RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Embracing the Saudi War on Yemen Print
Sunday, 26 April 2015 13:18

Parry writes: "As the humanitarian crisis in Yemen worsens, the Obama administration seems less concerned about the plight of the desperate Yemeni people than the feelings of the Saudi royals who have spent the last month indiscriminately bombing a nearly defenseless Yemen, using high-tech U.S. jets and bombs to reportedly kill hundreds of civilians and damage its ancient cities."

President and Mrs. Obama disembark from Air Force One at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh in 2015. (photo: Pete Souza/White House)
President and Mrs. Obama disembark from Air Force One at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh in 2015. (photo: Pete Souza/White House)


Embracing the Saudi War on Yemen

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

26 April 15

 

Fearful of further offending the powerful Saudi-Israeli alliance, President Obama is deploying the U.S. Navy to seal off poverty-stricken Yemen so the Saudi air force has free rein to pummel its regional rivals from the air while the population faces a humanitarian crisis on the ground, reports Robert Parry.

s the humanitarian crisis in Yemen worsens, the Obama administration seems less concerned about the plight of the desperate Yemeni people than the feelings of the Saudi royals who have spent the last month indiscriminately bombing a nearly defenseless Yemen, using high-tech U.S. jets and bombs to reportedly kill hundreds of civilians and damage its ancient cities.

On Friday, the Obama administration took credit for blocking nine Iranian ships from reaching Yemen with relief supplies, claiming that the ships may have carried weapons that the Yemenis could use in their civil war or to defend against Saudi attacks. President Barack Obama had dispatched a U.S. aircraft carrier fleet to the Yemeni coast to enforce an embargo that has helped the Saudis seal off the country from outside help.

A person closely involved with the Yemen crisis told me that the Iranian ships carried food and medicine, not weapons, but turned back to avoid the risk and humiliation of being boarded by the U.S. Navy. Meanwhile, Yemen, already one of the poorest countries in the Arab world, is facing shortages of basic supplies since the Saudis have cut off normal trade routes into Yemen.

Yet, despite the suffering of Yemen, the U.S. government appears more worried about the sensitivities of Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the region. A Defense Department official, speaking anonymously, told the New York Times that it was “important that the Saudis know that we have an arm around their shoulders.”

Defense Department officials also acknowledged that they didn’t know what type of cargo was being transported aboard the Iranian ships, the Times reported. Though the Obama administration had touted the possibility that the Iranian ships carried weapons, the decision by Iran to avoid a confrontation may have reflected Tehran’s desire not to worsen relations with the United States and thus disrupt fragile negotiations over international guarantees to ensure that its nuclear program remains peaceful.

But the losers in this military/diplomatic maneuvering appear to be the Yemenis who, in effect, face a Saudi strategy of starving the country into submission with the help of the United States. While U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power built her public image as a “humanitarian interventionist” asserting a “responsibility to protect” vulnerable populations, she has said little about the Saudi role in Yemen’s humanitarian crisis.

In a statement on April 14, at the height of the Saudi bombing campaign, Power made no mention of the Saudi attacks or the hundreds of civilian dead from Saudi bombs supplied by the United States. She instead focused her denunciations on the Houthi rebels and former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh who have joined forces in a civil war that ousted sitting President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who then fled to Saudi Arabia.

Power primarily blamed the Houthis, who “have intensified their military campaign, bombed Aden, and extended their offensive to Yemen’s south. These actions have caused widespread violence and instability that threaten the security and welfare of the Yemeni people, as well as the region’s security.”

Though the Saudi air force has bombed a number of cities including the ancient port city of Aden, Power ignored those attacks in her statement. But Power was not alone in her solicitousness toward the Saudis. On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry even endorsed the Saudi bombing of Houthi targets in Yemen.

Who Are the Houthis?

The Houthis adhere to the Zaydi sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam but one that is considered relatively close to Sunni Islam and that peacefully co-existed with Sunni Islam for centuries. But the Houthis have been resisting what they regard as government persecution in recent decades.

As revealed in leaked U.S. government cables and documented by Human Rights Watch, Yemen’s government used U.S. military aid to support an all-out assault against the Houthis in 2009. HRW said Yemeni government forces indiscriminately shelled and bombed civilian areas, causing significant civilian casualties and violating the laws of war. This repression of the Houthis led to an escalation last fall which ended with the Houthi rebels, who allied themselves with army forces loyal to ex-President Saleh, capturing Sanaa and other major cities.

After these victories, in private contacts with American officials, the Houthis indicated their readiness to take the fight to Al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate. However, since the Saudi airstrikes began a month ago, “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” has taken advantage of the limitations on Houthi rebel movements by grabbing more territory in the east and overrunning a prison that held a number of Al-Qaeda militants.

The Saudi royals have a complicated relationship with Al-Qaeda including some princes who are viewed as important financiers of the terror group. The Saudis also promote the same extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam, known as Wahhabism. Now, instead of concentrating on the terror threat from Al-Qaeda, the Saudis have sought to portray the Yemeni civil war as a proxy assault in Saudi Arabia’s backyard by Shiite-ruled Iran.

In that propaganda effort, the Saudis have been helped by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has relied on the powerful Israel Lobby and his own rhetoric to divert the U.S. Congress from a focus on Al-Qaeda and its hyper-brutal spinoff, the Islamic State, to Iran, which both Saudi Arabia and Israel have designated their primary regional enemy.

In his March 3 speech to a joint session of Congress, Netanyahu cited Yemen as one of the Mideast countries that Iran has been “gobbling up.” Many regional experts, however, considered Netanyahu’s assertion ludicrous given the Houthis’ reputation for stubborn independence.

For instance, former CIA official Graham E. Fuller called the notion “that the Houthis represent the cutting edge of Iranian imperialism in Arabia – as trumpeted by the Saudis” a “myth.” He added:

“The Zaydi Shia, including the Houthis, over history have never had a lot to do with Iran. But as internal struggles within Yemen have gone on, some of the Houthis have more recently been happy to take Iranian coin and perhaps some weapons — just as so many others, both Sunni and Shia, are on the Saudi payroll. The Houthis furthermore hate al-Qaeda and hate the Islamic State.”

But the Obama administration remains sensitive to Israeli-Saudi criticism of its efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear dispute. So, to demonstrate that the Americans are comforting the Saudi royals with “an arm around their shoulders,” the U.S. government is embracing the Saudi bombardment of a largely defenseless country and is turning back ships carrying relief supplies.


_________

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Koch Funding of Universities Shrouded in Secrecy Print
Sunday, 26 April 2015 13:12

Jordan writes: "Just as tobacco companies had a vested financial interest in keeping the public in the dark about the dangers of smoking, today's fossil fuel companies are stoking denial about the realities of climate change and masking the positive impact of regulations and renewable energy programs to protect their bottom line."

The Koch brothers. (photo Koch Exposed PR Watch)
The Koch brothers. (photo Koch Exposed PR Watch)


Koch Funding of Universities Shrouded in Secrecy

By Kalin Jordan, The Center for Media and Democracy

26 April 15

 

n a recent column entitled “The Campus Climate Crusade,” The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel spent over 800 words arguing the basic conceit of UnKochMyCampus, a campaign uniting students at universities around the country who are working to increase transparency on their campuses and fight attempts by corporate donors like Charles and David Koch from influencing their education.

Her core arguments? The left is wielding transparency as a “weapon,” and efforts to access information through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are “shutting down debate across the country.”

Unfortunately for Strassel, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Our work with UnKochMyCampus has shown us that transparency removes the smoke and mirrors that cloud the debate, leaving ordinary people ill-equipped to develop informed opinions on research and policy around the most important issues of the day. Our policy is being shaped by corporations, for corporations – and that’s a huge problem.

There was a time when the public engaged in a seemingly-legitimate debate about whether smoking caused cancer. Then we learned that the studies claiming cigarettes were safe were funded by the tobacco industry. Once the cat was out of the bag, people saw that “debate” for what it was – a farce.

Just as tobacco companies had a vested financial interest in keeping the public in the dark about the dangers of smoking, today’s fossil fuel companies are stoking denial about the realities of climate change and masking the positive impact of regulations and renewable energy programs to protect their bottom line.

One of the key strategies they use to accomplish this is unleashing a flood of money into think-tanks and universities around the country to help disseminate their message. That money comes with strings attached that give corporations more and more influence over education and research at both public and private universities around the country.

Just weeks ago it was revealed that Harvard-Smithsonian’s Willie Soon – whose climate change studies the scientific community have long claimed to be inaccurate – received almost all of his funding from fossil fuel interests. Were it not for public disclosure laws, this information would have been hidden from the public, making it much more difficult for those who are not members of the scientific community to discern whether Soon’s research was above board or just corporate PR disguised as science.

While this is an egregious example, it’s by no means an aberration. Between 2001 and 2013, the Charles Koch Foundation has provided nearly $70 million to almost 400 campuses across the country. This money goes to researchers like Soon or think-tanks like the Beacon Hill Institute housed at Suffolk University in Boston that produce content designed to further climate denial and attack policies they oppose, like the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon rule or state renewable portfolio standards.

But that’s not all the money buys. As students at Florida State University and Clemson University discovered in 2011, grant agreements (Memorandums of Understanding, or “MOUs”) between universities and the Charles Koch Foundation often give the Kochs influence over the hiring of professors and development of course curriculum. In other words, on top of reshaping scientific studies to further their bottom line, the Kochs are also trying to reshape public education to match their libertarian ideology. This strategy has been in effect for decades and was even referenced outright by Charles Koch during a 1974 speech he delivered to a room of businessmen at a seminar on “The Anti-Capitalist Mentality”: “We should cease financing our own destruction…by supporting only those programs, departments or schools that contribute in some way to our individual companies or to the general welfare of our free enterprise system.”

Bringing to light the MOUs between the Charles Koch Foundation and universities exposed the Kochs’ dark money campaign on college campuses around the country and rightfully caused an uproar, which explains why Koch Industries is so vehemently opposed to further efforts by students involved in the UnKoch My Campus campaign to increase transparency. Case in point: Koch Industries is currently paying legal fees for University of Kansas professor Art Hall who sued the university following a Kansas Open Records Act request submitted by a student who sought to gain more information into his hiring. It sure looks shady: From 1997 to 2004, Hall was chief economist of Koch Industries’ lobbying subsidiary, Koch Companies Public Sector and currently serves as the director of KU’s conservative Center for Applied Economics, which receives funding from the Kochs.

But perhaps no other university in the country serves as a better example of the corporatization of education than George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. GMU has received more than $34 million from the Charles Koch Foundation since 2011. But the real impact of the Kochs’ funding on campus remains a mystery. Despite repeated attempts by students to obtain information about the grants and MOU with the Foundation, the school refuses to comply because it has housed the grants under the private George Mason University Foundation instead of the university itself in an attempt to prevent any potentially damning information about their source from being subject to the rules governing public universities like GMU.

Transparency is one of the last avenues available to concerned members of the public, including students, professors and alumni, who have serious and well-founded concerns about the motives of major financial donors like the Kochs. If transparency is seen as such a threat, only one logical question remains: what are they so afraid of disclosing?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'Saigon Has Fallen': A Reporter's View of Vietnam War's End Print
Sunday, 26 April 2015 13:07

Arnett writes: "As I reach for my water glass, it trembles, and me with it. The last full day of the Vietnam War is beginning."

More than two bitter decades of war in Vietnam ended with the last days of April 1975. 40 years later, former Associated Press correspondent Peter Arnett has written a new memoir, 'Saigon Has Fallen,' detailing his experience covering the war for The AP. (photo: AP)
More than two bitter decades of war in Vietnam ended with the last days of April 1975. 40 years later, former Associated Press correspondent Peter Arnett has written a new memoir, 'Saigon Has Fallen,' detailing his experience covering the war for The AP. (photo: AP)


'Saigon Has Fallen': A Reporter's View of Vietnam War's End

By Peter Arnett, Associated Press

26 April 15

 

rtillery explosions sound a fearsome 4 a.m. wake-up call, but I'm already awake. The attackers waiting at the gates of a vanquished Saigon have been warning they would act, and now with each thump of the Soviet-made 130mm guns, sound waves rustle the curtains of my open seventh floor hotel window. As I reach for my water glass, it trembles, and me with it. The last full day of the Vietnam War is beginning.

Street lights shine below as I look out toward Tan Son Nhut airport, once described as the busiest in the world when America was waging war here. Now it is burning from one end to the other, the flames brilliantly lighting up the sky.

There will be two more hours of darkness, but this seems like a new dawn rising, an appropriate description, I think later, of the intentions of those wreaking havoc on the airport this morning, April 29, 1975. The commanders of North Vietnam's military juggernaut, pressing for victory after a 50-day rout of their South Vietnamese opponents, are pushing open the gates of the capital. They will force a new dawn on South Vietnam, America's once favored ally, as it loses its 20-year struggle to remain an independent, pro-western state.

After watching the destruction of the airport, I phone the Associated Press office a few blocks away, and my colleague Ed White answers. He and George Esper, the bureau chief, have been up all night working the telex communications link with our New York headquarters.

White tells me the American embassy confirms major damage at the airport with the runways probably unusable. American planners have been intending to airlift out of the country several thousand more vulnerable Vietnamese allies today, but what can they do now?

Soon afterward, from an upstairs hotel balcony as daylight approaches I can clearly see thick black smoke hanging over the airport like a funeral shroud. I'm joined by a few news colleagues, all of us knowing we are watching momentous history unfold right before our eyes.

As the sky brightens we see a Vietnamese air force transport plane, a de Havilland Caribou, rise sharply above the airport. Suddenly, it seems to break in half, bursting into flames and falling in pieces to the ground. Stricken silent by this horrifying spectacle, we see a second aircraft following the same path and suffering the same fate, like the first undoubtedly a victim of ground fire. It seems there'll be no escape for anyone from the airport today.

At the American Embassy, Ambassador Graham Martin is in disbelief, committed as he is to evacuating as many vulnerable Vietnamese as possible before the communists arrive. He insists on personally checking the airport tarmac. After the war, Martin would tell me, "It didn't make sense to me that we couldn't physically come in with transport planes. I wanted to check it for myself, to make my own judgment. It would have made a difference. We could have gotten five or ten thousand more people out. "

Reaching the airport, Martin finds a usable runway amidst the still-burning buildings, but little security. He worries about a repeat of the earlier airport panics in Danang and Nhatrang that had hundreds of desperate people fighting with soldiers and police to get on departing rescue aircraft. He tells me, "I decided it was not worth the risk. I picked up the phone and I told Secretary (of State Henry) Kissinger to inform the president that we have go to Option Four immediately, to the helicopter airlift for the remaining Americans, and as many Vietnamese as we can take." But Martin's urgent instruction is lost somewhere down the line. The airlift does not begin for several hours.

Option Four is code for Operation Frequent Wind, planned as a large-scale evacuation of people to American Navy ships off the coast. Most of the passengers for the final helicopter lifts have been chosen in advance, alerted to keep listening to Armed Forces Radio for a signal. Thirteen helicopter pickup points have been selected around Saigon, using the small UH-1 Huey ships for the tops of tall buildings and the much bigger CH-53 Sea Knights for the American Defense Department compound at the airport and the embassy grounds.

Those waiting to depart include the large contingent of international journalists covering the story. During the past week some have considered the possibility of remaining behind and seeing what transpires, but their home offices expect them to leave with the last Americans because of the uncertainty of the future. I know that Esper wants to stay. He's been here too long to miss the final moments of his most important story. Me too, and I message AP president Wes Gallagher, explaining that because I was here at the war's beginnings it's worth the risk to document the final hours. With us is Matt Franjola, an AP reporter in the region for several years. Esper sends a message to his boss, "Request you please reconsider..." Gallagher does. The three of us will stay.

As I drive through the city, I see crowds gathering at intersections and arguing. Several million people are now estimated to be living in Saigon, many of them recent refugees from the countryside. Not everyone wants to leave, but several hundred thousand believe their lives have been compromised in the eyes of the communists by their association with America and its policies, and are desperate to get out. I drive by Saigon's port and see small ships crowded with people setting off down the river.

The former CIA analyst Frank Snepp remembered that time in an interview with me after the war: "The city was holding its breath. We had always feared that the Vietnamese would mob us if we ever tried to leave. But they realized on that last day that we were their last hope. If they turned against us, there was no way out of the country."

No one is killed in the shameful melees that are to follow, but the mad scrambles to go anywhere but Vietnam remain today an ignominious coda to the already bleak history of America's last years in Vietnam. The main crisis unfolds in and around the U.S. Embassy, a six-story building with a concrete lattice facade that serves to keep the building cool and deflect incoming missiles.

When the helicopters start emerging from the leaden afternoon skies to pick up the chosen few, a stampede begins. By late afternoon an estimated 10,000 desperate Vietnamese have advanced on the embassy, shoving to get close to the iron gates and the high walls, and when they do get there, endeavoring to claw themselves over. The U.S. Marine security force strives to get control, only to meet with shouted protests and insults.

That evening, I write a story for the AP that begins: "Ten years ago I watched the first U.S. Marines arrive to help Vietnam. They were greeted on the beaches by pretty Vietnamese girls in white silken robes who draped flower garlands about their necks. A decade has passed, and on Tuesday I watched the U.S. Marines shepherding Americans out of South Vietnam.

"They were the same clean-cut looking young men of a decade ago. But the Vietnamese were different. Those who didn't have a place for them on the last helicopters - and there were thousands left behind - hooted, booed and scuffled with the Marines trying to secure the landing zones. Some Vietnamese threw themselves over walls and wire fences, only to be thrown back by Marines.

"Bloodshed was avoided seemingly only by good luck and bad aim on the part of some angry Vietnamese who shot at a few departing buses and helicopters."

There are mixed signals and questionable decisions. By evening, there is a growing awareness that some of the 13 designated pickup points have not been visited by any helicopters, leaving some of the most vulnerable Vietnamese, many of them CIA workers, to the mercy of the arriving communists.

Snepp is inside the embassy that night, and tells me later, "Americans have been criticized that day in Saigon for their sins of omission, but the heroes that day were the embassy officers who pursued their way through the crowds and risked their lives to get their friends on those helicopters. If the Americans salvage anything of their honor from the last day of the war it is due to the young men who did the legwork during the evacuation while the ambassador and his aides sat back in the embassy trying to figure out what went wrong."

The monsoon is coming to Saigon, arriving along with the North Vietnamese who from the beginning of this offensive have been in a race against the weather. They know the heavy tanks and artillery pieces they use to support their overwhelming conventional attacks can easily bog down in the mud. From the slippery roof of the Eden Building where the AP office is located, I watch through the rainy mist as the dark shapes of helicopters come and go.

At 2 the following morning, April 30, the U.S. embassy needs to destroy all its communications equipment in preparation for final departure.

Martin refuses to leave until all the people he feels responsible for are evacuated. Around 5 a.m., a young helicopter crewman comes into his office and hands him a note scrawled on the back of a pad. Martin tells me later: "I will never forget it... The message says, 'The president of the United States directs that Ambassador Martin come out on this helicopter.'"

Around 7:30 a.m., another helicopter, a Sea Knight, swoops low over John F. Kennedy Square (soon to be renamed) and settles on the roof of the embassy. Through binoculars I see a group of Marines running to the open doors of the big ship. It zooms across the city on its way to its carrier offshore. I eventually learn the Marines were part of a security group commanded by Maj. James Kean, and were temporarily forgotten in the confusion of the evacuation.

Eventually, the sounds of the helicopters are replaced by human voices. Hearing angry shouting, I spot a dozen people in the middle of Lam Son Square arguing over possession of a king-sized bed. The looting of America's abandoned buildings has begun.

Franjola and I walk up toward the American Embassy. We see a few bodies on the streets, maybe thieves killed by angry citizens, or the thieves' victims. We see a crowd outside the embassy in a mood opposite the anger of the previous day. They are laughing, comparing looted stuff they've dragged out. Inside, smiling locals are trying to smash open a heavy safe with a sledgehammer.

On a pile of wet documents and broken furniture on the back lawn we find the bronze plaque engraved with the names of the five American servicemen who died in the attack on the building in the opening hours of the Tet Offensive in 1968. Together, we carry it back to the AP office.

Esper insists on manning the office, just as he has done for most of the previous 10 years. He is listening to Saigon Radio in the monitoring room with our interpreter who soon shouts, "Surrender, it's surrender!" President Duong Van Minh is announcing complete capitulation; it's now official. Esper rushes to message New York.

Esper is looking gaunt, his eyes burning with exhaustion. He hasn't left the office in days, and now he decides to take a walk around outside. Within a few minutes he is back, pale and disturbed. Esper explains that while strolling across Lam Son Square he was approached by a distraught Vietnamese police lieutenant colonel in full uniform, a man he later identifies as Nguyen Van Long, who mutters to him, "It's finished." The officer then walks away about 10 feet, makes a sharp about face, salutes a nearby statue commemorating Vietnamese infantrymen, and raises a .45-caliber pistol. He blows his brains out. For a second, George thought he was to be the target. He writes the story with shaky hands.

Franjola has been doing the rounds. He returns and says he was nearly side-swiped by a jeep careening through the streets. It is packed with laughing, shouting young men in black pajamas and waving Russian rifles. I rush downstairs to Tu Do, the main street. I hear the roar of heavy engines and look toward the old French cathedral where a convoy of Russian Molotova trucks is approaching. Each is loaded with young North Vietnamese soldiers in battle garb, their green pith helmets tilted back as they peer in wonder at the tall buildings they are passing, probably the first they have ever seen. A few local Vietnamese are standing near me. They are staring, speechless. I see a large Communist flag unfurl from a room at the nearby Caravelle Hotel.

I notice a group of South Vietnamese soldiers running down a side street, kicking off their uniforms, tossing their weapons into shop doorways. I run back to the AP office, my heart beating wildly as I scramble up the narrow stairways. In the hallway there are a dozen Vietnamese neighbors who clutch at my clothing and implore me to save them. I push into the office and look across to Esper.

"George," I shout, "Saigon has fallen. Call New York."

I check my watch. It's 11:43 a.m. I type up a news bulletin about what I've just seen and hand it our Vietnamese telex operator, Tammy. He reads it and rises from his chair in alarm. He's looking at the door. I push him down and order him to send my bulletin. He does, then bolts out of the office, and we never see him again.

Around noon, Franjola and I walk the city streets. Russian tanks are arriving in greater numbers now. Local people are spilling onto the sidewalks, their fears of catastrophe gone. I walk through the open gates of the defense ministry building. A South Vietnamese officer is in consultation with several North Vietnamese. He turns to me and says, "No pictures," and I continue shooting. After all, there are new sheriffs in town, and they don't seem to mind.

I meet the Australian cameraman Neil Davis who is walking from the presidential palace. He'd watched North Vietnamese tanks crash through the palace gates. He says President Minh has been arrested and taken away. I return to the office, and soon afterward one of our stringer photographers walks in with a North Vietnamese officer and his aide, who are amiable, talkative and appreciative of the snacks we offer them.

Later that afternoon Esper suggests that with international communications still up, I write my reflections of the final day. I start punching a telex tape and it winds to the floor as I write. I feed the tape into the transmitter and it chugs its way through the machine. I write:

"In 13 years of covering the Vietnam War I never dreamed it would end as it did at noon today. I thought it might end with a political deal like in Laos. Even an Armageddon-type battle with the city left in ruins. But a total surrender followed a short two hours later with a cordial meeting in the AP office in Saigon with an armed and battle-garbed North Vietnamese officer with his aide - and over a warm Coke and stale pound cake at that? That is how the Vietnam War ended for me today."

The tape stops running. I punch a few keys but the machine just coughs a couple of times. I try the key again, no response. The AP wire from Saigon to New York is down - and out. The new authorities have pulled the plug.

I call out to Esper, "That's it, George. It's over."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How the Global Economic System Is Destroying People and Planet Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31563"><span class="small">Carl Pope, EcoWatch</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 April 2015 13:03

Pope writes: "American outsourcing of manufacturing to China has had a major negative impact on the health of the Chinese population. But it turns out that China is not like Las Vegas - what goes on in China doesn't stay in China."

Passing Fast Track authority will make us even more complicit in the destruction of lives and communities that is produced by our current economic system, with its emphasis on industrial exploitation at any cost and without any local accountability. (photo: xuanhuongho/Shutterstock.com)
Passing Fast Track authority will make us even more complicit in the destruction of lives and communities that is produced by our current economic system, with its emphasis on industrial exploitation at any cost and without any local accountability. (photo: xuanhuongho/Shutterstock.com)


How the Global Economic System Is Destroying People and Planet

By Carl Pope, EcoWatch

26 April 15

 

art of the genius behind the Goldman Environmental Prize is that it not only rewards inspiring individuals, but it also spotlights communities and struggles that would other wise remain off the global community’s radar screen. This year’s prize recipients—the 25th—were no exception.

Few in the audience—or those exposed to the media about this year’s winners—had ever heard of Myanmar’s proposed Myitsone Dam on the Irawaddy River, blocked by the efforts of Myint Zaw. Even living next door to Canada I was utterly unaware of the successful struggle by Marilyn’s Baptists’s XeniGwet’in First Nation of British Columbia to stop an enormous gold and copper mine which would have destroyed Fish Lake, the anchor of their spiritual identify. Nor had I any knowledge of the proposed Agua Zarca Dam in Honduras, a joint project of Honduran company Desarrollos Energéticos SA (DESA) and Chinese state-owned Sinohydro, the world’s largest dam developer. The indigenous Lenca people who would be displaced by the dam had no voice in the decision to construct it until Berta Cacera, this year’s winner from South America, organized her people to forced Sinohydro to pull out.

Supporting heroes like these in struggles that had previously gone unrecognized also highlights the underlying—and often vicious—architecture of today’s global economy. None of these three projects was driven by local needs, or designed for local benefit. All represented efforts by remote elites to poach yet unindustrialized natural commons—as if British Columbia, Honduras and Myanmar were somehow Robinson Crusoe’s desert island, waited to be appropriated by the first comer under “finder’s keepers” doctrines.

The Myitsone Dam would have generated electricity to be shipped to remote China. The copper and gold from the Prosperity mine were not for the benefit of the XEniGwet’in, but of global mining behemoth TML. The electricity from the Aqua Zarca dam was intended for local use—but not by local communities. Since a 2009 coup, the new Honduran government has awarded a full 30 percent of the nation’s land as mining concessions to global mining interests; the Aqua Zarca dam was going to provide power for these mines. (Just to get a sense of what those mining concessions mean, imagine that foreign mining companies had been given an essentially unfettered right to strip mine all of Texas, California, Colorado, New Jersey, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Michigan, Wyoming, Kentucky Tennessee, Massachusetts, South Carolina and Maryland—and that dams like the Grand Coulee were being redirected to serving these foreign companies).

So there’s a vital educational outcome to the Goldman Prize as well as recognition and support for these front-line defenders of their communities. But front-line narratives—in isolation—have a weakness. They generate empathy, but not community. The audience at the Goldman Ceremony, or those who read the stories or watch the videos, are encountering someone else’s struggle—a weaker motivator for action than learning about their own struggles. This is intensified when our consumption is, indirectly, driving the exploitation, but at the same time most of us feel powerless to make choices that change that—we don’t, after all, have a clue where the iron ore in our stainless steel water flask came from—Honduras?

So I want to book-end this year’s Goldman Prize with two additional data points. The first is a stunning statistic. A large share of the world’s manufacturing capacity has shifted over the past decade from Europe and North America to China. This has powered enormous economic growth, but also generated enormous volumes of climate and health pollution. Of China’s infamous air pollution problem, 36 percent of the sulfur dioxide, 27 percent of nitrogen oxides and 17 percent of black carbon are emitted producing goods for export—about a fifth of this in exports to the U.S.

Manufacturing goods in China for export to the U.S. not only shifts pollution from the U.S. to China, but dramatically increases total global pollution—Chinese manufacturing has emission rates ranging from 6-17 time those in the U.S. and the EU.

So American outsourcing of manufacturing to China has had a major negative impact on the health of the Chinese population. But it turns out that China is not like Las Vegas—what goes on in China doesn’t stay in China. Chinese air pollutants are transported by upper atmospheric winds across the Pacific—and while their concentrations are diluted on this journey, they are not, it turns out, rendered harmless. A new study shows that even in 2007, when the volumes of Chinese pollution were much lower than they are today, air pollution emitted in China while producing goods for export was responsible for up to 24 percent of total sulfate pollution over the Western U.S., as shown in the chart below.

So the current trade regime between China and U.S. is not just a matter of the U.S. exporting manufacturing jobs to China and importing cheaper consumer goods—we are also dramatically increasing the volume of pollution associated with our consumption, so much that while the worst health impacts are in China, a significant part of U.S. pollution is now generated in China producing goods for U.S. consumers. We import pollution as well as goods. Which brings me to another big piece of news this week—the agreement between President Obama, Congressional Republican leaders and some Senate Democrats (but not Minority Leader Harry Reid) to grant the President “fast-track” authority for the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations. While the White House maintains that the TPP will be a new kind of trade deal, one that will protect the environment that simply isn’t true. Like NAFTA, and like the WTO, the TPP will take the view that countries cannot set pollution standards for the way in which goods they import are produced. Indeed, while it will prevent the U.S. from setting pollution standards for factories exporting to our consumers, it will actually permit corporations to sue to lower pollution standards that already exist here.

This doctrine was based on the notion that Americans are not affected by pollution control standards in China, and therefore ought not to interfere. This is clearly not the case for climate pollution—CO2 emitted anywhere has the same impact on the California drought. But it is also clearly not clear for conventional health pollution—even for countries separated by the Pacific Ocean, much less for close neighbors those in Central America or Europe.

So we need to recognize that the front line communities in BC or Myanmar or Honduras are not just protecting their health and ecosystems—they are defending ours. What puts them at most risk, however, is our willingness to tolerate a global economic system in which multinational producers are permitted to bribe and bully weak governments into giving them the right to exploit local resources for distant shareholder profits. Passing Fast Track authority will make us even more complicit in the destruction of lives and communities that is produced by our current economic system, with its emphasis on industrial exploitation at any cost and without any local accountability.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Martin O'Malley, the Progressive Executive? Print
Sunday, 26 April 2015 12:15

Galindez writes: "When the opportunity presented itself, O'Malley was on the right side. He is no Bernie Sanders - I don't see O'Malley leading the fight against the billionaire class - but I do see him representing working people's interests."

Martin O'Malley. (photo: AP)
Martin O'Malley. (photo: AP)


Martin O'Malley, the Progressive Executive?

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

26 April 15

 

artin O’Malley: “Well I think that Secretary Clinton and I bring different backgrounds and different experience to the task of getting things done. I have been a big city mayor and I have been a governor. In other words, I’ve been an executive and a progressive executive with a record of accomplishments.”

While I don’t remember O’Malley ever being referred to as a progressive before this presidential run, a close look at his record reveals a politician who has usually come down on the progressive side of the issues. As mayor of Baltimore and governor of Maryland, he didn’t often have a chance to put himself in the middle of the debate on progressive issues, but when the opportunity presented itself, O’Malley was on the right side. He is no Bernie Sanders – I don’t see O’Malley leading the fight against the billionaire class – but I do see him representing working people’s interests.

While O’Malley is right on the issues, he is a savvy politician who will adjust to the political climate. In 2007 he didn’t support Barack Obama or even John Edwards. My guess is O’Malley was positioning himself to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate. He penned an op-ed in the Washington Post with Harold Ford Jr., then the chairman of of the Democratic Leadership Council:

With President Bush and the Republican Party on the rocks, many Democrats think the 2008 election will be, to borrow a favorite GOP phrase, a cakewalk. Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don’t exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party’s leading centrist voice, aren’t needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven’t voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.”

Usually any involvement with the DLC would be a deal breaker for me, but O’Malley’s record puts him to the left of the DLC. Although he is the kind of politician who tries to be all things to all people, Martin O’Malley is clearly more progressive than he appeared in that column, and since the column didn’t advocate any specific centrist positions, I am willing believe that O’Malley is closer to an Elizabeth Warren than a Harold Ford. But make no mistake, he is still somewhere between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren – he is not as progressive as Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the true progressive in this race, but if he doesn’t decide to run or his campaign does not gain traction, O’Malley might be the best option for progressives.

Why? Let’s start with his record, then look at his stump speech this year.

Living Wage

After a speech on Tax Day at Harvard University, O’Malley responded to a question from the audience, saying he supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. He reminded those in attendance that Maryland was one of the first states to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. “It is not fair, it is not right, it is not just that people should play by the rules, work 16-hour days and still be raising their children in poverty,” he said when he signed the bill last April. It was the last piece of a very progressive legislative agenda that O’Malley achieved in his two terms as governor of Maryland. At Harvard last week, O’Malley said that $10.10 an hour was as much as he could get support for in Maryland but that he expects other places, including the District of Columbia, to go to $15 dollars an hour. He said the raise would be “good for the economy and fuel economic growth.”

Death Penalty

In one of his final acts as governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley commuted the sentences of four death row inmates to life without parole. O’Malley helped end the death penalty in his state in 2013, arguing that it wasn’t a deterrent for criminals. He also argued it could end up being applied to innocent people, and was far more costly to the state than other punishments. When commuting the sentences, O’Malley said: “In the final analysis, there is one truth that stands between and before all of us. That truth is this – few of us would ever wish for our children or grandchildren to kill another human being or to take part in the killing of another human being. The legislature has expressed this truth by abolishing the death penalty in Maryland.”

Immigration

Martin O’Malley was out front on immigration when he was governor of Maryland. Representative Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), a congressional leader on immigration reform, said this when introducing O’Malley: “There’s another wonderful, wonderful champion of our community, and he’s with us. And I have the distinct honor and pleasure of introducing him. It’s Governor O’Malley. He wasn’t afraid to challenge the president to implement a more humane approach to the refugee crisis. He doesn’t just talk, he walks the walk. His state of Maryland has cared for more unaccompanied children per capita than any other state in the United States of America.”

O’Malley was critical of Obama for deportation of children who illegally crossed the border to escape violence in their own countries, saying they would meet “certain death.” O’Malley also got legislation passed in Maryland to allow tuition assistance for children of undocumented immigrants, and access to driver’s licenses.

Marriage Equality

In response to the rise of the same-sex marriage movement in the 70s, Maryland established the first law in the United States that expressly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In 2012, Democrats led by O’Malley began a movement for marriage equality. In February 2012, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. It went into effect in January of 2013 after a state referendum ratified the law. O’Malley supported same sex marriage before it was popular. Hillary Clinton was still not prepared to go that far in 2012, and even Obama was still acting like he was opposed. Remember, it was an election year for Obama, who was talked into not supporting same-sex marriage by his handlers so he could get elected.

Environment

According to an op-ed in Grist: “Environmental protection has been one of O’Malley’s main focuses, from Chesapeake Bay restoration to combating climate change.... O’Malley is the rare elected official who seems genuinely motivated to address climate change. ‘I deal with a lot of politicians in my work as a climate advocate,’ says Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. ‘Martin O’Malley, more than any politician I know, really loses sleep over climate change. He is deeply concerned about climate change and his actions over the last eight years reveal that. He’s pushed the envelope more than anyone I’ve seen.’”

Education

One of O’Malley’s first acts as governor was to freeze public university tuition. He also dramatically increased funding for school construction. Maryland was ranked #1 in public school education 5 years in a row. While most states were cutting budgets, Maryland increased spending on education during O’Malley’s tenure.

Gun Control

This can be a very telling issue. Many progressives who are as politically savvy as O’Malley calculate that being pro-gun makes them more electable. Governor Martin O’Malley, however, pushed for and signed one of the toughest gun control measures in the country. Under the legislation, anyone buying a handgun will have to submit fingerprints to obtain a license. The bill also bans 45 types of assault weapons.

Jobs

Not only did O’Malley spend on education, his spending on the environment and infrastructure allowed Maryland to create jobs at a much higher rate than the national average. O’Malley became governor during the economic crisis in 2007, and because of his spending priorities, Maryland recovered jobs quickly. His opposition to the TPP and support for a $15 minimum wage indicates he will be a pro-labor candidate.

Electability

While those were the progressive accomplishments, some of his other accomplishments make him a candidate who could appeal to centrists and make him a viable, electable alternative. O’Malley, often called a technocrat, used technology to fight crime and govern both in Baltimore and the governor’s mansion. He expanded that use of technology to other departments in his government. O’Malley’s staff meetings were stat driven, and the result was an efficient, competent government. His CitiStat system helped lower crime in Baltimore by making the police force more efficient. He increased the scope to other city agencies, holding managers publicly accountable for their department’s performance. The result has been a more efficient city government that is a model spreading throughout the country. While statistics are not exciting, I think Americans could appreciate a more efficient government.

O’Malley has a strong record to run on, and that record would make him an attractive candidate in the general election. I’m not sure how many Independents will gravitate to Hillary Clinton. O’Malley could attract more interest from that all-important voting block.

2016 Campaign

O’Malley is clearly staking out the space to the left of Clinton. He would reinstitute Taft Hartley to break up banks he considers to big to succeed. He opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, supports raising the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour, and rails against student debt and economic inequality. Among the candidates considering a run, I see him as the 2nd most progressive, with Bernie Sanders the most progressive. The question: Is O’Malley more electable than Sanders? Sanders has to overcome the Socialist label, not an easy thing to do in American politics.

O’Malley has yet to talk much about foreign policy. Like all of the other Democratic Party candidates, he is pro-Israel. Even Green Party candidate Jill Stein has a very nuanced position on Israel, so it would be a mistake to eliminate O’Malley based on his pro-Israel stance. The O’Malley campaign has plans for foreign policy speeches in the near future.

Martin O’Malley, better known as a technocrat than a progressive, does have a record that indicates he can govern as a progressive.


Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 Next > End >>

Page 2483 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN