Tape reveals Trump gangster methods in pursuing election coup

Patrick Martin

In an hour-long telephone conversation Saturday, leaked to the media and first made public Sunday by the Washington Post, President Donald Trump tried to bully the Georgia secretary of state into overturning the result of the presidential election in his state, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden.

“I just want to find 11,780 votes,” Trump told Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia official. That is one more than the margin of 11,779 votes by which Biden won the state’s 16 electoral votes. Raffensperger rejected the plea, declaring that he stood by the result of the vote, which has been recounted twice, including a hand recount of all ballots run through voting machines.

Trump threatened Raffensperger and his general counsel, Ryan Germany, with criminal prosecution for allegedly covering up acts of vote fraud in their state. He claimed that he had actually won the state by hundreds of thousands of votes, and that a defeat there was impossible. “The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry,” he declared. “And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.” Raffensperger responded: “Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.”

Donald Trump (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Trump used the language of a Mafia gangster in referring to a female election worker in Fulton County (Atlanta), who has been demonized on right-wing social media and repeatedly threatened after false allegations by the Trump campaign that she had triple-counted a stack of ballots from the heavily Democratic area.

After Raffensperger reiterated that there was no evidence of such actions and that Trump was mistaken, the president responded:

“So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. You know, we have that in spades already. Or we can keep it going but that’s not fair to the voters of Georgia because they’re going to see what happened and they’re going to see what happened. I mean, I’ll, I’ll take on to anybody you want with regard to [name of election worker] and her lovely daughter, a very lovely young lady, I’m sure.”

This is nothing less than a threat of physical violence against the election worker—whose name has been withheld—and her child, coming from the president of the United States, the “commander-in-chief” of a vast military and police apparatus, as well as the leader of the Republican Party, which is increasingly taken on the coloration of a fascist movement.

Who leaked the tape of the telephone conversation has not been made public. It could well have been officials on the Georgia end of the call, seeking to insure themselves against Trump putting his violent threats into practice. Equally likely, the leak could come from within the military-intelligence apparatus itself, which monitors all US telephone conversations and previously leaked Trump’s phone call to the president of Ukraine, which led to his impeachment a year ago.

Whatever its source, the tape is ample evidence—if more were needed—for the indictment and prosecution of Donald Trump for conspiracy to overthrow the US Constitution and establish a presidential dictatorship. His co-conspirators would include White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who participated in the call, and several Trump campaign lawyers and aides.

Joining in as accomplices are a majority of congressional Republicans in Washington. As of Sunday, at least 140 Republican members of the House of Representatives had announced they would support a challenge of electoral votes cast by several states when Congress meets in a joint session January 6 to receive and count the ballots.

A dozen Republican senators have issued statements saying they would support such a challenge as well. Under the Constitution, any challenge to the electoral votes of any state must be supported by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate. The two houses then must meet separately and vote on the challenges. These are expected to fail, given that Democrats have a majority in the House and many Republicans in the Senate have already conceded Biden’s victory.

But it is unprecedented in American history that a sitting president is refusing to concede after what is close to a landslide defeat, by a margin of seven million votes, and that the majority of his own party continues to treat the election as illegitimate and seeks to overturn it.

The statements issued by Republican congressmen and senators backing Trump’s challenge to the election have openly espoused an authoritarian political perspective. The lawsuit filed by Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, for example, declared that Vice President Pence, who will act as presiding officer at Wednesday’s joint session of Congress, has the authority to throw out a state’s electors and choose a competing slate, or discard a state’s electoral votes entirely.

The extraordinary level of tension within US ruling circles is revealed by the letter published Sunday evening, also in the Washington Post, by all ten living secretaries of defense, rejecting Trump’s claims of fraud and calling on Congress to engage in the formal counting of votes Wednesday and confirm Biden’s victory in the Electoral College.

The bulk of the statement is directed to top civilian officials and military officers, warning them against any interference in the election. “Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory,” the statement reads. “Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.”

These words are all the more ominous given that one of the ten signatories, Mark Esper, was just fired by Trump in November, in part because of his opposition to Trump’s call to deploy the armed forces to suppress the mass demonstrations against police violence that erupted after the police murder of George Floyd last May 25. There have been open discussions in the White House about invoking the Insurrection Act—as Trump threatened to do last summer—to enforce a post-election coup that would maintain Trump in office.

Besides Esper, the signers include his predecessor, retired General James Mattis; Donald Rumsfeld, co-architect of the Iraq War; and his partner in crime Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President George H. W. Bush before he became vice president for George W. Bush. Joining them were Robert Gates, William Perry, Leon Panetta, Ashton Carter, Chuck Hagel and William Cohen.

This group of war criminals of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, warns against military interference in the transfer of power because they regard Biden as a safe pair of hands for the affairs of American imperialism, and because they fear that further efforts by Trump to remain in office could provoke an unprecedented outpouring of political opposition from the American working class. This under conditions where thousands are dying every day from the coronavirus pandemic, and millions face unemployment, poverty and homelessness.

In the midst of this deepening social, economic and political crisis, the dominant sections of the ruling elite regard Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, and their cabinet nominees, drawn entirely from the corporate and national-security establishment, as a more viable means of maintaining their class rule.

For their part, the Democrats are doing everything possible to downplay the significance of Trump’s actions and propel their 78-year-old president-elect across the finish line of Inauguration Day without a complete breakdown of the US constitutional order. Even at this point, barely two weeks away, a Biden succession is not a certainty.

Trump’s actions and his demeanor in the phone call have a whiff of desperation, but the threats to democratic rights are intensifying. The president has summoned fascistic supporters like the Proud Boys to come to Washington on January 6, and he has promised to join them in the streets, giving support to the efforts of his henchmen inside the Capitol, as they “object” to the votes cast by the American people.

Whatever the immediate outcome, the replacement of Trump by Biden in the White House would not mark the end of the political crisis, but only the beginning of a new and more explosive chapter. Trump is not playing by the rules of conventional American politics, and the Republican Party, increasingly under his personal control, is being transformed into the instrument of an authoritarian fascist movement.

If the Trump tape confirms anything, it is that the very presence of this gangster in the White House is an indictment of the American political system, its ruling elite, and its political-media establishment.

It was the Democratic Party, through the right-wing policies of the Obama administration and the right-wing campaign of Hillary Clinton, that paved the way for Trump. It was the Democratic Party, through its right-wing anti-Russia campaign, that sought to channel all popular opposition to the Trump administration behind its reactionary foreign policy agenda. And it is the Democratic Party which is seeking to blind the American people to the dangerous implications of the current political crisis.

Development in the Indian Context

Livneet Shergill

India is the world’s largest democracy and there is no denying the fact that India occupies an important place in the world economy. India is one of the world’s fastest growing economies and this is no mean distinction. But the question that remains unanswered is, ‘What is India’s development status?’ Is it that, which gets portrayed in the India shining campaign or something else. The answer to this is not simple and no single yardstick can measure it. The reason for this is that India embodies within it many different India’s. Broadly, India can be classified into two categories. On the one hand we have ‘Digital India’, which creates the popular illusion of shining India. This India is mainly confined to urban clusters, which seem to be developing at breakneck speed, especially in terms of physical infrastructure. We see flyovers being constructed, residential buildings coming up, universities and colleges being opened. On the other hand, we have that, which can be rightly called real India. It is to this real India that most of Indian population belongs. This India paints a picture of destitution. Here mostly people are engaged either in low productivity agriculture or in lowly paid informal sector jobs. The basic needs like housing, electricity, sanitation, proper nutrition, health and education are either absent or inadequate.

Therefore, the idea of development of India means development of this real India. This India is truly representative of the Indian context. And the real India is no myth, existence of a vast population subsisting without basic needs is supported by a plethora of government data. Despite seventy years of independence and decades of planning, India still ranks low in Human Development Index. According to a report released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), among 189 countries in 2020, India ranked 131 on Human Development Index. Human Development Index is the measure of a nation’s health, education, and standard of living. As far as food consumption is concerned some rough estimates indicate that one-fifth of the country’s population is not getting adequate food. The Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2020 report has placed India on 94th position among 107 countries. GHI is based on four indicators: (i) the proportion of undernourished in a population; (ii) the proportion of children under the age of five suffering from wasting (less weight in proportion to their height); (iii) the proportion of children under five suffering from stunting (low height in proportion to their age); (iv) the mortality rate of children under five. Going by the latest data from the National Sample Survey Office(NSSO) only 71.3% of rural households have toilets. This belies the claim of Open Defecation Free India. The report, ‘Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Conditions in India’, indicated that only 58.2% households in rural areas and 80.7% households in urban areas had access to clean drinking water facilities within household premises. Even if we consider basic durable goods like refrigerators, electric fans, bicycles etc. a considerable population still lacks it. About 76% of rural households reside in pucca houses (solid and permanent dwellings); and about 72.4% households in rural areas have access to some kind of garbage disposal system.

These vast majority of Indians, who everyday struggle to get these basic necessities are the pillars of Indian democracy – we need to raise their standard of living. So for India, development means to ensure that the entire population should be living in pucca houses with access to clean drinking water, regular supply of electricity, good quality of basic education, proper waste disposal system, adequate and nutritious food. Only when these conditions are met, we can truly say that India is on the road to development.

To achieve these milestones, we already have many government schemes working towards these goals, but the results are slow and far-fetched. At times even well intentioned and well perceived projects like Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana are unable to attain these results. Many times, certain customs and practices are so thoroughly embedded in the cultural fabric of the society that it is very difficult to break them. This has especially been seen in case of use of toilets in the rural areas.

Thus, the India which we witness everyday on the traffic signals, footpaths and almost every other space in the urban areas, but we conveniently choose to ignore; and scores like them living in rural hamlets whom we never get to see, represent the real India. It’s this India we need to uplift. In words of the author, Peter F. Drucker, “The ultimate resource in economic development is people. It is people, not capital or raw material that develop an economy”. So when India invests for development, it is the people who represent real India that it needs to invest in. Therefore, let the shining India brigade take its lesser brother the real India by hand and initiate a growth where all India’s develop together. Until this happens, the vision of seeing India as a leading country of the world will remain a distant dream.

Eight Essentials of Human Progress, Always Crucial But Often Neglected

Bharat Dogra

While there are so many factors which are important for true progress of humanity, some of these can be identified as the most crucial and essential.

Firstly, there should be a widespread sincere belief in and commitment to equality and justice. There should be absolutely no room for  any discrimination, any deprivation or any denial based  on race, religion, color, ethnicity, caste, gender, region or other such considerations. There is no justification either for prejudices and stereotyping based on such identities. Top priority should be given to meeting the essential needs of all people while at the same time respecting the dignity of all people. This should not be based on patronage but on a strong sense of justice for all and  commitment to a justice based world, where important decisions are taken on the basis of justice and not privilege or power. To correct historical inequality or special difficulties faced by some people or groups, affirmative action or equalizing provisions for them are very much a part of this wider commitment to equality and justice.

There should be a protective attitude towards nature ,environment  and habitats. Human beings in the process of meeting their various activities interact with and make some demands on nature, but this should always be with understanding , respect and a commitment not to destroy or disrupt nature. An attitude of respect should always be there, backed by a duty to understand so as to avoid disruption and destruction. There should be a willingness to spare a lot of effort and expense to correct past mistakes and damages.

There should be a protective attitude towards all forms of life, as well as a sense of compassion. Where any conflict develops between human beings and other forms of life, human beings have a right to protect themselves of course but they should seek the least violent ways of doing this, being defensive rather than offensive.

Fourthly, there should be very broad-based commitment to peace and non-violence. This includes peace within oneself, in the sense of a deep commitment to peace and non-violence, and extends from peace and non-violence in household and neighboring areas to inter-faith peace and harmony to peace at national and international levels, in essence peace at all levels.

There should similarly be a firm commitment to democracy and democratic functioning, ranging from household to neighboring areas and workplace all the way to national and international affairs.

Next, there should be a strong commitment to a sense of ethics and to caring much for ethical conduct. People should engage constantly with what is proper conduct from points of justice, equality, peace,  protection of environment etc. instead of simply following self-interest. For example there can be a simple ethical value that a person will not intentionally harm any other human being or any other form of life, a simple statement but with very widespread implications in life.

Seventh, the base of all relationships should never be dominance but instead as far as possible it should be understanding, care, concern, protection and cooperation. This applies to human relationships, of course, but in addition this also applies to relationships with nature and with other forms of life.

Last but certainly not the least, when threats emerge to basic survival and to basic life-nurturing conditions, there should be the ability to prioritize the protection of basic life-nurturing conditions above everything else and to mobilize all abilities and efforts for this. In the course of human history, such a survival crisis emerged from time to time in local contexts but now, in  present times, this has emerged in a global context for the first time, calling for mobilization of efforts of all humanity on the basis of top prioritization of this issue.

These are eight essentials of human progress as identified very briefly and in simple terms. Despite their obvious importance, these have been frequently neglected in most phases of human history, and this neglect continues to this day. The discourse based on GNP and technological achievements cannot provide a proper measure or indicator of human progress. It is possible for a society to amass great wealth or achieve technological wonders without really progressing in the true sense.

Sincere Spirituality For A Better World

Bharat Dogra

Spirituality has always been a very important part of human progress, but these days when we talk about spirituality we feel the need to prefix ‘sincere’, an indicator of how much hypocrisy has been practiced in the name of spirituality in recent times. Hence it is better to state  at the outset that here  we are discussing sincere spirituality only.

At the risk of some oversimplification my definition of simplicity is– Spirituality is the sustained  quest for inner peace which is in conformity with the welfare of the entire world.

This small definition can in turn be broken into three parts.

Firstly, spirituality is a quest for peace. There are many factors such as excessive desire of sensual pleasures, various addictions, urge for greed and domination and the violence inherent in this, arrogance, falsehood and dishonesty which lead to disturbed and unstable life, sometimes culminating in very serious problems. Spirituality is a conscious decision to avoid all this and live a life of honesty, limited needs, avoidance of addictions, discipline over pursuit of sensual pleasures, non-violence, humility and a strong sense of ethical thinking. This brings inner peace. Anyone is free to try this path, and of course there will be varying degrees of success. A conscious decision to try to walk the path of sincere spirituality is noble in itself, regardless of the level of success achieved. Absolutely no ritual, or specialized skill, or great learning and scholarship, is needed for this. Only sincerity is needed.

The second part of the definition states that this quest should be sustained. A passing fad is not spirituality, this must be a very sustained effort.

Thirdly, this sustained quest for peace should be in harmony with the welfare of the entire world. The inner peace by itself is not adequate as long as care is not taken to ensure that the person’s activities are not in conflict with welfare needs of the external world, instead these are integrated with the requirements of a world of justice and peace, equality and environment protection, compassion and care. Hence all those who don holy garbs to spread hatred against others or to justify practices and systems of exploitation are firmly ruled out of our definition of spirituality.

Defined in this way, the quest for spirituality of individuals inevitably contributes to at least some extent to the creation of a better world. The more the number of people who try to walk the path of such sincere spirituality the better this is for world.

This can also make a bigger and sustained contribution to the wider efforts to create a world based on justice, equality, peace, protection of environment and all forms of life. When such efforts are made the challenge is to ensure a rapid spread and durability. The chances for this will be  greater in societies where the spread of spirituality is wider and deeper. Hence spirituality can help to create a strong base or a foundation of a better world.

A society in which spirituality is spread more widely, as defined above,  is likely to be more amenable to the voice and efforts of those social movements which are trying to create a better and more just world. Where spirituality exists widely, there is likely to be much better response to movements for protection of environment and bio-diversity.

Spirituality creates a very good base for spreading inter-faith harmony and for creating consensus on several important issues for people of various faiths and for atheists as well.

Spirituality should progress on the basis of democratic norms, with various persons who walk this path contributing to each other’s progress, instead of a few persons trying to dominate the discourse as gurus and leaders.

In these critical times of survival crisis, spirituality helps to create a base for strengthening efforts to protect our planet in a framework of peace, justice and democracy.

The US Money Tree: The Untold Story of American Aid to Israel

Ramzy Baroud

On December 21, the United States Congress passed the COVID-19 Relief Package, as part of a larger $2.3 trillion bill meant to cover spending for the rest of the fiscal year. As usual, US representatives allocated a massive sum of money for Israel.

While unemployment, thus poverty, in the US is skyrocketing as a result of repeated lockdowns, the US found it essential to provide Israel with $3.3 billion in ‘security assistance’ and $500 million for US-Israel missile defense cooperation.

Although a meager $600 dollar payment to help struggling American families was the subject of several months of intense debate, there was little discussion among American politicians over the large funds handed out to Israel, for which there are no returns.

Support for Israel is considered a bipartisan priority and has, for decades, been perceived as the most stable item in the US foreign policy agenda.  The mere questioning of how Israel uses the funds – whether the military aid is being actively used to sustain Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, finance Jewish settlements, fund annexation of Palestinian land or violate Palestinian human rights – is a major taboo.

One of the few members of Congress to demand that aid to Israel be conditioned on the latter’s respect for human rights is Democratic Senator, Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, who was also a leading presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. “We cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government … We have the right to demand respect for human rights and democracy”, Sanders had said in October 2019.

His Democratic rival, now President-elect, Joe Biden, soon countered: “The idea that I’d withdraw military aid, as others have suggested, from Israel, is bizarre,” he said.

It is no secret that Israel is the world’s leading recipient of US aid since World War II.  According to data provided by the US Congressional Research Service, Israel has received  $146 billion of US taxpayers’ money as of November 2020.

From 1971 up to 2007, a bulk of these funds proved fundamental in helping Israel establish a strong economic base. Since then, most of the money has been allotted for military purposes, including the security of Israel’s illegal Jewish settlement enterprise.

Despite the US financial crisis of 2008, American money continued to be channeled to Israel, whose economy survived the global recession, largely unscathed.

In 2016, the US promised even more money. The Democratic Barack Obama Administration, which is often – although mistakenly – seen as hostile to Israel, increased US funding to Israel by a significant margin. In a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding, Washington and Tel Aviv reached a deal whereby the US agreed to give Israel $38 billion in military aid covering the financial years 2019-2028. This is a whopping increase of $8 billion compared with the previous 10-year agreement, which concluded at the end of 2018.

The new American funds are divided into two categories: $33 billion in foreign military grants and an additional $5 billion in missile defense.

American generosity has long been attributed to the unmatched influence of pro-Israeli groups, lead among them American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The last four years, however, required little lobbying by these groups, as powerful agents within the administration itself became Israel’s top advocates.

Aside from the seemingly endless ‘political freebies’ that the Donald Trump Administration has given Israel in recent years, it is now considering ways to accelerate the timetable of delivering the remainder of US funds as determined by the last MOU, an amount that currently stands at $26.4 billion. According to official congressional documents, the US “also may approve additional sales of the F-35 to Israel and accelerate the delivery of KC-46A refueling and transport aircraft to Israel.”

These are not all the funds and perks that Israel receives. Much more goes unreported, as it is channeled either indirectly or simply promoted under the flexible title of ‘cooperation’.

For example, between 1973 and 1991, a massive sum of $460 million of US funds was allocated to resettling Jews in Israel. Many of these new immigrants are now the very Israeli militants that occupy the West Bank illegal settlements. In this particular case, the money is paid to a private charity known as the United Israel Appeal which, in turn, gives the money to the Jewish Agency. The latter has played a central role in the founding of Israel on top of the ruins of Palestinian towns and villages in 1948.

Under the guise of charitable donations, tens of millions of dollars are regularly sent to Israel in the form of “tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem,” the New York Times reported. Much of the money, falsely promoted as donations for educational and religious purposes, often finds its way to funding and purchasing housing for illegal settlers, “as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure (illegal Jewish) outposts deep in occupied (Palestinian) areas.”

Quite often, US money ends up in the Israeli government’s coffers under deceptive pretenses. For example, the latest Stimulus Package includes $50 million to fund the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Funds, supposedly to provide investments in “people-to-people exchanges and economic cooperation … between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of supporting a negotiated and sustainable two-state solution.”

Actually, such money serves no particular purpose, since Washington and Tel Aviv endeavor to ensure the demise of a negotiated peace agreement and work hand-in-hand to kill the now defunct two-state solution.

The list is endless, though most of this money is not included in the official US aid packages to Israel, therefore receives little scrutiny, let alone media coverage.

As of February 2019, the US has withheld all funds to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, in addition to cutting aid to the UN Palestinian Refugees agency (UNRWA), the last lifeline of support needed to provide basic education and health services to millions of Palestinian refugees.

Judging by its legacy of continued support of the Israeli military machine and the ongoing colonial expansion in the West Bank, Washington insists on serving as Israel’s main benefactor – if not direct partner – while shunning Palestinians altogether. Expecting the US to play a constructive role in achieving a just peace in Palestine does not only reflect indefensible naivety but willful ignorance as well.

You Don’t Want to Imagine an Ocean Without Coral Reefs, But You Might Have to

Vijay Prashad

With a recent report titled “Projections of Future Coral Bleaching Conditions,” published by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in November, Leticia Carvalho—head of the Marine and Freshwater Branch of UNEP—said on December 21 that coral reefs are the “canary in the coalmine for climate’s impact on oceans.” The image of the canary in the coal mine is used over and over again to refer to many aspects of the climate catastrophe: reflecting on his studies of glacier decline in Greenland, glaciologist Ian Howat said that “Greenland is going to be the canary in the coal mine,” while an evolutionary biologist in Australia, Dr. Janet Gardner said that “Birds really are the ‘canaries in the coal mine’” because their changes in body weight reflect sensitive assessments of changing weather patterns. Each of these scientists, looking at the specific thing they study—glaciers, bird weight, coral reefs—is right about their particular insight as well as about the fact that what they are seeing is deeply worrying.

What is also concerning is a consensus among these scientists that rising temperatures are creating rapid and negative changes in the ecosystems. The evidence in the report on coral reefs is shocking. “Coral reefs will soon disappear,” said Carvalho, if the current levels of inaction persist. The UNEP report is written by highly qualified scientists who make closely argued points and do not offer loose statements. So, it is pretty chilling to confront—early in the report—the suggestion that corals will be wiped out by the 2040s.

The report notes that there has been a long coral bleaching event that started in 2014 and ended in 2017; this was the longest coral bleaching event on record that “spread across the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans.” To put it simply coral bleaching is when rising sea temperatures lead to an overheating of the coral reefs; when the reefs overheat, they expel the zooxanthellae (Algal symbionts), which results in the coral bleaching. Bleaching can be reversed when sea temperatures cool. What happened between 2014 and 2017 was that the sea temperatures did not drop enough for the corals to recover at the end of the summer of 2014, and in the years that followed.

The average temperature in oceans has increased by 0.1 degrees Celsius (32.18 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past century as a result—among other factors—of increased use of fossil fuels. This increase in atmospheric warming, combined with phenomenon such as the 1997-98 and 2010 El Niño, have resulted in catastrophic coral reef degradation. But these earlier episodes do not compare to the impact of the long period of coral reef bleaching from 2014 to 2017; for example, the 1997-98 period saw the death of 16 percent of coral reefs, while the 2014-2017 warming saw 80 percent of the Great Barrier Reef suffer from severe bleaching.

A decade ago, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore wrote the foreword to a report entitled “Reefs at Risk Revisited.” Here, Gore noted that predictably that reefs are the “canary in the coal mine” and their long-term degradation reveals that “our dangerous overreliance on fossil fuels is already changing Earth’s climate.” We will return to Gore’s use of “our” soon. But for now, it is important to point out that the problem for the reefs is not only fossil fuel use, but it is also the other aspects of capitalism, such as the disposal of plastic goods into the oceans.

Two Scenarios, Both Bad

Scientists call the coral reefs the “rainforests of the sea,” because coral reefs—like rainforests—are highly diverse ecosystems; their destruction would lead to the extinction of a large number of species (as has already been documented in 2019 in a report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services).

The current UNEP report suggests that there are only two possible scenarios for the planet: a “worst-case scenario’ and a “middle-of-the-road” scenario. There is no good scenario. The damage that has already been inflicted on the reefs and the possibility that sea temperature will decrease is so minimal that there is every reason to expect that severe bleaching could lead to coral reefs disappearing by 2045.

If fossil fuel use is not decreased and global warming continues, then “every one of the world’s reefs will bleach by the end of the century, with annual severe bleaching (ASB) occurring on average by 2034.” This new date is nine years ahead of schedule from what the UNEP projected in 2017 (one reason for the lower date is that the measurements have improved over this period).

If countries exceed their current pledges to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent, then ASB will not take place before 2045. Either way, this is just a matter of an eleven-year gap.

Blame Humanity?

One convenient explanation is that shifts in the climate have to do with “human activity” or “humanity.” There is even a name used to describe this period of history—the Anthropocene, a proposed name for a new geological epoch.

Carvalho of UNEP recently said, “Humanity must act with evidence-based urgency, ambition, and innovation to change the trajectory for this ecosystem.” Blaming “humanity” in general is far too vague. It fails to accurately point the finger where it must be pointed.

Firstly, the term Anthropocene obscures the fact that it is the massive productive powers of capitalism that generated carbon emissions based on the use of fossil fuels. It is not some vague term such as Anthropocene that explains the explosion of carbon emissions, but it is the social formation called capitalism that is central to global warming.

Secondly, since capitalism developed in an uneven way, with certain countries (the North) benefitting by use of force—what is called imperialism—these countries disproportionately benefited from the productive powers of capitalism. They have historically spewed the most carbon into the atmosphere and continue to do so on a per capita basis. Any policy that does not acknowledge the 1992 Rio formula of “common but differentiated responsibilities” will fail to see that while countries in Europe and North America benefitted and continue to benefit from fossil fuels, other places did not and do not benefit and, are yet, the most likely to be adversely impacted by rising temperatures.

Thirdly, the most important impediments to change have not been “humanity” but the corporate power and the United States government that not only diluted the 2015 Paris Agreement but then refused to be bound by the tepid agreements. It is telling that countries such as Jamaica and Mongolia updated their climate plans to the United Nations before the end of 2020—as mandated by the Paris Agreement—although these countries produce a tiny fraction of global carbon emissions. The funds that were committed to developing countries for their participation in the process have virtually dried up while external debt has ballooned. This shows a lack of basic seriousness from the “international community.”

The reefs will die. That seems certain. The UNEP report will not circulate. That seems equally certain. The Marshall Islands and Rwanda will file their updates. That has already happened. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies will sit on the sidelines, expanding fracking with a “who cares” attitude.

Covid, Brexit and Dreadnought : the UK Slides Into Economic And Social Turmoil

Brian Cloughley

Covid-19 is familiar to us as the virus causing a worldwide pandemic that has killed millions. Brexit is withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, which, although calamitous for Britain, is not a matter for wide international concern.  And thirdly, as the excellent researchers of the House of Commons note, “the Dreadnought program is about the design, development and manufacture of four new Dreadnought class ballistic missile submarines that will maintain the UK’s nuclear posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence.”  The first of these is supposed to enter service in 2028, and “The cost of the program has been estimated at £31 billion.”

The commonality of the three phenomena is that the UK would be better off without any of them. It would also benefit from removal of prime minister Boris Johnson, whose grotesque incompetence contributed to mismanagement of the pandemic crisis and produced a needless pantomime concerning the mechanics of leaving the European Union.  His allocation of vast funds to military projects is irresponsible, and his declaration that “the international situation is now more perilous and intensively competitive than at any time since the Cold War” is absurd.  No country threatens the physical security of the United Kingdom.

The atmosphere in the UK is unhealthy, and not only in a covid-droplet sense. It is ghoulish because the country has been split into two groups comprising those who wish the country had stayed in the European Union and those who supported exit on almost any terms. There is no dialogue at all : there are flat statements, followed by flat contradictions, followed by personal abuse.  Matters are made worse by inflammatory comment in media outlets that seek to gain popularity (and sales) by encouragement of a divisive, malevolent nationalism.

On October 4 Johnson said “This country has not only left the European Union but on January 1 we will take back full control of our money, our borders and our laws,” which is a typical political generalization designed to appeal to the masses. Following announcement on  December 24 of a final agreement the Washington Post sagely observed that “Many in Britain and abroad fear Johnson’s vision is a magician’s feint, and that the prime minister’s “Global Britain” will turn out to be runt, a Little England, a diminished power, hobbled by nativism, chasing nostalgic dreams stoked by tabloid newspapers.”

Most of the UK’s tabloid newspapers rejoiced about what they regard as “victory” and the Telegraph, for example, reveled in claiming that “The vindictive EU tried to humiliate Britain but we proved we had the character for independence.”  Other rags crowed mightily, as did the government, which produced a supposedly ‘internal’ but instantly leaked ‘Table of Victories’ claiming that on “Key Issues” the British had “won” 28 and the EU 11.  This immature bragging deflected national attention from the rapidly expanding Covid-19 crisis.

On December 22, Anthony Costello, professor of global health at University College London noted that “China and South Korea have recorded three and 12 deaths per million people respectively. By contrast, based on the government data for deaths occurring within 28 days of a positive Covid test, the UK has recorded 970 deaths from Covid per million people,” which is ninth worst in the world.

The reasons for Britain’s shocking death rate are the government’s reluctance to accept unpalatable facts as presented by its expert scientific advisers and failure to take action until crisis dictates it must.  This was summed up in the Sydney Morning Herald’s comment that the situation was due to “Johnson’s . . . destructive habit of promising false dawns, simply because he cannot stand to be the bearer of bad news.”  The government has failed to protect people, but this hasn’t dawned on the people themselves.

Johnson’s irresponsibility was in evidence as early as March when he declared “I’m shaking hands . . . I was at a hospital the other night where I think a few there were actually coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you’ll be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands.” His own experts, the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies, had just warned that the government should “advise against greetings such as handshakes and hugs”, but Johnson prefers to play to the gallery of public opinion rather than convey an unpopular message, however sensible that might be.

The common-sense crunch does come, however, to even the most airy-fairy optimists, and immediately after Johnson announced relaxation of health precautions over Christmas he had to perform a somersault.  A new strain of the virus had hit the country, and he was forced to say “It is with a very heavy heart that I must tell you we cannot continue with Christmas as planned,” although, with a lift in his voice, he pointed out that “many of our European friends and neighbors are being forced to take similar action” which presumably made things better. He had, after all, said that cancelling Christmas would be “inhumane” and it must have been hard for the arch-humbug to have his bluff called so dramatically.  But in spite of the ‘Tier Lockdown’ chaos that ensued for millions, Johnson continued his campaign for Brexit “victory” and loudly rejoiced that his stumbling machinations resulted in the UK leaving the European Union on terms that could and should have been accepted by London a year ago.

It is disturbing that so many Britons, as typified by Johnson, are obsessed with “victory” over anything that might be considered a problem — and of course over some things that are presented as threats.  For example, in November Johnson affirmed he was increasing military spending in order to “restore Britain’s position as the foremost naval power in Europe”. He told Parliament he made the decision “in the teeth of the pandemic” because “the defense of the realm and safety of the British people must come first”, which sentiment was and continues to be irrelevant in the context of international developments.  The commitment to Dreadnought is as farcical as “Continuous at Sea Deterrence”, a meaningless posture that is to cost over 30 billion pounds, which Britain cannot afford.

Which brings us to yet another Johnson tap-dance away from truth, because although on November 19 he said “we will continue to lead the world” in overseas aid, this lofty pronouncement was followed on 25 November by the announcement that Britain is cutting overseas aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income, thereby saving four billion pounds, no doubt to be spent on making Britain the “foremost naval power in Europe.”

Britain is in a parlous economic condition, and is suffering from social rupture of a viciousness unknown in recent history.  It is led by a poseur whose self-esteem is akin to that of the equally repellent Trump. Things would be better if Johnson were to go — but there does not appear to be a quality leader among the squalid bunch of politicians who at present occupy government and whose idea of achievement is scoring silly rhetorical points over political opponents.  The country will continue to slide downhill to turmoil, just as its Covid lockdown drops from Tier to Tier, and —as always — it will be the poor and destitute who suffer most. But they’ll have the compensation that the UK will be “the foremost naval power in Europe” that in the words of Johnson, has just agreed to a Brexit “cakeist treaty.”  Marie Antoinette did not in fact declare that starving peasants should “eat cake” — but Johnson is happy with the notion.

Girls’ Education is Another Casualty of the Coronavirus Pandemic

Cesar Chelala

Girls’ education, particularly in developing countries, is being hindered by the coronavirus pandemic. Drawing on lessons from the Ebola outbreak, the Malala Fund (Girl’s education and COVID-19) estimates that approximately 20 million more secondary school-aged girls could be out of school after the end of the pandemic, only exacerbating the serious educational inequality between girls and boys.

When compared to boys, unequal access to education holds back millions of girls and women across the world. According to UNESCO estimates, 132 million girls are out of school. While the “gender gap” in education has narrowed over the past decade, girls are still at a disadvantage, particularly in accessing high school education.

This gender gap is generally wider at higher levels of schooling. According to some estimates, women in South Asia, for example, have only half as many years of education as men, and female enrollment rates at the high-school level are two-thirds that of males. And women still constitute two-thirds of the world’s illiterate population.

Overall access to basic education has risen markedly over the past decade in many developing countries. In spite of that, poor children are still less likely to attend school or be enrolled in school and more likely to repeat grades than those who come from wealthier families. To be a girl from a poor family is thus a double disadvantage.

In addition, gender bias – such as lack of attention from teachers – exacerbates this difference. Elimination of gender bias in education is particularly important when the level of education of parents is linked to their children’s educational attainment. In this regard, several studies have shown that educating mothers is more important than educating fathers to increase the chances of their children’s success.

There is widespread agreement that primary school education should become universal, but differences in educational attendance and attainment, often determined by economic status, indicate that those living in poverty are less likely to receive education than those better off economically.

There are several reasons to explain this gap. It is more difficult for children living in poverty to have easy access to schools because schools tend to be concentrated in cities and areas where only better-off families live. Physical availability of schools and easy access to them are critical factors in girls’ education in most developing countries.

Disparities in attaining a good level education have been attributed to ineffective school systems. Although overall expenditures on education have increased over the past few decades, unless these resources are specifically targeted to those most vulnerable, they will increase disparities rather than decrease them.

The choices governments make to allocate resources is critical. Governments tend to spend less on public primary and high school education – the type of schooling that tends to benefit those in poverty – during economic crises. Wars, civil conflicts, economic disruptions and epidemics affect school attendance. All these problems tend to have a greater effect on individuals and families living in poverty.

In addition, a great deal of evidence shows that women’s schooling enables their children to attain education, and improves their health, nutrition and survival. Immunization rates among children of educated mothers, for example, have been consistently higher than those of uneducated mothers.

Educated girls can develop more efficiently essential life skills, including self-confidence, the ability to participate effectively in society, and the capacity to better protect themselves from HIV/AIDS and sexual exploitation. In addition, several studies have shown that educated women have fewer children and better economic prospects.

A time of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic offers the opportunity to modify educational policies so as to address the needs of the most vulnerable. Special attention must be paid to girls experiencing poverty. Increased expenditures on education for the underserved sections of society yields better returns in productivity, income and economic growth. In contrast, inequality in the distribution of education has impeded economic growth and per capita income in many countries.

Girls’ education empowers them and is considered the best investment in a country’s development. Educating girls increases earning, savings, and financial autonomy. Taking measures to alleviate poverty remains an urgent global priority. And one of the best ways to reduce poverty and improve health is to increase the educational level of girls worldwide.

Haiti Independence Day

Arushi Kumar

January 1st is the day Haiti proclaimed herself to be a free, independent nation. She became the first free black republic in the world. Her great battle for freedom, the Haitian Revolution, is the only successful slave revolt in the history of humanity that led to the creation of a nation.

The silencing of Haitian revolution is only a chapter within a narrative of global domination. It is part of the history of the West and it is likely to persist, even in attenuated form, as long as the history of the West is not retold in ways that bring forward the perspective of the world.”

The French Revolution proclaimed liberty, equality, fraternity, implying men are born and remain free and equal in rights. But did this extend to the slaves in France’s overseas colonies? The slaveowners in the French colonies participated actively in the French Revolution, on one hand demanding equality and liberty for themselves while convinced the National Assembly to guarantee that no changes would be made in the slave system.

Haiti, in the Caribbean was first claimed by spain in 1492 and then it was seceded to France in 1665 .Even though France’s colonies looked small on the map, the three Caribbean colonies of Saint Domingue, Guadeloupe and Martinique contained almost as many slaves as the thirteen much larger American states . San domigues ( now republic of Haiti) produced roughly 40 percent of the sugar and 60 percent of the coffee imported to Europe. The colonial economy was based almost entirely on the production of plantation crops for export. It accounted for more than one-third of the entire Atlantic slave trade. The livelihood of 1 million of the approximately 25 million people who lived in the France in 1789 depended directly upon the agricultural imports from Saint-Domingue, and several million indirectly depended upon trade from the colony to maintain their standard of living. Saint-Domingue was the most profitable French colony in the world, and one of the most profitable of all the European colonies in the 18th century, it was called the pearl of Antilles.

The Production of sugar depended on extensive manual labor provided by enslaved Africans. In 1681 there were 2,000 African slaves and by 1789 there were almost half a million. The slave system in Saint-Domingue was regarded as one of the harshest in the Americas, with high levels of both mortality and violence where the average life expectancy for a slave was 21 years. Over the French colony’s hundred-year course, slavery killed about a million Africans. According to the 1685 Code Noir was legal for a slaveholder to kill a slave who hit a white persons. Slaves were whipped, burned, buried alive, restrained and allowed to be bitten by swarms of insects, mutilated, raped, and limbs amputated.

French imposed a three-tiered social structure. At the top of the social and political ladder was the white elite (grands blancs). At the bottom of the social structure were the enslaved black (noirs), most of whom had been born in Africa. Between the white elite and the slaves arose a third group, the freedmen (mullatoes), most of whom were descended from unions of slave owners and slaves .Most were slaves imported from Africa. The century of domination of white slave holders over the African women produced a subpopulation of mulattoes. The mulattoes being offspring of the white elite were given special privileges that led to mulattoes accumulating land and some wealth, paid taxes had the rights of citizens including the right to vote The mulattoes were below white elite in social status ( socially and politically inferior)but they were above the pure African slaves. Also between the white elite and the slaves were the poor whites (petits blancs), who considered themselves socially superior to the Mulattoes, even if they sometimes found themselves economically inferior to them. Of a population of 519,000 in 1791, 87 percent were slaves, 8 percent were whites, and 5 percent were freedmen. African slaves at the plantation outnumbered the French owners and their overseers by ten to one. In the 18th century communities of escaped slaves developed in the mountain wildernesses. These people were called maroons from the Spanish word cimaron for wild. In 1790 a group of black leaders including some maroons initiated a slave rebellion but was crushed.

Late on a night in August 1791, sugar plantation slaves in the French colony of Saint Domingue gathered at a voodoo ceremony. By the next morning, the slaves began to burn down the plantations, kill the brutal owners. Over the next few months, they set in motion the only successful slave revolt in history. Northern United States merchants and slave owners in the South felt threatened by the revolt in Haiti. News of the revolt gave hope to American slaves and deepened the fears of Southern slave owners. The Haitian Revolution propelled the idea that all men are born free and continued the quest for freedom elsewhere.

The confrontation was not just black vs white . Rebellions in the eighteen centuries were all to be inspired by the Enlightenment’s radical philosophies. The American Declaration of Independence emphasized the principle of popular sovereignty, which states that all governmental power comes from the general will of the people, a concept formulated by Rousseau. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen announced that men were “born and remain free and equal in rights,” and enjoyed natural rights to “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” The blacks were considered barbaric, inferior to whites, the Haitian revolution shattered this belief, for the first time in the history of the New World, a slave revolt had culminated in the total defeat of white forces. The black slaves outwited the best of generals. The struggle was not withdrawal of colonialists but their total overthrow and end to economic and political exploitation by slaves. For the first time in history, the lowest order of society -slaves became equal, free and independent citizens. Haitian revolutionaries offered a radical account of black citizenship and envisioned a world order in which both slavery and colonial rule would be transcended.

The latifundias( large landholdings) were converted to community minifundists ( small landholdings) and reoriented from export dependency to self sufficient marketing system ,despite all odds. Haiti has also had a long struggle to overcome the hostility of the outside world. The United States did not even recognize Haiti as a sovereign nation until 1862.

The Promise and the Limitations of the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration

Bharat Dogra

It is certainly good news that the United Nations has declared 2021-30 to be the UN Decade for Ecosystem Restoration. At the outset as a justification for this it can be stated without risk of contradiction that the need for ecosystem restoration was never greater than in present times. There has been so much devastation, and taken together this has taken the form of nothing less than a survival crisis. Hence if the decade starting today January 1 2021 is to be implemented as the Decade for Ecosystem Restoration, implying thereby that the United Nations ( led by its two agencies UNEP and FAO)  but of course also involving others, will contribute to Ecosystem Restoration much more than has been the case so far, then of course this is most welcome. Some ambitious targets have already been mentioned.

However it is still not very clear  how much additional funds will be committed for this over the decade, to what extent firm commitment for this is already available and from which sources. Many programs for ecosystem restoration ,  including some big ones, implemented by several national and international agencies exist already, and it will be important to know to what extent this UN Decade will add to these, as distinguished from coordination of existing efforts .

Also it will be important to know what is being done to check the systemic factors which have caused so much ecosystem destruction and continue to do so. Surely apart from restoration we need to check the continuing huge onslaught on ecosystems, and the forces which drive this onslaught.

Thirdly, we need to be reassured that the Decade related activities will avoid big business interests and heavily funded consultancies etc. which in the past have taken away a very big chunk of the budget of such declarations, while leaving little for real grassroots work to be taken up with the involvement of communities, particularly weaker sections.

Last but not the least, are adequate steps being taken to improve conditions of continuing peace, avoiding war and conflict, achieving very ambitious disarmament goals, without which conducive conditions for sustained and big work on ecosystem restoration, and the international cooperation needed for this, may not be possible?

Particularly in this last context I will like to briefly mention a different approach of another campaign, initiated by this writer, which integrated the concerns of protection of environment and ecosystems with the elimination of weapons of mass destruction as well as other peace and disarmament goals. This campaign is called  Save the Earth Campaign with its SED Demand ( Demand for declaring the next decade as the Decade for Saving Earth). This campaign sets and integrates specific important objectives like restricting global warming to 1.5 degree C, eliminating all weapons of mass destruction plus related goals and calls for all these goals to be reached within a framework of justice , democracy and peace. The Convener wrote seven  books in English and Hindi to expand on the ideas of this campaign relating to environment protection, peace, justice, equality, democracy and concern for all aspects of their life. The endorsement for several leading academics, activists and social movements such as Aruna Roy and the MKSS, PV Rajagopal and Ekta Parishad, Jean Dreaze, Razia Ismail and the India Alliance for Child Rights, Vimla  and Sunderlal Bahugna, Pandurang Hegde and Appiko Movement, Suvrat Das and CBGA, Kavitha Kuruganti and ASHA network, Dunu Roy,  Jagmohan Singh and Shahid Bhagat Singh Research Committee, to mention only a few of the leading endorsees, was taken and thrice a petition based on this was sent to the United Nations Secretary General. This provides a much broader framework for a declaration of a decade committed above all to saving the basic life nurturing conditions of our planet within a framework of justice, peace and democracy.