Archives: Articles

By Thomas Gaist

The NATO military alliance is preparing to implement a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy in response to alleged “Russian aggression,” according to NATO sources cited by the Guardian Wednesday evening.

Proposed changes include provisions for greater involvement of nuclear forces in ongoing NATO military exercises along Russia’s borders and new guidelines for nuclear escalation against Russia, according to the NATO officials.

The alliance’s nuclear doctrine has been the subject of quiet, informal discussions “on the sidelines” of the ongoing NATO summit. The new policies will be formally articulated and confirmed at an upcoming conference of the alliance’s Nuclear Planning Group, which was rescheduled for an earlier date this week as word got around about the secretive planning.

“There is very real concern about the way in which Russia publicly bandies around nuclear stuff. So there are quite a lot of deliberations in the alliance about nuclear weapons,” an unnamed NATO diplomat told the Guardian.

The claim that discussion about a revision of nuclear weapons policy is in response to Russian aggression turns reality on its head. In the aftermath of the US and NATO-backed coup in Ukraine last year, the major imperialist powers have engaged in a relentless militarization of Eastern Europe, including the establishment of a rapid reaction force of 40,000 troops.

This week, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that the US would permanently deploy tanks, military vehicles and other equipment to countries bordering Russia. There are also ongoing discussions about directly arming Ukraine, beyond the extensive assistance the right-wing government already receives.

NATO is now planning to respond to any attempt by Russia to maintain or counter US imperialism’s aggressive moves in Eastern Europe with even more massive military response, including nuclear weapons.

An indication of the thinking of NATO strategists was provided by a report in the Financial Times. In the event of a conflict involving one of the Baltic countries, “Russia might…accuse the alliance of escalating the conflict and threaten to use intermediate range nuclear weapons.” The Times quotes Elbridge Colby, of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS): “NATO does not need a total nuclear rethink. But it needs to be realistic about how it would respond and willing to show Putin that he would not get away with it.”

This scenario builds on allegations from the US that Russia has violated the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), allegations that the Russian government has denied. US officials have stated that the Pentagon is preparing to launch preemptive attacks against missiles or other targets in Russia, including with nuclear weapons, in response to Moscow’s alleged violation of the treaty.

The announcement of major revisions to NATO’s nuclear strategy came just days after the publication of an extensive report, “Project Atom: Defining US Nuclear Strategy and Posture for 2025-2050,” by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The main portions of the report were authored by a career US government strategist and senior CSIS analyst, Clark Murdock, a man who previously worked in high-level strategy jobs at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the US Air Force and the National War College. The report included contributions from a large team of researchers and experts, including panels from the CNAS and the National Institution for Public Policy (NIPP).

The thrust of the CSIS analysis is that the US must make its nuclear arsenal easier to use in a war with Russia, China or some other power. The military must adopt “a US nuclear strategy designed for twenty-first century realities,” based on new generations of tactical warheads and delivery systems.

More advanced tactical nuclear weapons will enable Washington to threaten and launch small nuclear wars, without being “self-deterred” by concerns that its actions would lead to a nuclear holocaust, the CSIS report argues.

“The United States needs to develop and deploy more employable nuclear weapons,” the CSIS wrote, including “low collateral damage, enhanced radiation, earth penetration, electromagnetic pulse, and others as technology advances.”

Such advances, the report argues, are the only way to counter the erosion of American technological superiority by the growth of the Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals, together with the addition of as many as nine new governments to the “nuclear club.”

Under the “Measured Response” theory advocated by the CSIS and Murdock, these types of highly mobile nuclear strike forces could engage in “controlled nuclear operations,” firing “low yield, accurate, special effects” nukes against enemy targets without leading to a full-scale nuclear war.
By “forward deploying a robust set of discriminate nuclear response options,” the US could launch tactical nuclear strikes “at all rungs of the nuclear escalation ladder,” Murdock wrote.

Such “small-scale” nuclear conflicts would inevitably claim tens, if not hundreds of millions of lives, even assuming they did not escalate into a global nuclear war.

The continental US, according to this theory, would be protected from the consequences of regional-scale nuclear warfare by the deterrent effect of Washington’s huge arsenal of high-yield strategic weapons. Any “controlled” nuclear conflicts started by the US government, moreover, would not involve nuclear operations targeting or launched from North America.

“The US homeland would not be engaged in the US response to a nuclear attack on a regional ally,” the CSIS wrote.

In barely veiled language, CSIS is suggesting that the US should utilize allied and client governments as staging areas and arenas for “controlled” atomic warfare.

As the product of collaboration between an extensive network of ruling-class policy theorists, such proposals are extremely ominous and represent a grave warning to the international working class.

There have been other calls for a significant expansion of US nuclear weapons capacity. In comments to the Atlantic Council earlier this week, US Congressman Mac Thornberry, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called for a “national conversation about building new nuclear weapons.”

“That’s something we haven’t been able to even have a conversation about for a while, but I think we’re going to have to,” Thornberry declared.
Late last year, the Obama administration announced plans for a $1 trillion, three-decades-long upgrade of nuclear weapons capability.

In the writings of the CSIS and the other discussions within the state apparatus, there is a degree of insanity. The strategists of American imperialism are coldly calculating the best tactics for waging and winning nuclear war. Yet this insanity flows from the logic of American imperialism and the drive by the financial aristocracy to control—ever more directly through the use of military force—the entire world.
26 June, 2015
WSWS.org

 

By Jack Moore

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Israel dropped by almost 50% last year in comparison to the year before as the country continues to feel the effects of last summer’s Gaza conflict, a new UN report has revealed.

The report, published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), shows that only €5.7bn was invested into the country in 2014 in comparison with €10.5bn in 2013, a decrease of €4.8bn, or 46%. Israel’s FDI in other countries also decreased by 15%, from €4.2bn in 2013 to €3.5bn last year.

Dr Ronny Manos, one of the report’s authors and a researcher in the department of Management and Economics at the Open University of Israel, said that the decline was primarily caused by the fallout from the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Operation Protective Edge and international boycotts against the country for alleged violations of international law.

Try Newsweek: subscription offers

“We believe that what led to the drop in investment in Israel are Operation Protective Edge and the boycotts Israel is facing,” she told Israeli news outlet Ynet News.

“In the past there were large transactions such as Waze [a traffic app] and ISCAR Metalworking [supplier of metal tools] which boosted investment, but over the past year there were not enough such deals.”

The seven-week Gaza conflict, in which the IDF entered the coastal enclave to prevent Palestinian militant rocket fire, reportedly cost Israel over a billion shekels (approximately €200m) from its defence budget, according to an investigation into the price of the conflict by German publication Deutsche Welle.

Further, the threat of rockets also deterred tourists, where 40% of the Israeli tourism sector is garnered from the summer months, and slowed consumption, especially in Israel’s southern regions near the Gaza Strip, Israeli business journalist Eitan Avriel told DW.

International pressure on companies to refrain from investing in the Israeli economy has heightened with the rise of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Last October, drinks company Sodastream International closed one of its West Bank factories in a victory for the movement.

Despite the specific reasons given for the decline in FDI in Israel, the report also notes that FDI fell globally, from €1.3tn in 2013 to €1.1tn in 2014, a drop of 16%. This global decline was caused by a number of geopolitical factors, such as instability in the Middle East and tensions between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

Manos was not immediately available for comment.

25 June 2015

By John Scales Avery

The threat of catastrophic climate change requires prompt and dedicated action by the global community. Unless we very quickly make the transition from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy, we will reach a tipping point after which uncontrollable feedback loops could take over, leading to a human-caused 6th geological extinction event. This might even be comparable to the Permian-Triassic event, during which 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates became extinct.

New hope that such a catastrophe for human civilization and the biosphere can be avoided comes from two recently-released documents: The Encyclical “Laudatum Si’ ” by Pope Francis, and the statistics on the rate of growth of renewable energy newly released by the Earth Policy Institute.

The danger of reaching a tipping point

Arctic sea-ice is melting at an increasingly rapid rate, because of several feedback loops. One of these feedback loops, called the albedo effect, is due to the fact that white snow-covered sea-ice in the Arctic reflects sunlight, while dark water absorbs it, raising the temperature and leading to more melting.

Another feedback loop is due to the fact that rising temperatures mean that more water is evaporated. The water vapor in the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse gas, and raises the temperature still further.

If we consider long-term effects, by far the most dangerous of the feedback loops is the melting of methane hydrate crystals and the release of methane into the atmosphere, where its effects as a greenhouse gas are roughly twenty times great as those of CO2.

When organic matter is carried into the oceans by rivers, it decays to form methane. The methane then combines with water to form hydrate crystals, which are stable at the temperatures which currently exist on ocean floors. However, if the temperature rises, the crystals become unstable, and methane gas bubbles up to the surface.

The worrying thing about methane hydrate deposits on ocean floors is the enormous amount of carbon involved: roughly 10,000 gagatons. To put this huge amount into perspective, we can remember that the total amount in world CO2 emissions since 1751 has been only 337 gigatons.

Pope Francis and his message of hope

Despite the worrying nature of the threats that we are facing, there are reasons for hope. One of the greatest of these is the beautiful, profound and powerful encyclical that has just been released by Pope Francis. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

When he accepted the responsibility for leading the world’s 1.2-billion-strong Catholic Church, Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina adopted the name Francis, after the universally loved Saint Francis of Assisi, whose life of simplicity, love for the poor, and love of nature he chose as the model for his Papacy. The Pope’s inspiring encyclical letter “Laudato Si’ ” takes its name from a canticle of Saint Francis, that begins with the words “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our sister, mother Earth, who sustains and governs us…”

We can remember that Saint Francis regarded birds and animals as his brothers and sisters. He even thought of the sun, moon, clouds, rain and water as brothers and sisters. Like his chosen namesake, Pope Francis stresses the unity of all of nature, and our kinship with all of creation. Francis appeals to love. We can be saved through love.

His encyclical is addressed not only to Catholics, but also to all men and women of good will, and almost all of its 102 pages appeal to moral sensibilities and rational arguments that can be shared by all of us. Pope Francis stresses that the natural world that sustains us is in grave danger from our ruthless exploitation and greed-driven destruction of all the beauty and life that it contains: animals, forests, soil, and air.

Pope Francis tells us that the dictates of today’s economists are not sacred: In the future, if we are to survive, economics must be given both a social conscience and an ecological conscience. Nor are private property and profits sacred. They must be subordinated to the common good, and the preservation of our global commons.

Less focus on material goods need not make us less happy. The quality of our lives can be increased, not decreased, if we give up our restless chase after power and wealth, and derive more of our pleasures from art, music and literature, and from conversations with our families and friends, Please read this great encyclical in its entirety. It can give us hope and courage as we strive to make the changes that are needed to avert an ecological mega-catastrophe.

Another reason for hope: The rate of growth of renewable energy

Another reason for hope can be found in the extremely high present rate of growth of renewable energy, and in the remarkable properties of exponential growth. According to figures recently released by the Earth Policy Institute, http://www.earth-policy.org/books/tgt, the global installed photovoltaic capacity is currently able to deliver 242,000 megawatts, and it is increasing at the rate of 27.8% per year. Wind energy can now deliver 370,000 megawatts, and it is increasing at the rate of roughly 20% per year.

Because of the astonishing properties of exponential growth, we can calculate that if these growth rates are maintained, renewable energy can give us 24.8 terawatts within only 15 years! This is far more than the world’s present use of all forms of energy.

All of us must still work with dedication to provide the political will needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. However, the strong and friendly voice of Pope Francis, and the remarkable rate of growth of renewable energy can guide our work, and can give us hope and courage.
Some suggestions for further reading

http://eruditio.worldacademy.org/issue-5/article/urgent-need-renewable-energy

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/18/Climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-this-century

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwmi7HCmSI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjZaFjXfLec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwmi7HCmSI

http://therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. In 1995, this group received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

21 June, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Dr Vandana Shiva

Most reports of Pope Francis’s Encyclical in the press before the formal launch yesterday reduced this path breaking document with 246 paras on the contemporary ecological crisis and human crisis to the 4 paras on climate change (para 23-26). But Laudato Si is much wider and much deeper.

It is first of all a call for a change in consciousness and a world view from the dominant paradigm of the domination over nature and its destruction, to one where we see the Earth as our Mother, as our common home.

The ‘Laudato Si’ opens with St Francis’ prayer- “Praise be to you my Lord, through our sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruits with coloured flowers and herbs”.

This resonates so deeply with the Indian philosophy of Vasudhaiv Kutumkan, the Earth Family.

It resonates with the contemporary movement for the Rights of Mother Earth.

It resonates with cultures and faiths across the world. The encyclical is an invitation to “a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of the planet” (paragraph 14) and this includes biodiversity, air, water, oceans.

It is clear that “to prorect our common home we need to bring the whole family together” (13). The Encyclical goes on to say “This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods which God has endowed her with. We have come to see ourselves as her lord and masters, entitledto plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the soil, in the water, in the air, and in all forms of life” (2).

Soil is referred to frequently, including in the contributions of soil and land degradation and deforestation to climate change. And the Pope reminds us that “we have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the Earth”. (Gen 2:7). Navdanya’s manifesto Terra Viva released at the Expo in the Year of Soils is a celebration of Soil as as the basis of our lives, of “humus” as the root of “human”. We are the soil.

The ‘Laudato Si’ is very critical of the privatization of water, and the idea that life forms are just mines of genes useful to business.
“It is not enough to think of different species merely as potential ‘resources’ to be exploited, while overlooking the fact they have value in themselves ” (33). The intrinsic worth of all beings and all biodiversity is the ethics on which Navdanya is founded. That is why we say there should be “No patents on Seed” and “No patents on Life”.
The ‘Laudato Si’ is cautious on the question of GMOs, but does point to the threats to small farmers. And it indicates that through Biotechnology and knowledge related to DNA a handful of interests are controlling the fate of the Earth and humanity. “It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have control” (104).

Everything that will shape our freedom and survival is addressed in the encyclical- “Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence” (105). Among the blind forces of the unconscious are the idea of infinite unlimited growth, of technological fundamentalism without precaution, assessment and responsibity, of anthropocentrism. “The technological mind see nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered out into useful shape. The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised” (115).

Nature is not dead matter, She is alive. And when we destroy nature, she can destroy us.

Our greed, our arrogance is blinding us to this basic reality that women, small farmers, indigenous cultures have understood. Diverse movements will be empowered by the encyclical. The only ones who are threatened are those who would like to continue to try and establish their empire over the entire planet and the earth’s resources, privatizing the commons, pushing free trade agreements like TTP and TTIP, destroying democracy and people’s rights, and destroying the earth that sustains us.

And stupidly and recklessly, they call this destruction “economy”. But economy is derived from “Oikos”, our home, and refers to management of our common home, the theme of the Encyclical. The selfish and narrow minded who have commented that the Pope should not interfere in the economy have deliberately forgotten, or distorted, what the economy is. The encyclical helps us remember that it is about love and care, not exploitation, greed and destruction. It observes that the “Degree of human intervention often in the service of business interests and consumerism is actually making our earth less rich and beautiful, and ever more limited and grey” (34).

It is by bringing beauty, true wellbeing and the joy of living in harmony with nature to the centre of human concern that the encyclical awakens our deeper humanity and consciousness. Being human is not worshiping the “god of money” or tools of technology or the myth of progress defined as the conquest of nature and people. Being human is to be deeply aware of all beings who share this beautiful and precious home with us.

The ‘Laudato Si’ is based on integral ecology-the interconnectedness of ecology, society and economy. This is the interconnectedness we tried to explore in “Terra Viva”.

In integral ecology, sustainability and social justice are inseparable. As the encyclical states- “…a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (49). This for me is Earth Democracy.

©2015 HuffingtonPost Italia

Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist.Shiva, currently based in Delhi, has authored more than 20 books and over 500 papers in leading scientific and technical journals.

21 June, 2015
L’Huffington Post Italia

By Franklin Lamb

Damascus: As recent developments in the Levant make plain, the Sunni-Shiite conflict is increasingly dominating political and strategic initiatives and calculations in Lebanon. In the twelve months since declaring its “caliphate” on June 29, 2014, the “Islamic State” (IS/ISIS/Da’ish), basically a political power movement as opposed to being a religious project, continues birthing international and local franchises. The numbers of foreign fighters from diverse countries traveling to join Da’ish or Nusra increases after every victory. The US State Departments just released 2014 Country Reports (6/18/2015) spends considerably more time discussing the growth in popularity of the group’s ideology than previous reports.

The extreme’ ideology of Da’ish and its embrace of brutal violence have allowed it to quickly attract the attention of millions worldwide and is estimated to have resulted in thousands of recruits, many being from Lebanon. The group’s ability to effectively leverage social media and disseminate its message — with near instantaneous global repostings — has enhanced its success. Governments around the world-including Lebanon have been ineffective in significantly curtaining its actions.

The IS project is working as Da’ish metastasizes in Lebanon and in much of this region. A new political power chapter has arrived here of which the latest events in Yemen are only the most recent, but surely not the final, example.

It is not anymore a question of whether or when Da’ish and/or al Nusra will activate their sleeper cells in Lebanon. They already have. Da’ish (ISIS) and Nusra have been infiltrating Lebanese communities and offering poor youths cash to attack targets chosen for the political effect of increasing Sunni-Shia tensions. For example, the young man who perpetrated the January 2015 suicide bombing of a café in a Shia neighborhood of Tripoli was paid just $ 60 according to a family member. Some in Lebanon believe that Nurse will kill the Lebanese army hostages in retaliation for Hezbollah attacks and that this will further galvanize anti-Hezbollah sentiment around Lebanon.

This now largely accepted reality materialized despite intense efforts by Hezbollah, and rather less intense efforts by the confessionalized Lebanese army to stop them. Like every other institution in Lebanon, the army is also-if to a lesser extent- partially poisoned by confessionalism. It disintegrated twice, in 1976 shortly after the beginning of the civil war and again in 1984 when it took sides against a majority of Lebanon’s citizenry.

North in Tripoli and its environs, South in Saida and East in the Bekaa around Arsal as well as other localities Sunnis are getting over their initial revulsion and taking a second look at Da’ish (ISIS) and other extreme Islamist militia. Meanwhile, the relatively tolerant “Lebanese model” is disappearing in view of the increasing sectarian tone of military interventions in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and it appears to be the case that Lebanon in now part of this devolution into intra-Muslim violence as “with us or against us” sides are becoming ever hardened.

Like most Muslims these days, Lebanese Sunnis are tending to see themselves as victims of centuries of backwardness, marginalization, and defeat while searching for signs, or actors, that might help reverse Sunni weakness. Thus following Shiite ascendance, many of Lebanon’s Sunni expressed support when an ISIS offensive rapidly seized Mosul and a large swath of Iraqi territory in June 2014. As is becoming convincingly documented, Da’ish (ISIS) influence among alienated and radicalized youth is growing in Lebanon for many reasons. Among them are poverty, perceived empty lives, revulsion at rising crime and disgust with perceived as corrupt Lebanese politicians and religious leaders.

Sunni’s increasingly are feeling oppressed by the Shia who are accused of blocking Lebanon’s government, including Parliament and baring the election of a President under orders from a foreign country. Syrian refugees in Lebanon, mainly Sunni, who feel abused, harassed, and discriminated against by the government and with suspicion by Shia in areas where refugees have taken refuge.

In a report in an-Nahar (Beirut), June 27, 2014 one neighborhood leader in Tripoli explained that “Iraq witnessed a Sunni triumph against Shiite oppression. Forcing Tripoli’s Sunnis to denounce ISIS amounts to coercing them to exercise political self-suppression.” A political leader in Saida, claimed that “The truth of the matter is that hatred for Iran and Hezbollah has made every Lebanese Sunni heartily supportive of ISIS, even if it’s brutal methods will eventually affect them adversely.”

As American University of Beirut Professor, Hilal Khashan has recently reported, Lebanese Sunnis are willing to support whoever can defeat their enemies and restore their pride. Many of them find ISIS appealing for a number of reasons: the group has a strong aversion to Shiites and feel estranged from the Lebanese state while harboring nostalgia for the caliphate. Many admire power in any form and are seeking to regain it.

A vendor in Tripoli’s city center explained the popularity of ISIS: “People like whoever is strong. Poor, angry and marginalized teenagers in Tripoli want “great victories.” Even though public display of support for ISIS in Lebanon is a crime, “any young man in Tripoli, if asked, would confess how much he admired its power.”

When challenged with the brutal and bloodthirsty acts of ISIS, its supporters often find some words in the Qur’an to justify their position. In the case of Da’ish young men hanging around the streets, they regularly offer: “Muhammad … and those with him are firm of heart against the non-believers, compassionate among themselves.” (Quran 48: 29).

One Sunni Sheik in Lebanon expressed to this observer his belief that Da’ish “is our (Sunni) extremist Islamist militia and Hezbollah’s is Iran’s. In fact, in some disturbing ways both are more similar than either would want to admit.”

The Sunni Muslim community in Lebanon is also receiving various forms of support from abroad from coreligionists, as they move toward Da’ish (ISIS). Lebanon’s As Safir daily newspaper, reported this week that the government of Saudi Arabia has requested that France freeze the delivery of weapons to the Lebanese army under the Saudi’s $ 3 billion arms grant. The reason is reportedly because the new Saudi coalition and leadership believes the arms will end up with Hezbollah and thus under Iranian control. The Saudi government reportedly also requested that France not inform Lebanese authorities about the decision to freeze the delivery, “for the time being.”

This observer tentatively concludes that what is happening among Lebanon’s Sunni population is rather more complicated than the issues he cites above, powerful as they may be in pushing/pulling Lebanese to Da’ish. In fact, since Lebanese Sunnis are willing to support whoever can defeat their enemies and restore their pride, many of them find ISIS appealing for the reason that they feel hostility toward Shiites and feel estranged from the Lebanese state while openly expressing nostalgia for the return of the caliphate.

In Lebanon the tribes, like in Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq that once acted rather secular, in line with trends of the time, are now Islamist in keeping with an underlying changing culture. One concludes that neither Da’ish nor Nusra are all that interested in the creation of an Islamic state, just as Hezbollah gave up its plans for creating an Iran-style Islamic Republic.

A Palestinian student from Yarmouk camp south of Damascus, now squeezed into Shatila camp in Beirut, summed up our discussion of this subject and left this observer sort of speechless.

Farah said: “Actually Mr. Franklin, what we are seeing is just a continuation of the Damascus-based Umayyads and their successors, still fighting against the Baghdad-based Abbasids from Medieval times.”

With no doubt, the young lady for sure has better political instincts than this observer and it may well be that the attraction of Da’ish for Lebanon’s Sunni’s is about political power and perceived dignity.

Meanwhile, as we begin the Holy month of Ramadan, there are signs pointing to a violent post Ramadan Lebanese summer. Which if any militia will benefit most is not clear—the losers, as always, will surely be the rest of us.

Franklin P. Lamb, LLB, LLM, PhD, Legal Adviser, The Sabra-Shatila Scholarship Program, Shatila Camp (SSSP-lb.com). Volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign (PCRC) Beirut and Washington, DC committed to help achieving the Right To Work and the Right to Home Ownership for every Palestinian Refugee in Lebanon.

20 June, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava

The worst fears are here to stay. In USA again on the racial grounds innocent people have been killed in African-American church by a very young white fellow. Nine people died on the scene at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church when young white men shot them dead. A 21 year old young white men Dylann Roof was arrested and presented before the magistrate on the charge of killing nine innocent black people. Dylann Roof also raised racially inflammatory statements during killing. This killing has brought out reality of racial structure in the US society.

Even US President Barrack Obama has stated that “the apparent motivations of the shooter remind us that racism remains a blight that we have to combat together.” This killing reveals the prevalence of undercurrent of racial segregation in the US society. Involvement of young adolescents shows that white young ones harbour a deep and sharp negative thoughts against the blacks. Young ones if maintains this sort of thinking; it means the family and school system in USA is on failure. Racism is thus systematic philosophical arguments indoctrinated in the minds of young whites. They learn from their family members’ racial socialization where they come to know about the differences between the people on the basis of the colour. Therefore the basis of racism in USA in pure psychological , its major agencies may include the family, schools and even the general white community with which these white young ones may interact during their early ages. The killing substantiates that in white community many may maintain such mental setup, albeit some may escape from such mindset but they may in less quantity.

This is contemporary diffusion about the evil thoughts about discrimination and differences between the whites and blacks. This diffusion appears to be quite perfect because blacks suffer discrimination in their daily lives at each step and movement. Even after the enactment of 13th constitutional amendment which abolished slavery from the country has not abolished the thoughts about racism from the minds of the people.

The root cause lies in the minds of the adult whites who in larger manner may practice racism and often discuss the issue affecting the young minds. This is a generational issue because since many generations the racism has existed in the US society. Since the days of slavery around 1700 the black Africans were introduced as slaves and were even purchased as a commodity. This laid psychological understanding among the whites that they were of inferior caliber and low quality. This psychological understanding became entrenched in the minds of succeeding generations. The basis of racism is a product of historical conditions and psychological elements which have been incorporated in the minds of these people.

Next generation of whites learn these ideas from their elder ones. At the family level things are not so equally discussed. At the police and bureaucratic level there exists a perception that African Americans are involved in low things. This perception is strengthened by certain incidents in which blacks are found involved. Though whites are also found involved but they are treated as a isolationist case but blacks involvement is considered as the collectivist case. This difference arises due to the mental perception among the authorities. Drug crime is such an example.

This situation absolutely resemble to the caste system prevalent in India where upper caste families harbour disliking for the lower castes and gradually their thoughts are transferred to their young ones. Moreover there are certain intellectuals who proclaim that due to lower caste people in administration; the corruption has increased, though truth is that upper castes people are also found involved in the corruption but sociological studies are presented to establish the wrong facts as the real truths. The caste system in India has been abolished by the law of the land, Constitution but at the social level the discrimination by the upper castes towards the lower castes is still widely prevalent. The root of this social evil lies in the psychology and perception. US racism and Indian caste system have similarity as both arise from this similarity.

The American racism will exist as long as the family-school system does not work together in unison to place the correct thoughts among the young whites. Moreover the bureaucracy including police will have to be more equality based which it is not. According to Guardian Newspaper during 1 January 2015- 30 May 2015 “102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed, (whereas) black Americans, who make up just 13% of the country’s total population according to census data.(Black Americans killed by police twice as likely to be unarmed as white people, http://www.theguardian.com,1 June 2015

In this background not only the police reform is must but also the gun reform is essential. President Obama has rightly advocated for it but strong gun manufacturing companies seem to be a stumbling block to carry on the restriction on the guns purchase.

There is a close connection between racism and inequality. Both perpetuate each other. Inequality will destroy the US society if coupled with racism. (Refer the article “Inequality In American Society: Need For Reservation In Real Terms For Depressed Section” By Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava, 04 December, 2014, Countercurrents.org).

US is faced with many challenges at the global level but domestic challenges are also strength full. Reforms in different institutions and psychological framework for racism may help it to contain the decline in social fabric.

Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava, presently Assistant Professor in CSJM Kanpur University[affiliated college],Vice Chairman CSSP

20 June, 2015
Countercurrents.org

By Evan Blake

Worldwide forcible displacement due to armed conflict or persecution is at its highest level in recorded history, according to a report released Thursday by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The annual Global Trends Report: World at War estimates that a record 59.5 million people were forcibly displaced by the end of 2014, with the largest recorded annual increase of 8.3 million and a staggering increase of 22 million from merely a decade ago.

Despite their failure to apportion any blame whatsoever to those responsible for this crisis, the report succeeds in presenting a broad overview of the suffering and displacement that has been wrought by imperialism in the recent period. Those uprooted by “Persecution, conflict, generalized violence, and human rights violations have formed a ‘nation of the displaced’ that, if they were a country, would make up the 24th largest in the world,” roughly equal to the population of Italy or the United Kingdom.

Of the 59.5 million forcibly displaced people, 19.5 million are refugees living outside their country or territory of origin, 1.8 million are asylum-seekers whose refugee status has not yet been determined, and 38.2 million are internally displaced persons, those forced to flee violence or persecution but who have not crossed an international border.

Roughly 51 percent of the world’s refugees are children below 18 years of age, up from 41 percent in 2009 and the highest figure in over a decade.
Worldwide, one in every 122 people is now either a refugee, internally displaced or seeking asylum.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres declared in a press release, “We are witnessing a paradigm change, an unchecked slide into an era in which the scale of global forced displacement as well as the response required is now clearly dwarfing anything seen before.”

The detailed report quantifies the broad range of conflicts that have created this humanitarian catastrophe. The most devastated region is the Middle East, and in particular Syria, where the US-stoked civil war that began in 2011 with the financing of Islamic fundamentalist organizations laid the groundwork for the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The subsequent US-led bombing campaign and proxy war against ISIS, combined with the unrelenting brutality of ISIS itself has, over the past year, brought the cumulative displacement of Syrians to 11.6 million, so that globally “almost one out of every four refugees is Syrian, with 95 percent located in surrounding countries.”

Syria became the world’s largest source country of refugees during 2014, outnumbering Afghanistan, which had held this position for more than 30 years. Concurrently, an influx of roughly 1 million Syrian refugees caused Turkey to become the world’s largest refugee-hosting county, exceeding Pakistan, which for over a decade has given asylum to the majority of Afghans fleeing war and sectarian violence wrought by the ongoing US-led war in Afghanistan.
In 2014, 403,600 Syrian refugees were newly registered in Lebanon, which remained the third largest refugee hosting country with a total of 1.15 million refugees. Lebanon has by far the largest number of refugees in relation to its national population, with 232 refugees per 1,000 inhabitants, or nearly a quarter of the total population. Prior to the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Lebanon was home to just 8,000 refugees.

The cumulative impact of imperialist intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria has created a situation where “Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Iran hosted more than 5.2 million or 36 percent of all refugees worldwide,” according to the report.

Across Africa, violent conflict has erupted or reignited in numerous countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo (over 4 million displaced), South Sudan (over 2.4 million displaced), Somalia (2.3 million), the Central African Republic (1.49 million), Nigeria (1.38 million), Côte d’Ivoire (121,000), Libya (371,000), Mali (427,000) and Burundi (335,000).

The findings of the report stand as a damning indictment of the US-led imperialist order, which is ultimately responsible, either overtly through direct military intervention or covertly through the machinations of the CIA and weapons sales, for every war that has unleashed the cumulative chaos documented by the report.

With the full-scale eruption of American imperialism in recent years, there has been an unrelenting increase in the number of forcibly displaced persons worldwide, particularly in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. In the past four years alone, there has been a fourfold increase in the number of individuals forced to flee their homes each day, from a daily average of 10,900 in 2010 to 42,500 in 2014.

“It is not just the scale of global forced displacement that is disconcerting,” the report notes, “but also its rapid acceleration in recent years. For most of the past decade, displacement figures ranged between 38 million and 43 million persons annually. Since 2011, however, when levels stood at 42.5 million, these numbers have grown to the current 59.5 million—a 40 percent increase within a span of just three years.”

Following the February 2014 fascist-led putsch that toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the ensuing civil war in eastern Ukraine has forcibly displaced over 1 million people. An estimated 237,000 are now refugees, mostly residing in Russia, while 823,000 are internally displaced. Over the course of the year, the total number of refugees in Russia swelled from 3,400 to 231,800, with Ukrainians now constituting 98 percent of all refugees in Russia.
Significantly, 6.4 million refugees, or 45 percent of the total, are enduring protracted refugee situations, defined by UNHCR as a situation “in which 25,000 or more refugees from the same nationality have been in exile for five years or more in a given asylum country.”

For the vast majorities of refugees, the horrific conditions from which they flee are often found to be only marginally better in the country where they ultimately find asylum.

In 2014, developing regions hosted 86 percent of the world’s refugees, the highest value in over two decades, while those in the subcategory of Least Developed Countries hosted 25 percent of the global total. Over 5.9 million refugees, or 42 percent of the total, reside in countries where per capita GDP is below US$5,000.

The report offers no recommendations for ending the refugee crisis, but in media interviews Guterres has decried the lack of funding for aid organizations such as the UNHCR, which provides a range of services to a majority of refugees worldwide.

The only way to resolve this international crisis, whose origins lie in the private ownership of the means of production and the division of the world into rival nation states, is through the international mobilization of the working class in the fight for socialism, laying the foundations for the building of a new society based on social need, not private profit.
20 June, 2015
WSWS.org

 

By Alex Lantier

The six-month extension of European Union (EU) economic sanctions against Russia, agreed Wednesday in Brussels by ambassadors from all 28 EU members states, marks a milestone in the war drive waged by the imperialist powers of NATO against Russia.

These sanctions, first imposed amid the crisis over the still-unresolved shoot-down last July of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in Ukraine, targeted exports of equipment to Russia’s oil industry and cut off Russian access to credit from European banks. As the EU is Russia’s largest trade and investment partner, the sanctions played a key role in the Russian ruble’s collapse last year.

Now, EU officials pointed to ongoing fighting in eastern Ukraine, after the February peace accords negotiated in Minsk between the NATO-backed Kiev regime’s forces and pro-Russian separatists, to justify maintaining the sanctions. EU sources said, “The idea is to extend [sanctions] to end-January to give time to review progress on the Minsk accord before having to take a new decision.”

“EU foreign ministers will finalize the decision in Luxembourg on Monday,” Poland’s permanent representative to the EU said on Twitter.

Russian officials replied by accusing the Kiev regime of provoking recent fighting in east Ukraine to provide a pretext for their decision. “It’s obvious there are forces in the world and in Ukraine, which are interested in the deterioration of the situation on the ground in the run-up to major international events, including EU summits, in order to urge the international community to extend sanctions and impose new ones,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Alexey Meshkov.

Nevertheless, Meshkov neither condemned the sanctions nor called on the EU to stop them. He said Russian officials are “realists, we carefully analyze what our Western partners say,” adding: “Russia did not impose sanctions, we are not asking anyone to lift them.”

The latest EU sanctions are part of a broad drive by US and European finance capital to isolate Russia, threatening it with bankruptcy and war, in order to reduce it to semi-colonial status and establish the hegemony of the NATO powers, led by Washington, over all of Eurasia. This politically criminal policy, which NATO launched last year by backing a right-wing putsch against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, threatens to lead to all-out war with Russia, a nuclear-armed power.

In February, US officials discussed directly arming Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, and earlier this month, Pentagon officials testified before the US Congress that Washington is preparing missiles strikes on Russia.

The EU sanctions are the most powerful weapon in the financial arsenal NATO is deploying to wage economic war on Russia. During the ruble crisis last year, financial analysts calculated that cutting off Russian access to credit from Europe could bankrupt much of the Russian economy in as little as two years. This policy appears to be aimed at convincing the capitalist oligarchs who control Russia’s post-Soviet economy to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin and install a regime that will obey all the dictates of Washington and the EU powers.

The pursuit of such an aggressive policy has vast and potentially unforeseeable implications. When the sanctions were first imposed last year, Russian officials attacked them as a campaign for regime change. “Western leaders publicly state that the sanctions must hurt [Russia’s] economy and stir up public protests. The West doesn’t want to change Russia’s policies. They want regime change,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Given that previous targets of NATO campaigns for regime change—from Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya—all died in custody of NATO-backed forces, Russian officials are doubtless preparing policies as fraught as those of Washington.

The decision to maintain EU sanctions testifies to the recklessness and anti-democratic character of EU foreign policy. A recent Pew poll found mass popular opposition in Europe to a policy of stoking war with Russia. The European powers are proceeding with a confrontation that has the potential to escalate into full-scale war.

The only force that can oppose the drive to war is the mobilization of the working class internationally in a revolutionary struggle against imperialism and capitalism. Neither Russia’s bankrupt capitalist regime nor critics of EU sanctions policy within the European ruling class can halt the war drive launched by the most powerful imperialist countries.

Significantly, the EU is adopting its sanctions even after significant sections of the European bourgeoisie criticized them as self-destructive and dangerous. Last year, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban attacked the sanctions as “shooting oneself in the foot,” while former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said they amounted to “collective suicide.”

“I do not support basing policy on worst-case outcomes, I think sanctions must stop,” French President François Hollande declared in January. He added, “Mr Putin does not want to annex east Ukraine, I am sure of it. … What Mr Putin wants is to prevent Ukraine from joining the camp of NATO. The idea for Mr Putin is to avoid having a hostile military presence on his borders.”

Many argue that the EU sanctions are dangerous, because cutting off economic ties between Europe and Russia encourages Moscow to turn to an alliance with China against NATO.

After the announcement of EU sanctions last year, Chinese officials indicated that they could extend credit to Russia to keep it from going bankrupt. This year, Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) chief Kirill Dmitriev said China was investing tens of billions of dollars in Russia, adding: “Within 2-3 years the investment inflow from China may be equal to that from Europe in recent years.”

One critic of EU sanctions against Russia, former Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, declared: “My concern is that Russia could turn to the East by strengthening their cooperation with China and playing a greater role in Asia and deciding that Europe is irrelevant. This is my concern and yet another argument to say that this policy is against European interests.”

Nonetheless, on Wednesday, representatives of these governments all toed the line advanced by the United States, Germany and Britain, who have pressed for an aggressive stance against Russia.

Indeed, Italian and French officials criticizing EU sanctions are participating in the same imperialist scramble to grab resources and markets as their US, German and British counterparts.
19 June, 2015
WSWS.org

 

By Brigitte Knopf

With his encyclical “Laudato Si” the Pope has written more than a moral appeal without obligation. He has presented a pioneering political analysis with great explosive power, which will probably determine the public debate on climate change, poverty and inequality for years to come. Thus, the encyclical is also highly relevant to me as a non-Catholic and non-believer; the implications of the encyclical are very apparent through the eyes of a secular person.

The core of the encyclical makes clear that global warming is a “global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods” (25 – where the numbers refer to the numbering in the encyclical). The reasons identified are mainly the current models of production and consumption (26). The encyclical emphasizes that the gravest effects of climate change and the increasing inequality are suffered by the poorest (48). Since we face a complex socio-ecological crisis, strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty (139). So far, however, governments have not found a solution for the over-exploitation of the global commons, such as atmosphere, oceans, and forests (169). Therefore, the encyclical focusses on actors, such as non-governmental organizations, cooperatives and intermediate groups (179) and calls for a dialogue between politics, science, business and religion.

The encyclical is, with 246 individual points, too extensive to be discussed in here in its entirety, but three aspects are particularly noteworthy:

1. it is based unequivocally onthe scientific consensusthat global warmingis taking placeand that climate changeis man-made; itrejects thedenialof anthropogenicwarming;

2. it unmasks the political and economic structures of power behind the climate change debate and stresses the importance of non-state actors in achieving change; and

3. it defines the atmosphere and the environment as a common good rather than a “no man’s land”, available for anyone to pollute. This underlines that climate change is strongly related to the issues of justice and property rights.

1. The Pope and science

The statements of the Pope concerning the scientific basis are in principle nothing new. The scientific consensus is recognized in the encyclical at the outset:

A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. […] A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases […] released mainly as a result of human activity (23).

Moreover, the Pope refers to the scientifically long-established fact that the use of fossil fuels and deforestation are the main causes of climate change (23).

What is now a commonplace in Europe is not uniformly accepted in the US. A turbulent debate surrounding the encyclical began even before its official publication. This is understandable, given that there are many in the US who still cast doubt on the scientific basis of climate change. Even Jeb Bush, the presidential candidate, does not deny climate change itself, but says that the human role in climate change is “convoluted“. Rick Santorum, also a Republican presidential candidate, has actually rejected the right of the Pope to comment on the scientific basis of climate change. There is no doubt that there will be a heated argument on this part of the encyclical especially in the US which will also frame the American debate on the future international climate agreement that is expected to be negotiated by the end of this year in Paris.

2. The Pope and politics

Although the encyclical puts a focus on the poor it is not merely a moral scripture. It is also no ordinary appeal to governments to act. On the contrary, it explicitly states that international negotiations have so far not made significant progress (169) and accuses international politics of its weak response (54). In addition, the Pope unmasks in very clear terms the political interests of those who deny climate change and hinder mitigation:

Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change” (26).

While the Pope does not address governments as main actors, nor does he frame the climate problem only as the responsibility of each individual. Instead, the encyclical underlines the importance of collective actors such as cooperatives, non-governmental organizations and civil society (179).

However, the encyclical remains rather unspecific concerning concrete recommendations for action to prevent climate change and overcome poverty. The Pope does not comment on whether the 2°C temperature limit is adequate or whether 1.5°C would be more appropriate from the perspective of the poorest. Concerning energy sources, the Pope often refers to renewable energy (26, 164) and explicitly states that coal, oil and gas “needs to be progressively replaced without delay” (165). But he does not provide any further details on transformation scenarios or requirements for specific technologies. This is for good reason; it is not the task of the Pope to intervene in the detailed mechanics of politics. In this sense, the Pope also recognizes the different areas of competence of religion, politics and science.

3. The Pope and the global commons

Much more important than the choice of energy sources is the question of ownership of the global commons. Here, the encyclical states:

The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all (23).

Several times the Pope refers to the common good and stresses that the “global commons” (174), such as the atmosphere, oceans, forests, and biosphere, belong to us all.

The encyclical thus implicitly describes the core problem of climate policy: we currently use the atmosphere as a disposal space. Everyone is allowed to pollute the atmosphere without paying for the negative externalities. Science has shown that we are limited to atmospheric emissions of around 1,000 GtCO2 in order not to exceed the 2 degree temperature limit (see Figure 1). However, substantial fossil resources are still stored in the ground, and these would give rise to emissions of about 15,000 GtCO2 due to combustion. If, due to climate policy, these fossil fuels may no longer be used, the resources would necessarily be devalued. The owners of coal, oil and gas would in fact be expropriated. In this context, the encyclical stresses the principle of “subordination of private property” (93-95, 156-158). This means that private property of fossil fuels can only be ethically justified if it serves the common good. Therefore, the devaluation of assets is not an unjustified disenfranchisement, but is legitimate because it serves the common good, namely the reduction of the risks and consequences of climate change.

To frame the climate problem as a “global commons” problem has far reaching consequences. This became clear when the term was relegated by the governments from the main text into a footnote in the report of the IPCC Working Group III. Some countries feared legal and distributional consequences. If the atmosphere is accepted as being a global commons, this immediately raises the question of who owns the atmosphere and who is allowed to pollute it. The encyclical is very clear about this:

The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone (95).

Ownership thus goes hand in hand with a responsibility to take into account the principles of justice. The currently prevailing “law of the jungle”, causing the atmosphere to be overused in terms of the deposition of carbon ad infinitum, is thus de-legitimized by the Pope.

Implications for the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris

The encyclical is only expected to have an indirect effect on the UN climate change conference – but it will probably be long-lasting. Its timing may have a positive impact on the negotiations in Paris, but more importantly, it is timeless and emphasizes the fundamental question of solving the intertwined problems of climate change, poverty and inequality. Providing an answer to these questions is becoming globally ever more pressing. The encyclical does not address the governments directly but refers to a global “ecological movement” (166). For the Pope it is clear: without pressure from the public and from civic institutions there will be no progress (181).

With this analysis the encyclical describes a phenomenon that has now become global. While the nations of the G7 commit to decarbonization but do not agree on corresponding joint policy measures, there are many positive signs of movement in the climate carousel aside from the international climate negotiations: a new study by UNEP shows that a substantial contribution can be made to reduce emissions by cities and other subnational actors; the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has decided to sell its coal investments and sends a strong signal for a global divestment strategy; and six large oil companies get together begging for pricing CO2 emissions.

Individual actions alone will achieve little, but together they can make a difference; they could well contribute to an international climate agreement serving as a foundation for the governance of the global commons.

The fact that the commons can indeed be successfully managed has already been proven at the local level: Elinor Ostrom has shown that communities can develop diverse institutional arrangements for managing the commons without overexploitation. For this finding, Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 2009. It is now time to show that the management of global commons is collectively possible.

Perhaps this is the overarching message of the encyclical: the fair management of the global commons is one of the most important tasks of the 21st century. This can only be successful if a large number of actors across different levels of governance, ranging from global, to regional and local, link up together. This convinces also me as an atheist: heaven belongs to us all.

Dr. Brigitte Knopf is Secretary General of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) and an expert on European energy and climate policy and one of the Editors of the Book “Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability”.

19 June, 2015
Realclimate.org