Just International

Africa Disappointed US Does Not Intend To Achieve 2C Climate Goal

BAMAKO, Mali – Today – The African Group of countries at the United Nations climate negotiations reacted with disappointment at the latest statements by the Obama administration on the global climate talks.

President Obama’s Climate Envoy, Todd Stern, made a speech questioning the value of guaranteeing the internationally agreed (and reaffirmed) goal of limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (2C).

Mr Stern has since issued a “clarification” stating that he was not intending to suggest the US did not support the goal, but that using an “approach that would guarantee such a goal… would only lead to stalemate” and that more “flexibility” was needed for nations’ targets.

Speaking on behalf of the African Group, spokesperson Seyni Nafo said:

“Africa is at the forefront of climate impacts; science shows that temperatures rise here is approximately 150% the global average, so even a 1.5C global target could mean over 2C for Africa.”

“That means the destruction of crops on a huge scale, as has occurred in the of heatwave that the US is experiencing today. But in Africa these crops belong to subsistence farmers and the result is devastation and famine. This is not a game with numbers; its a question of people’s lives, and so I am not sure there is much space for the ‘flexibility’ Mr Stern has spoken of.”

“It is concerning that the US would now question the global goal it pushed for, and has agreed to numerous times internationally. It is more disappointing that in clarifying its position the Obama administration has said it ‘supports’ the goal but does not support an approach that guarantees achieving it.”

“It’s like they agree they want to have their cake, but they can’t agree not to eat it; it’s increasingly hard for us facing the impacts of climate change today to take a progressively weakening US position seriously. This is why Africa continues to push for a comprehensive global agreement based on what the science is telling us is required.”

“For every day of delay in changing the global emissions profile the costs of adaptation to climate change mount. Those costs are currently being paid by some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people: farmers, fisherfolk and the rural poor in Africa. The less that Mr Obama does today, the more he will owe these people tomorrow.”


By The African Group

08 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

The African Group is the group of 54 African countries represented in the UN climate change negotiations. Mr Seyni Nafo of Mali is its spokesperson.

Contact: Seyni Nafo

+49 152 117 31939

mimikaseyni@gmail.com

Syrian Army, US-Backed Opposition Militias Clash In Aleppo

 

Fighting continued yesterday in the escalating US proxy war in Syria, as Western-backed militias hostile to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fought Syrian Army forces in the northern city of Aleppo, near the Turkish border.

Western journalists reporting with the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) said that Syrian Army forces in Aleppo were bombarding the main city districts held by the “rebel” forces every 5 minutes. Syrian tank units southwest of Aleppo were reported to be shelling the Sunni-majority Salaheddin neighborhood and the nearby Seif al-Dawla district. There were also reports of clashes in the Hanano, Hamdaniyeh, and Al Bab neighborhoods in northeastern Aleppo.

Reporting from Aleppo, CNN correspondent Ben Wedeman said that people were going about their daily business in much of the rest of the city, however.

Aleppo, Syria’s commercial capital and the largest city in northern Syria, is emerging as a critical battleground in the US-led war to overthrow Assad. Washington and its allies—the Saudi and Qatari monarchies, the Turkish regime and the European NATO powers—are flooding the area with weapons and coordinating “rebel” operations from a nerve center in nearby Adana, Turkey, the site of Washington’s Incirlik air base. It has been widely reported, including in the Western media, that the “rebels” are being supported by Al Qaeda.

The Tehran Times wrote that the Syrian army had captured over 200 anti-Assad fighters, including some 70 foreign fighters.

Syrian officials claimed that Syrian Special Forces in Aleppo on Sunday captured Turkish and Saudi officers leading anti-Assad militias in Aleppo. They identified the Turkish officers as Sultan Oldu and Taher Amnitiu and the Saudi officials as Abdel Wahed al-Thani, Abdel Aziz al-Matiri, Ahmad al-Hadi, Moussa al-Zahrani, and Firas al-Zahrani. The Turkish government denied the report.

These reports underscore the right-wing character of the US proxy war in Syria. The anti-Assad forces, largely Sunni Islamists from Syria or flown in through Turkey from other Middle Eastern countries, are relying on operational guidance, arms, money and diplomatic pressure from the imperialist powers to overcome their lack of mass support.

Writing from Aleppo, Tomas Avenarius of Germany’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung said last Friday: “I am skeptical when I hear claims the rebels control half the city… The trick of the rebels is to move around the city and then advance the claim that they have liberated large areas. But that does not mean that the Army of the regime will not return.”

He continued: “The FSA has, compared to the regime, far fewer fighters… It is not that all of Aleppo is burning. Certain neighborhoods are seeing brutal fighting and are constantly bombarded. There are also certain neighborhoods that are still calm, where one still sees people in normal areas.”

Avenarius noted the sectarian basis of the fighting and the “rebel” forces’ ability to control districts in Aleppo: “There were rumors that the rebels also wanted to assault a Christian neighborhood, not the Christians but loyalist soldiers that are stationed there. If this happened, I believe there would be much harder fighting. Many Christians feel threatened and would not automatically support the rebels. In the Sunni neighborhoods, people do not actively support the rebels, but many people sympathize with them. In the Christian neighborhoods it would be a different story.”

The civil war stoked by the US and its allies in Syria is destabilizing the entire Middle East, threatening a regional war fought along sectarian lines.

Yesterday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi arrived in Ankara to negotiate the release of 48 Iranians captured last week near Damascus by Sunni “rebel” forces. Iran claims they were a group of Shia pilgrims, including women and children, visiting a Shia holy site. But the anti-Assad forces claim they were Iranian soldiers backing Assad, an Iranian ally and follower of the Alawite faith, a branch of Shia Islam. There were unconfirmed reports that three of the Iranian hostages were killed yesterday.

While Turkey is threatening to invade Syria to crush Kurdish forces in northeast Syria, Iran has already warned that such an attack would activate Syria’s alliance with Iran—implicitly threatening a war between Iran and Turkey, a NATO member country.

Turkey has also declared seven zones of southeastern Turkey’s Hakkari province under military rule after attacks there were blamed on Kurdish fighters. Turkish citizens are not allowed to enter the area for two months, until October 6. Turkish strikes have already caused over 115 deaths among Kurdish fighters in the region. (See: Turkey attacks Kurds, threatens military action against Syria).

The Iranian Foreign Ministry also sent a formal diplomatic note to Washington saying that “due to its open support for Syrian terrorist groups” the US was responsible for the Iranian captives’ safety.

Commenting on the reports that three Iranian hostages had been killed, Iranian Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani said that if Iranian hostages were harmed “the Iranian nation will not ignore these crimes.” He said the hostages’ captors would receive a response from Iran “in due time.”

There were also protests in Lebanon demanding the release of eleven Lebanese hostages held by anti-Assad groups in Syria. The hostages’ families blocked the Beirut airport highway Monday evening to pressure the government to secure their release. Lebanese President Michel Sleiman said he had contacted Turkish and Qatari authorities to secure the hostages’ release.

It is ever more obvious that the US intervention in Syria, launched under the cynical guise of defending Syrian civilians against the Army, is a brutal imperialist operation threatening to plunge the entire region into war and civil war. An indication of the plans being discussed in imperialist circles is provided by an article in Lebanon’s Daily Star by well-known Middle East journalist and commentator Dilip Hiro.

The article, entitled “Partition is a Viable Option for Syria,” notes that Syria’s “Alawites know that if the Assad regime collapses, they could be butchered by the Sunni victors.” It adds, “Many see no alternative to fighting for survival.”

As a result, Hiro writes, the “multifarious coalition of anti-Assad groups, united only by their hatred of the Alawite-dominated regime, could not cope with the aftermath of the collapse of the centralized Baathist state.”

Though he acknowledges that “The partition of British India was accompanied by roughly 1.5 million deaths and transfer of some 12 million people across the newly-demarcated international border,” Hiro nonetheless presents such a fate as a positive good for Syria. “The 1947 partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan,” he writes, “eased communal violence dramatically. And so Syria, too, could be on the way to a solution by partition… The end of such a conflict can be achieved by carving out an Alawite state wedged between Lebanon and Turkey. This could involve population exchange amid violence as happened in British India in 1947.”

 

By Alex Lantier

08 August, 2012

@WSWS.org

 

 

US Gunman Alleged To Have Killed Six At Sikh Temple Was A Neo-Nazi

 

Much remains murky in relation to the mass shooting Sunday at a Wisconsin Sikh temple that resulted in the death of seven people, including the gunman, and critical wounding of three others. One thing is clear, however: the alleged shooter had a long and deep involvement in white supremacist, neo-Nazi circles.

The ample information about Wade Michael Page’s fascist sympathies has been downplayed by the mass media and US officials, and the general theme of media commentary is “the search for a motive.” The evidence, however, strongly indicates that Page’s homicidal rampage against ethnic Indians was driven by a racist and fascist political agenda, defining his crime as an act of right-wing domestic terrorism.

The 40-year-old Army veteran used a 9 millimeter automatic handgun to fatally shoot six worshippers at the Wisconsin Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, a suburb of Milwaukee, and send two others, as well as a police officer, to the hospital with life-threatening wounds. Page was then killed in a shootout with police.

The deceased Sikhs, ranging in age from 39 to 84, included five men and one woman, identified as Sita Singh (41), Ranjit Singh (49), Satwant Singh Kaleka (65), Prakash Singh (39), Paramjit Kaur (41), and Suveg Singh (84).

The police and FBI claim that only one gunman was involved. However, there are reasons to treat this version of events with some skepticism. Initial news reports Sunday morning, based on statements from witnesses at the scene, spoke of multiple shooters. One witness reported that four white males opened fire. Others said there was more than one gunman.

Temple officials reported seeing suspicious persons and receiving suspicious phone calls in the days prior to the incident. The chairman of the temple said several suspicious men were seen on the premises on Saturday, the day before the shooting.

At a press conference in Oak Creek held Monday morning, authorities said they were attempting to identify another person, a white male, whom they described as “a person of interest.” Reporters for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said a man matching the photo officials had shown was seen at the scene of the temple on Sunday.

Yet the evening news programs on the three major broadcast networks and the Public Broadcasting System dropped any reference to the “person of interest.”

President Obama on Sunday and again on Monday issued short and perfunctory statements of condolence for the victims and their families, exhibiting no desire to examine the social roots of this latest mass killing, coming barely two weeks after the rampage at a movie theater in Colorado that killed 12 and wounded 59. His opponent, Republican Mitt Romney, repeated the well-worn mantra of another “senseless act of violence.”

Page, born in 1971 in Colorado, joined the Army in 1992 and was given a “general discharge” in 1998. He was denied an “honorable” discharge and, in fact, was kicked out for repeated instances of being drunk on duty.

According to officials, Page received his basic training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma before being moved to Fort Bliss in Texas and ending up at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. He joined the psychological operations unit, a branch of the Special Forces. He was a parachutist and received a commendation medal, five achievement medals, two good conduct medals, the National Defense Service Medal and a Humanitarian Service Medal.

After being forced out of the military, Page lived for a time in Lafayette, North Carolina. He is believed to have worked as a truck driver at Barr-Nunn Transportation from 2006 to 2010 and left “involuntarily,” according to an employee at the firm. He lived for a time in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin and moved last month to Cudahy, near Oak Creek, where he worked nights at a welding supply company making parts.

He acquired an arrest record in four states, including for driving while under the influence and passing a bad check, and spent 60-day stints in jail in Texas and Colorado.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a clearinghouse for information on far-right, racist and fascist groups, reported Monday that it had been tracking Page since 2000. In that year he sought to purchase goods from the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group led by William Pierce, the author of The Turner Diaries.

The book depicts a fascist overthrow of the US government followed by a race war, and became something of a Bible of white supremacist elements. Parts of the book were found in the getaway car of Timothy McVeigh, the Gulf War veteran and right-wing militia member who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.

Also in 2000, according to a 2010 interview Page gave to Label 56, a far-right record company, he went to the Hammerfest 2000 in Georgia and joined the white-power rock band Youngland. In 2005 he founded his own band, End Apathy.

On Monday, a human rights group called Responsible for Equality and Liberty (REAL) said someone based in Milwaukee using the name “End Apathy” began posting on the white supremacist web site Stormfront in early 2008. The site promoted appearances by Page’s band, including at a white supremacist gathering held in Richmond, Virginia last March.

The government and media have no desire to probe Page’s fascist links because they raise broader questions about the social and political decay of America. This involves the official promotion of militarism and the cultivation, as part of the so-called “war on terror,” of anti-Muslim and xenophobic sentiment, especially among backward social layers.

Since 9/11, there have been over 700 reported attacks on the 350,000-strong Sikh population living in the US. Sikhs, whose men generally allow their hair and beards to grow long and wear turbans, are commonly mistaken as Muslims, accounting in part for the growth of attacks on them by right-wing elements.

Threats against Sikhs rose to the point that last April, Representative Joseph Crowley of New York, co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Indians and Indian-Americans, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder in which he called on the FBI to collect data on hate crimes against Sikh-Americans. The letter noted that in the last year alone, two Sikh men in Sacramento were slain, a Sikh temple in Michigan was vandalized, and a Sikh man was beaten in New York.

Page’s years in the Army’s psychological operations unit, moreover, throw the spotlight on the military’s recruitment and cultivation of a psychopathic element ready to carry out mass murder against any population targeted by US imperialism for occupation.

By Barry Grey

7 August, 2012

@ WSWS.org

 

Turkey Attacks Kurds, Threatens Military Action Against Syria

On the eve of an expected major offensive in Aleppo by the Syrian regime, Turkey has threatened to invade Syria, using the pretext of Kurdish groups seizing control of northern border areas.

Such a move could pitch Ankara directly into war against Syria, after it has long sought to dictate events through control of the opposition Syrian National Congress and Free Syrian Army.

This would be done with the full support of the United States.

Al Ahram cited reports in the Turkish media that the US embassy in Ankara and the consulate in Adana in southeast Turkey have “been planning military operations against the Baathist regime in Syria with the knowledge of the Turkish government.”

Large numbers of trucks have been seen coming out of the US airbase at Incirlik, laden with arms for distribution to the Syrian opposition.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has warned of an impending massacre in Aleppo, close to the Turkish border, and appealed for action. This is combined with ever escalating rhetoric over the “terrorist threat” posed by the Kurds.

In the past fortnight, up to 115 Kurdish fighters have been killed in a south eastern Turkey in military operations, including air strikes near the town of Semdinli. Sunday saw a counter-offensive in which Kurdish forces raided three military posts near the Iraq border that left at least six soldiers and 14 rebels dead. Turkish officials claim to be combating a 200-strong force of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

Kurds make up 17 percent of Iraq’s 31 million people, including the semi-autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, nine percent of Syria’s 21 million population, and seven to ten percent of Iran’s 75 million people.

Turkey, which has a 25 percent Kurdish population (20 million Kurds) is bitterly opposed to the creation of an independent state. The Turkish army has targeted PKK forces, with which it has been in conflict since 1984 at a cost of 40,000 mainly Kurdish lives. However, the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) has made clear that its ultimate aim is to intervene directly into Syria.

Without naming anyone, Prime Minister Racip Tayyip Erdogan accused foreign countries of backing the Kurdish fighters, who had made “dastardly” attacks on least three military bases. “Turkey has the strength to put enemy nations and circles who hold the strings of the terrorist organisation in their place,” he threatened.

Deputy AKP Chairman Omer Celik stated more directly, “The preparations and multi-pronged attack by the PKK in Hakkari exceeds the PKK’s capabilities. The PKK, in carrying out the attacks in Semdinli and Hakkari, acted in parallel with the massacres carried out by [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad’s forces in Aleppo.”

The AKP has placed itself at the head of the movement to depose Assad, breaking its former alliance with Syria. It calculated that this would secure its leadership of an alliance of Sunni powers, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which the United States is utilising as a proxy through which to establish a client regime in Syria. This would cut Shia Iran off from its major regional ally and deprive Russia and China of a foothold in the Middle East.

It has worked to secure the support of Kurdish groups in Syria and to bring them into the SNC, which is now led by Abdelbaset Sayda—a Kurd living in exile in Sweden. But most Kurds view the SNC with deep suspicion, due to the dominant role played by the Muslim Brotherhood and the involvement of Riyadh and Qatar in funding, arming and training the insurgents. Routine professions of non-sectarianism count for little against the growing weight of Al Qaeda and Salafist forces in the anti-Assad camp.

The most widely supported Kurdish group, the PKK, and its local unofficial affiliate, the Democratic Unionist Party (PYD), initially allied themselves with Assad based upon opposition to the Sunni insurgency and anticipation of being rewarded with some form of autonomy.

In recent days, the transfer of Syrian units to build up a reported Aleppo force of 20,000 has left a vacuum that has been filled by the PYD and other groups that are now said to control four or five of the main towns and cities in northern Syria.

To this threat, Erdogan has stated, “It is our most natural right to intervene since those terrorist formations would disturb our national peace… In the North, (Assad) has already allocated five provinces to the terrorists.”

Turkey has been working to secure some form of accommodation with the leader of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish administration, President Massoud Barzani, to prevent movements in Syria, Iraq and Turkey from meeting up. It sent Davatoglu to the capital, Erbil, on August 1 for talks. A joint statement expressed “deep concern regarding instability and chaos in Syria” that posed “a threat to regional security and stability” and promised co-ordinated efforts to establish a democratic, non-sectarian Syria.

However, this follows an earlier admission by Barzani to al-Jazeera that Syrian Kurds have been trained militarily in Iraq.

Any prospect of a Kurdish autonomous region, whether under Assad or a post-Assad government, is anathema to Ankara. But it is also utilising the Kurdish question as a means of establishing a bridgehead in Syria.

The SNC and the Syrian Kurdish National Council (KNC) have agreed to establish a committee to address Turkey’s concerns about the threat of “terrorism” following a meeting with Davutoglu. Abdulhakim Bashar, the head of the KNC, denounced the PYD as an ally of Assad and stated that the best option for Syrian Kurds is to form a Kurdish confederation affiliated with Turkey.

Stressing the Kurdish threat above all provides Turkey with a casus belli for declaring war on Syria and opening up a second front to complement the invasion of the commercial capital, Aleppo, by FSA and jihadist fighters. Ankara has already moved 2,000 troops to the Syrian border, as well as missiles, helicopters and tanks.

Turkey’s repression of the Kurds is being carried out with the full backing of Washington, which sees Turkey as the best candidate for leading a proxy war in Syria. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to travel to Turkey for talks this week. The Obama administration is presiding over the arming and training of the opposition by its regional allies and has its CIA and military operatives on the ground.

This week the Daily Telegraph reported that the Syrian Support Group (SSG) has been granted a license to send funds to the opposition by the US Treasury, described by the group as a “game changer”.

Washington’s criminal actions in deliberately provoking a sectarian war in Syria are at the centre of a still greater crime. In order to secure unchallenged hegemony over vital oil supplies, the US is allying itself with Al Qaeda elements, the Muslim Brotherhood and Gulf despots to redraw the map of the Middle East in blood.

By Chris Marsden

07 August, 2012

@ WSWS.org

The Dark Heart Of The Libor Scandal

 

Though, for most, the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate (Libor) interest rate fixing scandal appears to be distant and far too complex to understand, its potential consequences may be as economically devastating as a world war.

The Libor is used to set payments on $800 trillion worth of financial instruments. It sets the prices that people and corporations pay for loans and receive for savings. Given that the fraud impacted $10 trillion in consumer loans, the Libor scandal will likely leave a long list of previous financial scandals that contributed to the Great Recession look like child’s play.

It also pulls back the curtain on the mechanisms behind the world economy, its anti-social priorities, its willingness to gamble away the future of billions of people, and the government’s collusion in these operations. The Libor scandal reveals that the “invisible hand” Adam Smith spoke of in explaining how a capitalist economy regulates itself has been transformed into the trained hand of a swindler.

The Libor and Its Problems

The Libor sets interest rates that banks charge one another to borrow on a daily basis. Sixteen (now eighteen) large banks submit their assessment of what they anticipate credit would cost them. The four lowest and four highest calculations are thrown out, and the interest rate is determined as the middle figure among the remaining assessments.

While the method that the banks use to determine the figure they report to Libor is largely arbitrary, it is, nevertheless, assumed that they won’t take advantage of the process to game the system. This is a rather remarkable leap of faith since there are billions of dollars of profit if the banks can find a clever way to sidestep the rules. In contrast to popular knowledge, the Libor expects honor among thieves.

Clearly, this is naive in the extreme. It has recently been revealed that for years the banks worked with one another to submit interest rates to the Libor lower than their actual borrowing costs, thereby covering up the shaky condition they were in. Of even greater consequence, it is now acknowledged that the banks were rigging the Libor since 2005 to make the most profit from their bets on derivatives, and regulators knew it was happening.

So far, London-based Barclays Bank has been fined $455 million by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the U.S. Department of Justice and the UK Financial Services Authority. This is likely a fraction of the money they made from their fraud. Its chief executive, Bob Diamond, was forced to resign, no doubt, with a handsome severance package even if he does have to give up some on the advice of the bank’s board.

Barclays Bank is just the tip of the iceberg. In several countries, 20 big banks are under investigation, including such behemoths as Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, RBS and UBS.

Current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Chairman Ben Bernanke have had to defend the Fed’s response when it first became aware of the fraud in 2008. While Geithner said he was “aggressive” in expressing his concerns, this on-going scandal did not come to light until four years later.

Why the Regulators Failed to Regulate

The explanation for this contradiction is that the fraud the banks were committing was producing outcomes in line with the Federal Reserves own policies, though they were concerned about how flagrantly it was being done. In “The Meaning of Libor-gate” Paul Craig Roberts explains:

It is the prospect of ever-lower interest rates that causes investors to purchase bonds that do not pay a real rate of interest. Bond purchasers make up for the negative interest rate by the rise in price in the bonds caused by the next round of low interest rates. As the Federal Reserve and the banks drive down the interest rate, the issued bonds rise in value, and their purchasers enjoy capital gains.

As the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are themselves fixing interest rates at historic lows in order to mask the insolvency of their respective banking systems, they naturally do not object that the banks themselves contribute to the success of this policy by fixing the Libor rate and by selling massive amounts of interest rate swaps, a way of shorting interest rates and driving them down or preventing them from rising.

The lower Libor is, the higher is the price or evaluations of floating-rate debt instruments, such as CDOs [Collateralized Debt Obligation], and thus the stronger the banks’ balance sheets appear.

Does this mean that the U.S. and UK financial systems can only be kept afloat by fraud that harms purchasers of interest rate swaps, which include municipalities advised by sellers of interest rate swaps, and those with savings accounts?

The answer is yes, but the Libor scandal is only a small part of the interest rate rigging scandal. The Federal Reserve itself has been rigging interest rates. How else could debt issued in profusion be bearing negative interest rates?

Later in the article Roberts succinctly points out:

Imagine the Federal reserve called before Congress or the Department of Justice to answer why it did not report on the fraud perpetrated by private banks, fraud that was supporting the Federal Reserve’s own rigging of interest rates (and the same in the UK.)

The Federal Reserve will reply: “So, you want us to let interest rates go up? Are you prepared to come up with the money to bail out the FDIC-insured depositors of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, etc.? Are you prepared for U.S. Treasury prices to collapse, wiping out bond funds and the remaining wealth in the U.S. and driving up interest rates, making the interest rate on new federal debt necessary to finance the huge budget deficits impossible to pay, and finishing off what is left of the real estate market? Are you prepared to take responsibility, you who deregulated the financial system, for this economic Armageddon?

Obviously, the politicians will say NO and continue with the fraud. The harm to people from a collapse far exceeds the harm in lost interest from fixing the low interest rates in order to forestall collapse. The Federal Reserve will say that we are doing our best to create profits for the banks that will permit us eventually to unwind the fraud and return to normal. Congress will see no better alternative to this.

In short, the Federal Reserve and other political structures have been left to act as subordinate partners in the big banks’ schemes — the tail is wagging the dog.

The Magnitude of the Problem

The level of gambling that is being tolerated without a care by the wheeler and dealers of Wall Street is almost beyond comprehension. For instance, it has been estimated that the world’s annual gross domestic product is valued between $50 trillion and $60 trillion. This is peanuts compared to the exposure of the worlds financial markets to such speculation tools as derivatives. Paul Wilmott has estimated the total amount of derivatives being played in the markets is $1.2 quad-trillion. That is 20 times the amount of money currently in the global economy. As noted earlier, the amount of financial instruments pegged to the Libor alone is $800 trillion.

Despite the obscuring complexity and mathematical models used to justify such inflated figures, the fact of the matter is that they are still inevitably tied to the real economy of production and consumption. The farther they stretch into the stratosphere from this ground level, the more violently they snap back to earth with catastrophic consequences for working people. The Libor scandal combined with the government sanctioned gambling help to create greater economic crises around the bend.

There is no accountability for this mad lust for short-term, even if illusionary, profit at the expense of the economy’s long-term health. Those responsible are sheltered from the devastation they wreak with the hand out line of “too big to fail” and workers’ tax dollars.

This should be no surprise because these crooks own both the Republican and Democratic parties. What better evidence for this than, after being bailed out, the banksters are again continuing their speculative orgy and scandals while workers continue to suffer from the effects of the Great Depression. If the U.S.’s political parties had the least amount of independence from the financial elite, they would have jailed those responsible for the economic crisis, confiscated their funds, sharply raised taxes on the rich, and used this increased revenue for job creation, fully funded education, Medicare for all, and rebuilding our decaying infrastructure.

In addition to denying workers of revenue for these fundamental needs, those behind the Libor scandal have also used their interest rigging to rob already cash strapped municipalities and other local governments. While there are many examples of this that are dealt with in Pam Marten’s “Wall Street’s

Biggest Heist Yet? How the High Wizards of Finance Gutted Our Schools and Cities,” one is enough to get the picture of how it worked:

According to the June 30, 2011 auditor’s report for the City of Oakland, California, the city entered into a swap with Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine Derivatives Products in connection with $187.5 million of muni bonds for Oakland Joint Powers Financing Authority. Under the swap terms, the city would pay Goldman a fixed rate of 5.6775 percent through 2021 and receive a variable rate based on the Bond Market Association index (that was the predecessor name to the SIFMA index). In 2003, the variable rate was changed from being indexed to the Bond Market Association index to being indexed at 65 percent of the one-month Libor rate.

The city is still paying the high fixed rate but it’s receiving a miniscule rate of less than one percent. According to local officials, the city has paid Goldman roughly $32 million more than it has received and could be out another $20 million if it has to hold the swap until 2021. A group called the Oakland Coalition to Stop Goldman Sachs succeeded in getting the City Council to vote on July 3 of this year to stop doing business with Goldman Sachs if it doesn’t allow Oakland to terminate the swap without penalty. It called the vote “a huge victory for both the city of Oakland and for the people throughout the world living under the boot of interest rate swaps.”

Thanks to grass roots pressure, Oakland was fortunate enough to get out of paying the termination fees on the abusive interest rates swaps. This is not normally how it works. According to a March 2010 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) report, from 2006 -2008 the banks have been paid $28 billion in termination fees so state and local governments could get out of similar arrangements. Clearly the requirement to pay such termination fees to get out of abusive interest rate swaps should be voided on a federal level.

The Way Forward

In addition, many, in response to the Libor scandal have called for the re-instatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed under President Clinton. This Act did help to prevent some of the worst current excesses. However, the situation with fraud has reached such monstrous proportions today that such a measure seems to be entirely inadequate. The shattered system.

 

By Mark Vorpahl

07 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

 

 

Obama Trumps AIPAC, Romney, Republicans With Yet More Iranian Sanctions

Beirut: According to the Obama Presidential campaign issues staff, temporarily operating out of the Democratic National Committee HQ at 430 South Capitol Street, SE in Washington DC, Team Obama scored an electoral coup again rival Mitt Romney this week by moving fast to pull the rug from Romney’s hoped for advantage from his obsequious Israel trip. That visit, which ranks among the all-time most groveling led to even Zionist media outlets including the New York Times and Washington Post dissing Mitt’s trip as “un-presidential.”

Obama operative James Carville boasted this week that “Romney & Co. ain’t ready for no major league Presidential campaigning and we’re gonna keep whupping em real bad til November 6th.”

“Slick Jimmy” as Mr. Carville is fondly known back home in Big Easy bars along Bourbon Street as well as some of his associates are explaining why:

The Republican National Committee, now essentially part of the Romney campaign even though it is supposed to stay neutral until the party chooses its nominees at the August 27-30 Tampa, Florida Republican Convention had worked for over a month with AIPAC and Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to help deliver pro-Israel votes and cash to Romney.

The plan was to cap off Romney’s Israel trip with another round of sanctions against Iran which he would promote at a major photo op while bashing Syria in the process. This was to be achieved via yet another law, this time H. R. 1905 named by AIPAC as The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012.

It was last December the Iran Threat Reduction Act draft law on the House side heaped more sanctions on Iran. The problem was that the White House was then tepid and US Senate Foreign Relation Committee Chair, John Kerry (D-Mass) did not cooperate as he continues to work to launch a diplomatic initiative with Tehran on behalf of Obama.

The current AIPAC version has emerged from Israel lobby dominated House-Senate negotiations and it includes the most flagrant layers of sanctions ever enacted to undermine the economy of any country. Congressman Ron Paul rose to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 1905 on 8/1/12 labeling it a “declaration of war against Iran even though Iran has no nuclear weapons program”. And so it is.

H.R. 1905 sponsor and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) was almost giddy as she promised to deliver Florida to Romney and gushed: “This bipartisan, bicameral Iran sanctions legislation strengthens current U.S. law by leaps and bounds and it updates and expands U.S. sanctions, and counters Iran’s efforts to evade them. The bill sends a clear message to the Iranian

mullahs that the U.S. is committed, through the use of sanctions, to preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.” She reminded the media that Romney told Israeli officials in Jerusalem that the Obama administration was not doing enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program and that: “Essentially president Obama is doing nothing!”

H.R. 1905 is a catch all frenzied election year gimmick that lumps together legislative initiatives of all sorts in order to corral votes for Romney immediately after his Israel trip which left little doubt that Israeli leaders believe that Israel will have less leverage to squeeze the US to take on yet another big military action if Obama is re-elected than if Romney wins.

H.R. 1905:

• Puts virtually all of Iran’s energy, financial, and transportation sectors under U.S. sanction. Companies conducting business with Iran in these sectors face losing access to U.S. markets;

• Applies harsh sanctions designed to prevent Iran from repatriating any proceeds from its oil sales, thus depriving Iran of 80 percent of its hard currency earnings and half of the funds to support its national budget for education, health, food subsidies and other needed public purposes;

• Places more tough sanctions on the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC);

• Targets Iran’s use of barter transactions to bypass sanctions, the provision of insurance to Iran’s energy sector, and the provision of specialized financial messaging services to the Central Bank of Iran;

In its letter to Congressmen, designed to aid Mitt Romney, AIPAC writes: “America and our allies must unite in a tough response to Iran’s belligerent approach. We must continue to send a strong message to Tehran that it will face unremitting pressure until it complies with its international obligations and end its nuclear weapons quest. We strongly support The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (H.R. 1905) and urge you to vote YES.”

The letter is signed by the following AIPAC supporters of Romney: Howard Kohr, Executive Director, Marvin Feuer, Director, Policy & Government Affairs, and Brad Gordon, Director of Special Campaigns.

Learning what the Israeli lobby was attempting from its contacts at AIPAC, Obama campaign strategists moved fast and decided to have their candidate use his constitutional powers and undercut the Romney strategists toute de suite. Obama did and angered AIPAC and Republican leaders in Congress before the lopsided House vote on 7/12/12 when the White House quickly invited supporters of Israel to a media event at which the President issued an Executive Order which he explained included “ Two major actions to further isolate and penalize Iran for its refusal to live up to its international obligations regarding its nuclear program and to hold accountable financial institutions that knowingly provide financial services to Iranian banks.”

As a result of pre-empting AIPAC’s H.R. 1905, and despite ‘feel good’ further action by Congress on H.R. 1905, the Obama campaign says they gutted the AIPAC/Republican/Romney scheme while once more assuring Israel and its lobby of Obama’s willingness to use all his Constitutional powers on Israel’s behalf and to target its “existential threat” Iran.

According to two congressional insiders, the quick witted maneuver by the Obama campaign is a key reason their candidate currently leads in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania while reminding the media that no presidential candidate since 1960 has won the White House without carrying two of these three states.

Meanwhile, Romney operatives are seeking alternative ways to convince Israel to maintain its support and cash for his campaign during the next nine weeks of what “Slick Jimmy” is calling, “American Democracy at work.”

By Franklin Lamb

07 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

Franklin P. Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut and Board Member, The Sabra Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Beirut-Washington DC Email: fplamb@gmail.com

Iran Sanctions: US War Of Nerves

 

In continuation of the US-led illegal sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran, Congress passed on Wednesday night a bill, which imposes more embargoes on the country including those on the parent companies of foreign subsidiaries violating sanctions as well adding penalties for those that help Iran’s petroleum, petrochemical, insurance, shipping and financial sectors.

Immediately, US Congressman Ron Paul expressed his vociferous opposition to the new sanctions and vilified them as “an act of war”, saying that the US is marching into war with Iran.

Paul said, “There is no evidence that Iran has ever enriched uranium above 20 percent.” He also said the IAEA and CIA have determined that the Iran is not on the verge of building a nuclear weapon. “What we continue to be doing is obsess with Iran and the idea that Iran is a threat to our national security.”

The idea was somehow shared by senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati who on Friday called on people and authorities to stand united against the “economic war” waged on the Islamic Republic by foreign forces.

Sharing this line of thinking, Governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) Mahmoud Bahmani has said that CBI considers the sanctions as a declaration of war and that a special team has been set up to deal with them dynamically. He said the economic sanctions are meant to sabotage national economy and that the CBI will thwart them rapidly and effectively.

It is transpiring gradually that a country does not need to wage a military war against another nation in an effort to paralyze it and that imposing brutal sanctions or tightening them can be well tantamount to an act of war.

The US war against Iran has already started. In fact, the US started its war long ago by imposing sanctions on the country when it was slowly recovering from the human and financial losses (roughly USD 600 billion) the Iraqi war had inflicted on the country, a war so shamelessly, vehemently and financially supported by Washington.

Later, reports revealed that the US government funneled through an Atlanta branch of Italy’s largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro over USD 4 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. The money, which was supplied to the regime of the despotic Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein, was used to buy military technology and arms. The CIA was reportedly privy to this gargantuan sum of money which was paid in the name of loan but concealed it from Congress. Part of the report carried by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reads: “The House Banking Committee is conducting an investigation into over $4 billion in unreported loans the former employees of the Atlanta branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL)

provided to the government of Iraq between 1985 and 1990. The Committee’s investigation has uncovered the fact that Henry Kissinger was on the International Advisory Board of BNL during that same time period and that BNL was a client of Kissinger Associates.”

The sanctions against Iran practically started under the Reagan administration in 1983 when the US government accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and opposed international loans to the country. The US imposed embargos against Iranian imports and also the sale of ‘dual use’ items.

The US narrative continued in 1995 when Washington absurdly accused Iran of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, a fairy tale which was later exploited by the Bush administration to attack Iraq in 2003 and that which was used by Washington to lend a cloak of legitimacy to its military adventurism. At any rate, US President Bill Clinton intensified sanctions against the country, banning any American involvement with the Iranian petroleum industry. In 1997, he placed a ban on US investment in Iran. To make matters worse, Clinton even goaded other countries into following suit. In view of the fact that the Iraq-imposed war on Iran (1980-1988) had inflicted inconceivable human and material losses on Iran and that the country had just started to convalesce from the lashes of the Iraqi invasion, it was more like a miracle that Iran had managed to weather this entire US-manufactured calamity for the Iranian nation.

Washington has long been making unflagging efforts to push Iran to the farthest margins of political and economic isolation even when Iran was not working on its nuclear energy program. The West has failed to understand that Iran is not a country solely dependent on oil resources. Rather, it has at its disposal myriad natural resources to rely on. Ergo, blocking Iran’s oil flow to other countries will not be so damaging to the country as the West imagines. On the contrary, such an act will surely prove irreversibly damaging to world economy; the oil prices will rocket up beyond control; the global economic security will be caught up in an unmanageable whirlpool and the rest of the world including the US and Europe will have to suffer immensely for this strategic folly.

The sanctions are nothing new and the western media flowery phrases like ‘Iran feels the pain of sanctions’, ‘The sting of sanctions begins’, ‘Iran feels the pinch of US-led sanctions’ are only meant to cater for the public taste of western audience who are now prone to see Iran through the purblind eyes of the corrupt western powers-that-be which have long entertained sinister plots for the Iranian nation.

To a critical mind, the sanctions are to be seen as a metaphorical declaration of war on Iran albeit the US and its allies will be the ones who will suffer most.

 

By Dr. Ismail Salami

07 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

 

Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian writer, Middle East expert, Iranologist and lexicographer. He writes extensively on the US and Middle East issues and his articles have been translated into a number of languages.

 

Heat, Drought, Rising Food Costs, And Global Unrest

The Great Drought of 2012 has yet to come to an end, but we already know that its consequences will be severe. With more than one-half of America’s counties designated as drought disaster areas, the 2012 harvest of corn, soybeans, and other food staples is guaranteed to fall far short of predictions. This, in turn, will boost food prices domestically and abroad, causing increased misery for farmers and low-income Americans and far greater hardship for poor people in countries that rely on imported U.S. grains.

This, however, is just the beginning of the likely consequences: if history is any guide, rising food prices of this sort will also lead to widespread social unrest and violent conflict.

Food — affordable food — is essential to human survival and well-being. Take that away, and people become anxious, desperate, and angry. In the United States, food represents only about 13% of the average household budget, a relatively small share, so a boost in food prices in 2013 will probably not prove overly taxing for most middle- and upper-income families. It could, however, produce considerable hardship for poor and unemployed Americans with limited resources. “You are talking about a real bite out of family budgets,” commented Ernie Gross, an agricultural economist at Omaha’s Creighton University. This could add to the discontent already evident in depressed and high-unemployment areas, perhaps prompting an intensified backlash against incumbent politicians and other forms of dissent and unrest.

It is in the international arena, however, that the Great Drought is likely to have its most devastating effects. Because so many nations depend on grain imports from the U.S. to supplement their own harvests, and because intense drought and floods are damaging crops elsewhere as well, food supplies are expected to shrink and prices to rise across the planet. “What happens to the U.S. supply has immense impact around the world,” says Robert Thompson, a food expert at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As the crops most affected by the drought, corn and soybeans, disappear from world markets, he noted, the price of all grains, including wheat, is likely to soar, causing immense hardship to those who already have trouble affording enough food to feed their families.

The Hunger Games, 2007-2011

What happens next is, of course, impossible to predict, but if the recent past is any guide, it could turn ugly. In 2007-2008, when rice, corn, and wheat experienced prices hikes of 100% or more, sharply higher prices — especially for bread — sparked “food riots” in more than two dozen countries, including Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Senegal, and Yemen. In Haiti, the rioting became so

violent and public confidence in the government’s ability to address the problem dropped so precipitously that the Haitian Senate voted to oust the country’s prime minister, Jacques-Édouard Alexis. In other countries, angry protestors clashed with army and police forces, leaving scores dead.

Those price increases of 2007-2008 were largely attributed to the soaring cost of oil, which made food production more expensive. (Oil’s use is widespread in farming operations, irrigation, food delivery, and pesticide manufacture.) At the same time, increasing amounts of cropland worldwide were being diverted from food crops to the cultivation of plants used in making biofuels.

The next price spike in 2010-11 was, however, closely associated with climate change. An intense drought gripped much of eastern Russia during the summer of 2010, reducing the wheat harvest in that breadbasket region by one-fifth and prompting Moscow to ban all wheat exports. Drought also hurt China’s grain harvest, while intense flooding destroyed much of Australia’s wheat crop. Together with other extreme-weather-related effects, these disasters sent wheat prices soaring by more than 50% and the price of most food staples by 32%.

Once again, a surge in food prices resulted in widespread social unrest, this time concentrated in North Africa and the Middle East. The earliest protests arose over the cost of staples in Algeria and then Tunisia, where — no coincidence — the precipitating event was a young food vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, setting himself on fire to protest government harassment. Anger over rising food and fuel prices combined with long-simmering resentments about government repression and corruption sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. The rising cost of basic staples, especially a loaf of bread, was also a cause of unrest in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. Other factors, notably anger at entrenched autocratic regimes, may have proved more powerful in those places, but as the author of Tropic of Chaos, Christian Parenti, wrote, “The initial trouble was traceable, at least in part, to the price of that loaf of bread.”

As for the current drought, analysts are already warning of instability in Africa, where corn is a major staple, and of increased popular unrest in China, where food prices are expected to rise at a time of growing hardship for that country’s vast pool of low-income, migratory workers and poor peasants. Higher food prices in the U.S. and China could also lead to reduced consumer spending on other goods, further contributing to the slowdown in the global economy and producing yet more worldwide misery, with unpredictable social consequences.

The Hunger Games, 2012-??

If this was just one bad harvest, occurring in only one country, the world would undoubtedly absorb the ensuing hardship and expect to bounce back in the years to come. Unfortunately, it’s becoming evident that the Great Drought of 2012 is not a one-off event in a single heartland nation, but rather an inevitable consequence of global warming which is only going to intensify. As a result, we can expect not just more bad years of extreme heat, but worse years, hotter and more often, and not just in the United States, but globally for the indefinite future.

Until recently, most scientists were reluctant to blame particular storms or droughts on global warming. Now, however, a growing number of scientists believe that such links can be demonstrated in certain cases. In one recent study focused on extreme weather events in 2011, for instance, climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Great Britain’s National Weather Service concluded that human-induced climate change has made intense heat waves of the kind experienced in Texas in 2011 more likely than ever before. Published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, it reported that global warming had ensured that the incidence of that Texas heat wave was 20 times more likely than it would have been in 1960; similarly, abnormally warm temperatures like those experienced in Britain last November were said to be 62 times as likely because of global warming.

It is still too early to apply the methodology used by these scientists to calculating the effect of global warming on the heat waves of 2012, which are proving to be far more severe, but we can assume the level of correlation will be high. And what can we expect in the future, as the warming gains momentum?

When we think about climate change (if we think about it at all), we envision rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, freakish storms, hellish wildfires, and rising sea levels. Among other things, this will result in damaged infrastructure and diminished food supplies. These are, of course, manifestations of warming in the physical world, not the social world we all inhabit and rely on for so many aspects of our daily well-being and survival. The purely physical effects of climate change will, no doubt, prove catastrophic. But the social effects including, somewhere down the line, food riots, mass starvation, state collapse, mass migrations, and conflicts of every sort, up to and including full-scale war, could prove even more disruptive and deadly.

In her immensely successful young-adult novel The Hunger Games (and the movie that followed), Suzanne Collins riveted millions with a portrait of a dystopian, resource-scarce, post-apocalyptic future where once-rebellious “districts” in an impoverished North America must supply two teenagers each year for a series of televised gladiatorial games that end in death for all but one of the youthful contestants. These “hunger games” are intended as recompense for the damage inflicted on the victorious capitol of Panem by the rebellious districts during an insurrection. Without specifically mentioning global warming, Collins makes it clear that climate change was significantly responsible for the hunger that shadows the North American continent in this future era. Hence, as the gladiatorial contestants are about to be selected, the mayor of District 12’s principal city describes “the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land [and] the brutal war for what little sustenance remained.”

In this, Collins was prescient, even if her specific vision of the violence on which such a world might be organized is fantasy. While we may never see her version of those hunger games, do not doubt that some version of them will come into existence — that, in fact, hunger wars of many sorts will fill our future. These could include any combination or permutation of the deadly riots that led to the 2008 collapse of Haiti’s government, the pitched battles between massed protesters and security forces that engulfed parts of Cairo as the Arab Spring developed, the ethnic struggles over disputed croplands and water sources that have made Darfur a recurring headline of horror in our world, or the inequitable

distribution of agricultural land that continues to fuel the insurgency of the Maoist-inspired Naxalites of India.

Combine such conflicts with another likelihood: that persistent drought and hunger will force millions of people to abandon their traditional lands and flee to the squalor of shantytowns and expanding slums surrounding large cities, sparking hostility from those already living there. One such eruption, with grisly results, occurred in Johannesburg’s shantytowns in 2008 when desperately poor and hungry migrants from Malawi and Zimbabwe were set upon, beaten, and in some cases burned to death by poor South Africans. One terrified Zimbabwean, cowering in a police station from the raging mobs, said she fled her country because “there is no work and no food.” And count on something else: millions more in the coming decades, pressed by disasters ranging from drought and flood to rising sea levels, will try to migrate to other countries, provoking even greater hostility. And that hardly begins to exhaust the possibilities that lie in our hunger-games future.

At this point, the focus is understandably on the immediate consequences of the still ongoing Great Drought: dying crops, shrunken harvests, and rising food prices. But keep an eye out for the social and political effects that undoubtedly won’t begin to show up here or globally until later this year or 2013. Better than any academic study, these will offer us a hint of what we can expect in the coming decades from a hunger-games world of rising temperatures, persistent droughts, recurring food shortages, and billions of famished, desperate people.

By Michael T. Klare

07 August, 2012

@ TomDispatch.com

Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left (Metropolitan Books). A documentary movie based on his book Blood and Oil can be previewed and ordered at www.bloodandoilmovie.com. You can follow Klare on Facebook by clicking here.

Copyright 2012 Michael T. Klare

The Extrajudicial Killing of Willem Geertman: An Attack on Christian Missions

We grieve and condemn in the strongest terms the killing of Dutch missionary Willem Geertman, 67, who has lived a good 46 years among the people of Quezon province in Luzon until his death on July 3 last week.

President Benigno Aquino III’s conscience should be haunted by this latest killing. But no, he forms another futile Task Force which, like all the others, indicates that the government is turning another blind eye on this yet another murder of a foreign missionary in the country.

Already, the signs that authorities are in denial mode over the political nature of the killing can be seen in the preposterous claim that robbery was the motive here.  Who is the government fooling? This government has produced the most ridiculous of cover-ups for state-sponsored abductions, murders, enforced evacuations, and other human rights violations against grassroots leaders, activists, and community folk.

Like the killing of Italian Missionary Fr. FaustoTentorio, PIME in October last year, and of Protestant Bishop Alberto Ramento in 2006, Geertman’s murder is not caused by petty thieves. It is traced to the state’s Internal Peace and Security Plan (IPSP) which targets ‘enemies of the state’. The Dutch missionary was forced to kneel before his assassins then he was gunned down.

Another life has been sacrificed at the altar of the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ Oplan Bayanihan. What hypocrisy for the AFP to mouth ‘Peace! Peace!’ when behind the rhetoric of the IPSP is the intent to silence those who truly work for justice and peace!

Geertman’s killing bespeaks of an escalating attack on Christian missions.

Many foreign and Filipino religious missionaries in the country are experiencing surveillance, harassment, and political killings by state security forces ranging from paramilitaries, AFP-backed fanatical cults, militaries, police, and assassin-at-large General Palparan and his ilk. Often, missionaries live among the poorest of the poor in the remotest of areas initiating programs to provide what the government has neglected to give — education, health, livelihood, and even their sense of dignity as communities.

Missionary works have been empowering communities through years of raising awareness on their human dignity and rights. Oplan Bayanihan reverses this impact by intimidating missionaries and silencing them forever.

Their work stands in stark contrast against the superficial social welfare dole-outs like the Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) and the counter-insurgency ‘peace and development’ projects of Oplan Bayanihan. Missionary works, including those by women religious in Mindanao, have led to the strengthening of community positions against largescale mining and other projects that destroy livelihoods and the environment. Government social welfare programs particularly those taken over and carried out by the AFP seek to force communities to accede to ‘development’ aggression.

We direct our indignation to President Aquino who boasts of billion-dollar foreign investments that plunder our people’s labor and the environment but fails to see that enlightened foreign missionaries are God’s grace to the poor and the oppressed.

We thank Willem for being God’s missionary who fulfilled and lived the belief that “As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel must not be considered as theory but, above all else, a basis and a motivation for action.” (No. 57, Centesimus Annus)

Justice for Willem Geertman!

Stop killing our Missionaries and Prophets!

STATEMENT

July 6, 2012

@ Sister’s Association in Mindanao

For reference:

Sr. Noemi P. Degala, SMSM

Executive Secretary

Mobile 0929-446-3684

Rio+20 Draft Text Is 283 Paragraphs Of Fluff

In 1992, world leaders signed up to something called “sustainability”. Few of them were clear about what it meant; I suspect that many of them had no idea. Perhaps as a result, it did not take long for this concept to mutate into something subtly different: “sustainable development”. Then it made a short jump to another term: “sustainable growth”. And now, in the 2012 Rio+20 text that world leaders are about to adopt, it has subtly mutated once more: into “sustained growth”.

This term crops up 16 times in the document, where it is used interchangeably with sustainability and sustainable development. But if sustainability means anything, it is surely the opposite of sustained growth. Sustained growth on a finite planet is the essence of unsustainability.

As political economist Robert Skidelsky, who comes at this issue from a different angle, observes in the Guardian today:

“Aristotle knew of insatiability only as a personal vice; he had no inkling of the collective, politically orchestrated insatiability that we call economic growth. The civilization of “always more” would have struck him as moral and political madness. And, beyond a certain point, it is also economic madness. This is not just or mainly because we will soon enough run up against the natural limits to growth. It is because we cannot go on for much longer economising on labour faster than we can find new uses for it.”

Several of the more outrageous deletions proposed by the United States – such as any mention of rights or equity or of common but differentiated responsibilities – have been rebuffed. In other respects the Obama government’s purge has succeeded, striking out such concepts as “unsustainable consumption and production patterns” and the proposed decoupling of economic growth from the use of natural resources.

At least the states due to sign this document haven’t ripped up the declarations from the last Earth summit, 20 years ago. But in terms of progress since then, that’s as far as it goes. Reaffirming the Rio 1992 commitments is perhaps the most radical principle in the entire declaration.

As a result, the draft document, which seems set to become the final document, takes us precisely nowhere: 190 governments have spent 20 years bracing themselves to “acknowledge”, “recognise” and express “deep concern” about the world’s environmental crises, but not to do anything about them.

This paragraph from the declaration sums up the problem for me:

“We recognise that the planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home and that Mother Earth is a common expression in a number of countries and regions and we note that some countries recognise the rights of nature in the context of the promotion of sustainable development. We are convinced that in order to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and environment needs of present and future generations, it is necessary to promote harmony with nature.”

It sounds lovely, doesn’t it? It could be illustrated with rainbows and psychedelic unicorns and stuck on the door of your toilet. But without any proposed means of implementation, it might just as well be deployed for a different function in the same room.

The declaration is remarkable for its absence of figures, dates and targets. It is as stuffed with meaningless platitudes as an advertisement for payday loans, but without the necessary menace. There is nothing to work with here, no programme, no sense of urgency or call for concrete action beyond the inadequate measures already agreed in previous flaccid declarations. Its tone and contents would be better suited to a retirement homily than a response to a complex of escalating global crises.

The draft and probably final declaration is 283 paragraphs of fluff. It suggests that the 190 governments due to approve it have, in effect, given up on multilateralism, given up on the world and given up on us. So what do we do now? That is the topic I intend to address in my column next week.

By George Monbiot

24 June, 2012
Monbiot.com

George Monbiot is an English writer, known for his environmental and political activism. He writes a weekly column for The Guardian, and is the author of a number of books, including Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain, and Bring on the Apocalypse: Six Arguments for Global Justice. His website ishttp://www.monbiot.com