14 Apr 2017

Why India’s Economic Reforms are Climate Unfriendly

Niharika Tagotra


The economic and fiscal policies of a government are the prime indicators of its priorities. In this regard, the Union Budget 2017 and the recently introduced Goods and Services Tax (GST) bill, hailed as a part of the larger economic reforms undertaken by the government, have little to show for in terms of India’s climate change commitments. That the economic policies and tax reforms appear to be inconsistent with the country’s climate change obligations highlights how policy makers in India are yet to give any serious thought to the issue. 

Budget 2017: Provisions for the Renewable Energy (RE) sector
Budget 2017, in a major push towards achieving greater energy security, introduced policies for the conventional energy sector. These included setting up of two new strategic crude oil reserves in Odisha and Rajasthan; and a significant cut in the import duty on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from 5 per cent to 2.5 per cent. Additionally, the budget announced 20 GW of solar capacity addition and feeding 7,000 railway stations with solar power along with a cut in import duty on solar tempered glass from 5 per cent to 0 per cent. However, these incentives for solar energy systems are far too little to provide momentum to the clean energy transition in India. 
 
Moreover, the Budget 2017 was silent on the most pressing issues concerning the renewable energy sector, including the extension of the Generation Based Incentive (GBI) scheme for the wind energy sector that expired on 31 March, 2017. This scheme, which has incentivised investments in the sector, was not extended further by the union government, and this is bound to affect the viability of the sector. 
The budget also failed to provide incentives for the rooftop solar project that could contribute approximately 15 GW of energy by 2022. The rooftop solar project could have been easily integrated with the larger housing schemes announced by the government, including the PM Gramin Aawas Yojana. While this would have helped normalise the domestic production of solar energy in the country, the lack of any creative integration of housing and clean energy under the larger umbrella of sustainable infrastructure is reflective of the union government’s little regard for the issue. 
 
Additionally, the budget was silent on the issue of strengthening the Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO) market for the RE sector, the sluggishness of which has contributed to the low demand and lower investments in the sector.
 
GST: Impact on the RE Sector
While the budget gave little space to the clean energy sector, the recently passed GST bill is expected to further dent the RE market in India. As power (particularly electricity duty) is expected to be kept out of the purview of the GST, the prices of electricity are expected to escalate by 6-18 per cent. This is because while the companies will have to pay GST for their inputs, their taxes will not be refunded as the output (electricity) is exempted from the GST, and will continue to be subjected to state specific electricity duties. For the RE sector, inputs such as solar panels and wind turbines will be taxed at 18 per cent under the new tax regime, up from the current 12 per cent, with no benefit of input tax credit. This will most likely result in a major cascading effect for the sector, thus pushing up prices. On the contrary, the GST is expected to bring down prices for coal as many state cesses that were previously charged on the dry fuel are expected to be subsumed under the GST.
 
Meanwhile, tax exemptions previously provided for the sector are expected to be done away with. The Interstate GST (IGST) fixed at 20 per cent for interstate procurements could further push up the prices of goods that are procured by states through interstate commerce for the generation or distribution of electricity. Earlier, these items were provided with a concessional rate of Central Sales Tax of 2 per cent. 
 
However, in comparison, environment unfriendly items including petrol and diesel are proposed to be kept out of the purview of the GST in order to avoid the “inflationary pressures” that could affect the pricing of these commodities. This will, in turn, have an adverse impact on the bio-fuel industry that currently depends on the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) for the production, assimilation and distribution of bio-fuels. While the prices of conventional fuels are expected to remain the same, the prices of bio-fuels are expected to go up by 11-14 per cent under the new GST regime. The OMCs, which at present use a 5 per cent bio-diesel and 10 per cent ethanol mixed with petrol, are expected to bear the increase in the cost of these fuels, a move that could further disincentivise their use. 
 
Looking Ahead
The broader economic reforms undertaken by India appear to be out of sync with the pressing concerns about climate change mitigation. As a part of its voluntary commitments under the 2015 Paris climate deal, India had agreed to cut down on the emission intensity of its GDP by 20-25 per cent. This was to be accomplished by using fiscal instruments like promoting the RPO market, increasing taxes on petrol and diesel as well as strengthening the institutional arrangement for RE power. Instead, however, the government policies have essentially sought to disincetivise investments in the renewable energy sector.
 
In order to channelise its commitments towards the global climate change mitigation, India will need to harmonise its social, economic and environmental policies. That climate change is fast growing into a national security issue should make the government more pro-active and less reactive in its outlook.

Asia-Pacific: Is Middle Power Multilateralism Possible?

Chandrali Sarkar


In light of President Trump’s abandonment of the original ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy, a recent article in The Indian Express, titled ‘Delhi, Tokyo Canberra’, by C Raja Mohan and Rory Medcalf, has explored possible approaches to counter China’s rise. In the wake of US President Donald Trump’s decision to exit from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the uncertainty that is lurking with President Trump’s intentions in the Asia-Pacific region, the article proposes constructing a middle power coalition among India, Japan and Australia to counterbalance China. 

This commentary argues that the feasibility and efficacy of such a proposal seems unlikely at the moment for two reasons: - First, there is the question of whether or not India would want to portray itself as a middle power in this region; and second, the effectiveness of such a coalition vis-à-vis China’s rise is doubtful. 

India as a Middle Power
The US’ exit from TPP does not necessarily mean the US’s exit from the Asia-Pacific entirely; however it means greater scope for China to assert itself in the region. Thus the proposal of collaboration among Delhi, Tokyo, and Canberra to restore the balance of power vis-à-vis China automatically raises questions about how India would want to project itself. 
 
Japan and Australia express a clear stand against China. Despite their strong economic ties with China, they condemn the rising threat of China’s aggrandisement in the South China Sea (SCS). Japan's 2016 Defence White Paper elaborates on this stance. India, unlike the above countries, follows a tricky two-sided diplomacy with respect to China. On one hand India is trying to militarily counterbalance China through its overtures to Japan and Vietnam such as building stronger defense ties, with Japan through the Civil Nuclear Agreement; acknowledging Japan's permanency in the Malabar joint navel exercise in the Bay of Bengal in 2015; and providing the surface-to-air missile system to Vietnam. On the other hand, India and China share strong bilateral economic relations.
 
New Delhi and Beijing have strong differences on border issues, relations with Pakistan, and China’s expansionist policy in the Asia- Pacific Region. However, India refrains from using a stern stance against China that Japan and Australia do. India maintains a diplomatic ambiguity towards China.
 
India may not possess the capabilities of counterbalancing China single-handedly; but like the US, India sees itself as a potential balancer to China’s policies. Thus, it is for India to assess its capabilities and to decide how it wants to project itself; or whether it wants to keep its position ambiguous, if that ambiguity is to its advantage. 
 
Prospective Multilateralism
The second challenge concerns the efficacy of the prospective coalition. This prompts an analysis on the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region that plays a significant role in determining the profitability of the middle power coalition. Here, the nations are scattered and most are incapable of unilaterally exerting influence in world politics. Therefore, multilateralism, i.e. a coalition seems, to be the effective solution to ideally balance the scale of power in this region. The authors of ‘Delhi, Tokyo Canberra’ suggest that the trilateral coalition would not do much beyond sending a strong message against China’s rise. This raises questions of how the utility of such a coalition can be improved.  
 
If a middle power coalition is to be attempted, then such an alliance needs the support of other smaller regional powers such a Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam - countries that traditionally condemned China for its expansionist policies. This could enable the trilateral configuration to transform into a stronger and more effective multilateral one to fill a power vacuum potentially left by the US in case it chooses to follow a less assertive foreign policy. 
 
At present, the possibility of such an alliance seems very bleak, owing to Indonesia's and the Philippines’ positions. The Philippines has altered its approximately seven decade old foreign policy stance and is trying to improve its relationship with China by seeking to resolve their SCS dispute. Despite its dispute regarding Natuna Island in the SCS, Indonesia’s strong economic ties with China could deter it from directly posing a strong opposition.
 
Vietnam and Singapore have demonstrated stronger resistance towards China’s assertions. This is evident in their individual disputes with China in the SCS region and public condemnation of the same. These countries, along with Australia and Japan, could be part of a pragmatic alliance against China; but would this core group be able to effectively balance China without India and the US’ support?  And would they be able to rise beyond their economic dependency on China and make a collective move against it? These are some vital questions that need to be examined before coming to conclusions about the effectiveness of a middle power coalition in the Asia-Pacific.
 
Conclusion
In analysing the plausibility of multilateralism among these middle powers, it can be said that the geopolitical configuration of this region makes group effort an ideal approach. However, such a group effort is not possible owing to these countries' respective self interests that guide their foreign policies. Under such circumstances, the possibility of a middle power coalition becomes dim.

12 Apr 2017

Arturo Falaschi ICGEB Postdoctoral Fellowships for Scientists in Developing Countries 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 31st March 2017 and 30th September 2017
Eligible Countries: Developing Countries
To be taken at (country): Trieste, New Delhi or Cape Town.
About the Award: The Arturo Falaschi ICGEB Fellowships programme offers long and short-term fellowships for scientists who are nationals of ICGEB Member States. ICGEB offers competitive Postdoctoral Fellowships in the Life Sciences to highly motivated scientists wishing to pursue postdoctoral research in a world-class scientific environment.

Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  • Applicants must be nationals of an ICGEB Member State and may not apply for fellowships to be undertaken in their country of origin, unless they have been working abroad for, at least, the last 3 years and at the time of application.
  • Degree requirements: applicants should hold a recent PhD in Life Sciences or have at least 3 years research experience.
  • Preference is given to candidates below the age of 35.
Selection Criteria: The ICGEB Fellowships Selection Committee will evaluate complete and endorsed applications received by the closing date. The main criteria for selection include scientific excellence of the project, the qualities of the candidate’s CV and potential benefit for the home country.
Selection: All submitted applications will be transmitted to the respective ICGEB Liaison Officer in the country of which you are a national for endorsement. Endorsement is a fundamental requirement for the Fellowship to be awarded
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: The Fellowships consist of a very competitive package including stipend, health insurance and additional benefits. The most successful fellows will also be eligible, upon completion, to apply for ICGEB Early Career Research Grants to support their own research programmes as young PIs upon return to an ICGEB Member State.
Duration of Fellowship: 2 years with the possibility of a 1-year extension.
How to Apply: To apply, Applicants should contact the ICGEB Group Leader/PI of their choice with a motivation letter, to determine availability of laboratory space and to define the research project proposal that will form an integral part of the application.
Award Provider: Arturo Falaschi
Important Notes: ICGEB makes no financial provision, nor can it provide administrative support for family members of participants in the programme.

Mozilla Fellowships for Research in Open Science and Data Sharing 2017

Application Deadline: 14th May, 2017 at 11:59PM EDT.
Eligible Countries: All. As long as interested candidate is legally allowed to work in the country they currently reside in.
About the Award: We’re looking for researchers with a passion for open source and data sharing, already working to shift research practice to be more collaborative, iterative and open. Fellows will spend 10 months starting September 2017 as community catalysts at their institutions, mentoring the next generation of open data practitioners and researchers and building lasting change in the global open science community.
Throughout their fellowship term, chosen fellows will receive training and support from Mozilla to hone their skills around open source, data sharing, open science policy and licensing. They will also craft code, curriculum and other learning resources that help their local communities learn open data practices, and teach their institutional peers.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Fellows must be:
  • be currently employed at a research institution
  • have the ability to accept outside funds for this fellowship directly (i.e., not distributed through the institution)
  • be an early-career researcher (i.e., graduate students, post-docs, research scientists, lecturers)
  • specialize in scientific research: physical, life, social, library, or natural sciences
  • be able to travel
  • obtain support from their advisors. As fellows will be based at their home institutions, please note that a letter of support from their advisor is mandatory for consideration
  • have experience participating in open communities
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: Fellows will receive:
  • a stipend of $60,000 USD, paid in 10 monthly installments
  • a one-time health insurance supplement for Fellows and their families, ranging from $3,500 for single Fellows to $7,000 for a couple with two or more children
  • a one-time childcare allotment of up to $6,000 for families with children
  • an allowance of up to $3,000 towards the purchase of laptop computer, digital cameras, recorders and computer software; fees for continuing studies or other courses, research fees or payments, to the extent such purchases and fees are related to the fellowship
  • coverage in full for all approved fellowship trips – domestic and international
Duration of Fellowship: 10
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Provider: Mozilla
Important Notes: Fellows are encouraged to continue their personal research for up to 20% of their time during the course of their fellowship (i.e., one day a week). Fellowship applicants must have buy-in from their supervisors in advance, and include Advisors’ contact information on the application. Advisors will be interviewed separately should applicants move on to the second round, and their support will be a critical consideration for acceptance of fellows.

Total E&P Postgraduate Scholarships for Nigerian Students 2017/2018

Application Timeline:
  • Deadline: 14th July 2017
  • Aptitude Test: July 26, 2017.
  • Oral interview: August 23, 2017 at IPS Park
To be taken at (country): Nigeria
About the Award: The aim of this operations-oriented Post Graduate Diploma in Petroleum Technology programme, sponsored by TOTAL E&P NIGERIA LIMITED, is to improve the technical competence and skills of graduates from the communities in which they operate to make them effective and competitive for recruitment in the petroleum industry.
On completion of this programme, the graduates will among other skills, be able to:
  • Effectively use Petroleum Engineering Softwares
  • Supervise drilling operations, develop wells and carry out drilling optimization programmes
  • Supervise, and evaluate well completion, Workover and well stimulation programmes
  • Operate onshore and offshore oil and gas production facilities
  • Carry out well performance enhancement programmes
Type: Postgraduate 
Eligibility: Candidates must possess a  minimum  of  Second Class  Honours  (Lower Division), Bachelor’s Degree in any branch of Engineering and the Physical/Chemical Sciences and should have completed their NYSC. There shall be written test and oral screening to further determine suitability of candidates.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Award of Diploma: Successful students, at the end of the programme, shall receive a Diploma of the University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
  • Professional Certification: Students may be exposed to programmes and presented with Associate Environment Practitioners (AEP) Certification (NREP, USA).
How to Apply:  A non-refundable application fee of Fifteen Thousand Naira (#15, 000) in certified bank draft shall be made payable to the Institute of Petroleum Studies, University of Port Harcourt. Applicants should include a pre-paid FedEx envelope with the draft and collect the form in person. Forms can be filled online from IPS website and also make payment online.
  • Names of short-listed candidates will be displayed on IPS website: www.ipsng.org
  • Short-listed candidates will also be contacted by e-mail
Award Provider: Total E&P Nigeria Limited
Important Notes: Note that sponsorship of candidate(s) by any of the  participating companies does not guarantee recruitment of such candidate(s) into their Employment at the end of the programme)

World Trade Organisation (WTO) Young Professionals Program 2018

Application Deadline: 10th May 2017 (CET)
Offered annually?
Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahrain, Kingdom of Belize, Bolivia, Plurinational State of Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, the State of, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People’s Democratic Republic , Lesotho, Liberia, Macao, China Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,Moldova, Republic of, Mongolia, Montenegro,Mozambique,Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Qatar,Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Chinese Taipei, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Togo, Tonga,United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen
About the Award: The WTO Young Professionals Programme (YPP) is a unique opportunity for qualified young professionals up to the age of 32 years as at 1 January 2018, from eligible developing and least-developed country (LDC) WTO Members, to enhance their knowledge and skills on WTO and international trade issues. The Programme aims to widen the pool of professionals from these countries who can later be more competitive with respect to recruitment in the WTO and/or other regional and international organizations.
This is a limited programme that offers selected young professionals with the opportunity to gain work experience in the WTO. There is no guarantee of an extension of the programme or of a job offer after the one-year programme.
Fields of Work: The areas of work may include, inter alia, Accessions, Agriculture, Dispute Settlement, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), Government Procurement, Market Access (tariffs and non-tariff barriers), Rules, Trade and Development, Trade Facilitation, Economic research, Trade Policy Analysis, Trade in Services and Investment, Council and Trade Negotiations, Trade and Environment, Technical Barriers to Trade, Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, Trade-Related Technical assistance.
Type: Temporary appointment
Eligibility: Applicants must be 32 years old or younger, as at 1 January 2018. A cover letter (letter of motivation) MUST accompany the application – the letter should also note UP TO THREE areas of work that applicants would be interested in, in order of preference. Applications with no accompanying letter will not be considered.
Qualifications:
Education:
Advanced university degree in law economics, or other international trade-related subjects relevant to WTO work
Knowledge and skills:
Relevant expertise or continued academic study in a field of interest to the work of the WTO.
Ability to think strategically; work independently and in a team.
Demonstrated strong interest in international trade.
Commitment and passion for trade or WTO-related work
Work Experience:
Minimum two (2) years of relevant experience
Languages:
Fluency in English. A good working knowledge of one other official WTO language, French or Spanish, would be an advantage
Value of Program: CHF 3,500 monthly salary (approximate)
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Duration of Program: One year without possibility of extension
How to Apply: All candidates must complete an online application form on the Program Webpage
Award Provider: World Trade Organisation (WTO)

Did Assad Really Use Sarin?

Paul Gottinger

Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media, Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New York Times on April 5th showed a heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming Assad was responsible.
By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said action would be taken.
Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency, whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike
The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into a trance while expressing the “beauty” of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.
Pundits described the attack as “surgical” despite the pentagon quietly admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don’t know where it landed. My questions to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone unanswered. However, Syrian sources claim civilians were killed in the missile strike.
Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on the “beautiful babies” murdered in the chemical attack.
Following the attack, Trump officials’ statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change. UN ambassador Nikki Haley said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.
The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol tweeted that these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.
But was Assad really responsible for the attack?
To ask such a question is to be deemed an “Assadist” by pundits and discourse police across the political spectrum.
Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed sufficient cause for skepticism.
In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media coverage.
The best recent example of this is the US media’s conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by Louise Mensch. She recently claimed the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.
In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately declared Assad’s guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq war.
In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the Iraq WMD story to Americans, coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad’s alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.
To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack that has been accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.
When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan Sheikhun attack.
In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad’s guilt.
The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been disputed.
In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta and found reason to doubt Assad’s responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.
He reported that classified US reports claimed that Syria’s al Qaeda affiliate had “mastered the mechanics of creating sarin”.
A month after Hersh’s piece appeared, a MIT study cast further doubt on the US government’s story by demonstrating that the rockets used in the Ghouta attack couldn’t have flown as far as the US government claimed.
Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, “We were within a whisker of war based on egregious errors.”
In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.
The journalist Robert Parry has recently claimed there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn’t among those helping sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over Assad’s involvement.
Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised skepticism over Assad’s involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria and some of the witnesses’ statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates something other than sarin was used.
The Canadian government originally called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed Trump’s strikes.
Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.
Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known. But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong answers.
It’s possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he’s a reprehensible figure doesn’t mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.
What’s clear now is that the US attack benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.
Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we can’t count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason.

Deadly Sins of Imperialism

Cesar Chelala

No one would have imagined that one of the greatest truths about American foreign policy would come from President Donald Trump during an interview with Fox News reporter Bill O’Reilly. When O’Reilly referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin as “a killer,” Trump replied, “There are a lot of killers. We have many killers. Or do you think our country is so innocent?”
With these words Trump comfirmed what we have known for a long time about U.S. foreign policy: The United States has a dark history of involvement in in many countries’ politics, often economically or through direct murder or participation in the elimination of foreign leaders, including leaders of the U.S.
Patrick Lawrence, an American author and essayist, relates a conversation he had with an American whistleblower known for his denunciations against the establishment. He told Lawrence that, during a dinner to raise funds for the Democratic Party, one of the attendees asked President Barak Obama: “President Obama, what happened to your progressive foreign policy plans?” President Obama replied, “Do you want me to end up like John F. Kennedy?”
We now know that there are still serious doubts about the involvement of the CIA in both the death of John F. Kennedy and that of his brother Robert Kennedy, who was the Attorney General of the United States from 1961 to 1964. Robert Kennedy was murdered on June 6, 1968, still without total certainty (as in the case of his brother John F. Kennedy) about who was really his killer.
William Blum, an American historian and sharp critic of US foreign policy, denounced in his books and numerous articles U.S. intervention in other countries. Blum worked for the United States Department of State as a computer expert.
According to Blum, after the end of World War II, the United States:
Tried to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected.
Dropped bombs from the air on people from more than 30 countries.
Tried to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
Tried to suppress popular or nationalist movements in 20 countries.
Interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
In addition to these actions, the United States has practiced torture, as in the case of Guantánamo and in the other countries to which they sent their prisoners of war. This includes not only torture by Americans against foreigners, but also providing torture equipment and manuals, lists of persons to be tortured, and training in torture techniques by U.S. instructors.
Violent acts, murders and wars are not the only ways to intervene in other countries. In the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, American author and consultant John Perkins details the techniques used by both the United States government and international banks and corporations to subdue countries through forced indebtedness and very high rates of interest on loans they impose on them, many of which enrich not only the lenders but the corrupt local elites.
Perkins’ testimony is especially valuable because he himself was an economic hit man on the payroll of large US corporations and banks. His work consisted precisely in forcing countries into debt and thus weakening their economies and their possibilities for independent development.
Not everyone, however, agrees with Perkins’ conclusions. Sebastian Mallaby, a Washington Post columnist and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations thinks that what Perkins says is exaggerated and cites improvements in global poverty and health levels despite his assertions about the harmful behavior of international banks and companies.
Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian-born African economist who worked for Goldman Sachs, the World Bank and many other international organizations says: “Rich countries money has trapped many African nations in a cycle of corruption, slow growth and poverty. Cutting the flow of aid would be much more beneficial.” In dozens of missions to developing countries, I have been able to verify the disasters caused by the interference of corporations, banks and other countries in the degree of corruption of governments and local economies.
These considerations should not ignore the responsibility that national elites have in enabling and benefiting from those policies that have a significant negative impact on the countries’ development. This is particularly relevant when one takes into account the forecast of the Intelligence Unit of The Economist. According to it, 65 countries out of 150 will experience significant social and political uncertainty in the near future.
For many decades, the U.S. has been intervening in other countries (mainly developing ones) through a variety of mechanisms that have led to their destabilization, the fall of democratic governments and encouraging widespread corruption. The more these countries become aware of these intervention policies the better they will be able to respond to them.

The Savings and Stability of Public Banking

Ralph Nader

As a society obsessed by money, we pay a gigantic price for not educating high school and college students about money and banking. The ways of the giant global banks – both commercial and investment operations – are as mysterious as they are damaging to the people. Big banks use the Federal Reserve to maximize their influence and profits. The federal Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for matters that are “contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.” This exemption allows financial institutions to wallow in secrecy. Financial institutions are so influential in Congress that Senator Durbin (D, IL) says “[The banks] frankly own this place.”
Although anti-union, giant financial institutions have significant influence over the investments of worker pension funds. Their certainty of being bailed out because they are seen as “too big to fail” harms the competitiveness of smaller, community banks and allows the big bankers to take bigger risks with “other people’s money,” as Justice Brandeis put it.
These big banks are so pervasive in their reach that even unions and progressive media, such as The Nation magazine and Democracy Now have their accounts with JP Morgan Chase.
The government allows banks to have concentrated power. Taxpayers and Consumers are charged excessive fees and paid paltry interest rates on savings. The bonds of municipalities are are also hit with staggering fees and public assets like highways and public drinking water systems are corporatized by Goldman Sachs and other privatizers with sweetheart multi-decade leases.
Then there are the immense taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street, such as those in 2008-2009 after the financial industry’s recklessness and crimes brought down the economy, cost workers 8 million jobs, and shredded the pension and mutual fund savings of the American people.51n-qquXykL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_
Standing like a beacon of stability, responsiveness and profitability is the 98 year-old, state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND). As reported by Ellen Brown, prolific author and founder of the Public Banking Institute (Santa Clarita, California), “The BND has had record profits for the last 12 years” (avoiding the Wall Street crash) “each year outperforming the last. In 2015 it reported $130.7 million in earnings, total assets of $7.4 billion, capital of $749 million, and a return on investment of a whopping 18.1 percent. Its lending portfolio grew by $486 million, a 12.7 percent increase, with growth in all four of its areas of concentration: agriculture, business, residential and student loans…”
North Dakota’s economy is depressed because of the sharp drop in oil prices. So the BND moved to help. Again, Ellen Brown:
“In 2015, it introduced new infrastructure programs to improve access to medical facilities, remodel or construct new schools, and build new road and water infrastructure. The Farm Financial Stability Loan was introduced to assist farmers affected by low commodity prices or below-average crop production. The BND also helped fund 300 new businesses.”
All this is in a state with half the population of Phoenix or Philadelphia.
A California coalition is forming to establish a state-owned bank for California. Coalition organizers say a California State Bank will cut the state’s long-term financing costs in half, compared to what avaricious Wall Street is charging. The nation’s largest state (equivalent to the world’s sixth largest economy) can free itself from massive debt accumulation, bid-rigging, deceptive interest-rate swaps and capital appreciation bonds at 300% interest over time.
What assets does the state have to make this bank fully operational? California has surplus funds which total about $600 billion, including those in a Pooled Money Investment account managed by the State Treasurer that contains $54 billion earning less than 1 percent interest.
Money in these funds is earmarked for specific expenditure purposes, but they can be invested – in a new state bank. To escape from a Wall Street that is, in Brown’s words “sucking massive sums in interest, fees and interest rate swap payments out of California and into offshore tax havens,” a state bank can use its impressive credit power to develop infrastructure in California.
Huge state pension funds and other state funds can provide the deposits. Each one billion dollar capital investment can lend $10 billion for projects less expensively and under open stable banking control by California. Presently, California and other states routinely deposit hundreds of billions of dollars in Wall Street banks at minimal interest, turn around and borrow for infrastructure construction and repair from the Wall Street bond market at much higher interest and fees.
This is a ridiculous form of debt peonage, a lesson Governor Jerry Brown has yet to learn. He and other officials similarly uninformed about how the state of California can be its own banker should visit publicbankinginstitute.org and read Ellen Brown’s book, The Public Bank Solution.
Legislation for public banks is being pursued in the states of Washington, Michigan, Arizona and New Jersey, as well as the cities of Philadelphia and Santa Fe. Look for county commissioners and state treasurers to come on board when they see the enormous safeguards and savings that can be secured through “public banks” in contrast to the convoluted casino run by unaccountable Wall Street gamblers and speculators.
A longtime backer of public banking, retired entrepreneur Richard Mazess, hopes that national civic groups like Public Citizen, Common Cause, People for the American Way and Consumer Watchdog can get behind the proposal. “Public, not private, infrastructure is essential for an equitable economy,” he says.
California already has a public infrastructure bank called the IBank. Mr. Mazess and others believe that expanding the existing IBank into a depository institution would be more likely to pass through the California legislature. The deposits would come from public institutions, and NGOs (not from private persons). These pension funds and other public deposits would become reserves and serve as the basis for safely leveraged loans to public projects at a conservative tenfold multiplier. No derivatives or other shenanigans allowed.
Before that proposal can be enacted, however, there needs to be much more education of state legislators and the public at large.
Such enlightenment would illuminate the enormous savings, along with the restoration of state sovereignty from the absentee, exploitative grip of an unrepentant, speculating, profiteering Wall Street that believes it can always go to Washington, DC for its taxpayer bailouts.