The United States’ Disregard for International Law is a Menace to Venezuela and Latin America

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

by NINO PAGLICCIA

Woman soldier in Venezuelan armed forces.

International community principles

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]t the 25^thU.N. session of October 1970 the General Assembly adopted a Resolution titled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] Not too many people would know that, therefore I think it is important to remember what those principles are (emphasis added):

• The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any Stateor in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

• The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful meansin such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

• The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter.

• The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter.

• The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

• The principle of sovereign equality of States.

• The principle that States shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter.

The OAS Charter has similar principles.

I have often criticized the U.N. for being ineffective and I still stand by it. I am going out on a limb by saying that the more “principles” and “resolutions” the U.N. issues, the more military interventions, invasions, terrorist actions, incitation to violence, wars, and of course punitive economic sanctions have occurred in the last 40 or more years.

However, I must clarify that a world organization like the U.N. is necessary, albeit one that should be radically modified to really live up to its promise stated in the principles listed above. At least one principle should be essential: The principle of sovereign equality of States.

But I don’t think I am going out on a limb when I say that only one country, among the 193 U.N. member States, stands out as having committed consistently and relentlessly the large majority of international infractions: The United States of America.

Many of its infractions are clearly apparent. Many others occur behind the cover of “diplomacy”, such as incitement to rebellion and coups, bribery and corruption. Often, the U.N. and other international bodies, including embassies, are the preferred venues for fomenting subversion. It is not unusual that this type of unlawful activity would also be “delegated” to some so-called civil society organization or NGO.

Today we are seeing blatant examples of US unlawful behavior to the point that it is a serious menace to Venezuela and the rest of Latin America.

Overcoming sanctions

I have already referred to the US sanctions and their connection to the US-centered financial system in the context of the recent monetary conversion in Venezuela. [2] But unilateral US sanctions have become the economic version of an epidemic. Cuba, Russia, Iran, Syria, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea are current targets.

It is to be noted that the US and other countries have consistently issued sanctions against Venezuela every time the Maduro government has undertaken important policy measures, the last one being issued on May 21 a day after Nicolas Maduro was reelected president.

What is striking this time is that after the major monetary revolution, initiated by the Maduro government last August 21, not a single new sanction has been issued. Surprisingly, one can say that US sanctions stand out for its absence. This can have two possible interpretations.

The immediate one is that the Venezuelan monetary conversion, with pegging of the currency to the largest Venezuelan oil resources through the crypto currency Petro, is successfully rendering sanctions avoidable to a certain extent, and therefore less effective economic weapons. The US may be losing the thunder of the dollar as the world reserve currency with the consequent weakening of the US financial system that is at the core of economic sanctions.

Other countries threatened by US sanctions like Iran and Iraq are taking notice and are considering similar monetary policies dropping the dollar in their bilateral trade transactions. China and US-sanctioned Russia are also increasing their financial interaction away from the dollar. [3] The president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was more adamant declaring, “Now we have to gradually end the domination of the dollar once and for all by using national money among us”. [4]

Even some opposition economists foresee that a more independent Venezuelan economy will free itself of the crippling foreign-induced inflation. [5] And this can only lead to a healthy recovery in terms of availability of essential products. The prospect of economic recovery is quite real as suggested by the positive response of the Venezuelan private sector. But, a more encouraging sign is the willingness of many Venezuelans, who had left, to return home and are now receiving logistical support from the Maduro government to come back. We are seeing a “migration crisis” myth destroyed.

Bolivarian Militia: The people in arms, but who knows if the sociopathic Empire is plotting to test the nation the way it has tested Syria. Will Latin America support Venezuela in solidarity or desert her?

This scenario will not only be a “bad example” for other nations, but it will also destroy other myths to justify a regime change in Venezuela such as “humanitarian crisis”. No such thing has any real foundation as recently reported by the U.N. independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, to the 39^thsession of the U.N. Human Rights Council. [6]

Military intervention and proxy war

So, given that sanctions are being overcome and are not anymore, at least for now, the weapon of choice of the US for regime change in Venezuela, we are left with a second possible scenario that the US is preparing for another course of action: military intervention or, equivalently, a proxy war. This would be a tragic decision and should sound an alarm to all Venezuela observers and governments of the region. There has never been a US military intervention that has brought any positive outcome to the population anywhere. All “gains” are only assured for US corporations.

The latest report that the US is somehow involved in building a Venezuelan military rebellion comes from the New York Times: “The Trump administration held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro.” [7]

How is the military intervention to take place and what would the reaction be?

If we are to learn from past US interventions in other conflict zones, the US may not put its own troops on the ground in Venezuela, at least initially, but more likely will provide full logistic, intelligence and weaponry support to “rebels”. This requires a “rebel force” that is so far non-existent, despite attempts to manufacture one that gives the impression of “hundreds” of Venezuelan military “disaffected” with the Maduro administration.

However, in this possible scenario infiltration attacks, including sabotage, would come from Colombia and less likely, for now, from Brazil due to the upcoming elections in October. But in the likelihood that Jair Bolsonaro is the winning Brazilian candidate, Venezuela will face two rightwing governments in the two border countries. They would be fully prompted by the US to act and they would comply. The Venezuelan border states to watch are Tachira, Zulia and Bolivar.

Ahead of an overt military intervention or proxy war we will see an increase in the infowar that is already being waged against Venezuela. The current infowar is the overstated “exodus” of Venezuelans. A detailed research clearly shows that there is no “migration crisis”. [8]

Although no conclusion can be drawn at this point about a US military intervention, the history of Latin America shows that it cannot be excluded. It is dependent on three main conditions: the creation of a US-style “plausible reason” to intervene (mostly done), a local real or made up rebel group (still underway), and enough support from a majority of regional and international governments (not quite likely yet). The Venezuelan representative at the U.N., Samuel Moncada has twitted a few days ago that the “US is pushing Brazil, Chile, Peru and Colombia to war, demanding to take a tough decision to start the aggression.”

This leads to the question of what the reaction in the Latin American and Caribbean region and beyond would be.

With the US openly plotting its overthrow, the government has sought refuge in alliances and aid with Russia and China. The image shows a Russian-made Sukhoi fighter in service with the Bolivarian Air Force. (FAV)

So far, the little over a dozen countries of the so-called Lima Group has hijacked the voice of the OAS inciting to regime change at all cost. But that is still a minority of the 35 OAS member states.

The Trump administration must weigh very carefully its decision. Tilting the balance towards a military intervention could create a serious backlash in the region, not only political, but also social with prolonged conflicts.

Beyond the region, Washington must consider the possible reactions from Moscow and Beijing. Russia and China have developed close economic and business ties in Latin America and Venezuela in particular. China is now the fourth largest destination of Venezuelan oil.

Realistically, the most important point for the US to consider is the reaction of the Venezuelan people. The US government is misinforming the international community about the lack of support for the Maduro government in Venezuela, however, it must have first hand information about the following facts: 1) the large majority of the Venezuelan population is indeed a very cohesive democratic and constitutional society; and 2) Venezuela has a loyal National Bolivarian Militia with about half a million personnel whose main function is “Establish permanent links between the National Bolivarian Armed Forces and the Venezuelan people, in order to contribute to ensuring the overall defense of Venezuela.”

Concluding thoughts

In a fair international community of nations truly based on U.N. principles for the sake of peace, the United States would abide to the first principle listed above: “that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. But the US has not and will not. Its only principle seems to be that of “exceptionalism”. It is determined to suffer the isolation of a bully state.

Unfortunately, the US reckless actions have consequences not only for the 30 million people of Venezuela but also for the rest of the region.

Venezuela has initiated a process that promises to effectively reduce the impact of unilateral and punitive economic sanctions slapped on the country, and begin an economic recovery process. A possible sign that Venezuela’s monetary reform may have outmaneuvered the US is that there have been no new sanctions against Venezuela since last May from the US or other countries.

However, this is not a complete victory for Venezuela. A more serious danger may lie ahead. Based on a recent report by the NYT the danger has been brewing for some time, and judging by at least one analysis it is fast approaching in the form of a possible military intervention whose final staging is not clear yet. [9]

There have been several threats from the Trump administration in the past so it is clear that today a military action against Venezuela cannot be ruled out. Venezuela has always taken seriously any threat to its national security and has responded diplomatically and publicly with protests. It has just done so one more time with the intention of informing public opinion that the US is breaking international law on top of U.N. and OAS principles.

A military intervention, direct or through proxies, will not be a guaranteed “success” to the US. The claim in the NYT that a “few hundred” Venezuelan troops may be disaffected is neither credible nor sufficient to confront a loyal population as the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 proved. Further, it would trigger a chain reaction of events never seen before. In the emerging multipolar world the involvement of Russia and China cannot be excluded; if not armed, at least political.

But this is a situation where Venezuela cannot wait or hope for any immediate help except from its own people, and it has to tip on the side of caution. The price of misjudging the danger may be too high.

There can be no doubt that the Bolivarian Armed Forces and the National Bolivarian Militia are on full alert and ready.

Notes.

[1] http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm

[2] https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Venezuelas-Monetary-Revolution-Vis-a-Vis-Economic-Sanctions-20180808-0023.html

[3] https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/287735-expulsar-dolar-mercado-asiatico

[4] https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/287339-erdogan-acabar-dominio-dolar

[5] http://sakerlatam.es/america-latina-y-el-caribe/analisis-informal-de-las-medidas-economicas-adoptadas-en-venezuela/and http://www.simpatizantesfmln.org/blog/?p=56528

[6] https://chicagoalbasolidarity.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/un-report-on-venezuela-and-ecuador-alfred-de-zayas.pdf

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/americas/donald-trump-venezuela-military-coup.html

[8] https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/287848-vecindad-incomoda-dimension-real-migracion-venezuela

[9] http://resumen-english.org/2018/09/the-next-90-days-will-define-the-future-of-venezuela-and-south-america/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nino Pagliccia has two Master’s Degrees from Stanford University and is a retired researcher on Canada-Cuba collaborative projects at the University of British Columbia. He has published many peer-reviewed journal articles and has contributed chapters to books on topics about Cuba, the Cuban healthcare system and solidarity. He has been a long-time activist and has organized groups to do voluntary work in Cuba for almost 15 years.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

Venezuela’s Maduro Pays Tribute to Mao, Meets China’s Xi on Trip to Deepen Ties

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro shakes hands with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi as they meet in Beijing, China Friday.

Xi said China would support the Venezuelan government’s efforts to seek stability and development.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang Friday in Beijing.

RELATED:

China Expresses Confidence in Venezuelan People, Government Ahead of Maduro Visit

Maduro is in China on a four-day trip to discuss economic agreements and to bolster his country’s recently unveiled economic recovery plan.

Li told Maduro that China supported Venezuela’s efforts to develop its economy and improve people’s livelihoods, and was willing to provide what help it could.

Xi told Maduro the two countries should promote mutually-beneficial cooperation to take relations to a new stage, and consolidate political mutual trust, state television said.

Xi said China would support the Venezuelan government’s efforts to seek stability and development.

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro lays a wreath at the mausoleum of China’s late Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing, China Friday. Photo: Reuters

Prior to his talks with Xi and Li, Maduro visited the Mao Zedong mausoleum to pay tribute to the Chinese leader. He honored Mao by bowing three times in front of a wreath at the massive mausoleum facing Tiananmen Square and heaping praise on Communist China’s founder, according to Channel Asia News.

“We are beginning this state visit in the best way because we have come to pay tribute to the great helmsman Mao Zedong. … I was very moved because it really reminds of one of the great founders of a multipolar 21st century,” Maduro said as he went on to praise Mao as a “giant of the homeland of humanity” and a “giant of revolutionary ideas.”

Maduro’s visit to China comes at the invitation of Xi. He said the Chinese leader’s vision of a “common destiny for humanity” is more than welcome as it comes “without a hegemonic empire that blackmails, that dominates, that attacks the people of the world.”

Meanwhile, back in the Imperial west…

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

Ecuador: Thousands Protest Govt’s Economic, Foreign Policies

This is this year’s second massive march against the government.

Protesters condemned the policies of President Moreno, who has been accused of betraying the programs that won him the country’s last election.

Thousands of Ecuadoreans marched in the country’s capital city of Quito Thursday to condemn a series of economic, social and foreign policy decisions taken by the government of President Lenin Moreno. Among the policies, which came under harsh criticism, were the government’s austerity measures, an increase in the price of gasoline; tax measures, which offered debt forgiveness for wealthy individuals and companies; and Moreno’s closeness with the United States government on foreign and domestic policy.

ANALYSIS:
‘Self-Sabotage:’ Ecuador Embraces Neoliberal Reform and US Interests

The protests, which called for greater attention to be paid to the impact of government policy on citizens and workers in the public sector, were organized by the Citizen’s Revolution movement, an offshoot of ruling party Alianza Pais, that remains loyal to former President Rafael Correa. The protesters condemned Moreno’s betrayal of the party’s core ideology and the adoption of a political agenda commonly associated with Ecuador’s right-wing political parties.

Ecuador’s worsening economic climate, the government’s pledge to renew military cooperation with the U.S., the murder of an Afro-Ecuadorean by state security forces, and the government’s response to an international ruling favoring Chevron-Texaco have also led to the fomenting of distrust in government policy and the mobilization of groups, who have traditionally declared no political affiliation.

“I have come because of the discomfort that persists in Ecuador due to Moreno’s policies. He betrayed those who voted for him. … I am here not with a political party, but as a citizen who is fighting for his rights,” Mauricio Rubio told teleSUR.

Lenin Moreno was elected with a political platform based on the continuation of his predecessor’s policies. Shortly after he was sworn in, Moreno withdrew support for longstanding government programs and policies and aligned more closely with the Alianza Pais’ political opposition.

The police estimated 5,000 people to have participated in the march.

#KolmenaLenínChao pic.twitter.com/Xi5724QdKG

— Lolita (@luly_alban) September 14, 2018

During the march, participants carried signs calling Lenin Moreno a traitor and demanding his resignation. They also called for an end to the U.S. military presence in the country and cooperation with state security forces.

“Forgiveness for tax evaders: US$4.5 billion. Assault against the people” and “Ecuador loves life and peace. Get out, gringos. Enough war” were among the complaints and demands.

Many also carried images of Correa and decried what they call the “political persecution” against him. Correa, who lives in Belgium, is currently facing a preventative detention order for having allegedly ordered the kidnapping of an opposition legislator in 2013.

The Moreno government sought an Interpol red notice against Correa, but it wasn’t approved.

Part Two

Analysis

‘Self-Sabotage:’ Ecuador Embraces Neoliberal Reform and US Interests

Progressives in Latin America have witnessed a string of political defeats in the past three years after governing for over a decade and openly challenging United States hegemony within the region.

Most recently, in 2015 businessman Mauricio Macri won the presidential elections in Argentina, and a year after Brazilian legislators successfully impeached elected President Dilma Rousseff.

The expected shifts in economic and foreign policy took place. Argentina and Brazil embraced neoliberal and diplomatic orthodoxy in the form of financial and economic liberalization, austerity measures, labor reforms rejected by workers, and improved relations with the United States and international financial institutions.

Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador remained an obstacle in the U.S.’ quest to regain control in the region.

However, since Lenin Moreno was elected president in 2017, his departure from his successor’s Citizens Revolution political platform sparked doubts on whether Ecuador would maintain a foreign policy rooted in the principles of sovereignty and regional integration.

This year, Moreno has dispelled any doubts.

A review of the recent visit by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and of the contents of the Productive Development Law, approved on June 21, reveals how Moreno has embraced the interests of Ecuador’s business sector and U.S. geopolitical interests.

Pence Finds an Eager Ecuador

U.S. Vice President Pence started his third Latin American tour on June 26, which took him to Brazil, Ecuador and Guatemala. As the U.S. announced its new attempt to “restore democracy to Venezuela,” images and videos of Latin American toddlers and children kept in prison-like conditions after being separated from their relatives by U.S. authorities flooded the internet.

The world and people of the U.S. responded with outrage. But outrage did not make its way to Ecuador’s presidential palace, Carondelet.

During the joint press conference, Moreno failed to denounce Trump’s immigration policy, instead he thanked the U.S. government for “its commitment to put an end to this humanitarian problem,” while Pence focused on Venezuela’s economic migrants and then went on to “respectfully urge Ecuador… to take further steps to isolate the Maduro regime.”

Intentionally or not, the judicial order for preventive prison for former President Rafael Correa, allegedly linked to a failed kidnapping in 2012, has served that purpose. On July 4, Moreno’s foreign minister Jose Valencia Amores, announced the suspension of the trip of Ecuador’s new envoy to Venezuela and recalled its ambassador in Bolivia for consultations over comments supporting Correa.

The U.S. found a compliant Ecuador, eager to please to secure a commercial agreement coveted by Ecuador’s business class.

“We will work to eliminate any impediment with the aim of holding a bilateral dialogue on commerce and investments by the end of 2018,” Moreno told Pence and the nation.

He has already worked on two fronts: economic reforms and bilateral cooperation in security matters while aiding the dismantling of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur).

Economic Reforms: Capital Over People

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n June 21, at the request of the executive branch, Ecuador’s National Assembly approved the Productive Development Law, a law rejected by economists and activists for threatening social services and violating the 2008 Constitution.

The law prohibits the approval of the country’s annual budget with a primary deficit. A provision that according to Ecuadorean economist Andres Arauz, who worked in Ecuador’s planning agency and the Central Bank will adversely affect social spending.

“Every year there must be more revenue (taxes) than expenditures (education, health, security)… There are only two ways to make the numbers match. You either increase revenue or reduce spending,” Arauz explained.

However, the same law includes tax reductions and exemptions for foreign investors for up to 15 years, as well as exemptions for all new investments on paying the tax on currency sent abroad.

Economists have warned that eliminating the second tax could gravely affect Ecuador’s dollarized economy by allowing the extraction of large sums of money.

The law also includes debt forgiveness for private companies who have failed to pay their share of taxes to Ecuador’s Internal Revenues Service. Economists estimate the country is giving up at least US$2.2 billion.

Instead of increasing public revenue to sustain social spending, the law corners the state forcing it to give up revenue and cut public spending.

In adherence to International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommendations, one of the law’s articles bans Central Bank loans to the Finance Ministry, which helped the former government to cope with lack of liquidity without affecting social spending or halting large infrastructure projects.

Sociologist Jonathan Baez has described these decisions as “self-sabotage with the aim to access multilateral loans as the only possibility for financing.” During Pence’s visit, Moreno thanked the U.S. VP for his “willingness to support Ecuador’s financial needs by strengthening dialogue with multilateral organizations.”

Finally, the law brings back the unconstitutional Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT), which allow foreign investors to take legal disputes to international arbitration bypassing the country’s courts.

Article 422 of Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution prohibits “treaties or international instruments in which the state relinquishes sovereign jurisdiction to international arbitration agencies.”

Moreno presented these reforms as inevitable to avert an alleged economic crisis. However, economic indicators such as rising oil prices and a sustained economic growth of around three percent contradict this narrative of inevitability.

The aim is to make Ecuador attractive for investments, disregarding the cost to national finances and to the people who rely on the state’s social services. It’s a mad race to the bottom all over again.

In a recent interview with David Suarez, spokesperson for the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CEDES for its Spanish acronym) explained that “austerity must be understood in its ideological, political sense as spending cuts for the people and advantages or subsidies to private capital.”

Security Cooperation and Free Trade: Re-establishing U.S. Hegemony

[dropcap]D[/dropcap]iplomatic relations between Ecuador and the U.S. had deteriorated severely under Correa’s government. But that wasn’t the result of Correa’s whim, but of over two decades of social mobilization in rejection of U.S. foreign policy in Ecuador and the region, especially its military expansion and promotion of Free Trade Agreements (FTA).

It has been over 10 years since social movements, organized civil society and progressive governments in Latin America effectively defeated the U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

However, today “there is more pressure from Ecuador’s government to the U.S. government to sign a trade agreement… and it is not necessary to bolster exports because many Ecuadorean products are already entering the U.S. with no tariffs,” David Suarez explains.

Pence didn’t visit Moreno to sign an FTA, but because he has been tasked with gaining hemispheric support for the U.S. campaign against Venezuela and with paving the way for greater military control over the region. “Ecuador gains regional relevance in that sense,” Suarez affirms.

The U.S. might be swayed into accepting an FTA with Ecuador, but it will come at a cost for the country and the region; a cost the Ecuadorean government has already started to pay.

Ecuador played a leading role in the efforts to rid the region of U.S. military presence through the promotion of regional military cooperation within Unasur.

This year, the U.S. managed to get its Office for Security Cooperation re-invited after offering Moreno help in dealing with a series of attacks and kidnappings in Ecuador’s northern border with Colombia. Correa had expelled the Office in 2014 arguing it had gained undue influence over Ecuador’s national security institutions, including the military and the police.

Pence thanked Moreno for this gesture during his visit.

One of the U.S. most significant diplomatic victories thus far has been to plunge Unasur, the only regional integration body with no U.S. presence, into a crisis, when six U.S. allies and members of the Lima Group announced their “temporary” withdrawal.

Ecuador was one of the other six members that remained, which is also Unasur’s host country, but that has since changed. On July 5 President Moreno announced he was asking “Unasur to return that building so it can be better used.” Later that day he announced the building would be given to the National Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities to house the intercultural university Amawtay Wasi, which was shut down in 2013 for not meeting standards of quality.

According to former Unasur chief Ernesto Samper, Unasur’s South American Defense Council played a crucial role in the region’s push back against foreign military bases in South America and U.S. military hegemony.

Moreno’s latest decisions consolidate the U.S. victory over the project of sovereign South American integration.

Who Wins?

Capital, whether national or transnational, stands to win. Ecuador’s economic elites, who have mostly been satisfied with importing goods will win if an FTA is signed with the U.S. because they will avoid paying import taxes. Investors who will pay no income tax will win.

Many more will lose.

Pence’s announcement that “the U.S. will also work with Ecuador to confront the menace of drug trafficking and criminal organizations” is no good news for the people who live in Ecuador’s northern border. If U.S. cooperation with Colombia and Mexico are any indication, then these areas will likely see an increase in state and non-state violence.

Furthermore, as the state’s budget shrinks, Ecuadoreans will lose access to free public education and health. Many have already lost access to social programs like the human development bonus, and the Ministry of Social and Economic Inclusion has reported a cutback of US$10 million in their budget.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Things to ponder

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex

”HELP

Photo Source Tricia McKinney | CC BY 2.0[/caption]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he idea for this article came from one of those annoying “Recommended for you” thumbnails on YouTube. The title was: “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Trump’s Space Force Is Not a Crazy Idea.” Having written about and researched space weapons for over a decade, I was intrigued as to why a seemingly intelligent man (Tyson) would want to help promote an agenda that will literally imperil us all, namely the weaponization of space: the end-game of which is global domination in the interests of economic neoliberalism. So I clicked. Tyson was talking to host Stephen Colbert about the wonders of space militarization (by the US, of course, not its enemies).

It turns out that Tyson is promoting a new, co-authored book, Accessory to War: the Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military (W.W. Norton, released, tastelessly, on 11 September), which is all about the history of science militarization. The book is a disgraceful attempt to use history as an excuse to justify the continuation and expansion of taxpayer-funded R&D into hi-technology via military budgets. By now, the hi-tech sector dominates the top US corporations: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. Much of the innovations used by these companies were initiated in the military.

Tyson is doing the rounds on national media, including Colbert and CBS This Morning, to promote the book and more broadly continued public expenditure on the Pentagon. After a little digging, I found that America’s favourite astrophysicist is a glorified salesman for the military-industrial-complex.

TYSON’S MILITARY-SCIENCE BACKGROUND

Having graduated from the Bronx High School of Science, Tyson went on to earn a PhD in astrophysics from Columbia University in 1991. From 1996, Tyson has been Frederick P. Rose director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History.

Pretty soon, the George W. Bush administration was calling on Tyson’s talents for all things space-related. Under President Bill Clinton, the Space Command (later Air Force Space Command) announced plans to dominate the entire world by force, “Full Spectrum Dominance” as the successors continue to call it. In 2001, under Bush, the Rumsfeld Space Commission, sought ways to expand the weaponization of space to reinforce US-led corporate globalization and the architecture — satellites, GPS, the internet, etc. — that supports it. In the same year, Tyson became a formal employee of the Bush administration. One of his biographical webpages states:

“In 2001, Tyson was appointed by President Bush to serve on a 12-member commission that studied the Future of the US Aerospace Industry. The final report was published in 2002 and contained recommendations (for Congress and for the major agencies of the government) that would promote a thriving future of transportation, space exploration, and national security.”

The Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, on which Tyson worked, makes for an interesting read. It starts from an elite-nationalistic viewpoint, namely that of maintaining US supremacy in innovation before, discussing in Appendix G: “Astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities; Outer space exploration and control.” “Control,” no less. Controlling space is a core part of “Full Spectrum Dominance.” Tyson’s biography also states that in 2004, he:

“was once again appointed by President Bush to serve on a 9-member commission on the Implementation of the United States Space Exploration Policy, dubbed the ‘Moon, Mars, and Beyond’ commission. This group navigated a path by which the new space vision can become a successful part of the American agenda.”

The follow-up Tyson-co-authored report, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, also makes interesting reading. It states:

“Of particular importance to the space exploration vision is a strong partnership between NASA and the Department of Defense, where research, technical assistance, and operational assets are often shared. The Commission believes that the role of the existing Partnership Council – wherein NASA, the Air Force, and National Reconnaissance Office coordinate mutual work and interests – should also focus actively on supporting the new vision.”

The report says the US should “DARPA-ize” (my phrase) NASA. DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which uses taxpayer money to innovate the hi-technology which now dominates the top-ten list of US corporations. DARPA famously brought us the internet, for instance. The report says:

“we suggest that the Administration and Congress create within NASA an organization drawing upon lessons learned from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA is a highly successful organization that is chartered to fund high-risk/high return basic research in support of national defense priorities.”

R&D SALESMAN

The high-risk is paid for by the taxpayer who then buy back the given product on the consumer market. For example: touch-screen technology now used by Apple, for instance, came out of technology developed for the Air Force.

Disturbingly, the report recommends that NASA integrate a contract system like the US Missile “Defense” program, which is so essential to the overall goal of “Full Spectrum Dominance” (on his recent CBS piece, Tyson doesn’t challenge the erroneous assumption that the system is for “defense”), The report says: “In the case of U.S. Missile Defense, for example, the integrator is responsible for the overall system of systems architecture, and for integrating the space, air, land, and sea elements of the architecture.”

The goal of a successful propaganda system is to sell science designed and applied for military use (itself serving the dual-functions of ensuring US global corporate supremacy and innovation in the hi-tech economy) to the public as “cool” and fun. Enter Tyson. Since working for the federal government on these schemes, he has hostedthe PBS-NOVA series, Origins; worked on The Pluto Files documentary; appeared on ScienceNOW; and has hosted StarTalk (funded in part by the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation), which features comedians who attract laypeople to science.

Tyson joined the US military’s 15-member Defense Innovation Board (DIB), launched in 2016. The board advises the Defense Secretary on numerous issues. DIB continues the all-American tradition of ripping off taxpayers by using their money to invest in hi-tech innovation under the cover of a “defense” budget. DIB says:

“Some of the foremost topics the DIB is exploring include artificial intelligence, machine learning, workforce capacity, organizational structure, hiring and retention strategies, acquisition reform, electronic and drone warfare, software capabilities, and IT infrastructure.”

FLEECING THE PUBLIC

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]o, with this background, it’s not surprising that Tyson would appear on national television and talk up the Defense Department. But it’s crucial for any successful propaganda campaign that his record with the federal government be suppressed, minimized or justified. Hence, the failure (refusal?) of host Stephen Colbert to mention any of this to the casual viewer. The show gives the impression that Tyson is just a fun and intelligent man with no vested interests. In fact, Tyson lies and tells both Colbert and CBS: “I have no dog in this fight” in relation to Trump’s (read: the Pentagon’s) creation of a “Space Force.”

As noted, Tyson has been a government advisor and at the time of appearing on the shows was a member of a DoD board. In addition, we all have a “dog in the fight” of space weaponization because fragile and complex space systems could result in catastrophic failures, including miscommunications which can escalate into near-terminal catastrophe, as has happened many times in the past in relation to nuclear weapons (see, for instance, Daniel Ellsberg’s chilling book, The Doomsday Machine). Adding a space dimension to fraught and dangerous geopolitical situations only adds to the risk.

Last month, US Defense Secretary and war criminal, James “it’s fun to shoot some people” Mattis, told reporters that the Pentagon was advocating for a separate US Space Command in response to the Defense Policy Bill’s plan to integrate space systems under the Strategic Command (which also oversees nuclear strategy). Mattis was initially against this, says Space News, but has changed his mind in light of Trump’s (read: the Pentagon’s) insistence on having a “Space Force”.

With the new “Space Force” (as yet a nickname) potentially going ahead, the friendly faces of US imperialism are rolled out to justify expanding the militarization of space. Luckily, Tyson has a new book on the same topic to promote. In addition, Trump’s undeserved reputation as a moron (see my book President Trump, Inc.) required the media presence of a respected professional (i.e., Tyson) to promote the “Space Force.”

AN AMORAL BOOK

In Accessory to War, the authors write:

“A vibrant economy … depends on at least one of the following: the profit motive, war on the ground, or war in space … Must war and profit be what drive both civilization on Earth and the investigation of other worlds? History … makes it hard to answer no … Star charts, calendars, chronometers, telescopes, maps, compasses, rockets, satellites, drones–these war not inspirational civilian endeavors. Dominance was their goal; increase of knowledge was incidental.

… The first few years after 9/11 were a fine time to be mercenary, a military engineering firm, or a giant aerospace company.”

Recall that Tyson worked to promote the aeroindustry. Tyson acknowledges that “the space research my colleagues and I conduct plugs firmly and fundamentally into the nation’s military might.” At a conference involving military brass, Tyson was directly exposed via live-feed to the realities of blowing women and children apart with hi-tech weapons in Iraq in 2003 from high-ground platforms. He writes, self-pityingly:

“Blinking back tears and fighting to keep my composure, I thought about leaving the conference. I began to choreograph my resignation from the board of the Space Foundation. But at the same time I felt I couldn’t just walk out of the sanctum of war…

[W]ithout the power sought by its participants … and without the tandem investments in technology fostered by that quest for power, there would be no astronomy, no astrophysics, no astronauts, no exploration of the solar system, and barely any comprehension of the cosmos.”

That’s alright then. Tyson told CBS This Morning that he found a psychological trick to avoid feeling responsible, namely to blame everyone else: “I had to re-direct the causes and effects of this violence, and say, ‘No. It’s us, the electorate’ ” — they voted Bush in late-2000 (yeah, right). “If you have access to weaponry that can achieve a geopolitical goal that is noble then, I’m not there to stand in judgement of it,” he also told CBS.

MEANWHILE, IN THE REAL WORLD…

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]yson is careful to avoid mentioning that both China and Russia have repeatedly advocated for signing a peace treaty with the US, both for space and cyber warfare— not because Russia and China are “good guys,” but because as much weaker military powers it is in their interests to constrain US military actions and not provoke the superpower by engaging in the same, unless the US does it first. In fact, on the Colbert show, Tyson even mentions the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and ridicules it as an equivalent of singing “Cumbayá.”

Meanwhile, groups are actively thinking up ways to transform military spending into peaceful R&D for a green- and other hi-tech economy.

A report by the German-based institute IFSH notes that military R&D is not an inevitability. Following the end of the Cold War, military R&D declined. But, “[e]ven in the US, civilian spending is now substantially larger than military spending.” Why, then, place emphasis on military R&D, as Tyson does? In most countries, says the author, “There has been a major shift towards military use of technologies driven by civilian r&d, particularly in electronics.”

In terms of practical alternatives, Campaign Against the Arms Trade notes that skills shortages in the UK (the same applies to the US) means that renewable energy sectors would be glad to employ people previously skilled in the arms industry. Doing so lacks political will only. In addition, the Campaign Against Climate Change reckons that the UK could become a carbon neutral economy, employing one million people, for £19bn a year, which is about half the current military budget. This would also involve the kind of technological innovations currently privileged by the military sector.

The US transformed itself into a war economy during WWII and has remained that ever since. But, with enough public pressure, it can be transformed into a peace- and renewables economy. Don’t let intellectuals fool you into thinking there are no alternatives to war — and in this case, potentially terminal war.

Obama’s Imperial Presidency

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

by CARL BOGGS

Photo Source The U.S. Army | CC BY 2.0

Could Donald Trump already be the worst of all American presidents? In less than two years his record on the world scene has been frightening enough: U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accords, scuttling of the Iran nuclear treaty, moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, unjustifiably punitive sanctions against Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, terror bombing of Mosul and other Iraq cities, bombastic threats against friends and enemies alike – not to mention a $54 billion gift to the Pentagon and stepped-up nuclear “modernization”. Hard to imagine much worse.

One article of faith among liberals and the corporate media is that Trump’s presidency stands alone as a house or horrors, unprecedented in its fascistic authoritarianism, crazy pronouncements, and ideological blend of xenophobia, racism, sexism, and sheer extremism. Those in the “resistance” know that pretty much any alternative (Bill Maher, LeBron James) would be far better, though specifics — beyond Trump’s mortal sin of partnering with Putin — are rarely mentioned. But precisely what alternatives? Bernie Sanders? Well, the Democratic National Committee never gave him much chance. Obvious comparisons are Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, and his competitor, Hillary Clinton. Obama was in charge of U.S. foreign policy for the preceding eight years, so his legacy (with plenty of help from Clinton) might be worth considering.

Obama, it turns out, was among the most militaristic White House occupants in American history, taking the imperial presidency to new heights. It has been said that Obama was the only president whose administration was enmeshed in multiple wars from beginning to end. His imperial ventures spanned many countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia along with proxy interventions in Yemen and Pakistan. He ordered nearly 100,000 bombs and missiles delivered against defenseless targets, a total greater than that of the more widely-recognized warmonger George W. Bush’s total of 70,000 against five countries. Iraq alone – where U.S. forces were supposed to have been withdrawn – was recipient of 41,000 bombs and missiles along with untold amounts of smaller ordnance. Meanwhile, throughout his presidency Obama conducted hundreds of drone attacks in the Middle East, more than doubling Bush’s total, all run jointly (and covertly) by the CIA and Air Force.

Obama engineered two of the most brazen regime-change operations of the postwar era, in Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014), leaving both nations reduced to a state of ongoing civil war and economic ruin. For the past seven years Libya has been overrun by an assortment of militias, jihadic groups, and local strongmen – predictable result of the U.S./NATO bombing offensive to destroy the secular nationalist (and modernizing) Kadafi regime. This was purportedly Secretary of State Clinton’s biggest moment of glory, her imperialist gloating on full display following Kadafi’s assassination. As this is written conditions in Libya worsen by the day, reports surfacing of hundreds of people killed during violent clashes in the suburbs of Tripoli as rival militias fight for control of the capital. Militias now exercise control over ports, airfields, and much of the oil infrastructure. More tens of thousands of Libyans are being forced from their homes, a development greeted with silence at CNN and kindred media outlets.

United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric recently decried this violence, noting the indiscriminate shelling by armed groups killing civilians, including children. Not to be outdone, the U.S. (joined by a few European states) issued a statement condemning the violence in Libya, reading in part: “We urge armed groups to immediately cease all military actions and warn those who tamper with security in Tripoli or elsewhere in Libya that they will be held accountable for any such actions.” How thoughtful of those very military actors who, with U.N. blessing, brought nothing but endless death and destruction to the Libyan people.

In Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin was being demonized as the “new Hitler”, real fascists (or at least neo-fascists) were installed in power through the well-planned and generously-funded conspiracy of Obama’s neocon functionaries, led by Victoria Nuland and cheered on by such visiting notables as John McCain, Joe Biden, and John Brennan — all scheming to bring the Kiev regime into the NATO/European Union orbit. The puppet Poroshenko regime has since 2014 been given enough American economic and military largesse to finance its warfare against separatists in the Russian-speaking Donbass region, resulting in more than 10,000 deaths, with no end in sight. Following the gruesome pattern of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Ukrainian society descends into deepening chaos and violence with no end in sight.

It is easy to forget that it was the Obama administration that planned and carried out the first phases of the Mosul operation (begun in October 2016) which produced hundreds of thousands of casualties (with at least 40,000 dead), left a city of two million in Dresden-like state of rubble, and drove nearly a million civilians into exile. The same fate, on smaller scale, was brought to other Sunni-majority cities in Iraq, including Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah (already destroyed by U.S. forces in 2004). Whatever the official goal, and however many secondary collaborators were involved, these were monstrous war crimes by any reckoning.

After calling for a nuclear-free world (and receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for that promise), Obama reversed course and embarked on the most ambitious U.S. nuclear upgrading since the early 1950s – the same project inherited by Trump. Speaking in Prague in 2009, the president called for total abolition of nukes, saying “the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those [nuclear] weapons have not . . . Our efforts to contain these dangers [must be] centered on a global non-proliferation regime.” A laudable objective to be sure. But for a price tag of one trillion dollars (over two decades), Obama decided to create new missile delivery systems, expand the arsenal of tactical warheads, and fund a new cycle of bombers and submarines – all with little political or media notice. These initiatives violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty prohibiting such moves, while essentially blocking any genuine efforts toward nuclear reduction and nonproliferation.

In the months before Obama departed the White House he laid the groundwork for a new, more dangerous, Cold War with Russia. This agenda, negating earlier plans for a “reset” with the Putin government, would be multi-faceted – expanded NATO forces along Russian borders, renewed support for the oligarch Poroshenko in Ukraine, new and harsher economic sanctions, expulsion of diplomats, accelerated cyberwarfare, charges of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Not only has this strategy, eagerly advanced by the Clintonites and their media allies, brought new levels of insanity to American politics, it has left the two nuclear powers menacingly closer to armed confrontation than even at the peak of the Cold War.

Obama’s contributions to a more robust imperial presidency went further. Collaborating with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he stoked the Syrian civil war by lending “rebel” fighters crucial material, logistical, and military aid for what Clinton – anticipating electoral victory – believed would bring yet another cheerful episode of regime change, this one leaving the U.S. face-to-face with the Russians. During his tenure in office, moreover, Obama would deploy more special-ops troops around the globe (to more than 70 countries) than any predecessor.

Many liberals and more than a few progressives – not to mention large sectors of the media intelligentsia — will find it difficult to reconcile the picture of an aggressively imperialist Obama with the more familiar image of a thoughtful, articulate politician who laced his talks with references to peace, arms control, and human rights. But this very dualism best corresponds to the historical reality. In his book The Obama Syndrome, Tariq Ali writes: “From Palestine through Iraq, Obama has acted as just another steward of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with more emollient rhetoric.” He adds: “Historically, the model for the current variant of imperial presidency is Woodrow Wilson, no less pious a Christian, whose every second word was peace, democracy, or self-determination, while his armies invaded Mexico, occupied Haiti, and attacked Russia [yes, Russia!], and his treaties handed one colony after another to his partners in war. Obama is a hand-me-down version of the same, without even Fourteen Points to betray.”

As the 2018 midterm elections approach, Obama has chosen to depart from historical norm and go on the attack against a Trump presidency viewed as signifying all that is evil. A Democratic victory would reject Trump’s “dark vision of the the nation and restore honesty, decency, and lawfulness to the American government”. In his first speech Obama said that orchestrated public fear has created conditions “ripe for exploitation by politicians who have no compunction and no shame about tapping into America’s dark history of racial and ethnic and religious division.” Does Obama need to be reminded that such “dark history” also includes militarism and imperialism?

Whatever one’s view of the Trump phenomenon in its totality, the amount of death and destruction he has brought to the world does not (yet) come close to Obama’s record of warfare, drone strikes, regime changes, military provocations, and global deployments. If neocon interests have come to shape U.S. foreign policy, those interests have so far been more fully embraced by Obama and the Clintonites than by Trump, despite the scary presence of Trump’s hawkish circle of lieutenants. Unfortunately, Obama’s eight years of imperial aggression elicited strikingly few liberal or progressive voices of dissent across the political and media terrain. He enjoyed nearly complete immunity from protest at a time when even the smallest vestiges of a once-vigorous American antiwar movement had disappeared from the scene.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

CARL BOGGS is the author of several recent books, including Fascism Old and New (2018), Origins of the Warfare State (2016), and Drugs, Power, and Politics (2015). He can be reached at ceboggs@nu.edu. More details on Carl can be found here.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors.

[premium_newsticker id=”218306″]
The Russian Peace Threat examines Russophobia, American Exceptionalism and other urgent topics

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found