Archives: Articles

Statement to the United Nations climate change meeting (COP17), adopted by the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC), December 3, 2011, Durban, South Africa

We, the Indigenous Peoples of the world, united in the face of the climate crisis and the lack of political will of the States, especially the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, demand the immediate adoption of legally binding agreements with shared but differentiated responsibilities, to halt global warming and to define alternative models of development in harmony with Mother Earth.

For decades, Indigenous Peoples have warned that climate change confirms that the harmonic relationship between humans and Mother Earth has been ruptured, endangering the future of humanity in its entirety. The whole model of civilization that began 500 years ago with the pillaging of the natural resources for profit and the accumulation of capital, is in crisis. The alternative is to change the system, not the climate, based on a new paradigm for civilization, Living Well with harmony between the peoples and Mother Earth.

OUR PROPOSALS

General Framework:

>> Recognize and respect the self determination of Indigenous Peoples, in particular our rights to territories and natural resources , in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

>> Ensure and guarantee the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples at all levels, respecting the processes based on consultation and free, prior and informed consent in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

>> Recognize, respect and strengthen the fundamental contribution of the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous Peoples.

>> Review the concepts of development based on the accumulation of wealth that emphasizes unlimited exploitation of natural resources.

Shared Vision:

>> We urge developed countries to agree on a framework of legally binding commitments on concrete greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction targets as the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol that ends in 2012.

>> We propose emissions reductions of at least 45% to 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 95% by 2050.

>> Gradual elimination of the development of fossil fuels and a moratorium on new fossil fuel exploitation in or near Indigenous Peoples lands and territories, respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

>> Shared vision for long-term cooperation must not be limited to defining the increase of temperature and the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere, but rather it must include in an integral and balanced manner a set of financing, technological measures on adaptation, capacity building, patterns of production, consumption and other essential issues like the recognition of the rights of Mother Earth to reestablish our harmony with nature.

Technology Transfer:

>> Knowledge is universal and may not for any reason be subject to private property and use, and neither should its application in the form of technology. Developed countries should share their technology with developing countries.

>> Technology transfer and installation should be immediate, timely, free of any costs, in harmony with Mother Earth and free of conditions, whether they are related to already patented technologies or unreleased information.

>> Establish guidelines for creating a multilateral and multidisciplinary mechanism for continuous participatory control, management and evaluation of technology exchange. These technologies should be useful, clean and socially appropriate.

>> Establish a fund for financing and inventory of appropriate technologies that are free of intellectual property rights, especially patents that should be transferred from private monopolies to the public domain with free access and at low cost

Adaptation and mitigation:

>> Guarantee respect, protection and promotion of indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge and sustainable livelihoods, including the cultural and spiritual aspects.

>> Public policies and funds should prioritize full recognition of indigenous peoples’ territory. Indigenous Peoples own natural resource use, management and conservation systems should be recognized and promoted.

>> The monitoring, reporting and verification system should not be limited to measuring changes in forest coverage, but rather incorporate social variables, specifically those related to the fulfillment of indigenous rights.

>> All mitigation and adaptation evaluation, recovery and development actions should incorporate indigenous peoples’ knowledge and technologies, subject to their free, prior and informed consent and also guarantee the full participation of indigenous experts.

>> We demand that the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues recommend to the United Nations High Commission that Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples prepare a report about the impacts of climate change on indigenous peoples.

>> The States should ensure that indigenous peoples have the right of mobility and are not forced to relocate far from their traditional territories and lands and that the rights of peoples in voluntary isolation are respected.

>> With regards to climate change migration, adequate programs and measures shall be in accordance with their rights, statutes, conditions and vulnerabilities.

Financing:

>> All financing mechanisms for climate change mitigation and adaptation must be established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and directly provide resources to Indigenous Peoples.

>> To establish participatory mechanisms to guarantee transparency and accountability in all the funding procedures and operations. The resources should come from public monies and be additional to the funds for development aid.

>> To establish a special fund that allows Indigenous Peoples and local communities to develop their own activities and contributions to address climate change.

>> Developed countries must commit new annual funding of at least 6% of its gross national product to face climate change in the developing countries.

>> Funding must be direct, without conditioning and not violate the sovereignty nor the self determination of Indigenous Peoples.

>> The international financial institutions, like the World Bank, must no administer the funds created or to be created because they finance projects that contribute to global warming and especially now that the World Bank pretends to eliminate the safeguards on Indigenous Peoples with the “Program for Results” – P4R

>> Developed countries, the principal countries that have caused climate change, must assume their historic and current responsibility and recognize and honor their climate debt fully, which is the basis for a just, effective, scientific solution to climate change.

>> In the framework of climate debt, we demand that the developed countries return to the developing countries the atmospheric space that is occupied by their GHG emissions.

Carbon markets and related mechanisms:

The IIPFCC reiterates that the majority of the world’s forests are found in Indigenous Peoples’ lands and territories.

The IIPFCC rejects carbon trading and forest carbon offsets which commodify, privatize and commercialize forests. We are profoundly concerned that REDD+ jeopardizes the future of humanity by providing polluters with cheap permits to pollute thus further entrenching fossil fuel use, which is the major cause of the climate crisis. REDD++ also threatens the survival of Indigenous Peoples and may result in the biggest land grab of all time.

The Cancun Accords failed to provide legally binding safeguards on the rights of Indigenous peoples and REDD+ type projects are already resulting in the violation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. REDD+ promotes industrial plantations and can include the planting of genetically modified trees.

Furthermore, the inclusion of soils and agricultural practices in REDD+ and other carbon marketing schemes could commodify almost the entire surface of Mother Earth.

Similarly, we also reject using the algae of the oceans for REDD+ projects.

Forests are most successfully conserved and managed with indigenous forest governance and recognition, demarcation and titling of Indigenous Peoples’ collective land and territories.

By IIPFCC

8 December 2011

Climateandcapitalism.com

When I heard the President speak to returning troops last week, my mind flashed back to an article I once wrote for our local newspaper. Each week a different member of the local clergy would write a column, and I had been asked to write the piece for Christmas. That year all I could hear was the drumbeat leading toward a war with Iraq. I racked my brain trying to think of a way to put faces on the people we were about to bomb. Looking at a nativity scene I thought, “the people we are about to kill look like that.” Maybe a reframed Christmas story could help Americans stop hating Saddam long enough to care about the people who will pay the real cost of this invasion. I submitted the following article, covering the Christmas story the way the U.S. press was covering the build-up to the Iraq war. Looking back, I should have known what was about to happen.

Christmas Cancelled as a Security Measure

(Ellis Island) The three wise men were arrested today attempting to enter the country. The Iraqi nationals were carrying massive amounts of flammable substances known as “frankincense” and “myrrh.” While not explosives themselves, experts revealed that these two substances could be used as a fuse to detonate a larger bomb. The three alleged terrorists were also carrying gold, presumably to finance the rest of their mission.

Also implicated in the plot were two Palestinians named Joseph and Mary. An anonymous source close to the family overheard Mary bragging that her son would “bring down the mighty from their thrones and lift up the lowly.” In what appears to be a call to anarchy, the couple claims their son will someday “help prisoners escape captivity.” “These people match our terrorist profile perfectly,” an official source reported.

All of the suspects claimed they heard angels singing of a new era of hope for the afflicted and poor. As one Wall Street official put it, “These one world wackos are talking about overturning the entire economic and political hierarchy that holds the civilized world together. I don’t care what some angel sang; God wants the status quo -by definition.”

A somber White House press secretary announced that it might be prudent to cancel Christmas until others in the plot are rounded up. “I assure you that this measure is temporary. The President loves Christmas as much as anyone. People can still shop and give expensive gifts, but we’re asking them not to think about world peace until after we have rid the world of evil people. For Americans to sing, ‘peace on earth, good will to all’, is just the wrong message to send to our enemies at this time.”

The strongest opponents of the Christmas ban were the representatives of retail stores, movie chains and makers of porcelain Christmas figurines. “This is a tempest in a teapot,” fumed one unnamed business owner. “No one thinks of the political meaning of Christmas any more. Christmas isn’t about a savior who will bring hope to the outcasts of the world; it’s about nativity scenes and beautiful lights. History has shown that mature people are perfectly capable of singing hymns about world peace while still supporting whatever war our leaders deem necessary. People long ago stopped tying religion to the real events in the world.”

There has been no word on where the suspects are being kept, or when their trial might be held. Authorities are asking citizens who see other foreigners resembling nativity scene figures to contact the Office of Homeland Security.

A few days after submitting that piece, I received a nervous call from an editor. “We love your story. It’s very funny.”

“Thank you,” I said waiting for the other shoe to fall.

“The thing is, we want to take out the part about Iraq and Palestine.”

After a horrified pause, I explained that had been the whole point of writing the story — to humanize the people who were about to be killed. When I refused to gut the story, he told me they would have to drop it all together.

I shouldn’t have been surprised. Clergy who want to talk about real events in the world are seen as too political for the religious section, and too religious for the political section. Of course, if a minister gets in the pulpit and waves the flag and prays for the troops, that’s not called “political”, but if a minister questions any war, then it is considered mixing religion and politics. The resulting pablum in most clergy columns validates their strategic placement somewhere between the obituaries and the comics.

What have we learned as a result of the war? That was answered by Obama’s words to the returning troops:

“Because of you — because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met — Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That’s part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don’t make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it’s right. There can be no fuller expression of America’s support for self-determination than our leaving Iraq to its people. That says something about who we are.”

Looking back at my earlier Christmas article, I feel pain not pride at what the President said. His speech to returning troops could have been taken from any leader, of any nation, from any period of history, simply by changing the names and places. It is the kind of speech every leader has given since the emperors: brave and noble words, written in someone else’s blood. This President who ran, in part, against this war, has come to repeat the party line. This President, who once spoke of respect for all people of the world, has now deported more immigrants than Bush.

Hearing another speech expressing our nation’s narcissistic delusion made me physically ill. I could not help but think of the bloody wake such rhetoric leaves behind when put into action. The fact that we are leaving Iraq at this point says nothing about the purity of our initial motives. Even bank robbers don’t stay around after the crime has been committed. I appreciate trying to make our young soldiers not feel like they were pawns in someone else’s parlor game, but for the sake of future generations we must painfully remember and affirm, that is exactly what happened.

We, from the United States, are not like the people in our nativity scenes. We are like the Romans looming ominously in the background of the story. Christmas is about the little people of the world who find joy and meaning while living under someone else’s boot. We from the United States can only celebrate Christmas by ending our cultural narcissism, renouncing empire, and making room for the poor and the weak of the world like Joseph and Mary.

Christmas is not a fact of history, but Christianity’s particular symbol of every human being’s hope for world peace and universal happiness. When the angels sang, “peace on earth good will to all,” they were expressing the song written in every heart. But, that song calls us out of empire and into our entire human family. Maybe stopping the frenzy of Christmas long enough to really hear the song the angels sang to the wretched of the earth, would give us the humanity to stop hanging our Christmas lights until we no longer kill our brothers and sisters for the fuel to illumine them.

“O ye beneath life’s crushing load, whose forms are bending low,

Who toil along the climbing way with painful steps and slow;

Look now, for glad and golden hours come swiftly on the wing;

Oh rest beside the weary road and hear the angels sing.”

By Jim Rigby

19 December 2011

Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin,

This weekend millions of cultural Christians throughout the world will flock into churches and sing “O Little Town of Bethlehem” and hear stories of Nazareth and Jerusalem.

Too few know the 21st century realities about the land where Jesus/AKA The Prince of Peace promised that the Peacemakers are the children of God.

The indigenous Christian population in the Holy Land has shrunk from 20% in 1948 to less than 2% in Israel and the West Bank today.

In 1970, The World Christian Database reported that the Christian population in the West Bank was 5.3% of that population and in 2011 their numbers have shrunk to half that.

Most all Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land never even visit the occupied territories or meet a Palestinian Christian for they tour with Israeli led groups and miss the reality tours conducted by organizations like SABEEL.

The day is rapidly approaching when that troubled piece of real estate many claim is holy will be bereft of the most highly educated and consistently nonviolent Palestinians –the indigenous Palestinian Christians/AKA The Forgotten Faithful.

Researches predict that if things do not change very soon, Holy Land churches will be nothing more than museums for Christian communities across the region are declining due to low birth rates coupled with increasing emigration due to the persecution and violence rooted in the now 44 years of Military occupation of Palestine.

Some Christian leaders and many politicians claim the rise of radical Islam in the area is causing the decline of indigenous Christians and it does contribute, but the bigger truth is that it is religious fundamentalism within Judaism and Christianity entwined with Israeli-USA government policies versus justice and equal human rights for Palestinians that is most culpable!

In Israel, the indigenous Palestinians are labeled “Israeli-Arabs” and approximately 9% are Christian.

There are also growing numbers of Messianic Jews whose ethnicity is Jewish but they recognize Christ as the Messiah and they are supported by global Christian Zionists who profess strong support for Jewish people but are blind, deaf and dumb to their sisters and brothers in Christ: the indigenous Palestinian Christians who are most Forgotten Faithful.

The little town of Bethlehem is festooned with sparkling decorations but for those who know the brutal truth it is just smoke and mirrors over the military occupation of Palestine.

Nabil Giacaman, co-owner of a souvenir shop called Christmas House is a third-generation woodcarver who daily witnesses around 200 tour buses that roll in from the Israeli side of The Wall for a quick visit to the Church of the Nativity. The pilgrim-tourists are all escorted directly from the bus to the church and then back again without any time to browse the nearby shops.

Giacaman laments, “My total sales the other day were $4.13. My shop is in the middle of it all, but it gets worse every year. We have tourists, but not profits.” [1]

The decades-old political conflict aided and abetted by USA foreign policy also is an economic battle raging between Israel and the West Bank based Palestinian Authority and the livelihoods of all Palestinian merchants.

“At 1.1 million a year, the number of Christian pilgrims — those who describe their visit as chiefly spiritual in purpose — now surpasses Jewish tourism to Israel. Many of the top Christian sites are in the West Bank, and tourists have been returning in droves thanks to a recent lull in violence.

“Many Christian pilgrims belie the image of austere travelers sleeping in religious hostels. These visitors, mostly Catholics and Christian evangelicals, spend about $200 a day on hotels, restaurants and souvenirs, compared with an average of $140 for all tourists, according to Israeli figures.” [Ibid]

That would be gospel/good news for Palestinian businesspeople but the simple truth is that most all visitors to the Holy Land arrive by air in Israel and immediately join Israeli-led tours so they never get to see what is hid behind the faux-painted and extensively landscaped apartheid wall which is adorned with graffiti-against the occupation in the West Bank.

Recently, Israel’s Tourism Ministry opened a “religious affairs desk” and launched Christian-themed websites and a YouTube channel to entice them.

The Israeli government is also providing free trips for government officials and religious leaders from Latin America, Africa and Europe and in 2011, 81 members of Congress took an AIPAC political vacation and never spent an hour in occupied territory.

For Christmas, Israel is offering free bus transportation to Bethlehem for midnight Mass so that the pilgrims can avoid the lengthy wait at Israeli checkpoints. The Tourism Ministry is also promoting an alternative to Bethlehem [under the control of the Palestinian Authority] by inviting pilgrims and foreign diplomats to the Israeli city of upper Nazareth for a Christmas market which will be staffed by Israelis and no doubt supplied with goods made in the settlements-all of which are illegal under international law.

Palestinian Authority Tourism Minister Kholoud Daibes, contends that Israel collects 90% of pilgrim-related revenue and said, “They are promoting occupied territory as part of Israel.” [Ibid]

The mayor of upper Nazareth Mayor Shimon Gapso refused to allow Christmas trees to be placed in his town square and told the AFP, “The request of the Arabs to put Christmas trees in the squares in the Arab quarter of Nazareth Illit is provocative. Nazareth Illit is a Jewish city and it will not happen — not this year and not next year, so long as I am a mayor. Nazareth is right next door and they can do what they want there.” [2]

The town’s indigenous Palestinian and Christian minority accused him of racism. A 35-year-old Christian resident of Nazareth Illit nailed it, “The racism of not putting a tree up is nothing compared to the real racism that we experience here.”

“When we asked the mayor to put up a Christmas tree in the Arab neighbourhoods of Nazareth Illit he said this is a Jewish town, not a mixed town,” said Shukri Awawdeh, a Muslim Arab member of the town council.

Awawdeh said there were 10,000 Arabs, most of them Christian in the town and there was also a large community of Christian Russian immigrants.

“We told him that decorating a tree is just to share the happiness and cheer with other people in the town,” said Awawdeh.

“People here, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in harmony, but when the mayor does something like that, it does not make things better.” [Ibid]

Last year, Israel began allowing Israeli tour guides to lead groups in Bethlehem and only Israeli approved tour guides are allowed into Israel. Legislation is also pending that will require all Jerusalem guides to be Israeli citizens.

Professor Virginia Tilley wrote:

“Just twenty years ago, Christian pilgrims could still walk to the old city of Jerusalem or Rachel’s Tomb on ancient trails laid down over five thousand years among the rocky hills of Judea, following the footpaths of prophets and disciples that wove among the springs and valleys of biblical legend. Just twenty years ago, shepherds still tended their flocks by night around the hills of Bethlehem, playing on wooden flutes. Now these sacred landscapes are paved over, blocked off, and the West Bank is an uglified mess of four-lane highways, broken up by hideous concrete barriers and electrified fences, the old olive terraces crushed and buried under acres of monolithic Jewish-only apartment blocs. The shepherds are arrested, harassed and gone. The ancient trails are gone forever. Millennia of humanity’s historical heritage, razed and effaced in a scant few decades, to serve not natural population growth but an artificial state-sponsored project to take over land in the name of an exclusive ethnic nationalism. The loss is heartbreaking on so many levels that it cannot be expressed.

“And the world’s great Churches, whose cathedrals are nested in all this? To Israeli authorities, quiet pleas, in stiff meetings behind closed doors, tactical manoeuvres to keep privileges and access. To the world, silence or token gestures, even as Israel’s construction and archaeological excavations press up against their churches’ very walls.” [3]

Maria Khoury writes from the last remaining self-sufficient Christian West Bank village of Taybeh, where they produce Holy Land olive oil and beer. Her latest email was titled:

Politics at Christmas

It’s that special time of year where you simply want to wish everyone a blessed holy Christmas celebration but I can’t help it that it’s the only chance I get to remind my friends of the horrors that are still happening where Christ was born. Every time I travel to Boston, I simply feel I am escaping from the day-to-day misery of Israeli occupation and take a break from seeing the new illegal Israeli settlement getting bigger in front of my kitchen window in Taybeh.

By the way, Israel approved 4,000 new settlement homes in East Jerusalem. These days, I cannot even get the Orthodox Churches to invite me to speak about the Christian community in the Holy Land because people don’t want to hear politics. Although I don’t mean to be political but I am giving my life to promote a Christian presence in the very land where Christ lived, was crucified and resurrected for my salvation.

I am very sorry, I have a need to tell someone that this year, Israel, doubled up its efforts in demolitions of Palestinian property over 500 homes, wells and other structures to add to over 24,000 Palestinian homes that have been demolished since 1967. This also means displacing more than 1,000 people just in the last few months not to mention over 700,000 Palestinians who ran away at gun point to save their lives when Israel was created in 1948 creating the catastrophe of the current eight million Palestinian refugees who have no right to return to their home.

No one is paying attention to the twenty human rights organizations including Amnesty International reporting Jewish settler violence against Palestinians increased in 2011. The attacks from settlers are up 50% because maybe they are going crazy with Palestine’s effort for full UN membership and the recent admission of Palestine to UNESCO, thus over 10,000 olive trees were deliberately damaged this year alone to add to the over one million trees that have been uprooted since 1967. This is a huge destruction to Palestinian livelihood and to the mother earth.

If anyone knows Newt Gingrich personally can you please tell him that with my own eyes I have seen my late father-in-law’s birth certificate (1925) that was entitled “State of Palestine” issued under the British Mandate!

Mr. Gingrich said Palestinian people were invented. I did not know what he means? Because before the peace talks and Oslo Peace Agreement (1993) it was forbidden to even say the word Palestine. With my own eyes I have experienced a historic moment when I saw the Palestinian flag raised for the first time at the Friends Boys School in Ramallah in November 1996 without the students being shot at by soldiers or thrown in jail. Also I need Newt Gingrich to know that it took two Palestinian pounds (local language called Jeneh Philestinee) to pay for the tuition at FBS (1920’s) when our uncle Hanna Khoury was a student, which was a huge financial burden for his father the local Orthodox priest in Taybeh.

Please forgive me to remind you that more hard worked tax payers’ money was sent to Israel this year because seven million dollars a day from the USA was not enough to keep up this awful occupation that includes hundreds of checkpoints and more illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It is currently costing more than 8 million dollars a day in military aid to support what I call the 51st state and very spoiled child of the USA. If you have an only child or an only son you might know what I mean. Parents are not supposed to have favorites but we do. Israel has ignored more than 65 United Nation resolutions.

I am being so political that I have to keep saying the Jesus prayer every second to keep my sanity!

Please, Dear Lord, remind me that these most holy days all eyes are on Bethlehem which is a big prison with the wall surrounding it and help me stop being political because people will pray for peace.

“I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born for you.” (Luke 2:13)

We keep our hope because we believe life with Christ overpowers death. His Light overcomes the darkness of our times. Christ’s love is the answer to the current hate and discrimination.

Palestine exists in the heart of every Palestinian child and a needed Christmas gift of 47 years would be the end of occupation. Christ is Born! Glorify Him! Wishing all of you a most blessed Holy Nativity celebration with all of your loved ones. And, I wish not to be remembered for politics but for someone who believes Christ is our greatest gift.- Maria C. Khoury, Ed. D.

OK Maria, but please remember that Christ was never a Christian for that term was not even coined until the third decade after he walked your homeland a Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up against a corrupt Temple and agitated the status quo of a brutal Military Occupation.

And “Christ you know it ain’t easy” to persist in the good fight for justice and peace when one’s only weapons are truth and love.

1. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-christians-tourism-20111220,0,510422,full.story

2. http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=344641

3. http://www.australiansforpalestine.net/55553#more-55553

By Eileen Fleming

22 December 2011

Wearewideawake.org

Eileen Fleming, Citizen of CONSCIENCE for House of Representatives 2012. Founder of WeAreWideAwake.org Staff Member of Salem-news.com , A Feature Correspondent for Arabisto.com and Columnist for Veteranstoday.com. Producer “30 Minutes with Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”  Author of “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory” and BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010

http://www.youtube.com/user/eileenfleming

Caracas, December 4^th 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez welcomed presidents from across Latin America and the Caribbean last weekend, as they arrived in Caracas to attend the official inauguration of CELAC, The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

Cuban President Raul Castro hailed the long-awaited inauguration as the most important event to have taken place in Latin America for the past 100 years and was widely celebrated as a step towards realising Simón Bolivar’s project to unify the Latin American continent. Comprised of all of the 33 states that make up the Latin American and Caribbean region, the newly created union will now form one of the world’s largest regional blocs.

The organisation is aimed at increasing hemispheric cooperation in social, economic and security matters, and is also expected to become the main representative body of the region, providing a space to amplify the continent’s voice on the international stage. Unlike the Organization of American states (OAS), the U.S. and Canada are not represented within the bloc, which also aspires to neutralise U.S. influence within the region.

“For how long are we going to be the backwards periphery, exploited and denigrated? Enough! Here we are putting down the fundamental building block for South American unity, independence and development. If we hesitate, we are lost!” said Venezuelan president and official host of the inauguration Hugo Chávez, citing Venezuelan Liberator Simon Bolivar.

During the summit, representatives from the region’s 33 states discussed the founding principles of the organisation, as well as its structure and the development of a series of cooperative projects in education, energy, and technology. Each head of state was also given the opportunity to address the summit and make proposals with regards to issues pertinent to the Latin American and Caribbean region.

One of the issues most cited by the presidents was the region’s problem with the international drug trade, with Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner criticising drug consuming countries for not having done enough to the stem demand for illegal substances.

“It seems that Latin America ends up with all the deaths and guns, and others end up with the drugs and the money,” said the South American president.

For his part, Rafael Correa, the leftist president of Ecuador, emphasised the need for a new inter-American organisation to replace the OAS and a new international human rights body.

“It is clear that we need a new inter-American system. The OAS has been captured historically by North American interests and vision, and its cumulative bias and evolution have rendered it inefficient and untrustworthy for the new era that our America is living,” stated Correa.

The current global financial situation and its impact on Latin America also figured highly on the agenda, with the indigenous president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, speaking of a “terminal and structural crisis of capitalism”.

“We have to establish the bases for a new model, for socialism, neo-socialism, living well, 21^st century socialism or whatever you want to call it,” said Morales, who also encouraged Latin American leaders to reconsider their position with regards to North American military bases within their country.

“With respect to the presidents [here], we cannot allow United States’ military bases in our territory. Now is the best moment to put an end to certain impositions that are coming from above with regards to our armed forces,” he said.

Plan of Action

The inauguration came to an end with the ratification of a Plan of Action document, as well as the approval of a text outlining the official purposes of the CELAC. The plan of action elaborates on a number of social programmes and energy and environmental projects, as well as proposing the construction of a “new regional financial architecture, based around solidarity, justice and transparency”.

Within the field of trade and finance, the plan also proposes the establishment of preferential trade tariffs for CELAC countries, and says that the newly established organisation would “promote more of a voice for developing countries” within the international financial arena.

Many of the proposals relating to the environment and technology are based around shared experience and mutual cooperation. Plans include the sharing of experience and knowledge with regards to bio-fuels and the creation of a forum for environmental matters to develop and implement communal and regional environmental projects. In terms of social welfare, the CELAC has pledged to try and eradicate illiteracy on the continent by 2015 and to create a commission that explicitly addresses social problems such as poverty and hunger.

The CELAC body also released a number of official communications linked to proposals made by the various heads of state, including a statement condemning the illegal U.S. blockade against Cuba and the high levels of speculation on the financial market.

Chile, Venezuela, and Cuba will now form a troika for the CELAC in order to develop the organisation’s objectives and projects, whilst Chilean mandate Piñera will assume pro-tempore presidency of the bloc.

“Current problems cannot be resolved individually…they require unity, collaboration and teamwork,” said the Chilean president, who added that the “best of CELAC is yet to come”.

Published on Dec 5th 2011 at 11.41pm

By Rachael Boothroyd – Venezuelanalysis.com

It looks like a proxy war being fought on two fronts. On December 7 last, Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent stunned the audience of the World Climate Summit convened in Durban, South Africa. Even as the UN’s General secretary was making strenuous efforts to save the Kyoto Protocol, Kent publicly called on the international community to turn the page on the Protocol which he termed outdated. Any binding agreement, restricting Canada’s scope to expand its CO2 emissions, is seen as unacceptable. Hardly a week before, Kent’s colleague, the Canadian Minister for Natural Resources Joe Oliver, had made an equally startling public statement, against clauses of the European Union’s draft Directive on Fuel Quality. The draft Directive seeks to ensure that the overall carbon imprint of fossil fuels used in Europe be brought down by at least 6 percent before 2020, as compared to their imprint in 2010. Towards this objective, the Directive cites measurements for the emissions of greenhouse gases from different fuel sources, including conventional oil and oil extracted from tar sands. Thus, the European legislation reportedly estimates the negative value of conventional oil at 87,5 grams of CO2 equivalents per megajoule, whereas the polluting effect of tar sands oil is estimated to be 107 grams per megajoule, i.e. some 22 percent more. This, according to the Canadian Minister is unacceptable. Hence he called the EU Directive on Fuel Quality ‘unscientific’ and discriminatory’.

Oliver’s reaction to the Directive addressing fuel sources by name, itself indicates what´s at stake in Canada’s war of words. But what exactly are the merits of his case? First – the measurements on emission levels of conventional versus non-conventional oil are based on a peer reviewed study of academicians which the EU had commissioned in the beginning of this year. Hence, even at first view the Canadian Minister’s comment seems a bit off the mark. Further, researchers linked to environmental organizations in Europe point out that the measurements quoted are based on a well-to-wheel evaluation of emission levels. In fact, the key difference in emission effects occurs, when tar sands oil is extracted and brought from in-situ mines to the surface. For it is at this point that specially large quantities of energy are required to get mining results. If for instance a ´well-to-tank´ comparison of emission levels be relied on, – the outcome is far more unfavorable to tar sands oil. For emission levels then are almost 2.5 times higher! Moreover and most ominously, Oliver’s statement completely bypasses investigations which have been carried out by Canada´s own government. Research carried out under Canada’s Environment Ministry has also brought out that oil sands mining and extraction, in particular the in-situ mining that takes the lion’s share, is far more greenhouse gas- intensive than is conventional oil.

To gauge the actual meaning of the pronunciations by Canada’s Ministers we need to travel to the Northern part of that country’s province of Alberta. Here, in a area 140 thousand square kilometers in size largely covered by beautiful lakes and forests, deposits of tar sands oil are located below the earth´s surface which are truly gigantic in size. A safe estimate of recoverable reserves, cited widely, puts the total at 173 Billion barrels, or 85 percent of the world’s entire deposits of tar sands oil, also known as ´bitumen´. Many of the worlds’ leading oil corporations have already swarmed down on Alberta to invest in extraction here, and pressures to expand licensing are huge. One existing mine operated by a corporate consortium called Syncrude, for instance, is termed the very largest mine of any type in the world. A prominent ‘player’ is the British-Dutch Corporation Shell. According to 2008 figures, the company then produced 155 thousand barrels of tar sands oil per day in Alberta province, had already invested tens of Billions of Dollars in expansion of bitumen extraction and refining, and intended to raise its production level to five times the then level, i.e. to 770 thousand barrels per day! The French corporation Total, China’s state-controlled firms, and the US’s Chevron and ConocoPhillips too belong to the list of majors having invested in Alberta. Hence, it is easy to understand on whose behalf Canada’s government is waging its proxy wars.

Further, – the pressure which the oil corporations are exerting on and via the Canadian government, also needs to be seen in the light of ‘peak oil’, the fact that the world’s production of conventional crude a few years back has reached an all-time peak. Recent speculation has in particular focused on Saudi Arabia, which country as well known, for decades has been the world’s leading producer and exporter of crude oil. On an occasion such as the US’s Gulf war staged in 1991 Saudi Arabia could easily operate as a ‘swing- producer’ for the West, filling up supply gaps caused by the war by using its reserve production capacity. Yet reports indicate that Saudi Arabia has recently halted a 100 Billion Dollar production expansion plan; that the country has not been able to increase its production capacity for many years; and that its oil exports have started declining. Hence, not only has global oil production five years ago reached an all-time peak, – the world’s prime exporter of conventional oil has started on its post-peak downward trend. This, of course, only increases the likelihood that oil prices will remain at the high, 90 to 115 Dollar per barrel level at which they have been hovering off late. And it makes the option of investments in tar sands oil which are costly to extract, all the more attractive for the oil corporations – whatever be the consequences for the world’s climate.

Hence, the startling pronunciations by Canadian Ministers against the Kyoto Protocol and against the EU Directive on fuel quality are explainable, – no matter how unforgiveable they be. Leading international institutions, such as the International Energy Agency (I.E.A.) and the United Nation´s Environmental Program (UNEP), on the eve of the Durban Summit warned that, as matters stand now, the world´s climate on average may not just go upward by more than 2 degree Celsius, – we risk saddling future generations with a climate that is as much as 6 degree warmer than ours. If the world allows the oil corporations to expand tar sands oil extraction instead of winding down their dangerous operations in Alberta, – Canada will surely do the opposite from what it was committed to under Kyoto, and will contribute only more to the violence we are already perpetrating on future generations of humanity. It is not easy to differentiate or ´discriminate´ between what´s just and unjust when corporate profits at stake. Yet vulnerable countries of the Global South have no other option than to join the choir of Canadian indigenous people and environmentalists who warn that any extraction of tar sands oil is off limits, i.e. should be stopped.

By Dr. Peter Custers

13 December 2011

Countercurrents.org

The European Union summit held in Brussels on Thursday and Friday was dominated by a major confrontation which ended with the virtual exclusion of Britain from the future affairs of the European Union.

This year has seen increasing speculation in financial and political circles on the possible exit of certain member states from the euro zone as a result of the deepening sovereign debt crisis. This speculation has centred on several of the continent’s smallest and most indebted economies, such as Greece and Portugal. Now the year is drawing to a close with the de facto exclusion of Europe’s third biggest economy from any effective voice in the operation and organisation of the European Union.

At Friday’s session of the summit, 26 of the 27 EU member states declared they would go ahead with plans put forward by France and Germany to enforce new austerity measures and budgetary targets across Europe. The only oppositional voice was that of the British Prime Minister David Cameron.

The conflict inside the summit unfolded on Thursday when, in the course of 11 hours of stormy negotiations, Cameron sought to block the changes proposed by France and Germany after the two latter countries refused to agree to a protocol excluding the City of London from the effects of legislation being drawn up by the EU to regulate a number of financial practices. Justifying his stance, Cameron argued, “I had to pursue very doggedly what was in British national interest.”

Three other nations—Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary—declared that they could not agree to the terms proposed by Berlin and Paris and would first have to consult their respective national parliaments.

On Thursday evening, French President Nicholas Sarkozy told reporters that the British stance at the conference was “unacceptable.” He went on to scold Cameron for attempting to dictate terms for dealing with the euro crisis while at the same time refusing to join the euro zone. Sarkozy then described the summit as “historic.” Alluding to the 17 EU member states that use the common currency and the ten that do not, he hailed the creation of a “euro plus” block (which excludes Great Britain).

On Friday, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary decided to close ranks with the 23 member states supporting the Sarkozy-Merkel plan, leaving Cameron isolated. In previous EU discussions, the British Prime Minister had been able to rely on a degree of support in determining European policy from other non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Denmark. Now the French-German initiative has effectively removed this political prop.

At the heart of the divisions at the Brussels summit are the diverging interests of British finance capital and European banking consortiums. The banks and financial institutions concentrated in the City of London dominate the financial services markets in the EU and have long been a thorn in the side of European banking interests centred in Paris and Frankfurt.

Just a week ago, the British prime minister made clear that his main task at the Brussels summit was to preserve the sovereignty of the British financial markets. “It is absolutely vital that we safeguard it,” he told the House of Commons.

The issues at stake for Britain were outlined in a recent report by the Open Europe think tank, which advises the British banking sector. According to the report, the EU was drawing up at least 49 new regulatory proposals that could have negative repercussions for the City of London. Open Europe noted that “whereas in the 1990s and early 2000s, EU politicians and policymakers generally (but not always) felt constrained from imposing financial regulation on the UK, this has now ceased to be the case.”

In particular, the report said that proposals for an EU-wide financial transaction tax, bans on short-selling, and the insistence by the European Central Bank that financial transactions in euros be conducted within the euro zone rather than London represented a fundamental challenge to the United Kingdom. Based on its findings, the report advised the British prime minister to take exactly the stance adopted by Cameron in Brussels.

While the Brussels summit exposed a deep rift between British banking interests and the rest of Europe, it would be mistaken to conclude that the EU member states had any intention of reining in the power of the banks. One of the most significant features of the deal worked out in Brussels this week is the agreement forged by France and Germany to ensure that in future no private banks or bondholders would be called upon to suffer losses as a result of the bailout of a European economy. The entire cost of covering the bad investments of the banks is to be born by the working class.

Over the past two years, the call for private investors to take losses in the event of a sovereign debt bailout was a major plank of German financial policy. In the face of unrelenting pressure from the international banks and the credit rating agencies, including a threat earlier this week by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade most euro zone nations, including Germany, the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel dropped the demand during her talks with Sarkozy to work out a common plan in advance of the summit.

Sharp differences remain among the countries that signed up to the Sarkozy-Merkel plan, including between France and Germany. The former wants a somewhat looser regime of fiscal oversight from Brussels and a far more expansionary policy on the part of the European Central Bank to provide cheap euros to hard-pressed European banks—in the first instance, the French banks. Germany wants a more centralized mechanism to override national parliaments and enforce fiscal austerity across the EU, combined with a far more limited role for the European Central Bank.

However, all are agreed—including Britain—on implementing the draconian austerity programs dictated by the international finance elite. On the issue of making the working class pay for the crisis, there are no differences between London, Paris and Berlin.

In addition to abandoning any call for the banks to take a “haircut” as part of efforts to ease the European debt crisis, the main elements of the plan agreed by the 26 nations in Brussels include the granting of semi-dictatorial powers to the Brussels bureaucracy to oversee and dictate the fiscal and budgetary policies of individual EU nations, and the imposition of sanctions on those states that violate strict budget guidelines.

The new agreements are a veritable political and legal minefield. The final text of a deal is to be thrashed out in advance of a new summit planned for the spring of next year.

Most stock markets rose on Friday in response to the summit, primarily because of the abandonment of calls for the banks to take a “haircut” on their European sovereign debt holdings and the summit decision to bring forward by one year the permanent European rescue fund (European Stability Mechanism—ESM) to July 2012.

But proposals pushed by the United States, the International Monetary Fund and many European governments for a massive boosting of the resources of the ESM and its transformation into a bank to flood the markets with cheap credit were blocked by Germany.

The respite in the European crisis is likely to be short-lived. Europe has already plunged back into recession, the US economy remains mired in slump, and economic growth in key “emerging economies” such as China, India and Brazil is slowing. The austerity measures being imposed in the weaker European countries—Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy—have already thrown them into recession and deepened their debt crises, and similar policies in France, Britain and other EU countries will now be intensified.

These policies will fuel a growth of working class resistance as well as a sharpening of inter-imperialist antagonisms. It is only a question of time before the euro crisis takes a new turn for the worse.

The exclusion of Britain from new structures and decision-making bodies marks a nodal point in the disintegration of the European Union itself. Under the blows of the crisis, the capitalist integration of Europe that began more than fifty years ago is rapidly unravelling.

By Stefan Steinberg

10 December 2011

WSWS.org

On a superficial level, the story revolves around the Emirof Qatar, Hamad bin-Khalifa, who founded and owns the world wide network, and funds it in the hundreds of millions.  At the very same time, possibly wearing his other hat as head of state, the Emir has donated more millions to the recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, and continues to fund the uprising in Syria.  His secret service has been notoriously active in Libya in conjunction with the British and French, and also in building the Syrian insurgency with Britain, France and Turkey.  “But,” Eldar continues, “it is Al Jazeera’s satellite broadcasts and online news sites that are the unconventional weapon influencing the Arab uprisings, more than any combat plane squadrons and tank division wielded by the old regimes.”

This is true as far as it goes, but the real truth is lies a bit deeper.  Eldar begins his piece by noting that the entrance to the Al Jazeera compound in Doha, Qatar, resembles a closed military base, where security personnel closely examine a driver’s passport and identity papers, open the car’s glove compartment and carefully check the trunk.  Al Jazeera has turned tiny Qatar, which has 250,000 citizens and another 1.5 million foreign workers, into a regional power. BRITISH PRIME MINISTERTONY BLAIR REPORTEDLY PERSUADED U.S. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH TO DROP A FOOLISH PLAN TO BOMB THIS MEDIA COMPOUND SIX YEARS AGO.

The real power of Al Jazeera is not the Arabic-language television network, piped into 70 million homes, but the autonomous English-language television network, Al Jazeera English, or AJE, piped into a growing 250 million homes in 130 countries worldwide. Eldar rightly calls Al Anstey who runs it,”one of the world’s most influential journalists.”  (Not an Arab,”Al-Anstey,” but an Englishman named “Al.”)

Anstey gave Eldar an interview.  “Squirming uncomfortably,” he insisted that, “We report on events.  Under no circumstances do we create events.”

Who is Al Anstey?  He is a lifelong Arab handler for the British, based for most of his career in Bahrain, where he headed up a multifaceted communications empire before briefly working for ITV in Britain and then joining Al Jazeera in 2006.

A well-informed Washington intelligence source maintains that the British have by now milked the Arab-Israeli conflict for just about all they can get out of it.  Their new cause is are religious war between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims.  This is what Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov starkly warned of on Dec. 23, saying that he saw that conflict taking off, but that once it got going, it would be unstoppable.  But this is exactly the way all the Arab revolts and pseudo-revolts are now being steered,–among others by “Al Jazeera,” or more appropriately said, by Al Anstey and British Intelligence.

The Washington source went on to say that this Thirty Years War-like religious mayhem was not intended mainly for Southwest Asia or the Middle East, so-called.  The Middle East is only the launching-ground; the target is Asia as such, with its billions comprising most of the world’s population.

That is why Al Anstey went to New Delhi, India, this Nov. 17 for a gala meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to inaugurate AJE’s grand entry into Indian television, with an initial audience of 150 million Indian homes.  [ap]            http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/al-jazeera-covering-the-revolutions-or-fueling-them-1.401762

HUSSEIN ASKARY OF SWEDEN’S LAROUCHE MOVEMENT ON AL JAZEERA Dec. 26, 2011 (EIRNS)–Al-Jazeera, since its inception in 1996, was nothing but the Arabic BBC TV which was moved to Qatar after the Sheikh Hamad coup which was blessed by the Queen, against his father. It has been a tool of British Pan-Islamic (although dressed as liberal) anti-American propaganda. I have written a lot about this for our intelligence staff through the years.     The Qataris are the not-so-Saudi British agents in the region. They had quarrels with the Saudis and Egyptians, they supported the Palestinian cause, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and looked like anti-imperialists (anti-American and not anti-British) to get the support of frustrated and gullible people around the world.  It has functioned as a military-intelligence organ from the beginning of the Arab uprisings, to deflect them from peaceful, legitimate revolutions against the global financial and economic order, into bloody confrontations against local “dictators.” They have been a center of communication for the armed rebels. Their studios host the films of so-called defecting Syrian soldiers. And who knows, maybe the beheading of Americans and other hostages in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were conducted there!            This is a typical British disinformation and cultural warfare operation.  [hus]

Dec. 26, 2011 (EIRNS)–Akiva Eldar, a veteran journalist whore presents the saner factions in Israel, has a well-grounded expose in {Ha’aretz} under the title, “Al Jazeera: Covering the Revolutions or Fueling Them?”

Tuesday’s decision to declare neo-fascist Anders Behring Breivik insane was driven by the political interests of the Norwegian and European ruling elite.

The man who massacred 77 people in a twin bomb attack in Oslo and a mass shooting of children on Utoeya Island in July has been deemed unfit to face trial and his incriminating testimony dismissed as merely the ravings of a madman.

This decision has nothing to do with concern over Breivik’s mental state. Rather, it is motivated by the fear in ruling circles that even a limited investigation of the events leading up to July 22, which a trial would undertake, would raise uncomfortable questions for those with connections to Breivik.

This includes not only parties of the far right across Europe, some of whom had direct links with the Norwegian terrorist, but also the political establishment itself, which has promoted the reactionary nostrums upon which Breivik based his fascist ideology.

Considered from a legal standpoint, the decision to declare Breivik insane is absurd on its face. All the evidence points to an individual with a clear political programme, who embraced positions identified with fascism and the far right. He viewed himself as a “crusader” against multiculturalism and immigrants. In some recent reports, it has become clear that his aim was to target the leadership of the Norwegian Labour Party, which he viewed as “Marxist.”

His acts of terrorist violence were meticulously planned and carried through, as he explains in his own words in his lengthy “manifesto” published online. These acts were directed towards a definite political agenda—in his own words, to create a “cultural-conservative revolution” throughout Europe.

Mere articulation of such views, even in private diaries, is enough for Muslim extremists in Europe, the US and elsewhere to be hauled up before the courts. Had Breivik’s professed ideology been Islamic fundamentalism, there is no question that he would have been put on trial, received extensive media coverage, and been imprisoned for years.

But clearly the “war on terror” does not apply to fascists.

By dismissing Breivik’s actions as those purely of a psychotic individual, the political establishment hope to portray him as a “lone wolf”, who acted without any support.

All available evidence shows the contrary. Ever since Breivik was taken into custody, details have emerged linking him to far right organisations within Norway and internationally. Police investigators have confirmed that Breivik claims to know of 80 “cells” across Europe who share his political outlook and violent aims.

Breivik remained a member of the anti-immigrant and far-right Progress party until 2006, having joined its youth wing nearly a decade earlier. His ties to the fascist English Defence League (EDL) also became known, with Breivik having engaged in several discussions with leading members. At one such discussion in London in 2002, he claimed that some of those present at a meeting of the “Knights Templar” were EDL leaders, whilst others came from paramilitary groups in the Balkans.

Investigations of these connections have been extremely limited. There has been no attempt to pursue any of those figures mentioned in Breivik’s manifesto or subsequently linked to him. Even when a group of individuals were arrested at a flat belonging to Breivik in the days following July 22, they were promptly released.

Within the political establishment, notwithstanding initial expressions of outrage and horror, no investigation is being conducted to examine the attacks. Norway’s commission of inquiry did not even intend to question the head of the PST intelligence services. It was compelled to request her presence before a parliamentary committee only after details emerged uncovering the PST’s failure to act on information regarding Breivik’s ties to a Polish businessman who provided the fertiliser for his bomb.

Internationally, no attempt has been made to seriously investigate any of those with whom Breivik met and discussed his political agenda. These include Alan Lake, a businessman who bankrolls the EDL, and Paul Ray, a blogger who writes under the name Lionheart and is referred to in Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto.

It is not possible to explain this merely as a negligent response: definite political calculations are at work.

In this context, revelations that a far-right terrorist group in Germany has been collaborating closely with the state intelligence forces for over a decade are particularly significant. The group, whose outlook mirrors that of Breivik, has been responsible for at least nine murders of immigrants since 1998. State intelligence operatives not only turned a blind eye to their activities, but actively participated and facilitated the group’s actions.

There is no reason to believe that similar relations are not replicated between the far right and state intelligence services across Europe. In Britain, the EDL has long been recognised as an organisation infiltrated by informers and intelligence operatives, who assist in the planning and staging of so-called “demonstrations” that in reality are organised provocations against Muslims and the immigrant population of Britain. Placing Breivik on trial raised the prospect of such ties being brought out into the public arena.

The political establishment is also conscious of the fact that Breivik did not draw his disturbing ideological outlook out of thin air.

Many of the positions of Breivik and the far right in general have become standard fare in Europe’s ruling elite. Breivik’s “manifesto” contains the names of leading political and media figures whose increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric inspired his conceptions.

His hostility to “multiculturalism” draws succour from those such as Germany’s Angela Merkel and Britain’s David Cameron, who have both announced its failure. More openly, Thilo Sarrazin, a prominent German Social Democrat, has blamed foreigners, particularly Muslims, for turning Germans “into strangers in their own country.”

The adoption by the political elite throughout Europe of conceptions associated with the extreme right is linked directly to the crisis of the capitalist system.

In every country, the bourgeoisie is moving to discard its traditional forms of parliamentary rule as it seeks a new base of support against emerging class struggles.

It is this that accounts for the increasing integration of far-right parties into the political mainstream. The most recent expression of this was the inclusion of the neo-fascist LAOS party in the Greek coalition government imposed by the international financial elite, led by the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

This process has been exemplified in Britain by the calls made by a number of Labour party figures associated with the “Blue Labour” tendency for cooperation with the EDL. Maurice Glasman—an academic who helped initiate the project, which is said to represent “flag, faith and family”—stated that he wanted to see “people who support the EDL involved within our party.”

The Breivik case must act as a warning to working people.

As the world has entered a period of economic crisis not seen since the 1930s, conditions are again being created for the fascist far right to play a leading role in the defence of bourgeois rule. The massive build-up of the security apparatuses of capitalist states around the world is not a guarantor against such a development. Rather, these institutions work to nourish and cultivate such tendencies to use in the struggle to suppress the development of a political movement of the working class.

By Jordan Shilton

2 December 2011

WSWS.org

Jordan Shilton is a WSWS.org writer

The end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq coincided with Bradley Manning’s military hearing to determine whether he will face court-martial for exposing U.S. war crimes by leaking hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents to Wikileaks. In fact, there is a connection between the leaks and U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

When he announced that the last U.S. troops would leave Iraq by year’s end, President Barack Obama declared the nine-year war a “success” and “an extraordinary achievement.” He failed to mention why he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. He didn’t say that it was built on lies about mushroom clouds and non-existent ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Obama didn’t cite the Bush administration’s “Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,” drawn up months before 9/11, about which Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill reported that actual plans “were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it – complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals – carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also defended the war in Iraq, making the preposterous claim that, “As difficult as [the Iraq war] was,” including the loss of American and Iraqi lives, “I think the price has been worth it, to establish a stable government in a very important region of the world.”

The price that Panetta claims is worth it includes the deaths of nearly 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It includes untold numbers wounded – with Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – and suicides, as well as nearly $1 trillion that could have prevented the economic disaster at home.

The price of the Iraq war also includes thousands of men who have been subjected to torture and abuse in places like Abu Ghraib prison. It includes the 2005 Haditha Massacre, in which U.S. Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians execution-style. It includes the Fallujah Massacre, in which U.S. forces killed 736 people, at least 60% of them women and children. It includes other war crimes committed by American troops in Qaim, Taal Al Jal, Mukaradeeb, Mahmudiya, Hamdaniyah, Samarra, Salahuddin, and Ishaqi.

The price of that war includes two men killed by the Army’s Lethal Warriors in Al Doura, Iraq, with no evidence that they were insurgents or posed a threat. One man’s brains were removed from his head and another man’s face was skinned after he was killed by Lethal Warriors. U.S. Army Ranger John Needham, who was awarded two purple hearts and three medals for heroism, wrote to military authorities in 2007 reporting war crimes that he witnessed being committed by his own command and fellow Lethal Warriors in Al Doura. His charges were supported by atrocity photos which have been released by Pulse TV and Maverick Media in the new video by Cindy Piester, “On the Dark Side in Al Doura – A Soldier in the Shadows.” [http://vimeo.com/33755968]. CBS reported obtaining an Army document from the Criminal Investigation Command suggestive of an investigation into these war crimes allegations. The Army’s conclusion was that the “offense of War Crimes did not occur.”

One of the things Manning is alleged to have leaked is the “Collateral Murder” video which depicts U.S. forces in an Apache helicopter killing 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists, and wounding two children. People trying to rescue the wounded were also fired upon and killed. A U.S. tank drove over one body, cutting the man in half.

The actions of American soldiers shown in that video amount to war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit targeting civilians, preventing the rescue of the wounded, and defacing dead bodies.

Obama proudly took credit for ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But he had tried for months to extend it beyond the December 31, 2011 deadline his predecessor negotiated with the Iraqi government. Negotiations between Obama and the Iraqi government broke down when Iraq refused to grant criminal and civil immunity to U.S. troops.

It was after seeing evidence of war crimes such as those depicted in “Collateral Murder” and the “Iraq War Logs,” also allegedly leaked by Manning, that the Iraqis refused to immunize U.S. forces from prosecution for their future crimes. When I spoke with Tariq Aqrawi, Iraq’s ambassador to the United Nations, at a recent international human rights film festival in Vienna, he told me that if they granted immunity to Americans, they would have to do the same for other countries as well.

Manning faces more than 30 charges, including “aiding the enemy” and violations of the Espionage Act, which carry the death penalty. After a seven day hearing, during which the prosecution presented evidence that Manning leaked cables and documents, there was no evidence that leaked information imperiled national security or that Manning intended to aid the enemy with his actions.

On the contrary, in an online chat attributed to Manning, he wrote, “If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?”

He went on to say, “God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.“

Manning has been held for 19 months in military custody. During the first nine months, he was kept in solitary confinement, which is considered torture as it can lead to hallucinations, catatonia and suicide. He was humiliated by being stripped naked and paraded before other inmates.

The U.S. government considers Manning one of America’s most dangerous traitors. Months ago, Obama spoke of Manning as if he had been proved guilty, saying, “he broke the law.” But Manning has not been tried, and is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today. If he had murdered civilians and skinned them alive, he would not be facing the death penalty.

Besides helping to end the Iraq war, the leaked cables helped spark the Arab Spring. When people in Tunisia read cables revealing corruption by the ruling family there, they took to the streets.

If Manning did what he is accused of doing, he should not be tried as a criminal. He should be hailed as a national hero, much like Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers helped to expose the government’s lies and end the Vietnam War.

By Marjorie Cohn

26 December 2011

CommonDreams.org

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past President of the National Lawyers Guild, is the deputy secretary general for external communications of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and co-author of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd). Her anthology, The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse, is now available. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com

The poorest taxpayers are subsidising the richest people in Europe: and this spending will remain uncut until at least 2020.

What would you do with £245? Would you a. use it to buy food for the next five weeks?, b. put it towards a family holiday?, c. use it to double your annual savings?, or d. give it to the Duke of Westminster?

Let me make the case for option d. This year he was plunged into relative poverty. Relative, that is, to the three parvenus who have displaced him from the top of the UK rich list(1). (Admittedly he’s not so badly off in absolute terms: the value of his properties rose last year, to £7bn). He’s the highest ranked of the British-born people on the list, and we surely have a patriotic duty to keep him there. And he’s a splendid example of British enterprise, being enterprising enough to have inherited his land and income from his father.

Well there must be a reason, mustn’t there? Why else would households be paying this money – equivalent to five weeks’ average spending on food and almost their average annual savings (£296)(2) – to some of the richest men and women in the UK? Why else would this 21st Century tithe, this back-to-front Robin Hood tax, be levied?

I’m talking about the payments we make to Big Farmer through the Common Agricultural Policy. They swallow €55bn (£47bn) a year, or 43% of the European budget(3). Despite the spending crisis raging through Europe, the policy remains intact. Worse, governments intend to sustain this level of spending throughout the next budget period, from 2014-2020(4).

Of all perverse public spending in the rich nations, farm subsidies must be among the most regressive. In the European Union you are paid according to the size of your lands: the greater the area, the more you get. Except in Spain, nowhere is the subsidy system more injust than in the United Kingdom. According to Kevin Cahill, author of Who Owns Britain, 69% of the land here is owned by 0.6% of the population(5). It is this group which takes the major pay-outs. The entire budget, according to the government’s database, is shared between just 16,000 people or businesses(6)*. Let me give you some examples, beginning with a few old friends.

As chairman of Northern Rock, Matt Ridley oversaw the first run on a British bank since 1878, and helped precipitate the economic crisis which has impoverished so many. This champion of free market economics and his family received £205,000 from the taxpayer last year for owning their appropriately-named Blagdon Estate(7). That falls a little shy of the public beneficence extended to Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian fixer at the centre of the Al-Yamamah corruption scandal. In 2007 the Guardian discovered that he had received a payment of up to £1bn from the weapons manufacturer BAE(8). He used his hard-earned wealth to buy the Glympton Estate in Oxfordshire(9). For this public service we pay him £270,000 a year(10). Much obliged to you guv’nor, I’m sure.

But it’s the true captains of British enterprise – the aristocrats and the utility companies, equally deserving of their good fortune – who really clean up. The Duke of Devonshire gets £390,000(11), the Duke of Buucleuch £405,000(12), the Earl of Plymouth £560,000(13), the Earl of Moray £770,000(14), the Duke of Westminster £820,000(15). The Vestey family takes £1.2m(16). You’ll be pleased to hear that the previous owner of their Thurlow estate, Edmund Vestey, who died in 2008, managed his tax affairs so efficiently that in one year his businesses paid just £10. Asked to comment on his contribution to the public good, he explained, “we’re all tax dodgers, aren’t we?”(17).

British households, who try so hard to keep the water companies in the style to which they’re accustomed, have been blessed with another means of supporting this deserving cause. Yorkshire water takes £290,000 in farm subsidies, Welsh Water £330,000, Severn Trent, £650,000, United Utilities, £1.3m. Serco, one of the largest recipients of another form of corporate welfare – the private finance initiative – gets a further £2m for owning farmland(18).

Among the top blaggers are some voluntary bodies. The RSPB gets £4.8m, the National Trust £8m, the various wildlife trusts a total of £8.5m(19). I don’t have a problem with these bodies receiving public money. I do have a problem with their receipt of public money through a channel as undemocratic and unaccountable as this. I have an even bigger problem with their use of money with these strings attached. For the past year, while researching my book about rewilding, I’ve been puzzling over why these bodies fetishise degraded farmland ecosystems and are so reluctant to allow their estates to revert to nature. Now it seems obvious. To receive these subsidies, you must farm the land(20).

As for the biggest beneficiary, it is shrouded in mystery. It’s a company based in France called Syral UK Ltd. Its website describes it as a producer of industrial starch, alcohol and proteins, but says nothing about owning or farming any land(21). Yet it receives £18.7m from the taxpayer. It has not yet answered my questions about how this has happened, but my guess is that the money might take the form of export subsidies: the kind of payments which have done so much to damage the livelihoods of poor farmers in the developing world.

In one respect the government of this country has got it right. It has lobbied the European Commission, so far unsuccessfully, for “a very substantial cut to the CAP budget”(22). But hold the enthusiasm. It has also demanded that the EC drop the only sensible proposal in the draft now being negotiated by member states: that there should be a limit to the amount that a landowner can receive(23). Our government warns that capping the payments “would impede consolidation” of landholdings(24). It seems that 0.6% of the population owning 69% of the land isn’t inequitable enough.

If subsidies have any remaining purpose it is surely to protect the smallest, most vulnerable farmers. The UK government’s proposals would ensure that the budget continues to be hogged by the biggest landlords. As for payments for protecting the environment, this looks to me like the option you’re left with when you refuse to regulate. The rest of us don’t get paid for not mugging old ladies. Why should farmers be paid for not trashing the biosphere? Why should they not be legally bound to protect it, as other businesses are?

In the midst of economic crisis, European governments intend to keep the ultra-rich in vintage port and racehorses at least until 2020. While inflicting the harshest of free market economics upon everyone else, they will oblige us to support a parasitic class of tax avoiders and hedgerow-grubbers, who engorge themselves on the benefactions of the poor.

*UPDATE: It’s just dawned on me that the government’s list must be incomplete. It says it covers all “legal persons”, but it seems that legal persons excludes actual persons, as opposed to companies, partnerships, trusts etc. It would be fascinating to discover whose subsidies have not being listed.

References:

1. http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-rich-list-2011/

2. The average UK household contribution to the CAP is £245 (DEFRA, by email). Average household weekly expenditure on food and drink is £52.20. Average household weekly savings and investments is £5.70.

Office of National Statistics, 2010. Family Spending 2010 Edition. Table A1: Components of Household Expenditure 2009. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-225698

3. DEFRA, by email.

4. European Commission, 19th October 2011. Regulation Establishing Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers Under Support Schemes Within the Framework of the Common Agricultural Policy. COM(2011) 625 final/2 2011/0280 (COD). http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/com625/625_en.pdf

5. I wanted to go to source on this, but the copies available online are amazingly expensive (there’s an irony here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it). So I’ve relied on a report of the contents of his book: http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/10/land-tax-labour-britain

6. The database is here: http://www.cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Download.aspx DEFRA’s database search facility isn’t working – http://www.cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/Search.aspx – so you’ll have to go through the spreadsheets yourself.

7. The entry in the database is for Blagdon Farming Ltd. I checked online: this is one of the properties of the Blagdon Estate. http://www.blagdonestate.co.uk/theblagdonhomefarm.htm , http://www.192.com/atoz/business/newcastle-upon-tyne-ne13/farming-mixed/blagdon-farming-ltd/292e5a6d3883fe2f4a207c94d6c41e61747a8b50/ml/ and http://www.misterwhat.co.uk/company/384132-blagdon-farming-ltd-newcastle-upon-tyne

8. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/07/bae1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/09/bae.foreignpolicy

9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/page/0,,2095831,00.html

10. The payment is listed as Glympton Farms Ltd. I rang them – they confirmed that Glympton Farms belongs to the estate.

11. Listed as Chatsworth Settlement Trustees. This page identifies the owners: http://www.boltonabbey.com/welcome_trustees.htm

12. Listed as Buccleuch Estates Ltd

13. Listed as Earl of Plymouth Estates Ltd.

14. Listed as Moray Estates Development Co.

15. Listed as Grosvenor Farms Limited. See http://www.grosvenorestate.com/Business/Grosvenor+Farms.htm

16. Listed as Thurlow Estate Farms Ltd. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1570710/Edmund-Vestey.html and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fat-cats-benefit-from-eu-farming-subsidies-780192.html

17. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/07/edmund-vestey-tax-will

18. All these utility companies are listed under their own names.

19. I stopped adding the wildlife trust payments shortly after getting down to the £100,000 level, so it is probably a little more than this.

20. The CAP’s Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition rules (an Orwellian term if ever there was one) forbid what they disparagingly call “land abandonment”.

21. http://www.tereos-syral.com/web/syral_web.nsf/Home/index.htm

22. DEFRA, January 2011. UK response to the Commission communication and consultation:

“The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future”. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/capreform/documents/110128-uk-cap-response.pdf

23. European Commission, 19th October 2011, as above.

24. DEFRA, January 2011, as above.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 29th November 2011.

28 November 2011