The Rise Of The Right And Climate Catastrophe

Michael T. Klare

In a year of record-setting heat on a blistered globe, with fast-warming oceans, fast-melting ice caps, and fast-rising sea levels, ratification of the December 2015 Paris climate summit agreement — already endorsed by most nations — should be a complete no-brainer.  That it isn’t tells you a great deal about our world.  Global geopolitics and the possible rightward lurch of many countries (including a potential deal-breaking election in the United States that could put a climate denier in the White House) spell bad news for the fate of the Earth. It’s worth exploring how this might come to be.

The delegates to that 2015 climate summit were in general accord about the science of climate change and the need to cap global warming at 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius (or 2.6 to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) before a planetary catastrophe ensues.  They disagreed, however, about much else. Some key countries were in outright conflict with other states (Russia with Ukraine, for example) or deeply hostile to each other (as with India and Pakistan or the U.S. and Iran). In recognition of such tensions and schisms, the assembled countries crafted a final document that replaced legally binding commitments with the obligation of each signatory state to adopt its own unique plan, or “nationally determined contribution” (NDC), for curbing climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, the fate of the planet rests on the questionable willingness of each of those countries to abide by that obligation, however sour or bellicose its relations with other signatories may be.  As it happens, that part of the agreement has already been buffeted by geopolitical headwinds and is likely to face increasing turbulence in the years to come.

That geopolitics will play a decisive role in determining the success or failure of the Paris Agreement has become self-evident in the short time since its promulgation. While some progress has been made toward its formal adoption — the agreement will enter into force only after no fewer than 55 countries, accounting for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified it — it has also encountered unexpected political hurdles, signaling trouble to come.

On the bright side, in a stunning diplomatic coup, President Obama persuaded Chinese President Xi Jinping to sign the accord with him during a recent meeting of the G-20 group of leading economies in Hangzhou. Together, the two countries are responsible for a striking 40% of global emissions.  “Despite our differences on other issues,” Obama noted during the signing ceremony, “we hope our willingness to work together on this issue will inspire further ambition and further action around the world.”

Brazil, the planet’s seventh largest emitter, just signed on as well, and a number of states, including Japan and New Zealand, have announced their intention to ratify the agreement soon.  Many others are expected to do so before the next major U.N. climate summit in Marrakesh, Morocco, this November.

On the dark side, however, Great Britain’s astonishing Brexit vote has complicated the task of ensuring the European Union’s approval of the agreement, as European solidarity on the climate issue — a major factor in the success of the Paris negotiations — can no longer be assured. “There is a risk that this could kick EU ratification of the Paris Agreement into the long grass,” suggests Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The Brexit campaign itself was spearheaded by politicians who were also major critics of climate science and strong opponents of efforts to promote a transition from carbon-based fuels to green sources of energy. For example, the chair of the Vote Leave campaign, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, is also chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank devoted to sabotaging government efforts to speed the transition to green energy. Many other top Leave campaigners, including former Conservative ministers John Redwood and Owen Paterson, were also vigorous climate deniers.

In explaining the strong link between these two camps, analysts at the Economist noted that both oppose British submission to international laws and norms: “Brexiteers dislike EU regulations and know that any effective action to tackle climate change will require some kind of global cooperation: carbon taxes or binding targets on emissions. The latter would be the EU writ large and Britain would have even less say in any global agreement, involving some 200 nations, than in an EU regime involving 28.”

Keep in mind as well that Angela Merkel and François Hollande, the leaders of the other two anchors of the European Union, Germany and France, are both embattled by right-wing anti-immigrant parties likely to be similarly unfriendly to such an agreement.  And in what could be the deal-breaker of history, this same strain of thought, combining unbridled nationalism, climate denialism, fierce hostility to immigration, and unwavering support for domestic fossil fuel production, also animates Donald Trump’s campaign for the American presidency.

In his first major speech on energy, delivered in May, Trump — who has called global warming a Chinese hoax — pledged to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” and scrap the various measures announced by President Obama to ensure U.S. compliance with its provisions. Echoing the views of his Brexit counterparts, he complained that “this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country. No way.” He also vowed to revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (which would bring carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands oil to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast), to reverse any climate-friendly Obama administration acts, and to promote the coal industry.  “Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones — how stupid is that?” he said, mockingly.

In Europe, ultra-nationalist parties on the right are riding a wave of Islamaphobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and disgust with the European Union. In France, for instance, former president Nicolas Sarkozy announced his intention to run for that post again, promising even more stringent controls on migrants and Muslims and a greater focus on French “identity.” Even further to the right, the rabidly anti-Muslim Marine Le Pen is also in the race at the head of her National Front Party.  Like-minded candidates have already made gains in national elections in Austria and most recently in a state election in Germany that stunned Merkel’s ruling party.  In each case, they surged by disavowing relatively timid efforts by the European Union to resettle refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries. Although climate change is not a defining issue in these contests as it is in the U.S. and Britain, the growing opposition to anything associated with the EU and its regulatory system poses an obvious threat to future continent-wide efforts to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Elsewhere in the world, similar strands of thinking are spreading, raising serious questions about the ability of governments to ratify the Paris Agreement or, more importantly, to implement its provisions.  Take India, for example.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has indeed voiced support for the Paris accord and promised a vast expansion of solar power.  He has also made no secret of his determination to promote economic growth at any cost, including greatly increased reliance on coal-powered electricity. That spells trouble.  According to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, India is likely to double its coal consumption over the next 25 years, making it the world’s second largest coal consumer after China. Combined with an increase in oil and natural gas consumption, such a surge in coal use could result in a tripling of India’s carbon dioxide emissions at a time when most countries (including the U.S. and China) are expected to experience a peak or decline in theirs.

Prime Minister Modi is well aware that his devotion to coal has generated resentment among environmentalists in India and elsewhere who seek to slow the growth of carbon emissions. He nonetheless insists that, as a major developing nation, India should enjoy a special right to achieve economic growth in any way it can, even if this means endangering the environment. “The desire to improve one’s lot has been the primary driving force behind human progress,” his government affirmed in its emissions-reduction pledge to the Paris climate summit. “Nations that are now striving to fulfill this ‘right to grow’ of their teeming millions cannot be made to feel guilty [about] their development agenda as they attempt to fulfill this legitimate aspiration.”

Russia is similarly likely to put domestic economic needs (and the desire to remain a great power, militarily and otherwise) ahead of its global climate obligations. Although President Vladimir Putin attended the Paris summit and assured the gathered nations of Russian compliance with its outcome, he has also made it crystal clear that his country has no intention of giving up its reliance on oil and natural gas exports for a large share of its national income. According to the Energy Information Administration, Russia’s government relies on such exports for a staggering 50% of its operating revenue, a share it dare not jeopardize at a time when its economy — already buffeted by European Union and U.S. sanctions — is in deep recession. To ensure the continued flow of hydrocarbon income, in fact, Moscow has announced multibillion dollar plans to develop new oil and gas fields in Siberia and the Arctic, even if such efforts fly in the face of commitments to reduce future carbon emissions.

From Reform and Renewal to Rivalry

Such nationalistic exceptionalism could become something of the norm if Donald Trump wins in November, or other nations join those already eager to put the needs of a fossil fuel-based domestic growth agenda ahead of global climate commitments. With that in mind, consider the assessment of future energy trends that the Norwegian energy giant Statoil recently produced.  In it is a chilling scenario focused on just this sort of dystopian future.

The second-biggest producer of natural gas in Europe after Russia’s Gazprom, Statoil annually issues Energy Perspectives, a report that explores possible future energy trends. Previous editions included scenarios labeled “reform” (predicated on coordinated but gradual international efforts to shift from carbon fuels to green energy technology) and “renewal” (positing a more rapid transition). The 2016 edition, however, added a grim new twist: “rivalry.” It depicts a realistically downbeat future in which international strife and geopolitical competition discourage significant cooperation in the climate field.

According to the document, the new section is “driven” by real-world developments — by, that is, “a series of political crises, growing protectionism, and a general fragmentation of the state system, resulting in a multipolar world developing in different directions.  In this scenario, there is growing disagreement about the rules of the game and a decreasing ability to manage crises in the political, economic, and environmental arenas.”

In such a future, Statoil suggests, the major powers would prove to be far more concerned with satisfying their own economic and energy requirements than pursuing collaborative efforts aimed at slowing the pace of climate change. For many of them, this would mean maximizing the cheapest and most accessible fuel options available — often domestic supplies of fossil fuels. Under such circumstances, the report suggests, the use of coal would rise, not fall, and its share of global energy consumption would actually increase from 29% to 32%.

In such a world, forget about those “nationally determined contributions” agreed to in Paris and think instead about a planet whose environment will grow ever less friendly to life as we know it.  In its rivalry scenario, writes Statoil, “the climate issue has low priority on the regulatory agenda. While local pollution issues are attended to, large-scale international climate agreements are not the chosen way forward. As a consequence, the current NDCs are only partly implemented. Climate finance ambitions are not met, and carbon pricing to stimulate cost-efficient reductions in countries and across national borders are limited.”

Coming from a major fossil fuel company, this vision of how events might play out on an increasingly tumultuous planet makes for peculiar reading: more akin to Earth — Bill McKibben’s dystopian portrait of a climate-ravaged world — than the usual industry-generated visions of future world health and prosperity. And while “rivalry” is only one of several scenarios Statoil’s authors considered, they clearly found it unnervingly convincing. Hence, in a briefing on the report, the company’s chief economist Eirik Wærness indicated that Great Britain’s looming exit from the EU was exactly the sort of event that would fit the proposed model and might multiply in the future.

Climate Change in a World of Geopolitical Exceptionalism

Indeed, the future pace of climate change will be determined as much by geopolitical factors as by technological developments in the energy sector. While it is evident that immense progress is being made in bringing down the price of wind and solar power in particular — far more so than all but a few analysts anticipated until recently — the political will to turn such developments into meaningful global change and so bring carbon emissions to heel before the planet is unalterably transformed may, as the Statoil authors suggest, be dematerializing before our eyes. If so, make no mistake about it: we will be condemning Earth’s future inhabitants, our own children and grandchildren, to unmitigated disaster.

As President Obama’s largely unheralded success in Hangzhou indicates, such a fate is not etched in stone. If he could persuade the fiercely nationalistic leader of a country worried about its economic future to join him in signing the climate agreement, more such successes are possible. His ability to achieve such outcomes is, however, diminishing by the week, and few other leaders of his stature and determination appear to be waiting in the wings.

To avoid an Eaarth (as both Bill McKibben and the Statoil authors imagine it) and preserve the welcoming planet in which humanity grew and thrived, climate activists will have to devote at least as much of their energy and attention to the international political arena as to the technology sector. At this point, electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil-fueled ultra-nationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.

Obama Hands Israel The Largest Military Aid Deal In History

Rania Khalek

The Obama administration has signed a $38 billion military aid pact with Israel in what the State Department boasts is the “single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in US history.”

The record agreement will provide Israel with $3.8 billion annually over 10 years beginning in 2019, up from $3.1 billion under the current deal.

At a time when the US government supposedly can’t afford to provide poor and working Americans with basic services like universal health care – something Israelis enjoy – it is striking that there is always money available to enable Israel’s ongoing destruction of Palestine.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who has expressed opposition to universal health care and free college tuition, cheered the aid deal.

“Senator [Tim] Kaine and I applaud the agreement on a new memorandum of understanding regarding American security assistance to Israel,” said Clinton in a statement released by her campaign.

Clinton also used the deal as an opportunity to saber-rattle against Iran, show off her military hawkishness against ISIS and reiterate her commitment to combating growing activism against Israel’s criminal conduct, which Israel refers to as “delegitimization.”

“The agreement will help solidify and chart a course for the US-Israeli defense relationship in the 21st century as we face a range of common challenges, from Iran’s destabilizing activities to the threats from ISIS and radical jihadism, and efforts to delegitimize Israel on the world stage,” she said, reiterating her January promise to “take our relationship to the next level.”

“Legacy”

President Barack Obama didn’t have to do this. It’s not as though he needs to appease the Israel lobby. He isn’t running for re-election.

And Americans, especially liberal and younger Democrats, are increasingly opposed to Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights.

In fact, with just a few months left in office, Obama was uniquely positioned to use massive US leverage to pressure Israel into halting its crimes against the Palestinians. At the very least, he could have refrained from upping the ante.

So why then is he showering Israel with more weapons?

“Obama’s aides want a new deal before his presidency ends, seeing it as an important part of his legacy. Republican critics accuse him of not being attentive enough to Israel’s security, which the White House strongly denies,” reported Reuters.

And what a legacy it will be.

Obama has doomed Palestinians to an extra decade of suffocating repression, ethnic cleansing and periodic slaughter at the hands of a government increasingly made up of racists, fascists and genocide enthusiasts whose demagoguery rivals that of Donald Trump.

The idea of funneling even more weapons to Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman, who called for beheading Palestinian citizens of Israel for disloyalty to the state, is alarming.

Lieberman is currently executing a campaign of collective punishment against the families and towns of Palestinians accused of committing crimes against Israelis.

Lieberman works alongside people like Ayelet Shaked, who was appointed justice minister after endorsing a genocidal call to slaughter Palestinian mothers in their beds to prevent them from birthing “little snakes.”

During his administration, Obama has responded to this rising fanaticism among Israeli senior leadership officials with more weapons and diplomatic cover.

With this latest aid deal Obama is guaranteeing the capacity of people like Lieberman and Shaked to carry out their eliminationist goals long after he leaves office.

But surely Palestinians will understand the importance of their sacrifice in advancing Obama’s appeasement of his right-wing critics. After all, Obama’s legacy is at stake.

Contradictions

The signing of the deal comes just days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused those opposed to Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank – built in flagrant violation of international law – of supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

In a rare move, the US State Department rebuked Netanyahu, noting that Israel is the one forcibly displacing Palestinians in the occupied West Bank to make room for settlements.

Such concerns ring hollow in light of the new deal, which is unconditional as far as human rights violations are concerned.

“Concessions”?

Media outlets are describing certain stipulations in the aid deal, which took some 10 months to negotiate, as “major” “concessions” on Israel’s part.

Past deals have allowed Israel to spend 26.3 percent of US military aid on its own weapons industry. The new memorandum of understanding gradually reduces that amount, ultimately requiring Israel to purchase only from US weapons companies. In essence, it’s a gigantic giveaway to the US defense industry.

This particular Israeli “concession” won’t halt the destruction of Palestine, but it does represent a minor setback for Israel’s defense industry, which anticipates hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue as a result.

“We in the defense industry stand to lose $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion a year, including the $500 million Congress has allocated for special projects,” an Israeli defense industry source complained to the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz last month in reference to the measure.

The deal also includes an Israeli pledge to stop lobbying Congress for supplemental missile defense funding, which in recent years has accounted for as much as an additional $600 million for Israel in discretionary US funding each year.

But there are loopholes.

The pledge is “expected to be made in a side letter or annex to the agreement” and the “wording is likely to be flexible enough to allow exceptions in case of a war or other major crisis,” according to Reuters.

Whether it is US or Israeli weapons makers who benefit, Palestinians lose.

As Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, put it, “increasing the military aid package is rewarding destructive Israeli behavior that violates longstanding official US policy and international law. As a result, the US is effectively underwriting Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies towards the Palestinians.”

Fifteen Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes All Three WTC Towers Collapsed On 9/11 Due To Controlled Demolition

Jay Syrmopoulos

Over the past 15 years many highly respected academics and experts have come forward to challenge the official narrative on the collapse of the WTC towers forwarded by the U.S. government. The official government position holds that the collapse of all three towers was due to intense heat inside of the buildings.

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report.

The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.

The comprehensive study in Europhysics Magazine directly challenges the official narrative and lends to a growing body of evidence that seriously questions the veracity of the government narrative.

In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology remarked that the case was exceptionally bizarre. There were no other known cases of total structural collapses in high-rise buildings caused by fires and so it is deeply unusual that it should have happened three times in the space of one day, noted NIST.

Official investigations have never been able to thoroughly and coherently explain how this might have happened and various teams tasked with examining the collapse have raised difficult questions about the veracity of the government’s story.

Perhaps most damning of all, the experts claimed that after a thorough forensic analysis of video footage of the building’s collapse, it revealed signs of a controlled implosion. Additionally, Jones has co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.

The authors of the study note that the buildings fell with such speed and symmetry that they there was no other feasible explanation for the sudden collapse at free fall speeds – directly refuting studies that attempted to debunk the idea that the building fell without resistance. These respected experts’ new forensic analysis only adds to the growing movement of people calling for a new and impartial investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Revealing the scope and breadth of public disbelief in the official government narrative surrounding the events of 9/11, even presidential candidate Jill Stein has recently called for a new investigation.

The original source of this article is The Mind Unleashed

Comparing the French and Indian Nuclear Doctrines

Marie Pavageau

Generally speaking, countries’ decisions to go nuclear are based on traumatic episodes that shaped their national identity and must never happen again. The 1956 Suez Crisis was the trigger for France's nuclear programme when it realised it was vulnerable to Soviet nuclear threats and a reluctant US. India's experience was shaped by the 1971 Bangladesh war when both China and the US ganged up and resorted to nuclear threats against India. Curiously, both India and France have a similar notion of international affairs - that of strategic autonomy where they refuse to depend on bigger powers for their security or projection of interests. 

The trigger for the nuclearisation of both countries was based on both abandonment and heightened threat intrinsically linked with their doctrines of strategic autonomy. It is for this reason the similarities and contrasts in their nuclear doctrines are important to study.

Four key similar elements can be identified in the two doctrines: both countries have a “minimal deterrence” doctrine. In France's case, this has resulted in a massive reduction in the size of the arsenal from its peak a few decades back. In India's case, the growth has been at a snail's pace and estimates by experts show that the actual weapons arsenal will remain small relative to other nuclear states. Second, they both threaten their adversaries of unacceptable damages in an event their national interests are threatened, albeit the quantum of such damage remains undefined. Third, both countries view their anti-missile defence systems as complementary to their deterrents by reducing vulnerability (however minimal) to a first strike. Finally, both countries avoid mentioning the target of their respective deterrents. For France, this is something new as Russia was frequently mentioned as the target during the Cold War. India, though, has maintained a policy of not naming its intended target except once, immediately after the 1998 nuclear tests, when the letter from then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to the then US President Bill Clinton expressly mentioned China as the intended target.

The differences in the nuclear composition and doctrine though are many. Both India and France exercise absolute civilian control over their nuclear weapons, but with a major contrast in their command process. France’s control is autarkic with the French president exercising absolute and sole authority over weapons launch. India’s exercise authority is collective through the executive council and the launch order has to go through the executive, i.e. the National Security Adviser.   

It can also be argued that French strategic autonomy known as auto-suffisance is also more "autonomous" than India's in that it is able to ensure its independence from any external pressure. 99 per cent of the French deterrent – apart from its uranium imports – are “made in France” (for example its missile technology, Rafale jet-fighters, SNLE submarines). India’s deterrent still relies on foreign technologies. For example Russia is sought out for its nuclear propulsion technologies. Similarly India is on a never ending quest for air land and sea propulsion as well as seeking technology transfers on almost every aspect of modern weaponry. It can be also be argued that India's "missile revolution" coincides far too conveniently with the lifting of dual-use technology sanctions on India and finally its desire to import reprocessing technology means that even the material actually available for the nuclear device is prone to external interference.

The divergences continue in the arena of No First Use (NFU). France has an explicit first use policy while India is seen as moving from an NFU to a first use policy. The upgrading of the deterrent horizontally (in terms of quantity) and vertically (in term of quality) suggest a possible future change in their nuclear doctrine towards a “preventive strike.” This has been presaged both in the 2003 doctrine “in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.” 

But perhaps the greatest area of divergence comes in the form of leadership credibility, or the countries' perceived will to use its weapons to defend itself. While both arsenals remain opaque, France engages in a publicity exercise with each new president publicly stating an evolution of its nuclear posture. Its officials then widely circulate this posture, solicit opinions and views and clarify each iteration to other countries. India on the other hand is yet to review and revise its 2003 doctrine despite a vastly changed international environment and refuses to clarify or discuss the same.  More importantly, French leaders do not shy away from stating their will to use the deterrent, while Indian prime ministers tend to downplay their resolve either by use or omission of words.

Overall, the difference in the two deterrents, their composition and thought reflects the two countries' requirements well. However, the seeming lack of leadership credibility – either in the public willingness to use, lack of autarky, and lack of revision of the Indian deterrent and doctrine – seriously erode the doctrine's credibility.

New Zealand: Maori king cuts ties with Labour Party

John Braddock

The New Zealand Maori king, the traditional figurehead of the central North Island Tainui tribe, used a speech on the 10th anniversary of his coronation last month to end his personal support for the Labour Party. Kiingi Tuheitia endorsed the Maori nationalist Maori and Mana parties, saying he would like to see the Maori electoral seats return to “Maori control.” Labour currently holds six of the seven parliamentary seats reserved for registered Maori voters.

Tuheitia blamed comments by Labour leader Andrew Little that he could not work with the Maori Party, which was established following a split from Labour in 2004 after the Labour government cut off tribal claims to the foreshore and seabed. The Maori Party, which currently has two MPs, has been a coalition partner in the conservative National Party-led government since 2008, providing “Maori” credentials for its offensive against the working class.

Maori, who make up 15 percent of the population, can register for either the general roll or the Maori roll at elections. Maori MPs can also represent general electorates and hold places on the party lists in the mixed-member proportional voting system. Calculations are now emerging in the Maori political elite that if a unified Maori movement can take the seven Maori seats, that bloc could be used as a lever to decide whether Labour or National governs.

Last month, the Mana and Maori Parties began discussions about working together in next year’s election. The talks are driven by ambitions within both parties for a more direct role in government. Neither would have any compunction in collaborating with any government to impose the next stage of the austerity agenda demanded by big business. Neither party has any broad support, particularly in the Maori working class, and face the prospect of electoral annihilation.

The Kīngitanga movement, which Tuheitia leads, is formally apolitical, but has traditionally been a bulwark of support for Labour. The king’s close relation, Nanaia Mahuta, has held the Hauraki-Waikato seat since 2002. After unsuccessfully challenging for Labour’s leadership in 2014, Mahuta was relegated to 12th place in Little’s caucus line-up, considered a slap in the face by the Maori political establishment.

In July, the Maori Party voted to install Tukoroirangi Morgan as its new chairman. A personal advisor to the king, Morgan is a right-wing figure at the head of the Tainui tribe’s extensive business operations. Between 1996 and 1999, Morgan was an MP for the anti-immigrant, populist NZ First Party. After losing his seat he joined Tainui’s corporate leadership, overseeing more than $NZ1 billion in assets and investments.

Morgan immediately declared the Mana and Maori parties could co-operate to take the Maori seats off Labour and hold the balance of power. “I make no secret about it: that’s the agenda,” Morgan told the Politik blog.

The king also endorsed Mana leader Hone Harawira, saying: “Hone has the strength to fight for what he wants, he’s got the loyalty of the people he represents.” Harawira quit the Maori Party in 2011. After siding with National for two years he bitterly claimed the Maori Party had betrayed the people who voted for it. He established Mana as a new political trap for the working class, posturing as “radical” and “pro-poor.” Mana became discredited in the working class, however, when it allied with Kim Dotcom’s pro-business Internet Party in the 2014 election, which saw Harawira lose his seat.

Harawira welcomed Tuheitia’s comments, describing “unity” as “a core element of Mana’s very existence.” Harawira claimed to oppose “the current government’s agenda of allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor and the dispossessed, and selling off the nation’s assets,” even as Mana seeks “unity” with the Maori Party, part of that government, which has been instrumental in imposing austerity on the working class.

The possibility of a Mana-Maori Party alliance is being hailed by some pro-Labour commentators. The trade union-funded Daily Blog proclaimed that following the recent deal between Labour and the Greens to formally align for the election, the “only way we get a truly progressive Government in 2017 would be if Labour-Green + MANA-Maori Party had the majority.”

Far from being “progressive,” these are bourgeois parties, all lurching further to the right under the impact of the global economic crisis and drive to war. The Maori nationalist parties aim to block any movement to the left by the working class, while advancing claims by the privileged indigenous elite for a greater share of the profits and positions available within capitalism.

Tuheitia called for a Maori share in New Zealand’s “sovereignty” by 2025, implying a formal role for the Maori tribal leaderships in the country’s constitutional set-up. He promised to call another meeting of tribal leaders before the end of the year to pursue Maori property rights over fresh water sources, including those essential for hydro-electricity generation.

Under the rubric of “self-determination,” Maori leadership groups, such as the Iwi Chairs Forum, have backed successive attacks on the public sector in order to divert funds towards Maori trusts and business. This has included the drive to establish publicly-funded, privately-run charter schools and the Whanau Ora scheme, which has been used as a wedge to privatise welfare delivery.

Maori nationalism, the ideology of both Mana and the Maori Party, has been promoted by Labour and National governments over several decades. Its purpose is to divide workers along racial lines to prevent any unified struggle against austerity and militarism, and to subordinate Maori workers to the wealthy elite that Tuheitia represents. Treaty of Waitangi settlements—multi-million dollar payments to Maori tribes, ostensibly as redress for the crimes of colonialism—have enriched a thin layer of Maori entrepreneurs who are deeply involved in the exploitation of workers of all races.

By 2013, Maori corporations owned $NZ42.6 billion in assets, an increase of 15 percent compared with 2010. Tainui Group Holdings (TGH) has turned a $170 million payment from its 1995 Treaty settlement into assets worth $1.1 billion, rivalling the South Island’s Ngai Tahu tribe and Auckland’s Ngati Whatua. Its investments and holdings include farming, fishing, property development, a major retail park and hotels. When the government partially privatised state-owned electricity company Genesis Energy in 2014, TGH purchased 5 million shares. It owns the ground leases for the Huntly Power Station, Waikato University and parts of Hamilton’s central business district.

There is a vast gulf between the tribal elite and the Maori working class, which is mired in poverty and unemployment. According to researcher Max Rashbrooke in his 2015 book Wealth and New Zealand, wealth inequality within the Maori population is twice as great as among European New Zealanders. As the country’s economic and social crisis deepens, the appeals for Maori “unity” from Mana and the Maori Party aim to obscure this fundamental class division in order to prevent Maori workers from uniting with their non-Maori counterparts against the capitalist system.

Russian elections take place amid deepening economic and geopolitical crisis

Vladimir Volkov

Elections to the Russian State Duma are to be held on September 18. The so-called “party of power,” the pro-Kremlin United Russia (UR), is expected to retain control over parliament. The vote takes place under conditions of a deepening socioeconomic crisis and escalating geopolitical tensions with the imperialist powers.

Fourteen parties are running candidates in the elections, four of which have representatives in the current parliament. This includes the three parties of the “systemic” opposition; Gennady Zyuganov’s Communist Party of “red” Russian nationalists and Stalinists; Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s far-right, chauvinist Liberal Democratic Party; and A Just Russia, a member party of the Socialist International, headed by former Federation Council Chairman Sergey Mironov.

These organizations act not so much as opponents of the current government, but as obedient participants in a loyal opposition called upon to assist in supporting the current regime’s image.

Media reports indicate that, regardless of results of the elections, the current parliamentary opposition parties will be represented in the new Duma as a result of the Kremlin’s manipulations of election procedures and behind-the-scenes agreements on the allocation of parliamentary seats.

In the previous parliamentary elections in December 2011, a significant number of voters cast ballots for parties other than UR. This frightened the Russian government, which subsequently sought to minimize the likelihood that such a scenario would be repeated.

The elections were advanced from December to September in order to reduce the duration of the election campaign to a minimum, such that it would take place under conditions when the majority of Russia’s voters are on their summer vacations or away in the countryside.

Legislative term limits were also extended. Members of parliament now serve five instead of six years, and the president is in office for six instead of four years. This measure also had the effect of creating a gap in time between the parliamentary and presidential elections.

Finally, reinstating a process that was abolished in 2003, half of the parliamentary seats will be allotted not by proportional representation, but by a first-past-the-post method in single-seat districts.

All of these measures are antidemocratic in character and intended to deprive the population of the ability to influence the election results.

Under President Yeltsin in the 1990s, parliamentary elections were held as an immediate prelude to the presidential election. The Duma elections in December 1995 were separated from the presidential election in June 1996 by just half a year. The success of the pro-government party in the parliamentary elections, which had been achieved from the very beginning by means of crude falsifications, became the basis for the winning of the main “prize”: the triumph of the Kremlin’s candidate in the presidential election.

In the 2000s, the interval was reduced to three months. Vladimir Putin’s election as president in March 2004 was preceded by the parliamentary election of December 2003. The same process repeated for Dmitry Medvedev’s election in March 2008, and then once again for Putin’s election in March 2012.

The acute deterioration of the socioeconomic situation—the result of Western-imposed sanctions, a 50 percent fall of the ruble’s exchange rate, and the collapse of oil prices —altered the state of affairs.

United Russia, which embodies a thoroughly corrupt system built upon the unity of government and big business, is viewed with skepticism and hostility by much the population. The Kremlin, therefore, attempts to promote the idea that the president, as the “leader of the nation,” stands above state structures and inter-party disagreements, and cares about the people.

Putin has signaled a certain distancing from United Russia through the activities of the so-called People’s Front, formed in the spring of 2012, which constantly makes public criticisms of certain bureaucrats and thereby creates an appearance of a direct connection between the president and society.

The decision to separate the parliamentary and presidential elections (the latter will take place in 2018) is meant to give the ruling clique maximum discretion on the question which is most vital for it—the selection of the next president, whose authority must not be directly associated with the success or failure of the state’s current activities.

At the same time, the restoration of first-past-the-post elections in certain districts is meant to ensure United Russia a majority in the Duma regardless of the results of the party list votes. A significant number of United Russia supporters are running as nominally independent candidates in the single-seat districts.

All the other parties participating in the elections perform a primarily decorative function. According to polls and preliminary estimates, none of them has a real chance of overcoming the 5 percent threshold for entry into parliament. They differ little from the four official parliamentary parties, and are running campaigns built on virtually empty demagogy—along the lines of “for all that is good and against all that is bad.”

Rodina [Motherland], the Russian Party of Pensioners for Justice, Communists of Russia, and Patriots of Russia call for the reform of Russian capitalism, with an emphasis on patriotism and slogans of social justice. The Green Party, Civic Platform, Civilian Power, and the Party of Growth contend that the same goals should be achieved by defending the interests of private entrepreneurship and the so-called middle class.

Grigory Yavlinsky’s Yabloko [Apple], which had a parliamentary faction in the 1990s and has been actively promoted over the past decade and a half as the only true “liberal opposition party,” belongs to a somewhat different category, as does the People’s Freedom Party (PARNAS), which has criticized the government more harshly than the other parties.  Both of these parties serve as a channel for the expression of the views of the pro-Western liberal opposition.Yabloko’s leaderGrigory Yavlinsky was coauthor of 500 Days, one of the programs for a forced transition to the capitalist market developed at the end of Gorbachev’s perestroika.  

In PARNAS, the tone is set by a triumvirate consisting of former Prime Minister (2000-2004) Mikhail Kasyanov, the liberal nationalist Vyacheslav Maltsev from Saratov, and the Western conservative, Professor Andrey Zubov from Moscow. While Kasyanov insists that “Putin must go,” and Maltsev calls for “impeachment” of the president, Professor Zubov voices an anticommunist version of history, according to which the “Putinists” are “heirs of the Bolsheviks,” and Russia, as previously, is ruled by the “Cheka-NKVD-KGB.”

As the elections unfold, the government is desperately trying to hide the scale of its internal disagreements. However, the real state of affairs is expressed in the succession of corruption scandals involving security agencies, as well as the recent resignations of many key figures from among President Putin’s closest allies. The last such instance was the resignation of the former head of the presidential administration Sergei Ivanov .

On economic policy, there is intra-governmental disagreement between the “Kudrin line” and the “Glazyev line.” The proposals of former Finance Minister Aleksey Kudrin are focused on maintaining a regime of financial stability and low inflation at all costs, which would necessitate raising the retirement age, a new, harsh reduction of social spending, and other austerity measures. The central bank, the ministry of finance, and a number of other key government structures support Kudrin in this.

In contrast, Sergey Glazyev, an economic adviser to the president, advocates a “mobilization” version of expanding the economy through credit for targeted state programs, as well as an increase in spending on wages and social needs. This supposedly should revive consumer demand and stimulate a recovery from the extended recession. Each side accuses the other of incompetence, threatening the bases of stability of the state.

In the first half of 2016, Russia’s GDP fell by 0.9 percent year-on-year, despite the temporary stabilization of the ruble and a modest improvement in a number of industries.

On issues of foreign policy, there are forces advocating a more aggressive attitude toward the West. There have been reports in the media that after the recent Ukrainian provocation in Crimea, there was discussion of the question of attacking Ukrainian territory in retribution. It is becoming increasingly difficult for President Putin to maintain the balance of forces in the highest echelons of the state and achieve consensus on the maneuvers in which he engages with the West, combining saber-rattling and militarist gestures with efforts to achieve compromise and agreement.

Whatever results the elections bring, the immiseration of the Russian working class will deepen. All sections of the ruling elite are united in their commitment to make the country’s workers pay the price of the socioeconomic and geopolitical crisis facing Russia. Post-Soviet capitalism has led the Russian masses into a dead end, the only exit from which is the program of international socialism—the continuation of the struggle initiated in the 1917 October Revolution under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, which will see its hundredth anniversary next year.

Wells Fargo executive overseeing fraud receives $124.6 million retirement

Gabriel Black

[description] Carrie Tolstedt has made tens of millions overseeing massive consumer fraud as Wells Fargo’s Vice President for community banking.[description]

The executive who oversaw the massive customer defrauding scheme at Wells Fargo retired this year with a $124.6 million retirement package, including stock options, special reserved shares, and other perks.

Carrie Tolstedt, Senior Executive Vice President of Community Banking at Wells Fargo, retired July 31, 2016, just weeks before the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency settled with the bank over allegations that it had opened over one million customer accounts without the customers knowing, in many cases deducting fees and other service charges.

During her nine years in the post, Tolstedt, 56 years old, was repeatedly rewarded and praised for boosting the bank’s earnings. Her total compensation came to $27 million over the past three years. Last year the bank rewarded her with a $7.3 million bonus pay on top of her $1.7 million salary. The bank stated, “under her leadership, Community Banking achieved a number of strategic objectives, including continued cross-sell ratios, record deposit levels, and continued success of mobile banking initiatives.”

In a statement announcing her retirement earlier this year, the bank said, “Tolstedt’s team is a leader in building and deepening customer loyalty and team member engagement across the business, which today serves more than 20 million retail checking households and 3 million small business owners, and employs 94,000 team members.”

Tolstedt’s success at “deepening customer loyalty” and promoting “cross-sell ratios” amounts to enforcing a bank-wide culture of illegal predation on its customers.

According to the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the bank opened 1.5 million deposit accounts and more than half a million credit card accounts without customers’ authorization. This practice involved moving customers’ money without their permission and, sometimes, the creation of fake email addresses. Most accounts were quickly closed down, in order to make day-to-day sales quotas, but many remained open.

The CFPB described these practices as “widespread.” Sabrina Bertrand, a former Wells Fargo personal banker, told CNN Money, “I had managers in my face yelling at me.” She continued, “The sales pressure from management was unbearable. They wanted you to open up dual checking accounts for people that couldn’t even manage their original checking account.”

Wells Fargo says that it has fired 5,300 employees over the past few years for their role in the fraud. The thousands of workers who were pushed into this behavior, however, are not the culprits but the victims of a bank-wide policy. These workers were under threat of losing their jobs if they did not play their role in the illegal operations that were pushed and decided upon by the management of the company.

According to the lawsuit filed by the city of Los Angeles, district managers discussed sales for each employee “four times a day.” Anthony Try, another Wells Fargo personal banker, told CNN Money, “Management was fully aware of this, [but] turned a blind eye… It was ingrained in the culture for a long time.” He said, “There would be days where we would open five accounts for friends and family just to go home early.”

As is characteristic of the financial industry, those who are actually responsible are walking away with astronomical sums. Tolstedt, as stated, will get nearly $125 million in retirement payments. According to Bloomberg, 17 million of unvested shares could be denied to Tolstedt, but this is a fraction of the overall amount. CEO John Stumpf has made $19.3 million each year for the past four years, and is expected to receive the same this year.

Stumpf both knew of the fraudulent behavior at Wells Fargo and rewarded Tolstedt with huge bonuses each year. He praised her as a “role model for responsible leadership” and “a standard-bearer of our [Wells Fargo’s] culture.” His total lack of accountability has disquieted some investors, with Wells Fargo’s stock dropping 7.5 percent since the depth of the scandal was made known last week.

Meanwhile, the $185 million settlement with Wells Fargo allows the bank to avoid any admission of wrongdoing. No executive at the bank has been fined let alone criminally charged.

Even the fine is small change for a bank that made $9.3 billion of profit in its second quarter this year. Tolstedt, herself, salted away nearly as much as the amount of the fine while working for Wells Fargo. Also, because the bank will be able to log the fine as part of its business losses, it has the potential, as with many bank settlement fines with the US government, to write-off part of the fine in its taxes.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that federal prosecutors have launched their own preliminary investigation, different from the one filed by the city of Los Angeles. If such an investigation resulted in charges, it would likely follow the host of sweet-deal agreements that the federal authorities have made with banks. These rarely target the executives of a bank, and when they do they amount to small wrist-slap fines.

Though greed plays a role in the decisions of these executives, it must be emphasized that the rampant fraudulent behavior at Wells Fargo is not merely the result of personal failings of this or that banker.

The world economy has entered into historically unprecedented territory in the past decade. Amidst widespread economic stagnation, the most “competitive” banks and companies must resort to increasingly fraudulent and illegal activity to satisfy share markets. This is compounded by the regime of near-zero interest rates, which diminishes profits to be made from deposit banking while creating a frenzy in the financial markets for all sorts of fraudulent and speculative behavior. In this economic climate, deposit banks are aggressively pushing as many financial products as possible per customer. It would therefore not be surprising if some of the other leading banks are revealed to have been involved in similar if not worse behavior.

UK reneges on its promise to take in Syrian refugees

Jean Shaoul

One year after former Prime Minister David Cameron promised to settle 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020, only 2,800 have arrived in Britain.

This is just over half the rate of 4,000 a year needed to meet the paltry commitment, under conditions where there are more than 4.8 million refugees from the war-torn country.

The British government’s refusal to honour even its own pledge exposes its callous contempt for the millions of victims created by its participation, both overt and covert, in predatory US-led wars in Syria, Iraq and Libya—waged ostensibly to protect the people of the Middle East and North Africa from the brutality of Islamic State (ISIS) and similar Islamist forces.

The civil war in Syria, with all its atrocities, is the product of the five-year long attempt by the US and its allies to topple President Bashar al-Assad via a constantly shifting coalition of armed proxies and to install a more pliant, pro-American regime. Its purpose was to ensure US control over the Middle East as part of a broader campaign to dominate the entire Eurasian landmass, where it confronts Russia and China.

The Obama administration and its partners, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf petro-monarchies and Turkey, turned to extreme right-wing Islamic fundamentalist forces, such as ISIS and various al-Qaeda-linked outfits, to carry out their objectives. Having played a key role in spawning such groups, the imperialist powers then exploited their existence to justify further military intervention in Iraq and Syria and attacks on democratic rights at home.

Cameron refused to take part in a broader European Union programme to relocate refugees who reached Europe. Instead, he pledged to increase humanitarian funds to refugee camps in the Middle East in order to ensure that the refugees did not make the attempt.

He grudgingly established a separate scheme—the “Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme”—to specifically take in Syrian refugees, ignoring the vast numbers of refugees from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iraq and elsewhere.

Cameron announced Britain’s promise to accept 20,000 refugees over five years following the outpouring of public anger over the plight of Syrian refugees last summer, particularly after the heartrending image of the body of three-year-old Alan Kurdi washed up on a Turkish beach. “Britain should fulfil its moral responsibility to help those refugees,” he said.

The scheme was to be particularly targeted at helping women and girls, survivors of violence and torture, children and adolescents, refugees with medical needs and disabilities and those at risk due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The proposed number to be taken under the scheme exposed his promise as a fraud, and even this minuscule number was hedged with tight conditions. The programme would only be open to refugees registered in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Turkey, not those already in Europe. It later emerged that the scheme would be funded by the Department of International Development’s refugee aid budget, with only £20,530 per annum for each refugee over their five years on the programme being made available to local authorities for their housing and education needs.

Furthermore, the implication of the five-year funding is that the programme will then be terminated. Instead of asylum and the right to residency, refugees are being offered a short term stay in a move clearly intended to evade Britain’s obligations under international law, not just in this case but more broadly.

Most of the refugees have been dispersed across 118 Local Authorities, mainly in Scotland and northern England. Other Local Authorities explained that the main reason they have been unable to take part in the programme was a lack of suitable flats and houses, or childcare and school places. According to the parliamentary watchdog, the National Audit Office, an estimated 4,930 extra homes and 10,664 school places are needed for the refugees, putting the 20,000 target at risk.

An even smaller number of people from countries other than Syria—just 652—were brought to the UK as refugees under the Gateway Protection Programme in 2015.

In another token gesture, Cameron also set up a Minister for Syrian Refugees, a special cross-Whitehall post that was promptly axed by his successor as prime minister, Theresa May, in July.

Last May, at the height of criticism over his response to the plight of child refugees, Cameron promised to take in 3,000 vulnerable children and their carers, including unaccompanied minors, from the Middle East and North Africa, by 2020, approximately 700 a year. This would include a large number who had parents already in the UK.

However, the children must have arrived in Europe before 31 March 2016 to qualify—a restriction inserted to prevent parents sending their children to Britain. This is of a piece with the government’s attitude towards highly vulnerable children separated from their parents. Most of these children are in the Jungle Camp in Calais.

It is unknown how many children have entered the UK under this scheme—presumably, none at all—since the government has so far refused to say how many unaccompanied child refugees it has taken in under that commitment, even refusing a Freedom of Information request to do so. Earlier this month, the Information Commissioner ordered the government to disclose the figures, but this has not been honoured as yet.

More broadly, according to the Refugee Council, only 30 percent of children who arrived in Britain alone have been granted asylum so far this year. Typically, they are granted short term leave to remain that expires after two and a half years. The top two countries of origin for new applications in 2016 from unaccompanied children were Iran and Afghanistan.

The Council reported that so far this year, the government has locked up 47 children in immigration detention, which only served to exacerbate their plight, despite promising six years ago to end the practice. The Government announced a few months ago that it was closing Cedars, the specialist family detention unit. Given the lack of specialist resources, this only means they will be held in facilities even less well equipped to care for them.

Last year, there were 1.25 million first-time applications for asylum in EU countries, more than double the number in 2014--mostly by Syrian, Afghan and Iraqi nationals. The UK received just 38,370 first-time asylum applications in 2015--3.1 percent of the EU total.

According to the Migration Observatory, asylum applicants and their dependents comprised a mere 7 percent of Britain’s net migration in 2014, down from 44 percent in 2002. Just 36 percent of first time asylum applicants were accepted in 2015, with 35 percent of those who appealed winning the right to stay.

A recent Home Affairs Select Committee report on the migration crisis warned that the government was unlikely to fulfil its 20,000 target of Syrian refugees. It noted the horrendous situation facing asylum seekers in the refugee camp known as the Jungle in Calais, but called for Britain to accept just 157 unaccompanied children from it who had family in the UK.

Its main concern was the need for greater “border security” and further steps to control migration. It noted that beefed up security at airports and major ports was displacing “malevolent attention” to smaller points of entry that lacked resources, and called for security to be tightened up at these entry points “as a matter of urgency.”