions were legal, according to CNET.
• ABC News reports that former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales ousted a top lawyer who disagreed with the administration’s position on what constitutes torture. Gonzales asked Daniel Levin to leave in early 2005 shortly after Levin wrote an opinion declaring torture “abhorrent” and limiting the administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques, according to the ABC report. The story cited unidentified sources as saying that Gonzales, concerned about the appearance of removing Levin under the circumstances, arranged for him to be offered a “less significant” position outside the Justice Department.
• Weighing environmental costs against the hardships imposed by soaring oil prices, the Bush administration last week called on Congress to lift the ban on domestic offshore oil drilling. Bush noted that the situation reflected a long-term versus short-term dilemma, in that alternative energy technologies offer a solution to demand for oil in the future, but “in the short run the American economic will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we’ll need to increase supply especially here at home,” Forbes reported. Bush’s call was criticized as fraudulent posturing by New York Times economics columnist Thomas Friedman, who slammed the president and other GOP leaders for perpetuating the nation’s dependence on oil while blocking nearly all significant measures to improve fuel efficiency and foster renewable energy development over the past six years.
• Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) announced that he will seek reelection to a tenth term even though he is preparing to go on trial for political corruption, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports. Jefferson was stripped of his position on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee seat after a federal raid on his congressional office.

Sources: New York Times, June 22 — ABC News, June 21 — New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 21 — CNET, June 20 — Forbes, June 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 12 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 24 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 11 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 26, 2006.

Indian press says there’s anger that giant retailer cut relations rather than working to fix the issue

LONDON and NEW DELHI
A major British fashion chain last week said it has cut ties with its Indian suppliers after learning that the firms use child labor.

The Times of London reports that Primark said it will drop three firms that made thousands of clothes after discovering they had subcontracted work to firms using children as embroiderers.

According to a report from the Financial Times, the violation of the firm’s ethical sourcing code came to light after a BBC investigative documentary into child labor.

Primark stressed that it took swift action as soon as it found out about the allegations.

In an analysis, the Independent’s Sarah Arnott, notes: “Such robust condemnations are a sign of the public relations issues raised by offshore manufacturing. In response to growing public repugnance at sweatshop labor, ethical concerns have shot up the retail agenda. All members of the British Retail Consortium, which represents 80 percent of the country’s retailers, have signed up to the independently audited Ethical Trading Initiative. The code of practice covers such issues as the free choice of employment, the right to collective bargaining, safe working conditions, and payment of a living wage.”

But the Press Trust of India reports that some in that nation are criticizing Primark for dropping the suppliers rather than working with them to improve conditions.

Sources: Times of London, June 20 — Independent, June 16 — Press Trust of India, June 17 — Financial Times, June 16.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 9, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 12, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 21, 2006 — Related Newsline story, June 12, 2006.

Running of Olympic torch through Tibetan capital stirs resentment; New York Times reports that in zeal for gold, Chinese athletes are pushed to compete with injuries; and IOC mounts antigambling initiative

BEIJING and SHANGHAI
Several ethics issues dominated Olympic coverage last week. Among the stories:

• China sent the Olympic flame through the streets of Tibet’s capital, Lhasa, last week, though there was barbed wire to keep ordinary Tibetans away and residents were told to stay inside their homes. The Globe & Mail reports that a small group of foreign journalists was allowed to see only the beginning and end of the run. Human rights groups were critical of the decision to run the torch through the Tibetan capital, according to the report. Recent separatist demonstrations in Tibet were crushed with violence, leading some critics to call for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.
• The New York Times reports that China, in its quest for Olympic gold, routinely pushes injured athletes to compete. The report cites the case of Hu Jia, China’s champion 10-meter platform diver, who won gold in the 2004 Athens games. Despite diving injuries to both of his retinas, Hu is training for the upcoming Olympics — a decision likely motivated by cultural pressure, financial promise, and powerful nationalistic forces, reports the Times. According to the report: “For many athletes, playing through injuries is standard practice. Most of China’s Olympic-caliber competitors are tightly controlled by a system that manages almost every aspect of their lives, often from early childhood. This includes housing, education, medical care, and interactions with the public and the news media. In this system, decisions about training regimens and the risks of injuries do not get much of a public airing.”
• The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has introduced new antigambling measures, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. According to the report, the IOC will demand that all athletes, coaches, officials, and journalists sign documents pledging not to gamble or promote betting during the games.

Sources: Globe & Mail, June 21 — New York Times, June 20 — Sydney Morning Herald, June 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 27 — Related Newsline story, May 27 — Related Newsline story, May 27 — Related Newsline story, May 19.

Judiciary had allowed some secret evidence because of rampant witness intimidation; prosecutors worry that the most recent ruling could overturn scores of convictions

LONDON
A British court last week ruled that it is improper to allow anonymous evidence to be admitted into some criminal cases — a decision that worries prosecutors, who fear that scores of previous convictions may be thrown out.

Judicial officials in Britain had been pondering an extension of existing law allowing teenage witnesses to give evidence of gun crimes anonymously, reports the London Daily Mail. In addition, other government agencies had favored allowing the elderly and other vulnerable witnesses to give evidence in secret.

The ethics angle: While being able to confront one’s accuser is a traditional part of British law, prosecutors say that witness intimidation has become increasingly commonplace, especially among the poor and within gang-ridden neighborhoods. The London Evening Standard reports that some in the judiciary are willing to bend tradition in order to protect the vulnerable.

But as a report from the U.K. Press Association notes, civil libertarians worry that witnesses who do not have to face cross-examination could concoct stories that lead to convictions based on false evidence from people seeking revenge or having other axes to grind.

John Yates, the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, says last week’s ruling backing the right to confront accusers is “potentially disastrous” because it may prompt many appeals by dangerous convicts, reports Sky News.

Sources: U.K. Press Association, June 21 — Guardian, June 21 — London Daily Mail, June 20 — London Evening Standard, June 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, June 16 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, July 16, 2007 — Related Newsline story, July 2, 2007.

Test makes it easier to diagnose Down syndrome, worrying some who say abortion rates will increase; American Medical Association panel says ‘mystery shoppers’ have no place in doctors’ offices

VARIOUS DATELINES
Ethical issues relating to medicine and the life sciences made headlines last week. Coverage included the following stories:

• A new test that allows for easy determination of whether a fetus has Down syndrome is raising ethics questions. The method under development is much less invasive and dangerous that amniocentesis, a procedure in which a sample of fluid is drawn from the uterus. Because amniocentesis carries a risk of miscarriage, it is typically performed only in high-risk cases, such as a baby being carried by a mother in her 40s. The new test, if it passes regulatory oversight, would cause no danger to the fetus but could raise the abortion rate if more fetuses are diagnosed with the disorder, reports the London Daily Telegraph.
• In Chicago, the annual meeting of the American Medical Association’s policy-making House of Delegates gave a thumbs-down to an unusual proposal: “secret shoppers” to rate the quality of medical care. The Chicago Tribune reports that while secrets shoppers are used commonly to rate and improve the quality of service in retail stores, they probably won’t show up in doctors’ offices any time soon. Delegates to the Chicago meeting said they did not trust the concept, worrying that secret shoppers could clog the pipeline for real patients and could be used by lawyers in malpractice cases. Proponents argued that while secret shoppers would not be used to assess doctors’ clinical skills, they could have provided valuable insight into how physicians manage patient relationships, according to U.S. News & World Report.

Sources: London Daily Telegraph, June 21 — U.S. News & World Report, June 20 — Chicago Tribune, June 20.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 2 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 1, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007.