Granting Palestinians the Right to Work can Salvage Lebanon’s Economy

Franklin Lamb

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the offspring of nearly 800,000 ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine during the 1948-50 Nakba, are today variously labeled by their Lebanese hosts as refugees or sometimes described as a particular category of “quasi-residents.” Or as “foreigners” or sometimes during Arab emotional nationalist events or rising national sentiments or Israeli attacks, Palestinians have been described more congenially as “Arab residents” or “Arab brothers.” Or at other times they are claimed by‘Resistance” factions as “Our religious, moral and political duty to liberate and return to Palestine.” And sometimes Palestinians in Lebanon are labeled by yet other “Resistance Brand” elements as “Sunni Terrorists” and “Takfires”who support other ‘terrorists’(rebels and civilians) in the Syrian Civil war next door. Consequently they must be eradicated per certain questionable Hadith offerings weakly attributed to Mohammad the Prophet (PBUH).

But whatever the label pasted on Palestinian refugees in sectarianized and Shia-Sunni split Lebanon, they are today often thought of by certain sects with power in Parliament as some kind of parasitic outlaws. Nothing could be further from the truth and this assertion is repudiated beyond cavil once Lebanon understands the benefits that will accrue to their economy if Palestinians are granted their internationally mandated civil right to work.

As noted in Part I of this report, Lebanon’s economy continues to weaken as foreign investors pull back, internal sectarian turmoil swells and World Bank and IMF indexes of Lebanon’s economic future increasingly reminds one of the 2009 economic shut-down in Greece.

Politicizing Palestinian access to Lebanon’s economy

Today, approximately 230.000 Palestinian refugees are housed in 12 camps and 42 gatherings across Lebanon. The vast majority live under harsh deteriorating conditions with high poverty rates, and collapsing infrastructure and housing conditions. They have very limited access to quality services and social protection. In addition they are subjected to discriminatory laws and regulations including being denied by Lebanon’s Parliament the internationally mandated civil right to work or own a home outside of their squalid camps.

Historically the Palestinians and the Lebanese have had deep economic relationseven prior to the exodus of Palestinians from their sacred homeland. Thousands of Lebanese sought employment opportunities in Palestine. And because they were granted the same civil right to work that today Lebanon is legally obliged to grant Palestinians, the Lebanese were well integrated within Palestine’s economy and many prospered. Allowing Palestinians in Lebanon the right to work is viewed by most people of goodwill and virtually all tenets of international humanity law, as simply fair based on this fact alone.

Expulsion from their lands and homes forced the entry of Palestinians into Lebanon which began five years after Lebanon had proclaimed its independence from France. As argued by many who have studied the subject including scholar and this observer’s student, JaberSuileman, the arriving Palestinians provided capital and labor which in large part helped build the Lebanese economy. In addition to augmenting the labor force, Palestinian refugees had been owners of banks, companies, heavily involved in trade, and known for their business acumen. During 72 months of their ethnic cleansing by occupying Zionist gangs, Palestinians transferred more than 200,000,000 sterling pounds into Lebanon. This cash infusion was vital to the new state of Lebanon and exceeded by four times the then value of the Lebanese economy.

Roughly two decades later, the PLO fueled economy in Lebanon had grown massively with scores of thousands of job creations and its budget exceeded that of the Lebanese state itself. However, given other exigencies, the PLO leadership was not much involved with long term investments but rather focused on providing for the short-term needs of the camp residents. And since the PLO was the major employer they did not feel particular urgency about developing a long term plan to guarantee, by Parliamentary decree, the enactment of the civil right to work for Palestinians in Lebanon. Frankly it was not a big issue at the time given the political and economic power of the PLO and the reality of the Lebanese job market being fully open to Palestinians.

Yet, as all dear readers know, times change. With the withdrawal of the PLO from Lebanon in August of 1982, (with this observer on one of their boats headed to Tunis), as a consequence of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Israel’s local and international allies which included certain Lebanese sects, a reign of terror was organized by Lebanon’s Deuxiume Bureau (Military Intelligence). It was during this period that the Amal Militia under the leadership of Lebanon’s current Speaker of Parliament now in his 25th year sinecure commanded the 1985-88 Palestinian Camp Massacres, on instructions emanating from elements in Syria. The tradeoff was cover for Nabeh Berri’s knowledge of the Imam Musa Sadr murder in Libya a few years earlier. Berri profited financially and politically from pleading ignorance about “the vanished Imam” during the subsequent four decades about who ordered Libya’s Gadhafi to ‘disappear Imam Sadr.” Consequently Berri was green-lighted to assume the leadership of Musa Sadr’s Amal organization and the post of Speaker of Lebanon’s Parliament. Imam Musa Sadr’s murder changed the course of Middle East history for the worst, given his ability and commitment to bridge building among Sunni, Shia and Christians and his general moderation and rejection of Political Theocracy which is so rampant today. Sadr was a supporter of Palestinians refugees having the right to work.

A reign of terror in post PLO power targets Lebanon’s Palestinians

As the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon were increasingly targeted after the PLO leadership withdrew, a decision was taken to exclude them from internally mandated civil rights that every refugee on the planet is accorded. Among the employment doors shut for Palestinians, which would substantially block they from growing Lebanon’s economy via employment and job expansion,isthe right to work in 20 professions. In order to exclude Palestinians, all main professions require that applicants have Lebanese nationality.Professional Associations now barred to Palestinians in Lebanon include those in which they have historically excelled. The professions in Lebanon which by political design excludes Palestinians are Lebanon’s Bar Association, Association of Doctors, Pharmacists, Dentists, Engineers, Media, Association of Editors, Banks, Association of Manufacturers, Accounting, Associations of Hospitals, Tourism Agencies in Lebanon (ATTA1), Association of Printing, Syndicate of Hotels Owners in Lebanon , Syndicate of Pilots in Lebanon, Association of Insurance Companies, Syndicate of the Manufacture of Gold and Jewelry, Syndicate of Public Works and Constructing Contractors in Lebanon, Association of Licensed Topographers in Lebanon, and Association of the Union of Publishers.

Palestinian refugees being allowed to work in these professions would, according to several studies grow Lebanon’s economy quickly and significantly create quality of life improvements including infrastructure revamping and economic and political stability for all in Lebanon. Moreover, were Lebanon’s Parliament to comply with International law, its own Constitution and US law, Lebanon’s economy could be salvaged and grow significantly according to various ILO and World Bank analyses.

Over worked and poorly paid–but still contributing

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are overworked and poorly paid. The average monthly income of Palestinian workers is below the Lebanese minimum wage and based on 2007 data represents less than 80% of the average monthly income of Lebanese. Participation of Palestinian women in the labor force is also very limited and as in a majority of countries women are paid less than their male co-workers, receiving approximately 82% of men’s income.

Sadly, but correctable, Lebanon’s Palestinian workforce has become less educated and lacking in previous skills. Most are engaged in fairly menial jobs concentrated in commerce and construction. When a Palestinian can find work it is often on a daily, weekly, or productivity basis. Job security is unknown. The blocking of fair job opportunities and decent work is exacerbating and accelerating the cycle of impoverishment and vulnerable existence that Palestinians endure all across Lebanon.

Despite some optimism about improvements from the 2010 Parliamentary amendments related to improving the conditions of Palestinian refugees, no significant benefit resulted on their right to work or quality of life status. Work permits are still very difficult to secure despite the cancellation by Lebanon’s Parliament of work permit fees. Work permits are not required by most menial occupations performed by Palestinian refugees and fewer than 2% of refugees have acquired one. Half of the Palestinian refugees are employed by another Palestinian and approximately 30% work only inside the camps. Roughly 50% of Lebanon’s employed Palestinians work in construction and commerce activities such as wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles of repairing household appliances, often longer than ten hour days and where the majority earn less than the daily Lebanese minimum wage or about 20,000 LL which equals $14 USD per day or $ 1.20+ per hour.

The above noted weak 2010 refinement of Lebanese law makes plain that Lebanon’s Parliament was not willing to fulfill Lebanon’s duties toward Palestinian refugees. But to its limited credit it did decide on cancelling the principle of Reciprocity since it is not applicable to Palestinians because they are refugees. It kept the discriminatory work permit but cancelled the fee to obtain one. It also allowed the right to work in a few parts of the private sector including the right to end of service and work emergency compensations. However, this responsibility must be held by the employer most of whom indicate they will avoid it. Parliament also blocked Palestinian employees from any benefit from the social security fund and sending the matter to UNRWA arguing that it alone is responsible for Palestinian health, educational, and social condition.

Consequently, the informal economy is currently the only viable option for Palestinians to obtain jobs in Lebanon. The majority of Palestinians are employed in the informal sector due to being both socially and economically confined. But working in the informal economy is not a solution. Most Palestinians working in the informal economy are denied many rights, including social security or receiving a guarantee on pensions and as noted above are being much underpaid. In addition this employment is not included in Lebanon’s national economic assessments. Notwithstanding that Palestinians already constitute an important part of the Lebanese work force their contribution is not currently included in any formal economic assessment.

Conclusion

For too long, the debate surrounding the right of Palestinians to work in Lebanon has been perverted by domestic politics and the tendency to conflate employment rights with a right to naturalization, or tawteen. Those who have lived in Palestinian camps and followed this issue know the absurdity of this proposition. With every Palestinian birth in Lebanon the resolve for Full Return deepens. Wishfully thinking were the occupiers of Palestine’s prediction that “the old will die and the young will forget.” Let them come to the camps of Lebanon and Syria and interview the youth about this prediction.

Lebanon’s ailing economy is in no small measure the result of discriminatory laws and practices that have hindered Palestinians from legally joining the Lebanese labor market and growing Lebanon’s economy. As a result leaving major economic contributions to Lebanon’s economy by Palestinians underutilized.

Palestinians have not been and are not today an economic burden to Lebanon. They are a potential major boon. Several economic growth periods benefiting the country were primarily due to Palestinian entrepreneurial capital being invested across Lebanon. Part of which is the fact that in contrast to other foreign workers in Lebanon, Palestinian labor constitutes the only group which spends essentially their entire earnings in Lebanon without sending them as remittances abroad.

As noted in a recent International Labor Organization (ILO) study, achieving fair treatment for Palestinian workers in Lebanon by Lebanon’s Parliament removing flagrantly discriminatory legal and administrative obstacles that block Palestinians from working will reap major economic benefits. At the same time Lebanon’s government must engage in constructive dialogue with all concerned stakeholders and sectarian interests across Lebanon on granting Palestiniansthe full right to work. The benefits that will result toward rebuilding Lebanon’s economy can resolve many of Lebanon’s economic, social and sectarian problems, while bringing Lebanon into compliance with international humanitarian law required for the treatment of refugees.

Several current sectarian political leaders in Lebanon ignore the difference between the two sets of rights which Palestinians seek and are entitled to. In point of fact on the one hand, the rights of Palestinians as refugees focus on their Human Right of Return to their homes and the right to receive compensation for their losses. These rights are absolute and cannot be either abrogated or negotiated away on their behalf.

The second sets of rights are their Civil Rights within Lebanon or any country where they currently reside. The belief that extending elementary civil rights to Palestinians will in some way block Lebanese nationals from their economic rights is a mistaken one. Palestinian refugees also possess, whether citizens or non-citizens, Human Rights, both as refugees and as human beings and the enjoyment of both sets of rights is in no way mutually exclusive.

Enshallah, Lebanon’s deeply polarized and politicized sects will come to a decision to put their country and its economy first and allow their Palestinian sisters and brothers to help make it happen.

China Maintains its Capitalist Course

Pete Dolack

The Western corporate media have been fixated on Chinese President Xi Jinping’s hold on power, speculating on if he will follow the Communist Party’s tradition of leaders stepping down after two five-year terms. The larger story, however, is that there appears there will be no change in course, at least for now, for China.

Perhaps the fixation on President Xi is due to the corporate media’s tendency to focus on personalities over issues, or perhaps because it could be presumed in advance that China would not become a poster child for the International Monetary Fund or World Bank. To be fair, Chinese institutions have strongly emphasized President Xi’s leadership, continually referring to him as the “core” of the party’s central committee and celebrating that “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” has been enshrined in the party constitution.

The way in which “Xi Jinping Thought” has been enshrined, however, indicates that the party and state leader is stressing continuity with his predecessors. The resolution by the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress adopting the report of the outgoing central committee said this in the first paragraph:

“The Congress holds high the banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics and is guided by Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”

Looking past the ritualistic style, what is noteworthy about the above paragraph is that every Chinese leader is mentioned. The “Scientific Outlook on Development” is the product of President Xi’s predecessor, Hu Jintao, who declared that China must end its reliance on cheap labor and invest more in science and technology. The “Theory of Three Represents,” laid down by former President Hu’s predecessor, Jiang Jemin, declares that the party should represent the most advanced productive forces, the most advanced culture and the broadest layers of the people. That is an assertion that the interests of different classes are not in conflict and that the party can harmoniously represent all classes simultaneously.

On the surface, that lineup of leaders seems unremarkable, but it represents a change from four years ago, when the party did not formally mention the “Scientific Outlook on Development” and attached the adjective “important” to the “Three Represents.” Combined with the announcement four years ago that the party declared “the role of the market” in China to be “decisive,” a switch from “basic,” this was a strong indication that China would further its integration into the world capitalist system, albeit on its own terms.

A continuing commitment to the capitalist road

The lines laid down by presidents Jiang and Hu, following the turn toward capitalism by Deng Xiaoping, would seem quite contradictory to “Mao Zedong Thought” or, for that matter, Marxism-Leninism. What can be reasonably inferred here is that the party will continue to use Mao as one source of its authority. That all post-revolutionary rulers are included in the list of enshrined theories, with none elevated above any other, indicates that the party is stressing continuity.

If there are to be any significant changes, particularly to economic policy, they are unlikely to be revealed before next autumn, when the third plenum of the new central committee will likely be held. Third plenums, generally held about a year after a congress, are often the occasions for major announcements, as was the case in 2013, when the above switch to making the market “decisive” was announced. (A plenum is a meeting of the entire central committee, generally scheduled at precise intervals.)

Also noteworthy in the congress’ resolution of October 24 was an acknowledgment that the party has to give greater priority to consumer interests and the environment:

“[T]he Congress forms the major political judgments that socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era and the principal contradiction in Chinese society has evolved into one between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life.”

The party, despite the heavy stress on “Xi Jinping Thought,” also sought to dampen hopes that the growth in living standards would be rapid:

“The Congress elaborates on the Party’s historic mission in the new era and establishes the historical position of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. It sets forth the basic policy for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era, and establishes the goal of securing a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects and then embarking on a journey to fully build a modern socialist China.”

The resolution, which repeatedly referred to the goal of a “moderately prosperous society,” also stressed the party will firmly hold onto its leading role, uphold the unity of China and strengthen its military. As to the direction in which the party intends to lead, the list of goals in the resolution give a strong hint. Among the listed goals are “pursue supply-side structural reform as our main task” and “endeavor to develop an economy with more effective market mechanisms.”

Although “supply-side” in this context certainly is not meant in precisely the same way that “supply-side” was meant during the Reagan administration in the United States, is not without content, either. The Chinese business magazine Caixin, in a commentary about the congress, had this to say:

“The report said that ‘in resource allocation, the market plays the decisive role and the government plays its role better.’ This line shows unwavering determination to move toward market reform. But we should remain vigilant about how, under China’s current system, in terms of specific administration, the government plays a decisive role, while the market is in a subordinate role. Supply-side reform needs to accomplish five tasks — cutting overcapacity, lowering inventory, deleveraging, lowering costs, and improving economic weak spots. ‘Government failure’ cannot be entirely absolved in causing these problems.”

Party acknowledges “unbalanced and inadequate development”

So, again, more capitalism for the Chinese Communist Party despite its insistence that “socialism” is its guiding ideology. A commentary by the official Chinese press agency, Xinhua, offered these passages:

“The genesis of China’s development miracle is socialism, not other ‘-isms.’ The country succeeds not by rigidly copying the original ideas of scientific socialism, but by adapting it to China’s reality. Xi Jinping’s thought will be China’s signature ideology and the new communism. … China is now strong enough, willing, and able to contribute more for mankind. The new world order cannot be just dominated by capitalism and the West, and the time will come for a change.”

The reality is that China is ever more integrated into the world capitalist system, and has built its economy on being the world’s sweatshop — rendering it highly dependent on exports, particularly to the West. The party would like to follow the path of Japan, which started out making cheap consumer products before moving up the value chain to become a producer of high-end electronics and other technological products. Traveling such a path is a necessity if the party is to fulfill its goal of raising Chinese living standards and making China an undisputed global power.

The reference to the “principal contradiction” of China being “between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life” is an acknowledgment that China has made insufficient progress. A few numbers will illustrate that.

Household consumption in China remains far below the level of advanced capitalist countries. According to World Bank data, household consumption accounted for 37 percent of China’s gross domestic product in 2015, barely improved from 36 percent in 2007. (Household consumption is all the things that people buy for personal use from toothbrushes to automobiles.) To put that number in perspective, household consumption was as high as 71 percent during the Mao era and above 50 percent as recently as the early 1980s. In comparison, household consumption in advanced capitalist countries tends to be between 58 and 72 percent of GDP.

China’s rapid growth has been overly dependent on investment, and given the overcapacity of many Chinese basic industries and the rash of ghost cities constructed, the ability to continue driving growth through investment is questionable. Here again, data from 2015 is the latest available, when investment accounted for 45 percent of Chinese GDP, down only slightly from a high of 48 percent in 2011. To put that in perspective, the world average is 24 percent.

Wages rising but are still very low

Concurrent with the over-reliance on investment is an ongoing real estate bubble and increasing debt. For the period 2007 to 2014, only four countries saw their debt increase faster than China. A 2016 Financial Times report said that more than 60 percent of Chinese bank loans were directly or indirectly tied to real estate. That any downturn or stagnation remains well into the future is demonstrated in a sudden and pronounced drop in the Shanghai stock market in 2015, ending a stock bubble, not having much of a dampening effect on the economy. Nonetheless, a stock-market bubble is no panacea for low wages or a shredded social safety net.

And wages remain low in China, despite the gains of recent years. The minimum wage in Shanghai, the highest in China, more than doubled from 2010 to 2016, but was still the equivalent of US$327 per month. The minimum wage in most major cities is US$239 and in poorer provinces can lower still. These increases, the product of labor struggle, may be coming to an end for the near future, however, reports the China Labour Bulletin:

“Current central government policy was clearly stated by Vice Minister for Human Relations and Social Security, Xin Changxing, in July 2016 when he said that because: ‘Our advantage in labour costs is no longer as clear-cut as before; we should ease the frequency and scale of wage increases so as to preserve our competitive advantage.’ ”

Garment manufacturers are relocating to Bangladesh, Cambodia and Vietnam, where wages are even lower. The Bulletin reports that Chinese minimum wages (which are set locally) should be between 40 and 60 percent of the local average wage, but in most cities it is less than 30 percent. The gap between low-paid workers and those earning the average wage has been growing, nor are overtime rules enforced.

The Bulletin concludes its report on Chinese working conditions in sobering terms:

“A superficial look at China’s major cities seems to show a reasonably affluent society: young, hard-working middle class families, determined to make a better life for themselves. Look beneath the surface however and you soon realize that the goods, services and lifestyle products that these middle class families aspire to are all produced, marketed, and delivered to their homes by an army of over-worked and under-paid working class labourers.”

Socialism or sweatshops?

If socialism is defined as a system of political and economic democracy in which industry and agriculture are brought under popular control so that production is oriented toward human, community and social need rather than private accumulation of capital, and all human beings have a say in decisions that affect their lives and communities, integration into the world capitalist system on the basis of low-paid sweatshop labor allowing massive profits for foreign multi-national corporations is not socialism, whether or not with “Chinese characteristics.”

Western corporations, led by Wal-Mart, are responsible for production being moved to China. China did not “take” anybody’s job; it became the favored destination of the transfer of production by taking advantage of capital’s relentless desire to relocate to locations with the lowest wages and most permissive regulations. Japan and South Korea were able to move up the value chain, develop industry and become new members of the Global North. China’s intention is to do this, but it is by no means certain that there is room for it to do so.

China, because of its size, is able to extract concessions from foreign capital and assert more control than other developing countries, and thus is in the unique position of entering the capitalist system on its own terms. But the market has its own “logic,” one that no country is able to escape.

There is considerable speculation that Chinese leaders are playing a long game, using the capitalist system to develop with the intention of later nationalizing and moving again to a socialist system. A healthy skepticism toward such scenarios is more than warranted. Wealth is being accumulated. The power the concentration of capital inevitably builds, and the commonality of interests of capital across borders, are not something that can removed via a decree.

However much China’s leadership might believe it can control and harness the market, there are always interests at stake. Capitalist markets are nothing more than the aggregate interests of the largest industrialists and financiers, and, in the absence of sustained, organized resistance, those interests are decisive, with all the attendant exploitation.

The rapid minting of billionaires in China, the party’s welcoming of those with wealth, and the wealth acquired by those related to party officials, means that the material interests of the Chinese Communist Party is more capitalism.

In Organic Farming, Rules are Not Made to be Broken

Jim Goodman

The first day our milk was sold as certified organic, in 1999, we thought we had it made. The market for organic milk was growing and there was no reason to believe the growing consumer demand would not continue. Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, even regular supermarket chains were looking to get organic products on their shelves and for starters, that usually meant dairy.

There was a skill-set one needed to develop while making the transition to organic, because being “organic by neglect”— just dropping prohibited inputs like antibiotics, hormones, synthetic pesticides and fertilizer and hoping for the best, wouldn’t work very long.

We also learned there was a lot to be said for growing your own feed as opposed to purchasing it, again there was that learning curve, but using pasture as part of a crop rotation of hay, grain and cover crops— at least once you figured it out, made you wonder why you ever needed pesticides at all.

No organic farmer will deny there are times when animals get sick, it is too wet to cultivate or it gets so dry you have to buy feed and you remember your past life as a conventional farmer, when there was a synthetic fix for the problem or feed that was an easy phone call away. But no one ever said farming would be easy, you just figure it out, learn from the problem and plan ahead.

There are accepted organic farming practices that work and most farmers learn how to manage their farms accordingly, they learn from each other and they follow the rules. That is important, following the rules— rules are, after all, based on management practices that work. No doubt organic farmers in New England have more difficulty growing grain that we do here in the Midwest, but since organic cattle are mostly out on pasture, no grain or minimal grain feeding can work.

In drier parts of the West it can be difficult to meet the requirements of 30% dry matter intake from pasture during the grazing season, without costly irrigation. That’s a problem most of us east of the Mississippi don’t generally have, but then most Western farmers don’t have to worry quite so much about moving snow and keeping water running when it drops to -20 either. We all have our management challenges.

When the National Organic Standards Board, which is made up of 15 public volunteers from across the organic community, selected for their expertise in their respective occupations, makes a recommendation for a new rule or an interpretation of an existing one, USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) must consider it carefully.

When NOP puts rules for organic production in place, they need to be followed, farmers have to find a way— again, if farming were easy everyone would be doing it.

NOP is, per their website, “a regulatory program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. We are responsible for developing national standards for organically-produced agricultural products. These standards assure consumers that products with the USDA organic seal meet consistent, uniform standards”.

Pretty straight forward, developing standards and assuring that organic products meet those “consistent, uniform standards”. Wouldn’t it be grand if all organic certification agencies and the USDA actually enforced those standards? If all organic products with the USDA Organic seal actually met those standards? Well, that would be a perfect world scenario and unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

There are bad actors in every crowd so, it appears that when some processors, retailers and farmers saw consumer demand for organic growing, they also saw a market they could exploit, so they did. Most consumers of organic food are lured by the labels showing cows grazing next to a little red barn, that is what they want to buy, products from happy cows owned by profitable farmers that respect the rules, the environment and their animals.

And most organic milk is still produced that way— the barns are not always red, but most organic farmers still fit the image their customers see on the label.

But recent articles in the Washington Post describe a fact many small organic farmers have protested for at least ten years— there are many organic farms milking thousands of cows in operations that are little different than the conventional concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s). Post reporters, during several visits to Aurora dairy in Greeley CO, found only a few hundred cows grazing at any one time out of a herd of 15,000.

It is cheaper to produce milk this way, but it is not organic when the production system is not following the regulations. Organic certification is based on a yearly inspection, so there is a lot of trust involved and in the case of these industrial organic farms, that trust has been betrayed. USDA has done little more than give Aurora and some others, a slap on the wrist.

Aurora’s website states that “Aurora Organic Dairy is a leading producer and processor of high quality organic milk and butter for retail store brands”. These would be stores such as Walmart, Costco and Target. The sheer volume sold in these mega-stores does undercut a fair organic milk price and the fact that there are questions about the integrity of organic milk from the industrial organic farms that supply them, seems to make little difference to the mega-retailers.

Are dairy cows on certain mega-sized “organic” dairy farms meeting the grazing standards? Certainly they are eating something. The feed is supposed to be organic and organic farmers must provide paperwork proving the organic integrity of grown or purchased feed. Which brings up the question of who is growing all this organic feed and are they actually following USDA organic standards?

While the laws of supply and demand should encourage US organic farmers to increase production to meet the demand, as well as encourage more farmers to convert to organic production, it is not necessarily happening that way. US production accounts for about 60% of the organic corn and 20% of the soybeans needed to satisfy organic market demand. And while demand for organic grain is increasing about 15% a year, the deficit has and continues to be filled by lower priced imported grain from the Black Sea Region of Eastern Europe. (Or so the shipping bills of lading claim.)

Why? Imported grain is cheaper, despite shipping costs it is cheaper. And it is cheaper because it is not organic. Peter Whoriskey, reported in the Washington Post (May 12, 2017) “The label said ‘organic’ but these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren’t”. He describes a shipment of conventional soybeans from Turkey to California last year that somehow, in transit, became organic. At least the documentation said it was organic. This remarkable transformation boosted the profit margin on this one shipment by Whoriskey’s estimate, to over $4 million.

When simply providing a false organic certificate can make conventional grain organic, it is easy to see why most organic grain farmers in the United States are losing money, and why many of our domestic organic grain producers are considering giving up on organic production entirely. Organic grain prices, like organic milk prices are unsustainable, farmers cannot survive a 30 to 50% price cut.

If one’s wages were cut 30% with no reduction in workload, that would be a big deal. Yet, that is exactly what organic dairy farmers have seen happen to their pay price over the past year. And the salt in the wound is the fact that, according to USDA Ag Marketing Service data, organic dairy prices at the retail level have actually gone up over the past year.

In my previous life as a non-organic dairy producer, we knew we were getting screwed. Processors always made a profit, the farmers, not so much. We thought organic would be different, there was supposed to be an ethical commitment to organic, not just on the part of the farmer, but the processor, retailer and of course the regulatory agency as well.

Small farmers who work hard and play by the rules? That appears to count for nothing in the organic dairy business. Fraudulent organic production, of milk, grain, poultry, (or any other organic commodity) is destroying the organic farming sector in the United States. The solution is simple. The rules are on the books, they just need to be enforced. Why is that so difficult? It is not, but weak standards and failure to enforce standards is very profitable for some in the organic industry.

If consumers believe it is organic, if they believe USDA is insuring its integrity they will pay more, farmers will get a fair price and industry will profit. Pressure on USDA does not seem to work. If USDA doesn’t correct the situation we can continue to expect low milk prices and another harvest season of continuing low grain prices. Organic farmers with integrity will lose out to fraudulent imports, CAFO organic dairies and poultry operations, but as long as the big retailers can sell the myth it’s OK.

Those of us who still uphold that image of small red barns have struggled with drought, flooding and oppressive heat, but we have pastured our cattle as required by the NOP. We continue to grow our crops by the rules and we don’t raise our cattle, poultry or pigs in confinement.

We have provided a product that consumers expect when they buy organic and we struggle to make it work economically – without cutting corners. How much longer we can survive really depends on whether or not USDA decides that organic rules need to be followed by everyone … no matter how big their farm is, or what country they farm in.

The Balfour Declaration Planted Terror In The Middle East!

Salim Nazzal

I believe that there is no political declaration throughout history that has had devastating effects such as the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration has ignited wars lasting 100 years in addition that it has posed a serious to the entire globe. The evidence is that during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, The USA and the Soviet Union put their Nuclear weapons on alert. Also it   was recently revealed that Israel in the June war with Arabs in 1967   planned to blow up a nuclear bomb in the Sinai desert as a first warning, if the Egyptian forces were superior. Moreover, we have heard more than once that Israeli officials repeated words like that they are able to return the area to the Stone Age.

An important issue must be clarified in this regard

First, when Balfour gave his deadly promise, there was no persecution of the Jews in Europe because the promise came in 1917.

The second is that if there is persecution of an ethnic or religious group, it is natural to see refugee to escape from injustice. But the Zionist movement decided that the Jews should come to Palestine as invaders and not refugees. This is the main reason of the ongoing conflict with no prospects for its resolution so far.

The problem of Balfour’s promise is that he promised to give Palestine to the Jews of Europe, which means, despite the diplomatic attempts to bring envelope it in a moral form, it meant in reality the expulsion of the natives of Palestine. In this sense, it can be said that the Balfour Declaration was an order of expulsion.

If the Jewish example is to be followed internationally, this mean that each oppressed group or each group unhappy where they live has the right to expel others from their home!

Britain took over Palestine after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, and the League of Nations gave Britain the authority to mandate Palestine. The mandate juridical meant to take care of the people of the country so that they could administrate themselves. Balfour’s declaration was completely contrary to the resolutions of the League of Nations.

The promise of Balfour is no longer addressing refugees to flee to Palestine from injustice. The promise was granted to the Zionist movement that had the power, influence and ambition aimed at establishing a state that would be a bridge between the European and Berber civilization, as hers said. It was the first time in history that migrants brought by Britain from Europe succeeded not only in establishing a state, not only in expelling indigenous populations but also in acquiring nuclear weapons within 15 years of its establishment.

At the time of the promise, in 1917, US President Wilson issued what was known as the right to self-determination of peoples. This statement, however, had no value for Palestine. The United States was not very serious about this statement, which remained worthless. The United States supported the Balfour Declaration, contrary to Wilson’s declaration. Therefore, the promise came in the colonial climate. In this climate, there was no respect or value for the opinion of the indigenous population regarding their future. The first and last say was to the British authorities and their ally the Zionist movement.

The story that often said that Britain promised the Zionists to Palestine in return for the Jews persuading America to join Britain in the war may be the direct factor to produce the promise. But this was preceded by the Sykes-Picot secrete agreement 1n 1916 that divided the Arab region in the defeated Ottoman Empire between England and France

The Balfour State of Israel was achieved with iron and fire. The results were disastrous for the original inhabitants of Palestine who lost their homeland and were a disaster for the Arab region that had entered endless war since Israel was forcefully planted

The British Prime Minister’s decision to mark (with pride) the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration is a decision lacking political wisdom, adding salt to the wound. It shows that after 100 years all the oppression which Palestinians are subjected to do not change Britain which continues to play the role of a cruel state that undoubtedly planted the culture of terror in the Middle East and beyond.

Survey of UK nurses exposes staff crisis in National Health Service

Ajanta Silva

The National Health Service (NHS) is suffering from a staffing crisis that is resulting in staff being super-exploited and patients in wards being placed in a dangerous situation.

Addressing the Conservative conference this month, Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt--who has been presiding over the dismantling and privatization of the NHS since 2012--declared, “I can tell you we’ll increase the number of nurses we train by 25 percent—that’s a permanent increase of more than 5,000 nurse training places every single year.”

These claims were made despite Hunt’s scrapping of bursaries for nursing students and allied health professionals from September, which alone has contributed to a 23 percent decrease of applicants to study for these professions at university.

Just three days before Hunt made his speech, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) published a survey of Nurses and Midwives in the UK , “ Safe and Effective Staffing: Nursing Against the Odds.” It is a powerful indictment of successive Labour and Tory governments, which have deliberately crippled the NHS with a thousand cuts.

The RCN asked its members about their last shift or day worked in health or social care. Within two weeks, they received over 30,000 responses, which provide an accurate snapshot of workers’ experiences and the unprecedented decline in staffing levels.

Key findings of the survey are stagering, even though the survey was completed earlier in the year, when health services are not under the additional pressure they are during winter.

• Well above half of “respondents reported a shortfall in planned staffing of one or more registered nurses on their last shift,” while “41 percent of all shifts were short of one or more health care support workers.”

• One in five “registered nurses across the 30,000 shifts were temporary staff,” while more than a quarter of “health care support workers were temporary staff.”

• More than half of nurses, midwives and health care assistants said “care was compromised on their last shift,” and more than a third said that “due to a lack of time they had to leave necessary patient care undone.”

• More than 15,000 respondents “felt upset/sad that they could not provide the level of care they wanted,” and “44 percent of all respondents said no action was taken when they raised concerns about staffing levels.”

• More than two thirds of “all respondents said they worked additional time, on average almost one hour extra,” hence “93 percent of nursing staff who worked extra unplanned time for NHS providers were not paid for this.”

Based on their findings, the survey’s authors concluded that their “conservative estimate is that the additional unpaid time worked by registered nurses in the NHS across the UK equates to £396 million annually.” This is under conditions in which these and other health workers have been subjected to a seven-year pay freeze and pay caps by successive Tory-led governments.

Many frontline workers are concerned about the “dilution of the skill mix of the nursing workforce (proportion of registered to non-registered nurses) in acute settings over the past seven years.”

Along with the report, the RCN published the disturbing stories of the nurses and midwives they received.

One Accident and Emergency (A&E) nurse said, “Staffing levels, skill mix, sickness, unprecedented demands, patient numbers, lack of resources and capacity have left me fearing for a profession I once loved. I end a shift exhausted, stressed, dehydrated and with little if any job satisfaction. I’m paid around £5,000 less than a comparable professional with a massive level of responsibility and accountability—for patients’ lives. After 29 years I am considering leaving nursing due to lack of job satisfaction, being treated with utter contempt by managers and the government, and five years of pay restraint.”

A practice nurse said, “I always go above and beyond for my patients—we all do as nurses—but that is to the detriment of myself, minimal breaks, not drinking enough fluid, holding on for the toilet. Even doing this I don’t feel I have enough time for my patients. I was trained to provide holistic care, and often, because of the pressures we face, we are not able to do that.”

A community nurse said, “We do this job because we care for people, but the Government does not care for us. We regularly miss breaks, go 14 hours without a drink—to the point where one of my colleagues has developed kidney stones. I stay late basically every night. I take work home with me and receive no emotional support for an extremely draining and impacting job. Something needs to change.”

A midwife said, “Staff are working late without pay or claiming time back... Staff have become demoralised and have left to take up posts elsewhere. We don’t feel our opinions count, even though we are on the frontline.”

This summer, the Nursing and Midwifery Council reported that more nurses were leaving the register than joining it for the first time in recent history, resulting in an overall downward trend. This takes place amid a broader shortage of 40,000 nurses in the UK and 3,500 midwives in England alone.

Further exposure of the scale of the staffing cuts devastating the NHS was provided by the Health Service Journal in an analysis of the official data for the period 2014/15-2016/17. In England, 96 percent or 214 out of 224 acute hospitals operated without an adequate level of nursing staff during day shifts last October, while 85 percent of them did not have the right staff levels on night shifts.

Many hospitals are struggling to recruit and retain nurses and midwives due to low wages and stressful working conditions. Some NHS providers are intentionally running without adequate level of staff due to financial pressures created by years of underfunding and government demands for unmanageable “efficiency savings.”

In 2015, Hunt ordered the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) not to determine safe staff levels, in order to continue the Tory’s plans of year on year underfunding of the NHS so as to impose fully £26 billion “efficiency savings” by 2021.

In 2014, NICE began to recommend safe staffing levels in hospitals in the aftermath of the failings of Mid Staffordshire Hospital, revealed in the report of Sir Robert Francis the previous year.

Staff shortages are not confined to nurses and midwives. Nationwide, there are acute shortage of consultants, doctors, GPs and other clinical groups, thanks to the years of underfunding, the destruction of training opportunities and indifference to the health needs of working people.

The response of the government has been to further rationalise services by shutting down or downsizing A&E departments, maternity units, children units, heart units and closing down hospitals. At the same time the attacks on the pay, terms and conditions of workers are being escalated. Last year the government imposed an inferior contract on junior doctors, capitalising on the betrayals of the British Medical Association.

The RCN’s response to the staffing crisis is to call “for new legislation across the UK that guarantees safe and effective nurse staffing,” as if the Tories—hell-bent on the privatisation of the jewel in the crown of the post-war welfare state—will heed these appeals.

Tillerson delivers stern warning to Pakistan

Sampath Perera

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Pakistan on Tuesday, the first high-level visit by a Trump administration official to what was once the principal US ally in South Asia.

Tillerson delivered a stern message to Pakistan’s political and military leaders reiterating the sharp criticism meted out to Islamabad by President Donald Trump in his August announcement of the new US strategy for prevailing in its 16 year-long war in Afghanistan. In that speech, Trump placed Pakistan “on notice” for harbouring terrorist “safe havens” and warned that if it did not bow to US demands and quickly mend it ways Washington would downgrade relations with Islamabad and otherwise take reprisals.

Tillerson’s visit to Islamabad was part of a South Asia tour that saw him also meet with Afghan and Indian leaders. He had two principal objectives. The first to implement the new Afghan war strategy, which aims to gore the Taliban into accepting a Washington-designed “negotiated settlement” that would leave the basic elements of the US-installed neo-colonial regime in Kabul intact.

Tillerson’s second main objective was to further cement the Indo-US military-strategic alliance. This, as he made clear in a speech last week to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), is directed at forcing China, if need be through war, to accept US-hegemony over the Indo-Pacific region. A key element in Washington’s frustration with Pakistan is that it has responded to the burgeoning Indo-US partnership by expanding its own alliance with Beijing.

In Islamabad, Tillerson told interim Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi that Pakistan is “so important regionally to our joint goals of providing peace and security to the region.” Abbasi replied by saying, “The US can rest assured that we are strategic partners in the war against terror and that today Pakistan is fighting the largest war in the world against terror.”

In touting the unending military occupation of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Abbasi was implicitly rejecting Washington’s accusations that Pakistan is maintaining covert ties to the Taliban and “selectively” targeting Islamist militias.

According to a statement from the US embassy in Islamabad, in his talks with Pakistan’s principal political and military leaders, Tillerson demanded Pakistan “increase its efforts to eradicate militants and terrorists operating within the country.”

Testifying before the Pakistan Senate the following day on the talks with Tillerson, Pakistan Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said that “things which due to diplomatic norms couldn’t be said were discussed during these talks.”

Asif said the US was seeking to blame Islamabad for the spread of Taliban control over much of Afghanistan, but the Pakistani leadership had told him, “There will only be room for improvement [in the Afghan situation] if Washington accepts their defeat, their failures in Afghanistan.” This, he said, “they are not ready to accept.”

Asif told the Senate that the civilian and military Pakistani leadership is united in affirming that there is no military solution to the Afghan conflict and that a political settlement is required, adding “The current government will not accept any dictation from the US.”

He said Pakistan had informed Tillerson that its influence on the Taliban is diminished and had urged Washington to work with other “influential players in the region” whose role is “indispensable” in creating a broad-based government and ending the war, including China, Turkey and Russia.

Pakistan’s venal ruling elite has relied heavily on Washington for military, economic and political support and would like nothing more than to resume its traditional role as satraps for American imperialism. But it has been rattled by Washington’s strategic embrace of its arch-rival India and the readiness of the US to shrug off its warnings that the arms deals and other strategic favours America has lavished on New Delhi have overturned the regional balance of power, fuelling a nuclear-arms race.

In response, Islamabad has scaled back its cooperation with the US in the Afghan War, including rescinding a carte blanche for drone strikes in FATA, and by reaching out to Beijing for closer ties.

China, likewise fearful of the Indo-US alliance, has reciprocated.

To prod Pakistan into doing its bidding and underline that Washington is determined to change the rules of the game in its dealings with Islamabad, Trump announced in his August speech that the US will press India to take a larger role in supporting the Afghan government—through economic assistance, military supplies, and by training Afghan security forces, albeit, at least for the moment, only in India.

This has outraged Pakistan, which accuses India of using Afghanistan to provide covert support to Islamist militia opposed to the Pakistan government, the so-called Pakistan Taliban, and to Baluchi national-separatist insurgents. The Pakistani leadership reiterated to Tillerson Tuesday that increased Indian involvement in Afghanistan constitutes a “red line.”

But, as Tillerson made clear during his subsequent visit to New Delhi, Washington remains determined to use India to goad Pakistan.

Abbasi was joined in his talks with Tillerson by Foreign Minister Asif, the head of the army General Qamar Javed Bajwa, and the head of Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the ISI, Lt. Gen. Naveed Mukhtar. The latter said the delegation had been organized so as to show “the leadership is united in the message it is sending.”

Underscoring the frosty character of US-Pakistani relations, Tillerson spent just 4 hours in the country before departing for a visit to India that was spread over three days.

As Pakistani officials noted, the logistics of Tillerson’s preceding, previously unannounced, trip to Afghanistan shed light on the severe crisis facing the US occupation. The US Secretary of State didn’t take the risk of visiting Kabul. Instead, he summoned the heads of the puppet government in Kabul, President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, to meet him at the infamous Bagram military base. A crude attempt by the Afghan government to claim the meeting was held in Kabul, not a US military bunker, by doctoring a press photograph, was quickly exposed.

While in Afghanistan, Tillerson sharply criticized Pakistan. He said the US has “made some very specific requests [to] Pakistan in order for them to take action to undermine the support that the Taliban receives and the other terrorist organisations receive in Pakistan.” The former Exxon CEO then made clear these requests have a sting attached, saying the new US war strategy “is a conditions-based approach, and so our relationship with Pakistan will also be conditions-based.”

The US is already partially withholding “war coalition” payments from Pakistan to bully it into taking more aggressive action against the Taliban, specifically the Haqqani Network. There are also unofficial threats to strip Islamabad of its status as a “major non-NATO ally” of the US and even label it a state sponsor of terrorism, which would almost certainly entail sanctioning at least some government and/or military leaders.

Recently the two-countries collaborated in a rescue operation in Pakistan that freed a US-Canadian family taken hostage by the Haqqani Network in Afghanistan in 2012. The US followed this up with a series of deadly drone attacks in the Afghan-Pakistan border region, prompting nervous warnings from Islamabad that the US should not attack its territory. There is massive opposition in Pakistan to US drone strikes, which for years terrorized and wrought death and destruction on FATA villagers.

Washington, however, has reiterated its threats to use drones to target Taliban and Haqqani Network forces inside Pakistan if Islamabad fails to deploy its military against them.

At the same time, tensions between Kabul and Islamabad are rising, including as the result of reciprocal bans on the entry of trucks from the other country. Kabul, which does not recognize the Durand Line as its border with Pakistan, has taken violent objection to Islamabad’s fencing of the border. Above all, Kabul is rhyming with New Delhi in charges that Islamabad is a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

In a new blow aimed at Islamabad, Afghan President Ghani announced this week that his country will not participate in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) unless Pakistan opens its borders for trade between India and Afghanistan. This dovetails with Washington’s own newly-articulated opposition to China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure initiative, of which the CPEC is part.

In recent weeks, Washington has publicly opposed the CPEC, citing the same pretext as New Delhi: that it crosses territory disputed between India and Pakistan.

Emboldened by US strategic support, India, under Prime Minster Narendra Modi and his Hindu supremacist BJP, has increased military and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, including labelling it the “mothership” of international terrorism. In Fall 2016, Modi publicly boasted about “surgical strikes”—Special Forces raids—inside Pakistan, declaring that the days of Indian “strategic restraint” were over. This precipitated a months-long war crisis. To this day, Indian and Pakistan troops routinely exchange deadly artillery barrages across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-held Kashmir.

Were war to erupt it would be the first ever war between nuclear-armed states and, given the increasing polarization of regional geopolitics into rival India-US and Pakistan-China blocs, would immediately raise the prospect of intervention by other nuclear powers.