Archives: Articles

By Federico Fuentes

29 October, 2012

@ Green Left Weekly

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s re-election on October 7 with more than 55% of the vote was vital for two reasons.

First, the Venezuelan people blocked the return to power of the neoliberal right. Had they won, these US-backed forces would have worked to roll back important advances for the poor majority won since Chavez was first elected in 1998.

These include a huge expansion in government providing basic services (such as education, health and housing), the nationalisation of previous privatised strategic industries, and the promotion of popular participation in communities and workplaces.

Second, Chavez’s re-election provides a new mandate for arguably the most radical, anti-capitalist project under way in the world today.

Having emerged as a response to the crisis the country found itself in under neoliberalism, and at a time when socialism appeared moribund, Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution has radicalised to the point where it has explicitly stated its goal to be “socialism of the 21st century”.

The ability to further advance this project in Venezuela will depend on the impact of ongoing US intervention and regional integration, the intensifying class struggle within the pro-Chavez camp, and the political fate and health of Chavez.

Background

Understanding the rise of the Bolivarian revolution requires placing it within the country’s oil-rich history.

The rise of oil production in the 1920s fuelled a dramatic transformation in Venezuela’s economy. Agricultural production, until then the main pillar of the economy, slumped as capital poured into the oil sector.

As oil’s contribution to state revenues rapidly rose, power and wealth became fused within the state. The result was a parasitic capitalist class that primarily sought to enrich itself by appropriating state resources.

These developments also shaped the formation of Venezuela’s popular classes. People fled the countryside en masse , flocking to the cities for their share of the oil rent.

They came to create a huge belt of barrios (shanty towns) where impoverished informal workers tried to eke out an existence. State funds were used by different political interests to win the loyalty of these sectors.

These factors underpinned Venezuela’s pervasive culture of “clientalism” and corruption.

This political set-up was sent into crisis by the economic crises and the gyration of oil prices that hit the world economy from the 1970s onwards.

Venezuela’s 1976 oil nationalisation only deepened this trend. The state oil company PDVSA came to operate as a “state within the state”, operating largely independently of any governmental control.

Within PDVSA, private appropriation of public resources continued unabated, while US-based corporations kept control over oil production.

State income instead experienced a steep decline, falling from US$1500 per person in 1975 to $350 per person in 1999 (in 1998 US dollars).

International financial institutions advised Venezuela’s rulers to resolve the state’s fiscal crisis by shifting the burden onto the people.

A February 1989 International Monetary Fund austerity package caused fuel prices to skyrocket overnight. This was the trigger for an explosion of mass discontent: an immense uprising that rocked Caracas for four days, extending outwards to several other cities and towns.

Although quelled by brutal repression, the Caracazo marked a point of no return for a society reeling from a deep economic slump and a crisis of the state and political system.

Throughout the next decade, about 7000 protests took place as new dynamic forms of local organisation began to emerge in the barrios.

Given the state’s role in controlling the nation’s wealth, the state became the focus of a steady stream of demands that progressively became an unstoppable wave.

Rise of Chavez

Within this context, the leader of a clandestine dissident current within Venezuela’s armed forces — Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez — captured the collective imagination of the poor majority when he led a failed military rebellion in 1992.

Jailed after the rebellion, Chavez emerged two years later resolved to stand in the 1998 presidential elections.

He began campaigning across the country, arguing the only way to achieve real independence and eradicate poverty was by giving power to the people.

Alongside setting up a new electoral party, the Movement for a Fifth Republic (MVR), Chavez called for the formation of a Patriotic Pole (PP) to unite all those parties and organisations that supported his candidature.

Chavez’s message enabled him to tap into the deep discontent among Venezuela’s popular classes and unify the various strands of the left.

On December 6, 1998, Chavez was elected as president, winning 56.2% of the vote.

However, from the beginning it was clear that winning elections was not the same as taking state power. PDVSA remained tightly under the control of the traditional business elites and the allegiance of large sections of the military to any project for radical change remained unknown.

The new government was also conscious that its mass popularity was not rooted in well-organised social organisations. The dispersed and unorganised nature of “chavismo” meant the centre of gravity lay with executive power.

As such, the pace and course of reforms has tended to be driven almost exclusively by initiatives taken from above. Critically, with each advance, Chavez sought to organise and consolidate the social base.

Chavez’s first move was to convene a democratically-elected constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. The aim was to shift the rules of a game that had been traditionally stacked in favor of the old political class.

In opposition to the corrupt “representative” democracy that had allowed the same elites to monopolise power for decades, the new constitution proposed a “participatory and protagonist” democracy, where power resided among the people.

The challenge for the Bolivarian forces was to turn this novel idea into reality, which would require an inevitable showdown with the traditional elites, backed and funded by Washington.

Over the next three years, these two competing blocs faced off in three decisive battles. Each time, the pro-revolution forces came out victorious, and consolidated their military, economic and political hegemony.

Showdowns

The first major showdown occurred on April 11, 2002, when an opposition rally against Chavez morphed into a military coup that overthrew him and installed the head of the country’s chamber of commerce.

The coup was defeated by a civic-military uprising. Hundreds of officers who supported the coup were later removed, taking control of the armed forces out of the hands of the old elites.

The second major bid to bring down Chavez took place at the end of the same year, when an alliance between PDVSA management, capitalist elites, the corporate media and corrupt trade union officials sought to halt production in the strategic oil sector.

In response, loyal PDVSA workers, soldiers, and community activists mobilised to break the back of the bosses’ strike.

This mobilisation from below enabled the Venezuelan government to purge PDVSA of its right-wing bureaucracy, and placed the company firmly in the hands of the government.

The leaps forward in worker and community organisation that occurred during this struggle proved crucial to defeating the third major offensive by the opposition: the August 2004 recall referendum on Chavez’s presidency.

Chavez’s victory, in a poll made possible because of democratic reforms introduced by the new constitution, consolidated his democratic credentials.

With the military and PDVSA under control, and resting on an increasingly organised social base, the Chavez government was able to launch a range of experiments during 2003-2005 aimed at deepening peoples’ power.

These included initiatives such as the social missions that provide free health and education, and economic enterprises such as cooperatives and worker-run factories. These helped tackle poverty while simultaneously increasing the organisational capacity of the masses.

By the time of Chavez’s re-election bid at the end of 2006, the Bolivarian revolution could also count on a growing alliance of progressive and left governments in the region. This opened the way to greater regional cooperation and integration, a key objective of the Bolivarian revolution.

However, it was also clear the revolution had not decisively broken the resistance of corporate power and replaced the old, corrupt state that served corporate power with a new power built from below.

Anti-capitalist offensive

After winning the December 2006 presidential elections, Chavez unleashed a new anti-capitalist offensive.

At his January 8 inauguration ceremony, Chavez explained that the goal of this new term was to “transfer political, social, and economic power” to the people. To do so it was vital to dismantle the old state.

Chavez said the goal of 21st century socialism required advancing on three fronts at the same time: increasing social ownership over the means of production, encouraging greater workplace democracy, and directing production toward social needs.

To achieve this ambitious agenda, Chavez called for all revolutionaries to help form a united party of the revolution, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Four-and-a-half million people joined the PSUV in its initial recruitment drive, a clear sign of the level of support for the initiative.

Over the next six years, the Chavez government carried out a wave of nationalisations in the oil, electricity, telecommunications, banking, steel, cement, and food production sector as it tried to reassert national sovereignty over the economy.

The overall result was that the state had the necessary weight across strategic sectors of the economy to dictate production goals. The threat of expropriation loomed for those that refused to cooperate.

The spate of nationalisations was more the result of government initiatives (in response to the needs the poor) than workers’ struggle, and Chavez continuously emphasised that nationalisation alone did not equate with socialism.

To help stimulate worker participation, the government initiated a process of workers’ control in the state-owned steel, aluminium and electricity companies.

The promotion of grassroots communal councils, and later communes (made up of elected representatives from communal councils), was also an important focus of the Chavez government during this term.

These councils were aimed at building upon and linking the various forms of existing community groups. The communal councils were charged with diagnosing the main problems facing their communities and creating a plan to resolve them.

Funding for these projects came from the state, but all major decisions were made in citizen’s assemblies. This was a unique experiment in democratising the redistribution of oil revenue while promoting community empowerment.

In 2009, the government took a further step by promoting the communes. These aim to encompass several communal councils within a self-defined community to collectively tackle problems on a larger scale.

These new forms of organisation have involved unparalleled numbers in community organising. They have come to be seen as the building blocs of a new state.

Internal class struggle

This simultaneous push for nationalisation, workers control and community councils also brought to the fore the class struggle that existed within chavismo.

A 2009 banking crisis led to several banks being nationalised and their owners jailed. This process revealed the existence of a sector within the revolutionary process that had enriched itself through its connections to the state, popularly referred to as the boliburguesia (“Bolivarian bourgeoisie”).

Moves to transfer greater power to workers and communities faced mounting resistance from within the existing state bureaucracy.

Along with the persistent problems of corruption and clientalism, worker and community activists increasingly complained that company and state officials sought to defend their positions of power.

By early last year, Chavez was also denouncing the vices that plagued the PSUV. He warned: “The old way of doing politics is devouring us, the corruption of politics is devouring us … the old capitalist values have infiltrated us from all sides.”

The party needed to return to its principles, otherwise it risked following the path of the MVR, which only really operated as an electoral vehicle.

Recognising these problems, Chavez launched the Great Patriotic Pole (GPP) in October last year, calling on all pro-revolution social movements and parties to unite to ensure a decisive victory in the 2012 presidential elections.

More than 30,000 different groups signed up. In the end, the votes of the non-PSUV parties (which numbered around 1.7 million) and social movements that did not appear on the ballot (as they were not electoral registered) and therefore called for a vote for the PSUV despite not being involved in the party, were decisive in securing Chavez’s victory.

Challenges

As Chavez prepares to start a new term in government, Venezuela’s revolution faces three main challenges.

The first is the threat from the US, which has recently made some gains in the region such as the coup against progressive Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo, and the Venezuelan opposition it backs in its bid to oust Chavez.

The second is the revolution’s ability to deal with the twin problems of corruption and bureaucratism. Overcoming these challenges will require greater popular participation through initiatives such as the communes and the push for workers’ control.

Consolidating the unity achieved through the GPP could help lead in this regard.

The third challenge, which has become ever more apparent since Chavez’s diagnosis with cancer, is the need to create a collective leadership.

History will record that the Bolivarian revolution succeeded in rolling back neoliberalism and laying the foundations for a transition to 21st century socialism.

The dynamic relationship that has existed so far between Chavez and the masses has been a key factor in ensuring this.

Chavez has played a dominant leadership role in the Venezuelan revolution. This has been criticized in some quarters, but his role must be placed within the historic context outlined: one of a Venezuela marked by intense ferment from below but varying organisational strength of the social movements.

At each step, Chavez has launched initiatives to encourage the self-organisation of the people. Through this process the Venezuelan people have increasingly taken the destiny of their country into their own hands.

His role as the key figure in the revolution and the trust placed in him by the poor majority make Chavez, for now, irreplaceable.

His re-election to the presidency in the face of a reinvigorated opposition, demonstrated once again that most Venezuelans believe he is the sole figure capable of leading the country forward.

The future of the process will depend on increasing the self-organisation of the masses and the development of a collective leadership that can support, and be capable of substituting for Chavez’s singular role.

[Federico Fuentes is a Socialist Alliance and Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network activist. He has lived in Venezuela as part of Green Left Weekly ‘s Caracas bureau. With Michael Fox and Roger Burbach, Fuentes is the co-author of the forthcoming book Latin America Turbulent Transitions: The Future of Twenty-First Century Socialism .]

By Kerin Hope

29 October 2012

@ Financial Times

(Financial Times) — The investigative journalist facing trial after embarrassing Greece’s political and business elite by publishing the names of 2,000 Greeks with Swiss bank accounts on Monday stuck to his guns saying his list showed “how sick the system is”.

Speaking from his office in a run-down shopping mall in central Athens, Costas Vaxevanis claimed the list of accounts held by Greeks at an HSBC branch in Geneva encapsulated Greece’s deeply corrupt political culture.

“It is a closed system with politicians, businessmen and their hangers-on controlling what happens,” he told the Financial Times as the lights flickered on and off.

“We acted in the public interest … We know the list is accurate. It refers both to legitimate accounts held by businesspeople and individuals and to others that we believe were used for channeling funds for purposes of tax evasion.”

An Athens court postponed until Thursday Vaxevanis’s trial for allegedly violating the country’s data protection laws. The journalist’s lawyers requested the delay at a preliminary hearing on Monday so that he could prepare his defence. Scores of friends and colleagues gathered outside the court to show support for Vaxevanis, editor of the biweekly Hot Doc magazine. If convicted, he faces up to five years’ imprisonment.

“We will argue that there was no violation of privacy under Greek law as we didn’t publish the amounts held in each account, only the names and professions of the account-holders,” Vaxevanis said.

Vaxevanis said that more than €13bn had moved through the accounts on the list between 1998 and 2007: “Our view is that some account-holders moved large amounts of black money through their HSBC account in Geneva to invest in foreign funds or deposit in safe havens elsewhere.”

The conservative-led coalition government has not commented on the case. One government official said on Monday it was “being handled by the Greek justice system, and it has to be cleared up”.

Shipowners, industrialists, artists and a handful of politicians and their relatives are among those named in the so-called “Lagarde list” published last week by Hot Doc. Sales of last week’s issue quadrupled to 100,000, highlighting Greek anger over the failure of successive governments to crack down on tax evasion by the country’s elite. The full list was also published as a special insert in Monday’s edition of Ta Nea, Greece’s biggest selling daily newspaper.

Hot Doc’s publication of the list provided in 2010 by Christine Lagarde, then French finance minister, to her Greek counterpart for investigation of possible tax evasion, has sent shockwaves through the country’s political and business elite. Although members of the Greek establishment have long been known to transfer funds abroad, often in the names of their wives and other family members, it is the first time that large numbers of such account-holders have been publicly identified.

The list was officially revealed last month though unofficial versions had circulated for more than two years. “Our understanding is that politicians, media barons and some journalists were able to exploit the list for blackmail and extortion because the government held off from launching a proper investigation,” Vaxevanis said, as a power outage briefly plunged his office into darkness.

Several political figures whose names appeared on the list have issued formal denials. George Voulgarakis, a former public order minister, called it a fake, saying he and his family did not have any bank accounts outside Greece. Nikos Papandreou, brother of former premier George Papandreou, said there were plenty of other Greeks with the same name. Former finance minister Yannos Papantoniou said the appearance of his wife’s name on the list did not correspond with reality.

The French government obtained the list from Herve Falciani, a former HSBC employee who had illegally copied detail of 20,000 account-holders, including French, German and Italian as well as Greek citizens.

Former finance minister George Papaconstantinou, who requested the list from Mrs Lagarde, and his successor Evangelos Venizelos face criticism for failing to ensure the financial police fully investigated the case. Both politicians told parliament last week that the CD containing the names and a copy made on a USB stick had been mislaid.

Mr Venizelos later turned over a copy on a USB stick to the finance ministry, but Greece has since requested an official copy of the list from the French government because of doubts about its authenticity.

Ioannis Kapeleris head of the financial police in 2010 told a public prosecutor he never received specific instructions to carry out a full investigation. Ioannis Diotis, his successor and a former public prosecutor, argued there were legal obstacles to pursuing the case.

Mr Papaconstantinou said the records dated from 2007 and the total amount held by account-holders at that time stood at €1.5bn.

By President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

27 September, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Video and Transcript of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to UN General Assembly

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

“All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Universe, and peace and blessing be upon our Master and Prophet, Mohammad, and his pure Household, and his noble Companions”

“Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam Al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness”

Mr. President,

Excellencies,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank the Almighty God for granting me, once more, this opportunity to address this important international meeting.

I wish to begin by congratulating you, Mr. President, for having assumed the presidency of the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly and wish you all the success. I also extend my thanks to H.E. Mr. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, for his excellent stewardship of the work of the General Assembly during his term.

Over the past four years I have talked to you concerning the main challenges facing our world. I have talked about the roots and underlying causes of these challenges and the need for the world powers to review their outlook and workout new mechanisms to address the pressing international problems. I have talked about the two conflicting outlooks prevailing in our world; one that is based on the predominance of its materialistic interests through spreading inequality and oppression, poverty and deprivation, aggression, occupation and deception, and tends to bring the entire world under its control and impose its will on other nations. This outlook has produced nothing but frustration, disappointment and a dark future for the entire humanity.

The other outlook is the one that spouses with the belief in the oneness of the Almighty God, follows the teaching of His messengers, respects human dignity and seeks to build a secure world for all members of the human community, in which everybody can equally enjoy the blessings of sustainable peace and spirituality. The latter is an outlook that respects all human beings, nations, and valuable cultures in defiance of all types of discrimination in the world, and commits itself into a constant fight to promote equality for all before the law on the basis of justice and fraternity, laying a solid foundation to guarantee equal access for all human beings in their quest to excel in knowledge and science.

I have laid emphasis time and again on the need to make fundamental changes in the current attitudes towards the world and the human being in order to be able to create a bright tomorrow.

Friends and Colleagues;

Today, I wish to share with you a few points about the changes that should take place.

First,

Clearly, continuation of the current circumstances in the world is impossible. The present inequitable and unfavorable conditions run counter to the very nature of human kind and move in a direction which contravenes the truth and the goal behind the creation of the world.

It is no longer possible to inject thousands of billions of dollars of unreal wealth to the world economy simply by printing worthless paper assets, or transfer inflation as well as social and economic problems to others through creating sever budget deficits. The engine of unbridled capitalism with its unfair system of thought has reached the end of road and is unable to move. The era of capitalist thinking and . imposition of one’s thoughts on the international community, intended to predominate the world in the name of globalization and the age of setting up empires is over. It is no longer possible to humiliate nations and impose double standard policies on the world community.

Approaches in which realization of the interests of certain powers is considered as the only criteria to weigh democracy, and using the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit under the mantle of freedom as a democratic practice, and approaches through which sometimes dictators are portrayed as democrats, lack legitimacy and must be totally rejected.

The time has come to an end for those who define democracy and freedom and set standards whilst they themselves are the first who violate its fundamental principles. They can no longer sit both the judge and the executor and challenge the real democratically- established governments.

The awakening of nations and the expansion of freedom worldwide will no longer allow them to continue their hypocrisy and vicious attitudes. Because of all these reasons most nations including the people of the Untied States are waiting for real and profound changes. They have welcomed and will continue to welcome changes.

How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peace lovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists.

How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenseless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine.

They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure.

It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions.

It is not acceptable that some who are several thousands of kilometers away from the Middle East would send their troops for military intervention and for spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the whole region while blaming the protests of nations in the region, that are concerned about their fate and their national security, as a move against peace and as interference in others’ affairs. Look at the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is no longer possible to bring a country under military occupation in the name of fight against terrorism and drug trafficking while the production of illicit drugs has multiplied, terrorism has widened its dimensions and has tightened its grips, thousands of innocent people have been killed, injured or displaced, infrastructures have been destroyed and regional security has been seriously jeopardized; and those who have created the current disastrous situation continue to blame others. How you can talk about friendship and solidarity with other nations while you expand your military bases in different parts of the world including in Latin America. This situation cannot continue. It is all the more impossible to advance expansionist and inhuman policies on the basis of militaristic logic. The logic of coercion and intimidation will produce dire consequences, exacerbating the present global problems.

It is not acceptable that the military budget of some governments exceeds far larger than those of the entire countries of the world. They export billions of dollars of arms every year, stockpile chemical and biological weapons, establish military bases or have military presence in other countries while accusing others of militarism, and mobilize all their resources in the world to impede scientific and technological progress of other nations under the pretext of countering arms proliferation. It is not acceptable that the United Nations and the Security Council, whose decisions must represent all nations and governments by the application of the most democratic methods in their decision making processes, be dominated by a few governments and serve their interests. In a world where cultures, thoughts and public opinions should be the determining factors, the continuation of the present situation is impossible, and fundamental changes seem to be unavoidable.

Second;

Any change must be structural and fundamental both in theory and practice, involving all domains of our life. The outdated mechanisms which themselves were instrumental in and the root cause for present problems in human societies can never be used to bring changes and create our desired world. Liberalism and capitalism that have alienated human beings from heavenly and moral values will never bring happiness for humanity because they are the main source of all misfortune wars, poverty and deprivation.

We have all seen that how the inequitable economic structures controlled by certain political interests have been used to plunder national wealth of countries for the benefit of a group of corrupt business giants. The present structures are incapable of reforming the present situation.

The political and economic structures created following the World War II that was based on intentions to dominate the world failed to promote justice and lasting security.

Rulers whose hearts do not beat for the love of humankind and who sacrificed the spirit of justice in their minds never offer the promise of peace and friendship to humanity. By the grace of God, Marxism is gone. It is now history. The expansionist Capitalism will certainly have the same fate. Because based on the divine traditions referred to as a principle in the Holy Quran, the wrong like the bubbles on the surface of water, will disappear. There remains only what that can be used forever towards the interest of human societies.

We must all remain vigilant to prevent the pursuit of colonialist, discriminatory and inhuman goals under the cover of the slogans for change and in new formats. The world needs to undergo fundamental changes and all must engage collectively to make them happen in the right direction, and through such efforts no one and no government would consider itself an exception to change or superior to others and try to impose its will on others by proclaiming world leadership.

Third;

All problems existing in our world today emanate from the fact that rulers have distanced themselves from human values, morality and the teachings of divine messengers. Regrettably, in the current international relations, selfishness and insatiable greed have taken the place of such humanitarian concepts as love, sacrifice, dignity, and justice. The belief in the One God has been replaced with selfishness.

Some have taken the place of God and insist to impose their values and wishes on others. Lies have taken the place of honesty; hypocrisy has replaced integrity and selfishness has taken the place of sacrifice. Deception in interactions is called foresight and statesmanship; looting the wealth of other nations is called development efforts; occupation is introduced as a gift towards promotion of freedom and democracy, and defenseless nations are subjected to repression in the name of defending human rights.

Friends and Colleagues;

Settlement of global problems and administration of justice and maintenance of peace will only be materialized with collective determination and cooperation of all nations and states. The age of polarizing the world on the premises of the hegemony or domination of a few governments is over.

Today we must rise together in a collective commitment against the present challenges; we must take change seriously and help others through collective work to return to the basic moral and human values. Messengers were sent by God to show the light of the truth to human kind, they came to make people aware of their individual and social obligations. Piety, having faith to Allah and its judgment of human behavior or conduct in the next world, belief in the primacy of justice in both lives, seeking one’s happiness, well being and security in the happiness, well-being and security of others, respecting human kind, making efforts to expand love and compassion against hostility were all on top of the teachings offered by the Messengers of God from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and the last one Prophet Mohamamd (PUH). All of them came to do something to eliminate war and ignorance, to eradicate poverty and uproot discrimination in order to spread happiness in the entire world. They are the best gifts that God Almighty has granted to human beings.

If the belief in Entezar( A waiting patiently for the Imam to return) will turn into a common and we join hands to achieve prosperity for all, then there will be more real and increasing hopes for reform.

Fourth;

In my opinion, we have several important agendas in front of us. The Secretary-General and the UN General Assembly can take the lead by undertaking necessary measures for the fulfillment of our shared goals on the basis of:

1. Restructuring the United Nations in order to transform this world body to an efficient and fully democratic organization, capable of playing an impartial, equitable, and effective role in the international relations; reforming the structure of the Security Council, specially by abolishing the discriminatory privilege of veto right; restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by organizing a referendum and free elections in Palestine in order to prepare a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony; putting an end to all types of interferences in the affairs of Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, and in all countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

As our great Prophet said, a government may survive with blasphemy, but never with oppression. Oppression against Palestinians and violation of their rights still continue; a new group of Palestinians who lived in al-Qod al-Sharif were again forced out of their homes as the destruction of their residential homes continues by the occupiers; bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan have not yet sopped; and Guantanamo Prison has not yet been shut down and there are still secret prisons in Europe.

Continuation of the present situation adds to hostilities and violence. Oppression and military aggression must be stopped. Regrettably, official reports concerning the brutalities of the Zionist regime in Gaza have not been completely published. The Secretary-General and the United Nations have crucial responsibilities in this respect and the international community is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza.

2. Reforming the current economic structures and setting up a new international economic order based on human and moral values and obligations. A new course is needed that would help promote justice and progress worldwide by flourishing the potentials and talents of all nations thus bringing well-being for all and for future generations;

3. Reforming the international political relations based on the promotion of lasting peace and friendship, eradication of arms race and elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;

4. Reforming cultural structures , respect for diverse customs and traditions of all nations, fostering moral values and spirituality aimed at institution of family as the backbone of all human societies;

5. Worldwide efforts to protect the environment and full observance of the international agreements and arrangements to prevent the annihilation of nature’s non-renewable resources.

Fifth;

Our nation has successfully gone through a glorious and fully- democratic election, opening a new chapter for our country in the march towards national progress and enhanced international interactions. They entrusted me once more with a large majority this heavy responsibility.

And now, I want to declare that our great nation that has made great contribution to the world civilization, and the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the most democratic and progressive governments of the world is ready to mobilize all its cultural, political and economic capabilities to engage into constructive process aimed at addressing the international concerns and challenges. Our country has been a main victim of terrorism and the target of an all-out military aggression during the first decade of the revolution.

All through the past thirty years we have been subject to hostile attitudes of those who supported Saddam’s military aggression and his use of chemical weapons against us, and then they took military action in Iraq to get rid of him. Today, our nation seeks to create a world in which justice and compassion prevail. We announce our commitment to participate in the process of building a durable peace and security worldwide for all nations based on justice, spirituality and human dignity, while being dedicated to strongly defending our legitimate and legal rights.

To materialize these goals, our nation is prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us. No nation can claim to be free from the need to change and reform in this journey towards perfectness. We welcome real and humane changes and stand ready to actively engage in fundamental global reforms.

Therefore, we emphasize that:

The only path to remain safe is to return to Mmonotheism (believing in the Oneness of God) and justice, and this is the greatest hope and opportunity in all ages and generations. Without belief in God and commitment to the cause of justice and fight against injustice and discrimination, the world architect would not get right.

Man is at the center of the universe. The man’s unique feature is his humanity. The same feature which seeks for justice, piety, love, knowledge, awareness and all other high values. These human values should be supported, and each and every fellow humans should be given the opportunity to acquire them. Neglecting any of them is tantamount to the omission of a constituting piece of humanity. These are common elements which connect all human communities and constitute the basis of peace, security and friendship.

The divine religions pay attention to all aspects of human life, including obedience to God, morality, justice, fighting oppression, and endeavor to establish just and good governance. Prophet Abraham called for Oneness of God against Nimrod, as Prophet Moses did the same against Pharaohs and the Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them) did against the oppressors of their own time. They were all threatened to death and were forced out of their homelands. Without resistance and objection, the injustices would not be removed from the face of the earth.

Sixth;

Dear friends and colleagues;

The world is in continuous change and evolution. The promised destiny for the mankind is the establishment of the humane pure life. Will come a time when justice will prevail across the globe and every single human being will enjoy respect and dignity. That will be the time when the Mankind’s path to moral and spiritual perfectness will be opened and his journey to God and the manifestation of the God’s Divine Names will come true. The mankind should excel to represent the God’s “knowledge and wisdom”, His “compassion and benevolence”, His “justice and fairness”, His “power and art”, and His “kindness and forgiveness”.

These will all come true under the rule of the Perfect Man, the last Divine Source on earth, Hazrat Mahdi (Peace be upon him); an offspring of the Prophet of Islam, who will re-emerge, and Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) and other noble men will accompany him in the accomplishment of this, grand universal mission. And this is the belief in Entezar (Awaiting patiently for the Imam to return). Waiting with patience for the rule of goodness and the governance of the Best which is a universal human notion and which is a source of nations’ hope for the betterment of the world.

They will come, and with the help of righteous people and true believers will materialize the man’s long-standing desires for freedom, perfectness, maturity, security and tranquility, peace and beauty. They will come to put an end to war and aggression and present the entire knowledge as well as spirituality and friendship to the whole world.

Yes; Indeed, the bright future for the mankind will come.

Dear friends,

In waiting for that brilliant time to come and in a collective commitment, let’s make due contributions in paving the grounds and preparing the conditions for building that bright future.

Long live love and spirituality; long live peace and security; long live justice and freedom.

God’s Peace and blessing be upon you all.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president of Islamic Republic of Iran

By Countercurrents.org

27 September , 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Banks are as major speculators in the global food market while millions face starvation. In the backdrop of global food crisis, banks are speculating with food. Barclays has made half a billion pounds in two years from speculating on food staples.

Citing research from the World Development Movement The Independent ‘s report “Barclays makes £500m betting on food crisis” ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-makes-500m-betting-on-food-crisis-8100011.html ) on September 1, 2012 said:

Barclays is the UK bank with the greatest involvement in food commodity trading and is one of the three biggest global players, along with the US banking giants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

In the last week of August 2012, the trading giant Glencore was strongly criticized for describing the global food crisis and price rises as a “good” business opportunity.

The extent of just one bank’s involvement in agricultural markets will add to concerns that food speculation could help push basic prices so high that they trigger a wave of riots in the world’s poorest countries, as staples drift out of their populations’ reach.

The UK has not escaped rising food costs. Shop food prices have risen, on average, by 37.9 percent in the past seven years, according to the Office for National Statistics, as the demands of an increasingly affluent and growing world population strain supply. Oils and fats have soared by 63 percent in the UK during that period, fish prices by 50.9 percent, bread and cereals by 36.7 percent, meat 34.5 percent and vegetables 41.3 percent. In April, average UK food prices were 4.2 percent higher than a year earlier.

Oxfam’s private sector adviser, Rob Nash, said: “The food market is becoming a playground for investors rather than a market place for farmers. The trend of big investors betting on food prices is transforming food into a financial asset while exacerbating the risk of price spikes that hit the poor hardest.”

The WDM report estimates that Barclays made £529m from its “food speculative activities” in 2010 and 2011. Barclays made up to £340m from food speculation in 2010. The following year, the bank made a smaller sum – of up to £189m – as prices fell.

The revenues that Barclays and other banks make from trading in everything from wheat and corn to coffee and cocoa, are expected to increase this year, with prices once again on the rise. Corn prices have risen by 45 percent since the start of June, with wheat jumping by 30 percent.

Barclays makes most of its “food-speculation” revenues by setting up and managing commodity funds that invest money from pension funds, insurance companies and wealthy individuals in a variety of agricultural products in return for fees and commissions. The bank claims not to invest its own money in such commodities.

Since deregulation allowed the creation of such funds in 2000, institutions such as Barclays have collectively channeled an astonishing $200bn (£126bn) of investment cash into agricultural commodities, according to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Barclays’ dominance in commodities trading is thanks to its former chief executive Bob Diamond, who was Britain ‘s best-paid banking boss until he was forced to resign last month following a £290m fine for attempting to manipulate the Liborinterest rate. As boss of Barclays Capital he boosted trading in agricultural products.

Christine Haigh, policy and campaigns officer at the WDM and one of the analysts behind the research, said: “No doubt the UK ‘s biggest player in the commodities markets is hoping it will do better this year by cashing in on rising food prices. Its behavior risks fuelling a speculative bubble and contributing to hunger and poverty for millions of the world’s poorest people.”

Barclays declined to comment on the amount of money it makes from trading in agricultural commodities yesterday.

The bank defended its actions, pointing out that trading in so-called futures contracts – an agreement to buy or sell a certain quantity of a product, at a given price on an agreed date – helped parties such as farmers and bakers to hedge against the risk of rising or falling prices.

Barclays also declined to comment on whether it thought large amounts of speculation pushed up prices and volatility. A spokesman said: “We recognize there is a perception held by some stakeholders that participation in agricultural futures markets by some participants can unduly influence the prices of commodities. As a result, we continue to carefully monitor market trends and any research produced on this subject,” a spokesman said.

Barclays Capital analysts admitted in a note to clients in February that speculation did push up prices. Barclays said: “The second key driver is that commodity investors have begun allocating to commodities again after beginning 2012 heavily underexposed to the sector.” The other drivers were the “health of the global economy” and “weather and geopolitics”.

By Common Dreams

26 October, 2012

@ CommonDreams.org

The UN’s special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights announced Thursday that the Human Rights Council at the UN will likely initiate an investigation into civilian deaths caused by the CIA and US military’s use of drones and other targeted killing programs, and said that if certain allegations against the US prove true, he considers them serious enough to call “war crimes”.

Ben Emmerson, at speech given at Harvard Law School on Thursday, said that he and his UN colleague—Christof Heyns, the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions—are compelled to investigate the controversial programs because the US government has so far refused to answer even some of the most basic questions about how it justifies such programs or prove that it has put in necessary safeguards to prevent the death of civilians.

“The Obama administration continues to formally adopt the position that it will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the drone program. . . . In reality, the administration is holding its finger in the dam of public accountability,” he said according to a prepared copy of the speech.

“I will be launching an investigation unit within the special procedures of the [U.N.] Human Rights Council to inquire into individual drone attacks, and other forms of targeted killings conducted in counterterrorism operations, in which it has been alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted,” he added.

As special rapporteur, Emmerson’s role at the UN is that of an independent researcher and adviser, but he does not necessarily represent the views or speak on behalf of the world body. “It’s not my job to speak for the UN,” he said. “I speak to the UN.”

His position was created in 2005, following concern at the UN that the role of counter-terrorism and reports of torture being used by the Bush administration exposed a blind spot in how human rights abuses were being institutionalized in the name of fighting terrorism.

“It is only by adherence to human rights regulations that counter-terrorism can survive,” Emerson said before he crowd of about 50, reports Harvard’s student paper, The Crimson. He called into question not only the human rights obligations of governments to protect civilians, but also the important responsibility to uphold the rights of individuals “suspected of terrorism.”

“Victims demand the accountability of public officials and the rule of law, not more human rights violations,” Emmerson said.

Emmerson specifically addressed the failed logic of what is widely called ‘the global war on terror,’ arguing the construct of a ‘global war paradigm’ has been repeatedly used to justify acts that severe long-held notions of international law. He said:

The global war paradigm has done immense damage to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both international human rights law and international humanitarian law… It has also given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.

The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US. The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone program of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia …

[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view.

In addition, Emerson, entered the political arena in some measure by noting that in a recent debate, presidential candidates Obama and Romney showed consensus on the existing drone program. “It is perhaps surprising that the position of the two candidates on this issue has not even featured during their presidential elections campaigns, and got no mention at all in Monday night’s foreign policy debate. We now know that the two candidates are in agreement on the use of drones.’

He credited Obama for halting some of the worst abuses of the Bush years and noted that Mitt Romney, even recently, contends that waterboarding is “not torture.”

“Anyone who is in doubt about whether waterboarding is torture should visit Tuol Sleng,” Emerson said, invoking the murderous legacy of Pol Pot and the “infamous S-21 detention facility operated by the Khymer Rouge in Phnom Penh.”

“Over a period of four years 14,000 people were systematically tortured and killed there. It is now a genocide museum. And right there, in the middle of the central torturing room, is the apparatus used by Pol Pot’s security officials for waterboarding.”

By Tom Hayden

26 October, 2012

@ The Nation

Russell Means, who died on Tuesday, kept a place here in Santa Monica in recent years, with his wife, Pearl. Once my wife Barbara and I took our son Liam for a visit to meet this man we described as having fought a real war against the government. Still in good health a couple of years ago, Russell took great interest in our 10-year-old, as he did in all kids trying to understand the actual history of our country.

Russell was a strong, imposing figure. It wasn’t only his braided hair or the beads around his neck; his clear eyes gazed as if it was 1873. He had Liam’s attention. When they shook hands, Russell told Liam that his grip needed to be firmer, he should stand up straight, and that he always should look the other person straight in the eye. Our son will not forget the quiet authority this man quietly commanded.

Russell had that effect on people, the presence of a nineteenth-century warrior still alive as a force in the here and now. He touched millions.

I therefore was quite shocked to see Russell with Pearl in a local restaurant a few months later, gaunt and frail from cancer. I didn’t quite recognize him. He told me the diagnosis was terminal, and that he was living on tribal remedies and prayer. His face should have been on Mr. Rushmore. The great law of mortality would prevail where the Great White Father had failed, and Russell soon would enter the spirit world. He knew his time on earth was ending, eating eggs in an Ocean Park cafe.

My wife, a descendant of the Oglala Nation, and our son, were blessed to know him even briefly. My old friends Bill Zimmerman and Larry Levin were touched enough to fly a plane with supplies into Wounded Knee when the fight was on. Governor Jerry Brown was courageous enough to harbor Russell in California when South Dakota wanted him extradited. Tim Carpenter, now of PDA, was inspired enough in 1971 to march across the United States on the latter-day Trail of Tears. Russell, the imprisoned Leonard Peltier and the American Indian Movement led many to try repealing the past. “No More Broken Treaties” was the slogan of the Indochina Peace Campaign at the time of the Paris Peace Agreement, a reminder of the 371 solemn pacts violated by the US government during the earlier Indian Wars. One of the most momentous violations was that of the 1868 Treaty of Laramie guaranteeing Sioux Nation ownership of the Black Hills, now the center of a vast corporate energy domain. That violation aroused a new generation of native American warriors.

The fundamental difference between a truthful, radical interpretation of US history and a merely progressive or liberal one is how deeply one understands that our permanent original sin, even preceding slavery, was a genocide against native people that underlay the the later growth of democratic rights. That truth is what is “buried at Wounded Knee”, what Russell Means’ war for recognition was all about, and why he will be long remembered by my son.

Until we in America finally accept and redeem the moral debasement of a Conquest that still underlies the achievement of democracy, our blindness will lead us into one war after another against indigenous tribes and clans in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Asia, Africa and Latin America, all stemming from a denial of our own blood-stained origins.

Russell was a reminder that the wars against indigenous people, and the conquest of their resources, are far from over, and that we cannot be fully human until remorse with our eyes wide open allows the possibility of reconciliation.

Also Read this speech given by Russell Means in July 1980

Revolution And American Indians: “Marxism Is As Alien To My Culture As Capitalism”

By Countercurrents.org

26 October, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Anti-austerity demonstrators in Europe have suffered excessive police violence, Amnesty International said on October 25, 2012 in a report urging the EU governments to protect the right to peaceful protest [1].

The rights group said people rallying against government spending cuts, tax rises and job losses in countries hit by the eurozone crisis and elsewhere had sometimes been seriously injured by police or had had medical treatment withheld.

“People demonstrating peacefully in EU countries have been beaten, kicked, shot at and wounded with rubber bullets and sprayed with tear gas,” Amnesty said.

“Yet excessive use of force by police goes uninvestigated and unpunished.”

The Amnesty report, “Policing demonstrations in the European Union”, described several cases where police had severely beaten protesters in Greece, Spain and Romania.

Greek journalist Manolis Kypreos was left completely deaf in June 2011 after police threw a stun grenade at him, the report added.

Kypreos has since recovered some hearing but his disability has effectively ended his career, Amnesty said.

“Governments must spell out and reiterate that police officers may use force only when strictly necessary,” said Fotis Filippou, Amnesty’s campaign coordinator for Europe and Central Asia.

“They must introduce strict guidelines on the use of potentially lethal riot-control devices such as pepper spray and tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets.”

The report warned that excessive force and arbitrary arrests of protesters could turn anger against governments into anger against the police, increasing the risk of violence at anti-austerity demonstrations.

Under international law, police can only use force when it is required for them to perform their duty and they must be restrained in its use, Amnesty said.

Police forces in several European countries have faced budget cuts themselves as governments seek to shrink their huge deficits, the report added.

On the other hand, the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton expressed concern on October 25, 2012 after Russia’s lower house passed a law broadening the definition of treason [2].

“The new law would expand the scope for prosecution of and reduce the burden of proof for charges of treason and espionage,” her office said in a statement.

“The abstract definition of treason contained in the law will make it difficult to apply in a fair manner. It also potentially penalizes contacts with foreign nationals with up to 20 years in prison.”

Human rights activists have attacked the bill passed on October 23, 2012 as a further attempt to curb opposition to President Vladimir Putin. They say the measures could criminalize sharing information with organizations such as Amnesty International or even appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.

The statement said the new law follows a number of recent legislative and judicial developments in Russia that, taken together, “would limit the space for civil society development, and increase the scope for intimidation.”

“We will be monitoring the implementation of this law closely,” the statement added.

The bill is likely to be swiftly passed by the upper house of parliament and signed into law by Putin.

It follows legislation that brands advocacy groups with foreign funding as “foreign agents”, criminalizes slander and blacklists websites unfavorable to the government — all introduced within months of Putin’s return to the Kremlin in May for a third presidential term.

Source:

[1] EUbusiness, “Amnesty warns EU countries against beating protesters”, Oct. 25, 2012, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/britain-rights-debt.k9d/

[2] EUbusiness, “EU concerned at new Russia treason law”, Oct. 25, 2012, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/russia-politics-law.ka1

Dated: October 26, 2012

Joint Statement from Human Security Alliance, Asian Muslim Action Network and Odhikar

International support needed to protect Rohingyas from persecution

We, the undersigned organizations are deeply concerned at the recent reports in the international media that scores of Rohingyas were killed in the fresh outbreak of violence in the northern Arakan state. We are also alarmed by the reports that hundreds of Rohinyga homes were burnt by a vengeful Rakhine community, that in turn has led to the displacement of thousands of people. This is in addition to the 75,000 people who are still languishing in overcrowded camps set up by the Myanmar authorities with very little basic amenities. Observers have noted that the recent outbreak of violence against the Rohinygas is in line with the long-term plan of the Arakani Rakhine community to eliminate Rohingyas from all the townships where they are a minority. We, the undersigned, notes that the local Myanmar authorities in connivance with the central government is pursuing a policy of apartheid under which tens of thousands of Rohinygas are housed in camps beyond the city limits under barbed wire fencing with armed guards placed at the entrances.

The present violence is inextricably linked to the decade-long discriminatory and racist policies of the Myanmar government towards the Rohingya Muslims. The systematic persecution by the authorities includes denial of citizenship under Myanmars 1982 Citizenship Act, which renders Rohingya stateless and utterly without protection. In addition to public vilification by the state media and state officials, Rohingyas have been subjected to restrictions on marriage, domestic travel and observation of religious ceremonies. They are also not allowed to join the army or police. The Rohingyas have also been particularly vulnerable to other serious human rights violations faced by the general population in Myanmar.

We further note with deep concern the media reports that 3000 people of Rohingya origin are floating in 42 trawlers in the Bay of Bengal. They are fleeing the violence torn Arakan state and are trying to enter Bangladesh to seek asylum. We are deeply distressed that instead of providing shelter to the incoming Rohingyas, Bangladesh authorities have geared up its efforts to stop them in the high seas and placed high security in the land border to deny entry to the hapless Rohingyas.

Since the 1960s there have been multiple campaigns led by the Myanmar authorities to expel the Rohingya from Myanmar, resulting in a series of human rights violations leading to the persecution of Rohingyas. There are an estimated 800,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, and approximately 300,000 live in Bangladesh, of which 30,000 live in squalid refugee camps. Given the fact that Rohingyas were excluded from the last Myanmar government census in 1983; are widely discriminated as ˜Kalas” or blacks or as ˜Bengalis” (people from Bangladesh) and are subject to racial attacks, we are afraid that the present persecution is aimed to push them into Bangladesh. This will cause serious political instability in this region.

The ongoing violence in the Rakhine State shows that despite the democratic progress of recent months, there are still formidable challenges for human rights in Myanmar. Many areas populated by ethnic minorities have seen few benefits from the reform process. International journalists and aid workers still face restricted access to large parts of the country. Even at this crucial moment, the political leadership of the Myanmar democratic movement and the main stream leaders within the civil society could not come forward to defend the persecuted Rohingyas, due to long drawn practice of massive racism.

Under the circumstances, WE, the undersigned demand that the Myanmar authorities allow unhindered access to the Rohingya settlements to ensure that the physical safety and dignity of Rohginyas are ensured. We demand that free and unfettered access to international humanitarian agencies to provide relief and support to the members of both communities who are affected by violence. We further call on the Myanmar government to allow an independent international fact finding mission to probe into the causes of recent spate of violence and identify perpetrators of the heinous acts against the members of the Rohingya community.

We regret that UN and ASEAN have been unable to exert their influence on the Myanmar government to refrain from pursuing their long term agenda of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya community. We call on both agencies to shore up their efforts so that Myanmar authorities are forced to abandon such a project.

We appeal to the Bangladesh Government as well as to the people of Bangladesh to immediately respond to the humanitarian need in such dark hours and allow the Rohingyas to enter into the country. We hope that the government will honour its commitment to uphold basic tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties such as the Child Rights Convention and Convention against Torture that uphold the principle of non-refoulement of people to their places of origin if their life and liberty are at stake.

Signatories:

1) Altafur Rahman, Executive Director, Human Security Alliance

2) Abdus Sabur, Secretary General, Asian Muslim Action Network

3) Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary, Odhikar

By Countercurrents.org

26 October, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Speculation with food is an area of huge profit by financial institutions. “More than 40 percent of grain futures can now be traced to financial institutions, which nearly doubled their commodity bets over the last five years — from $65 billion to $126 billion”, write Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute, an independent academic research institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Greg Lindsay, an affiliate of NECSI and a visiting scholar at New York University [1]. A month ago, on September 26, 2012, the European Parliament agreed on plans to improve financial market transparency and end speculation, notably deal-making blamed for volatile food prices [2].

Howard Schultz, Chief Executive, Starbucks Coffee Company, said: “Without any real supply or demand issues we are witness to the fact that most agricultural food commodities are at record highs at once, and coffee is at a 34-year high. Through financial speculation …the commodities market is in a very unfortunate position.” Similar opinions were expressed by Nigel Miller, President, National Farmers Union, Scotland and Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman, Citigroup [3].

Yaneer and Greg write:

Spikes in grain prices are regularly blamed on oil shocks, droughts and emerging markets’ hunger for meat. The real culprit in the three bubbles-and-busts of the last five years, however, isn’t the weather. It’s financial speculation.

The Midwest drought this summer, the worst in a half-century, produced a bumper crop of profits for derivatives traders like Chris Mahoney, the director of agricultural products for Glencore, the world’s largest commodities trading firm. Mahoney noted during one August conference call that tight grain supplies and the resulting arbitrage opportunities “should be good for Glencore.”

They’ve been a disaster, however, for the world’s poor.

More than 40 percent of grain futures can now be traced to financial institutions, which nearly doubled their commodity bets over the last five years — from $65 billion to $126 billion.

During that time, food prices have bubbled and burst twice — leaving millions of people to go hungry and stoking global unrest — before climbing to new heights this summer. Corn prices soared 65 percent between June and July alone, the same month the World Bank’s food price index recorded its highest rise ever, breaking the previous record set in February 2011.

What’s fueling this stunning price fluctuation is financial speculation. Our research team at the New England Complex Systems Institute built mathematical models to test possible explanations for the price spikes of 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 — including all the above, in addition to the rise of ethanol production. We could replicate a rise in prices but couldn’t explain the bubbles and crashes. When we added speculation, the model fit precisely.

When it comes to food, our faith in markets is contingent on their ability to match supply and demand at prices that benefit farmers, while ensuring the greatest number of people can afford to eat. Speculation in grain futures knocks these prices out of equilibrium. During past bubbles, for example, bountiful harvests piled up in silos because grain was too expensive for consumers to buy. This grain accumulation eventually bursts the bubbles after a year or more – the time elapsed between harvests.

While Americans will likely only feel a pinch of drought-fueled speculation this year – the Department of Agriculture projects a 3 percent-4 percent rise in food prices next year – the situation is direr in the developing world. Those living on less than a dollar per day already spend most of their income on food.

The price bubble of 2007-2008 led to food riots in more than 30 countries, including Mexico’s “tortilla riots” and the overthrow of Haiti’s government, before prices peaked again in February 2011, during the Arab Spring.

The current bubble is behind the fresh protests in Haiti, where food prices have gone up 40 percent since the election of President Michel Martelly last year. In eastern India, mobs robbed government granaries.

Hunger and revolutions have always gone hand-in-hand, of course — the latter is what happens when you let them eat cake but the people have no bread. But at which point do prices pass the point of no return?

Our research has found that food riots are most likely to occur when the Food Price Index, compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, rises above 210. It’s currently 216.

Recognizing the dangers of food speculation, six European banks – including Commerzbank, Germany’s second largest – this summer removed agricultural products from their commodity funds altogether. Wall Street, however, has not been so accommodating.

Last month a federal judge vacated tough new rules designed to rein in commodity speculation that would have taken effect Oct. 12. The rules would have closed loopholes and instituted new position limits that would cap the number of derivative contracts a commodities trader could hold, in the hopes this would dampen volatility and prices.

But Judge Robert L. Wilkins channeled Wall Street’s objections when he questioned whether these rules were appropriate or necessary. In his decision he quoted Michael V. Dunn, a former commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who had doubted whether “excessive speculation is affecting the market.” Dunn once declared, “at best position limits are a cure for a disease that does not exist, or at worst it’s a placebo for one that does.”

CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler has vowed to push ahead with the rule – including the possibility of appealing. Commissioner Bart Chilton meanwhile has proposed drafting an “interim final rule” that would appease Wilkins’ objections and could be instituted quickly. “Position limits are simply too important,” Chilton said earlier this month in a speech at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization headquarters in Rome.

They are. But if the rule that’s eventually passed is to be more than the placebo Dunn fears, it will be necessary to close the loopholes added to the bill to appease derivatives traders – who instead sued to have it overturned.

The proof will be in seeing if speculation actually decreases. Current volumes are three to five times higher than what’s necessary for the smooth functioning of the markets, according to our research. At a time when the US corn harvest is expected to be less than annual consumption, we can’t afford to gamble with our food.

The European Parliament’s economic affairs committee unanimously agreed – 45 votes in favor – new rules based on a proposal last year by the European Commission to update EU regulation on markets in financial instruments, known as MIFID.

Under the agreement, market players and trading operators would be required to lay down clear rules and procedures for fair and orderly trading, objective criteria for executing orders efficiently, and transparent criteria for determining which financial instruments may be traded via their systems.

The rules notably would provide a structure for Organized Trading Facilities (OTF), which are currently not regulated.

To fight speculation of food products, the rules also limit the number of positions traders can take in a set time on commodities on the derivatives market.

The MEPs also tightened up a EC proposal on high-frequency algorithmic trading, in which computers trade millions of orders per second, with little or no human intervention.

This technology can be used to check what buyers would pay, with a view to exploiting tiny price differences.

The committee voted provisions to ensure all orders be valid for at least 500 milliseconds, meaning they cannot be cancelled or modified during that time.

All firms and trading venues would also have to ensure that trading systems are resilient and prepared to deal with sudden increases in order flows or market stresses. These could include “circuit breakers” to suspend trading.

The Socialists and Democrats group in parliament dubbed the agreement “a very important step forward to increase transparency and to ensure a smooth price formation process on European exchanges.”

NGOs, including Oxfam and Friends of the Earth, welcomed the plan but said it continued to fall short of what was needed to tackle food speculation.

The rules will need to be adopted by a parliament plenary, probably in November, before being submitted to EU finance ministers who will have the final say.

On the issue of speculation with food Nigel Miller said: “It is deeply alarming that the greatest proportion of activity in the futures markets no longer involves those in the supply chain but is, instead, taken up by speculators. Food commodities are too important to be played about with by day traders and speculators.” Peter Orszag said: ‘‘Financial flows (including index funds) can, over brief periods, exert a noticeable destabilizing effect […] Trying to use inventory levels to measure how far the market is out of whack may not work that well. As a result, “multiple equilibriums” of plausible market prices can persist over a surprisingly long period before supply-and-demand fundamentals finally exert themselves.”

Food speculation refers to bankers and other financial investors betting on food prices. Food speculation occurs if ’futures contracts’ are written for the sole purpose of money making. Originally, future contracts allow farmers to sell crops at a future date at a guaranteed price – helping them to overcome unforeseen variations in crop production. Over the last two decades, bankers have successfully lobbied for weaker regulations on food speculation. They are now able to buy and sell futures contracts to make money. Bankers have also created special products and funds to help other financial companies make money from betting on food [4].

Source:

[1] “The real reason for spikes in food prices”, Oct. 25, 2012, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/25/the-real-reason-for-spikes-in-food-prices/

[2] EUbusiness, “European Parliament moves to fight market speculation”, Sept. 26, 2012, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/markets-finance.ik6

[3] Make finance work for people and the planet, “Financial speculation on food drives up and distorts prices”, http://www.makefinancework.org/the-food-crises-the-us-drought/food-speculation/

[4] http://www.makefinancework.org/home-english/food-speculation/briefings-and-reports-70/

By Nick Turse

25 October, 2012

@ TomDispatch.com

How the Empire Changed Its Face, But Not Its Nature

They looked like a gang of geriatric giants. Clad in smart casual attire — dress shirts, sweaters, and jeans — and incongruous blue hospital booties, they strode around “the world,” stopping to stroke their chins and ponder this or that potential crisis. Among them was General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a button-down shirt and jeans, without a medal or a ribbon in sight, his arms crossed, his gaze fixed. He had one foot planted firmly in Russia, the other partly in Kazakhstan, and yet the general hadn’t left the friendly confines of Virginia.

Several times this year, Dempsey, the other joint chiefs, and regional war-fighting commanders have assembled at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico to conduct a futuristic war-game-meets-academic-seminar about the needs of the military in 2017. There, a giant map of the world, larger than a basketball court, was laid out so the Pentagon’s top brass could shuffle around the planet — provided they wore those scuff-preventing shoe covers — as they thought about “potential U.S. national military vulnerabilities in future conflicts” (so one participant told the New York Times). The sight of those generals with the world underfoot was a fitting image for Washington’s military ambitions, its penchant for foreign interventions, and its contempt for (non-U.S.) borders and national sovereignty.

A World So Much Larger Than a Basketball Court

In recent weeks, some of the possible fruits of Dempsey’s “strategic seminars,” military missions far from the confines of Quantico, have repeatedly popped up in the news. Sometimes buried in a story, sometimes as the headline, the reports attest to the Pentagon’s penchant for globetrotting.

In September, for example, Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, Jr., revealed that, just months after the U.S. military withdrew from Iraq, a unit of Special Operations Forces had already been redeployed there in an advisory role and that negotiations were underway to arrange for larger numbers of troops to train Iraqi forces in the future. That same month, the Obama administration won congressional approval to divert funds earmarked for counterterrorism aid for Pakistan to a new proxy project in Libya. According to the New York Times, U.S. Special Operations Forces will likely be deployed to create and train a 500-man Libyan commando unit to battle Islamic militant groups which have become increasingly powerful as a result of the 2011 U.S.-aided revolution there.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the U.S. military had secretly sent a new task force to Jordan to assist local troops in responding to the civil war in neighboring Syria. Only days later, that paper revealed that recent U.S. efforts to train and assist surrogate forces for Honduras’s drug war were already crumbling amid a spiral of questions about the deaths of innocents, violations of international law, and suspected human rights abuses by Honduran allies.

Shortly after that, the Times reported the bleak, if hardly surprising, news that the proxy army the U.S. has spent more than a decade building in Afghanistan is, according to officials, “so plagued with desertions and low re-enlistment rates that it has to replace a third of its entire force every year.” Rumors now regularly bubble up about a possible U.S.-funded proxy war on the horizon in Northern Mali where al-Qaeda-linked Islamists have taken over vast stretches of territory — yet another direct result of last year’s intervention in Libya.

And these were just the offshore efforts that made it into the news. Many other U.S. military actions abroad remain largely below the radar. Several weeks ago, for instance, U.S. personnel were quietly deployed to Burundi to carry out training efforts in that small, landlocked, desperately poor East African nation. Another contingent of U.S. Army and Air Force trainers headed to the similarly landlocked and poor West African nation of Burkina Faso to instruct indigenous forces.

At Camp Arifjan, an American base in Kuwait, U.S. and local troops donned gas masks and protective suits to conduct joint chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear training. In Guatemala, 200 Marines from Detachment Martillo completed a months-long deployment to assist indigenous naval forces and law enforcement agencies in drug interdiction efforts.

Across the globe, in the forbidding tropical forests of the Philippines, Marines joined elite Filipino troops to train for combat operations in jungle environments and to help enhance their skills as snipers. Marines from both nations also leapt from airplanes, 10,000 feet above the island archipelago, in an effort to further the “interoperability” of their forces. Meanwhile, in the Southeast Asian nation of Timor-Leste, Marines trained embassy guards and military police in crippling “compliance techniques” like pain holds and pressure point manipulation, as well as soldiers in jungle warfare as part of Exercise Crocodilo 2012.

The idea behind Dempsey’s “strategic seminars” was to plan for the future, to figure out how to properly respond to developments in far-flung corners of the globe. And in the real world, U.S. forces are regularly putting preemptive pins in that giant map — from Africa to Asia, Latin America to the Middle East. On the surface, global engagement, training missions, and joint operations appear rational enough. And Dempsey’s big picture planning seems like a sensible way to think through solutions to future national security threats.

But when you consider how the Pentagon really operates, such war-gaming undoubtedly has an absurdist quality to it. After all, global threats turn out to come in every size imaginable, from fringe Islamic movements in Africa to Mexican drug gangs. How exactly they truly threaten U.S. “national security” is often unclear — beyond some White House adviser’s or general’s say-so. And whatever alternatives come up in such Quantico seminars, the “sensible” response invariably turns out to be sending in the Marines, or the SEALs, or the drones, or some local proxies. In truth, there is no need to spend a day shuffling around a giant map in blue booties to figure it all out.

In one way or another, the U.S. military is now involved with most of the nations on Earth. Its soldiers, commandos, trainers, base builders, drone jockeys, spies, and arms dealers, as well as associated hired guns and corporate contractors, can now be found just about everywhere on the planet. The sun never sets on American troops conducting operations, training allies, arming surrogates, schooling its own personnel, purchasing new weapons and equipment, developing fresh doctrine, implementing novel tactics, and refining their martial arts. The U.S. has submarines trolling the briny deep and aircraft carrier task forces traversing the oceans and seas, robotic drones flying constant missions and manned aircraft patrolling the skies, while above them, spy satellites circle, peering down on friend and foe alike.

Since 2001, the U.S. military has thrown everything in its arsenal, short of nuclear weapons, including untold billions of dollars in weaponry, technology, bribes, you name it, at a remarkably weak set of enemies — relatively small groups of poorly-armed fighters in impoverished nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen — while decisively defeating none of them. With its deep pockets and long reach, its technology and training acumen, as well as the devastatingly destructive power at its command, the U.S. military should have the planet on lockdown. It should, by all rights, dominate the world just as the neoconservative dreamers of the early Bush years assumed it would.

Yet after more than a decade of war, it has failed to eliminate a rag-tag Afghan insurgency with limited popular support. It trained an indigenous Afghan force that was long known for its poor performance — before it became better known for killing its American trainers. It has spent years and untold tens of millions of tax dollars chasing down assorted firebrand clerics, various terrorist “lieutenants,” and a host of no-name militants belonging to al-Qaeda, mostly in the backlands of the planet. Instead of wiping out that organization and its wannabes, however, it seems mainly to have facilitated its franchising around the world.

At the same time, it has managed to paint weak regional forces like Somalia’s al-Shabaab as transnational threats, then focus its resources on eradicating them, only to fail at the task. It has thrown millions of dollars in personnel, equipment, aid, and recently even troops into the task of eradicating low-level drug runners (as well as the major drug cartels), without putting a dent in the northward flow of narcotics to America’s cities and suburbs.

It spends billions on intelligence only to routinely find itself in the dark. It destroyed the regime of an Iraqi dictator and occupied his country, only to be fought to a standstill by ill-armed, ill-organized insurgencies there, then out-maneuvered by the allies it had helped put in power, and unceremoniously bounced from the country (even if it is now beginning to claw its way back in). It spends untold millions of dollars to train and equip elite Navy SEALs to take on poor, untrained, lightly-armed adversaries, like gun-toting Somali pirates.

How Not to Change in a Changing World

And that isn’t the half of it.

The U.S. military devours money and yet delivers little in the way of victories. Its personnel may be among the most talented and well-trained on the planet, its weapons and technology the most sophisticated and advanced around. And when it comes to defense budgets, it far outspends the next nine largest nations combined (most of which are allies in any case), let alone its enemies like the Taliban, al-Shabaab, or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but in the real world of warfare this turns out to add up to remarkably little.

In a government filled with agencies routinely derided for profligacy, inefficiency, and producing poor outcomes, its record may be unmatched in terms of waste and abject failure, though that seems to faze almost no one in Washington. For more than a decade, the U.S. military has bounced from one failed doctrine to the next. There was Donald Rumsfeld’s “military lite,” followed by what could have been called military heavy (though it never got a name), which was superseded by General David Petraeus’s “counterinsurgency operations” (also known by its acronym COIN). This, in turn, has been succeeded by the Obama administration’s bid for future military triumph: a “light footprint” combination of special ops, drones, spies, civilian soldiers, cyberwarfare, and proxy fighters. Yet whatever the method employed, one thing has been constant: successes have been fleeting, setbacks many, frustrations the name of the game, and victory MIA.

Convinced nonetheless that finding just the right formula for applying force globally is the key to success, the U.S. military is presently banking on that new six-point plan. Tomorrow, it may turn to a different war-lite mix. Somewhere down the road, it will undoubtedly again experiment with something heavier. And if history is any guide, counterinsurgency, a concept that failed the U.S. in Vietnam and was resuscitated only to fail again in Afghanistan, will one day be back in vogue.

In all of this, it should be obvious, a learning curve is lacking. Any solution to America’s war-fighting problems will undoubtedly require the sort of fundamental reevaluation of warfare and military might that no one in Washington is open to at the moment. It’s going to take more than a few days spent shuffling around a big map in plastic shoe covers.

American politicians never tire of extolling the virtues of the U.S. military, which is now commonly hailed as “the finest fighting force in the history of the world.” This claim appears grotesquely at odds with reality. Aside from triumphs over such non-powers as the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada and the small Central American nation of Panama, the U.S. military’s record since World War II has been a litany of disappointments: stalemate in Korea, outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia, debacles in Lebanon and Somalia, two wars against Iraq (both ending without victory), more than a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan, and so on.

Something akin to the law of diminishing returns may be at work. The more time, effort, and treasure the U.S. invests in its military and its military adventures, the weaker the payback. In this context, the impressive destructive power of that military may not matter a bit, if it is tasked with doing things that military might, as it has been traditionally conceived, can perhaps no longer do.

Success may not be possible, whatever the circumstances, in the twenty-first-century world, and victory not even an option. Instead of trying yet again to find exactly the right formula or even reinventing warfare, perhaps the U.S. military needs to reinvent itself and its raison d’être if it’s ever to break out of its long cycle of failure.

But don’t count on it.

Instead, expect the politicians to continue to heap on the praise, Congress to continue insuring funding at levels that stagger the imagination, presidents to continue applying blunt force to complex geopolitical problems (even if in slightly different ways), arms dealers to continue churning out wonder weapons that prove less than wondrous, and the Pentagon continuing to fail to win.

Coming off the latest series of failures, the U.S. military has leapt headlong into yet another transitional period — call it the changing face of empire — but don’t expect a change in weapons, tactics, strategy, or even doctrine to yield a change in results. As the adage goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute. An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author/editor of several books, including the just published The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare (Haymarket Books). This piece is the final article in his series on the changing face of American empire, which is being underwritten by Lannan Foundation. You can follow him on Tumblr.