24 Countries Must Share Their Surplus Farmland With 2 Billion Others

Anandi Sharan

Even the most ardent capitalists/imperialists know that they and their predecessors have destroyed earth. For this reason alone the material conditions are right for those forces to self-destruct. After this happy event, – to which we are all of course joyously contributing by every means possible, – the world’s forests and coasts and other natural landscapes will be handed over to the 1 billion indigenous people and fishermen. In many places the process is well under way.But it is expected that unless we do something about the rest of us, 80% of us will be living in cities by 2030. If our human population is 7.4 billion today, and 1 billion are in forests and along coasts, that means 5.12 billion of us might be in cities. Of course that would be mean certain extinction of most of the human race and most flora and fauna; – city life without commercial energy is unthinkable and commercial energy is the death of earth.

Evacuate the cities

Thus the present 3 billion city people must evacuate the cities and join with the 3.4 billion existing farmers, and do permaculture. This involves an enormous social upheaval; but one which we are in any case already setting in motion. Organic, regenerative, ecologically sustainable permaculture saves soils, climate and oceans and gives other species a chance. Hopefully the world’s new revolutionary governments outlaw commercial energy and ban capitalist corporations and war, and the new associations of rural independent producers will slow down runaway climate change.

But is there enough farmland? Yes. 24 countries have enough farmland to accommodate an extra 2 billion people from countries where there is not enough farmland or where temperatures have made human life impossible.

The average area of farmland per person in the world is 0.2 hectares. Assuming that the present world average is the right amount of farmland per person, of the 206 countries for which there are statistics, there is one country that could accommodate ten times more people than it does at the moment: Australia. It can increase its population from 23.5 to 235 million. Kazakhstan can accommodate nine times more to 150 million, Canada 7 times more to 233 million, Argentina five times more to 197 million, Niger 4 times more to 80 million,  Russian Federation four times more to 614, Lithuania four times to 11 million and Ukraine four times more to 163 million. Paraguay, Uruguay, Latvia, Belarus, Guyana and Moldova could accommodate three times more. United States, Estonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Denmark, Bolivia and Finland could accommodate twice as many people as they have at present.So these 24 countries that today have a population of 0.75 billion people could open their borders to share their farmland and provide a permaculture life for 2 billion more people.

A second group of 51 countries have more than the average farmland per person but less than double the average. This list of countries is Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, France, The Gambia, Greece, Guinea, Iceland, Ireland, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Libya, Macedonia-FYR, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Poland, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Zambia and Zimbabwe. These 51 countries presently have a population of 1.15 billion people. The people of these countries can plan that they will feed, clothe and house themselves and live in harmony with forest species, forest people and coastal people and all living things. They must curb their population growth so that no more forests or wetlands or other natural ecosystems are taken over for farming, and all farming must be permaculture.

1 billion people will move from just five countries

Of the remaining 6.4-0.75-1.15 = 4.5 billion of us, 3.3 billion live in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh. If the people in these five countries are to live in dignity, everything must change. Currently around half of all Indians are stunted, a euphemism for a condition worse than what Indians were in under Churchill. It is a shameful national calamity. Bangladesh has four times less farmland than the world’s average but not so many are starving. Pakistanis are in terrible problems. Chinese people can expect for conditions to only get worse environmentally and ecologically until they get better. And Indonesians are terribly poor. Thus to relieve the pressure on their all too scarce farmland these five countries will certainly send 1 billion people to Australia, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Russia and Canada and other places.

1 billion people are moving from countries that have been bombed or have become uninhabitable due to temperature rise

Iraq, parts of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries in West Asia and North Africa will certainly send the other 1 billion to the other 24 countries that have farmland to spare. These desperate countries have less than the world’s average farmland per person and temperatures are soaring and making it impossible for humans and many other flora and fauna to live there. Refugees from countries that had enough farmland but which the USA destroyed such as Syria, Libya,Yemen, Palestine and others must also be given new homes and new farmland. Finally many Western Europeans and North Africans will move because they don’t have enough farmland. Eastern Russia is already now encouraging anyone to come there and farm.  Niger will accommodate others.

Outlaw Commercial Energy, Give Forests, Coasts and Natural Landscapes to 1 billion Indigenous People; and Give the Balance 6.4 billion of Us 0.2 Hectares of Farmland Each!

An international conference must be held and decisions taken. Commercial energy including oil, coal, gas and nuclear and renewable energy (unless it is animal or hand-made water or solar power) must be outlawed to prevent further accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People moving to new homes must be given food and accommodation along the way.  If groups of ten or twenty people move together we will feel less lonely and can plan together for a new future and deal with governments with confidence.

At least 3 billion people world-wide are struggling for right to farmland within their countries

If you are someone who doesn’t have land, join with others and demand land in one of the countries that has land to spare. If you are in a country that has enough farmland but the land is unfairly distributed, do not cooperate with the present system but demand land tenure of 0.2 ha per person in your family. If you are a forest person or a fisherman or woman, demand that others leave your forest or wetland or coastal area or other natural landscape this instant. We really must implement this human and flora and fauna survival plan a.s.a.p.

Libyan Intervention Was Based On Wrong Assumptions; David Cameron Is Ultimately Responsible

Vivek Kumar Srivastava

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in UK has directly indicted the former PM David Cameron in allowing the collapse of Libya as an organized nation state and to throw it into chaos and also to assist the Islamic State to proliferate in the region and beyond.

The report shows that in big and successful democracies- how the administration is run, how the politicians behave whom the people repose faith and how the false democracy is sustained and genuine democratic values are put on the shelves. The failure of the government of David Cameron is so disappointing that the questions will be raised on the effective functioning of the political-administrative structure of the colonial masters as Chilcot report has already indicted Tony Blair for his unsought decision of invading Iraq which led to birth of the terrorist groups like IS showing inadequate understanding of the local conditions by the decision making system; the current report also stresses that faults at the decision-making process furthered the growth of the IS.

The report stresses that intelligence failure was overpowering and the political leadership did not have capabilities to appreciate the ground realities of the Libyan land and the people, the ‘Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate. Former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Richards of Herstmonceux confirmed that intelligence on the composition of the rebel militias was not “as good as one would wish.” He observed that “We found it quite difficult to get the sort of information you would expect us to get.”

The report explicitly states that ‘We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed. It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.’

The report clearly highlights the drift in the UK’s Libya policy in which Cameron played a role unexpected of him. He infarct went with US as a mute spectator, perhaps he was either incapable to understand the Libyan dynamics and the after impact of such illogical decisions or he was just on show as a devoted follower of US, a fact which has been in existence since the end of second world war that UK has lost its capacity to fashion its independent foreign policy; what so ever be the reason behind such naive foreign policy but one fact is self evident that Cameron failed to control the events developing in Libya. The report indicts him saying that ‘when the then Prime Minister David Cameron sought and received parliamentary approval for military intervention in Libya on 21 March 2011, he assured the House of Commons that the object of the intervention was not regime change. In April 2011, however, he signed a joint letter with United States President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy setting out their collective pursuit of “a future without Gaddafi”. The UK’s intervention in Libya was reactive and did not comprise action in pursuit of a strategic objective. This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into a policy of regime change by military means (and) Political options were available if the UK Government had adhered to the spirit of Resolution 1973, implemented its original campaign plan and influenced its coalition allies to pause military action when Benghazi was secured in March 2011. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya. If political engagement had been unsuccessful, the UK and its coalition allies would not have lost anything. Instead, the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention. In particular, we saw no evidence that it tried to exploit former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s contacts and influence with the Gaddafi regime.’ Report also emphasizes that there was no serious efforts to contain the proliferation of lethal weapons after the downfall of the regime of Gaddafi, an action which David Cameron should have initiated without delay. ‘The international community’s inability to secure weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime fuelled instability in Libya and enabled and increased terrorism across North and West Africa and the Middle East. The UK Government correctly identified the need to secure weapons immediately after the 2011 Libyan civil war, but it and its international partners took insufficient action to achieve that objective.’

The report highlighted the immoral role of government, first making the military intervention, second not helping adequately the post regime reconstruction of the Libya; ‘because the UK along with France led the military intervention, it had a particular responsibility to support Libyan economic and political reconstruction, which became an impossible task because of the failure to establish security on the ground.’

The consequences of such ill devised polices are uncountable;, Libya at present is politically unstable, the local conflicts exist, innocents die, education- health system is shattered, the daily life is full of burdens and pains, the question of the personal and family safety is always in air and in mind of every citizen of the country.

The major lesson which the big military powers have to learn is that intervention in Iraq and Libya has brought more problems than the then regimes produced. These interventions need to be studied as the case studies in foreign policy making and in the development of proper understanding of the global politics. There is no gainsaying the fact that ill conceived policy making is root cause of all the problems in MENA.

Monsanto And Bayer: Why Food And Agriculture Just Took A Turn For The Worse

Colin Todhunter

News broke this week that Monsanto accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Bayer. The new company would control more than 25 per cent of the global supply of commercial seeds and pesticides. Bayer’s crop chemicals business is the world’s second largest after Syngenta, and Monsanto is the leading commercial seeds business.

Monsanto held a 26 per cent market share of all seeds sold in 2011. Bayer (mainly a pharmaceuticals company) sells 17 per cent of the world’s total agrochemicals and also has a comparatively small seeds sector. If competition authorities pass the deal, the combined company would be the globe’s largest seller of both seeds and agrochemicals.

The deal marks a trend towards consolidation in the industry with Dow and DuPont having agreed to merge and Swiss seed/pesticide giant Syngenta merging with ChemChina, a Chinese government concern.

The mergers would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector, down from six – Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto and DuPont. Prior to the mergers, these six firms controlled 60 per cent of commercial seed and more than 75 per cent of agrochemical markets.

Alarm bells are ringing with the European Commission putting its approval of the Dow-DuPont deal temporarily on hold, and the US Senate Judiciary Committee is about to hold hearings on the deal due to concerns about consolidation in the industry, which has resulted in increased seed and pesticide prices.

In response to the Monsanto-Bayer merger, US National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued the following statement:

“Consolidation of this magnitude cannot be the standard for agriculture, nor should we allow it to determine the landscape for our future. The merger between Bayer and Monsanto marks the fifth major deal in agriculture in the last year… For the last several days, our family farm and ranch members have been on Capitol Hill asking Members of Congress to conduct hearings to review the staggering amount of pending merger deals in agriculture today. We will continue to express concern that these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies. We are pleased that next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will be reviewing the alarming trend of consolidation in agriculture that has led to less competition, stifled innovation, higher prices and job loss in rural America… all mergers, including this recent Bayer/Monsanto deal, [should] be put under the magnifying glass of the committee and the U.S. Department of Justice.”

For all the rhetoric that we often hear about ‘the market’ and large corporations offering choice to farmers and consumers, the evidence is restriction of choice and the squeezing out of competitors. Over the years, for instance, Monsanto has bought up dozens of competitors to become the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds with seed prices having risen dramatically.

Consolidation and monopoly in any sector should be of concern to everyone. But the fact that the large agribusiness conglomerates specialise in a globalised, industrial-scale, chemical-intensive model of farming that is adversely affecting what we eat should have us very concerned. Do we want this system to be intensified even further just because their business models depend on it?

Farmers are increasingly reliant on patented corporate seeds, whether non-GM hybrid seeds or GM, and the chemical inputs designed to be used with them. Monsanto seed traits are now in 80 per cent of corn and more than 90 per cent of soybeans grown in the US. It comes as little surprise then that people in the US now consume a largely corn-based diet: a less diverse diet than in the past, which is high in calorific value, but low in health-promoting, nutrient dense food. This health-damaging ‘American obesity diet’ and the agricultural practices underpinning is now a global phenomenon.

By its very nature, the capitalist economic model that corporate agriculture is attached to demands expansion, market capture and profit growth. And, it must be accepted that it does bring certain benefits to those farmers who have remained in agriculture (if not for the 330 farmers who leave their land every week, according to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service).

But in the US, ‘success’ in agriculture depends on over $51 billion of taxpayer handouts to over a 10-year period to keep the gravy train on track for a particular system of agriculture designed to maintain corporate agribusiness profit margins. And such ‘success’ fails to factor in all of the external social, health and environmental costs that mean this type of model is ultimately unsustainable. It is easy to spin failure as success when the parameters are narrowly defined.

Moreover, the exporting of the Green Revolution paradigm throughout the globe has been a boon to transnational seed and agrochemical manufacturers, which have benefited from undermining a healthy, sustainable indigenous agriculture and transforming it into a profitable enterprise for global capital.

And not just profitable for global capital – but its company managers too. For example, a few months ago, according to Reuters, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant could receive more than $70 million if Monsanto were to be taken over by Bayer. At the time, Monsanto said it was open to engaging in further negotiations with Bayer after turning down its $62 billion bid. The report shows how Grant’s exposure to shares and options meant he had an incentive to hold out for the highest possible sale price, which would not only be in the interests of shareholders but also increase the value of his holdings. Other senior figures within Monsanto would also walk away with massive financial gains.

These corporate managers belong to a global agribusiness sector whose major companies rank among the Fortune 500 corporations. These companies are high-rollers in a geo-politicised, globalised system of food production whereby huge company profits are directly linked to the worldwide eradication of the small farm – the bedrock of global food production,  bad food and poor health, inequitable, rigged trade, environmental devastation, mono-cropping and diminished food and diet diversity, the destruction of rural communities, ecocide, degraded soil, water scarcity and drought, destructive and inappropriate models of development and farmers who live a knife-edge existence and for whom debt has become a fact of life.

A handful of powerful and politically connected corporations are determining what is grown, how it is to be grown, what needs to be done to grow it, who grows it and what ends up on the plate. And despite PR platitudes about the GMO/chemical-intensive model just being part of a wider mix of farming practices designed to feed humanity, from India to Africa indigenous models of agriculture are being squeezed out (through false argument and deception) as corporate imperialism puts pay to notions of food sovereignty.

We should be highly concerned about a food system increasingly dominated by companies that have a history (see this on Monsanto and this on Bayer) of releasing health-damaging, environmentally polluting products onto the market and engaging in bribery, cover-ups, monopolistic practices and what should be considered as crimes against humanity?

Despite the likes of Hugh Grant saying the Monsanto-Bayer merger will be good for farmers and “broader society”, most of all it will be good for shareholders and taxpayer-subsidised, state-assisted company profit. That’s the type of hegemonic rhetoric that’s been used down the ages to disguise the true nature of power and its beneficiaries.

It’s not so much the Monsanto-Bayer deal is a move in the wrong direction (which it is), but increasing consolidation is to be expected given the trend in many key sectors toward monopoly capitalism or just plain cartelism, whichever way you choose to look at it. It’s the system of industrialised, capital-intensive agriculture wedded to powerful players whose interests lie in perpetuating and extending their neoliberal economic model that is the real problem.

“We have justified the demise of family farms, decay of rural communities, pollution of the rural environment, and degradation of soil health as being necessary… The problems we are facing today are the consequence of too many people… pursuing their narrow self-interests without considering the consequence of their actions on the rest of society and the future of humanity.” Professor John Ikerd, ‘Healthy Soils, Healthy People’

So what is the solution? We could start here.

China Overtaking India in Maldives

Anjelina Patrick

The amendment allowing land holdings in the Maldives by foreign entities might contribute to the strong hold of the Chinese in the India Ocean Region (IOR) due to its huge investment in infrastructure development. These have the potential to alter the geopolitical calculations in the IOR, especially for India. 

Change in Land Amendment

 

The Maldives, since 2014 has gained strategic salience in light of the Chinese infrastructure development after the visit of  Xi Jinping, the First Chinese President to visit Maldives. 

 

More worryingly for India it is the swiftness by which the Maldivian government has passed the constitutional amendment allowing foreign nations or entities to own land if the total volume of investment excesses USD 1 billion, previously foreign entities could only lease the land for 99 years.  Given the disparities in the spending power of China and India this will certainly play into China’s hands, it must also be noted that the Maldivian government owes 70 per cent of its external debt to China. Abdullah Yameen, current Maldivian President, has been stating that the amendment will boast the Male economy, contrary to what the former President, Mohamad Nasheed asserted about it leading to foreign non-commercial logistical installations in the island.

The exploitation of land ownership rights may also hinder the sovereignty of a country, and while  land grabs are difficult to contemplate in the 21st century, newer and more sophisticated ways of control come about as a result of monopsony. Since India cannot afford to spend on commercially unviable infrastructure projects that show no signs of profitability in the future, Maldives' attempts at playing regional powers off against each other plays into the Chinese monopsony. The Maldivian government is stating that the new law will work in the best interests of the Maldivian citizens by attracting large scale investment, leading to development.

Loss of Contract

 

New Delhi is concerned about the contracts to the Chinese, the first being an expansion of the Male airport worth USD 800 million and second being the tentative victory of a Chinese consortium to build the Gadhoo port, in the Southern Atolls.

The Male Airport contract, initially given to an Indian company, GMR Group, for build-operate was cancelled in 2012 due to a change in the government (earlier headed by President Mohamed Waheed).This was surprising given the contract represented the single largest foreign investment in the Maldives. International arbitration held that the cancellation had been wrongful and awarded crippling damages to GMR worth USD 300 million. Coinciding with the tribunals’ award, it was shortly announced that the Chinese Beijing Urban Construction Group (BUCG) had won the contract to complete the stalled project as build-only. This will exacerbate the land owning situation. Significantly there have been reports that Chinese companies might get the contract for the new commercial port on Gadhoo Island on a build-operate model. 

It can be seen that two different parameters have been adopted in infrastructure investments and such ad hoc shifting of norms from build-operate to a build-only have been done with extreme lack of transparency and public study on the cost benefits. The tussle between the GMR Group and the Maldivian Government had initially started because of the underperforming revenues of the airport. China is footing most of the costs of this resurrected airport expansion plan at a much higher layout than the previous plans which failed to deliver. 

Awarding of the contract to China also highlights the vast spending power and project management skills of Chinese companies compared to Indian ones. Needless to say that in any direct competition between India and China in mega projects, China has a track record of timely and effective delivery contrasted with India’s abysmal performance on the score.

 

India's Concern

 

This brings out several areas of concerns as may be deduced that the current President Yameen’s government is more pro-China indicative of a shift in the Maldivian posture towards India.

As can be seen from the case of Gwadar (Pakistan) and Hambantota (Sri Lanka) China has a track record of building maritime infrastructure in the Indian Ocean for commercial gains; however a lack of commercial viability has then been used by the Chinese to expand their naval presence. These ports are now increasingly used by high threat Chinese power projection vessels such as nuclear submarines. The Gadhoo island port would be another example; while the Maldives is not known to be a commercial hub its economic zone seems unable to sustain such a large port. On the other hand the Maldives is one of the closest islands to the highly secretive US base in Diego Garcia and the Chinese pattern of deploying nuclear submarines in Hambantota to keep tabs on India may be replicated. The Chinese Embassy in Maldives maintains that such allegations of construction in Gadhoo are "completely false."

To conclude it is observed that the Maldivian shift towards China is not only in accordance with its national interest but more importantly due to the pro-Chinese Yameen government. This is highly threatening for India as a huge influx of infrastructural investment by the Chinese in Maldives is more military oriented than economic and in the coming days India might lose its foot hold in Maldives thereby hindering the current geopolitical balance of power in the IOR.

Salvadoran ex-president flees corruption charges for Nicaragua

Andrea Lobo

On September 6, the Sandinista government of Nicaragua granted political asylum to former Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes (2009-2014) of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation (FMLN) party, his current partner and three sons. The state newspaper La Gaceta reported that the “ex-president of our sister Republic of El Salvador” argued that “he considered his life and physical integrity and those of his family to be in danger, for fighting on behalf of democracy, peace, justice, and human rights, along with his political affiliation.”

In an interview on September 8 with the Sandinista Channel 4, Funes stated: “Being in El Salvador, and going and coming here to Managua, I received information from people very close to powerful economic groups in the country [El Salvador], where they sent me the message that they would not tire in their efforts to see me in jail and if possible see me dead.”

He explained that this alleged threat is connected to his administration having “investigated 152 corruption cases… accusing former functionaries of past ARENA [far-right] governments and mostly business people tied to wealthy families in the country.” Out of these, only two cases led to judicial processes, including that against ex-President Francisco Flores (1999-2004) for stealing $10 million donated by the Taiwanese government as assistance for the 2001 earthquake victims and for the National Police.

A 2014 investigation carried out by the Salvadoran online newspaper El Faro found that ARENA was not the intended recipient of the money, but that the party transferred the money to Costa Rica and distributed it among several regional divisions and campaign committees. The criminal proceeding was ended after Flores’s death in January of this year.

Funes complained in the interview that “the civil proceeding was kept [open], but the prosecutor is doing absolutely nothing to find out where the resources went and who the main beneficiaries could be.”

Only two weeks after Flores’ death, the Salvadoran Supreme Court gave the green light to begin the criminal investigation against Funes on five charges: “crimes of embezzlement, illicit negotiations, misuse of funds, illicit enrichment and influence-trafficking.” These are related to more than $700,000 worth of unjustified income and expenses. The court found that Funes spent over $54,000 shopping in luxury stores between 2011 and 2013, including $10,000 spent in a designer shoe store in Miami.

The former president stated in the interview that he is “ideologically identified with the current government in El Salvador and with that in Nicaragua”. Funes also declared that he is not guilty, but that if found guilty, he would not go to jail and would only have to return the funds.

Even though he also denies his participation, his administration sponsored a 14-month truce between gangs that led to a 41 percent drop in the homicide rate between 2012 and 2013. The truce came to a halt under pressure from the US government and Salvadoran elites. Last year, the homicide rate climbed to 103 per 100,000 inhabitants, bringing the country back to civil war-level violence.

The accusation of “illicit negotiations” against Funes is being used to legitimize the current FMLN-led intensification of the “iron fist” policies against gangs and buildup of the repressive apparatus—isolation of alleged gang members in prisons, new elite military and police forces, authorized extrajudicial killings and death squad activity of the state forces.

During his time in office, Funes built closer bonds with Washington and established partnerships with far-right figures like former ARENA President Antonio Saca (2004-2009), who is also accused of illicit enrichment involving over $6 million.

When pressured by the US State Department, Funes turned General David Munguía and later General Atilio Benítez into ministers of Security and Justice. Together with the FMLN members in Congress, he allowed the far-right and military to take control of the security and justice apparatus. This continues today, facilitating the penetration of organized crime into the armed forces and state.

The US embassy and several members of the US Congress have participated in the selection of judicial cases, including those initiated under the Funes administration, and have given full support to all “anti-crime” and “anti-corruption” efforts led by the current top prosecutor, Douglas Meléndez.

Last May, Meléndez ordered the arrests of several state workers and lower-rank officials for participating in the 2012 truce, and threatened, “Those thinking about a new truce should not do so. We will not allow this to happen.”

The US imperialist use of the judicial and security authorities as levers to discipline its client regimes has a long history in Latin America, and is currently behind the “anti-impunity” international commissions in Guatemala and Honduras. These and similar efforts in El Salvador are being sponsored by “international cooperation” funds from the UN and directly from the US government.

The Salvadoran Supreme Court ruling in July to stop amnesty on crimes committed during the Civil War (1980-1992) is also part of this continued pressure on leaders of both ARENA and FMLN that were involved during the war. The FMLN vice-president, Óscar Ortiz—considered the de-facto head of state given President Sanchéz Cerén’s medical condition—said the court ruling would create “a scene of chaos, vengeance, and violence,” while party leaders called it a “coup attempt”.

The Central American University (UCA) protested in an editorial column: “A lot of people made poor by social injustice believed in the FMLN because its language suggested a greater concern over human dignity. But, attitudes like that of the vice-president make one doubt whether that concern still exists within the party.”

An August 31 press release by the US embassy in San Salvador stated: “In our interactions we have been clear that it’s important to demonstrate that a firm political will exists to combat corruption. We believe that this point is key in building a more stable and prosperous El Salvador.”

The investigations against Funes have already led to at least 10 raids, along with judicial orders to make public his travel logs and finances from during his mandate. The state prosecutor’s office stated that even with Funes in Nicaragua, “investigations against him will not stop.”

Ultimately, if these forces are now going after them, Funes and FMLN only have themselves to blame, forming a bourgeois nationalist government and competing for greater privileges and shares of profit from the super exploitation of the impoverished Salvadoran working class.

The claims of innocence are not the only inconsistent part of Funes’ story. He had been living in Nicaragua for three months as a “consultant,” allegedly planning to “reside” in the country, presumably indefinitely, had no arrest warrant against him and was already receiving protection. Moreover, the FMLN’s national secretary, Medardo González, disclosed that the party had instructed Funes to go to Nicaragua to avoid possible arrest. The FMLN President Sánchez has also pledged support for Funes.

The request for asylum and expedited approval by the Ortega government in Nicaragua are a political move to respond to the US judicial and media offensives against both governments.

The Obama administration mouthpiece, the New York Times, got the message, and focused on attacking Ortega, claiming he “threatened ... to undermine the early efforts to curb corruption by El Salvador’s attorney general, Douglas Meléndez…”

The Times also quoted right-wing academics criticizing Ortega’s “authoritarian tendencies” and, again, his “effort to discredit the process, to discredit the attorney general.”

These claims match those expressed by the Times editorial board on August 4 that Ortega and his wife and vice president, Rosario Murillo, “intend to establish an authoritarian dynasty”. They conclude the opinion piece with a grave warning used historically by the US government: “The course of Mr. Ortega’s own political history should serve as reminder that overthrowing a government can be the citizen’s response when all other avenues for dissent are shut.”

Given the 2009 US-backed military coup in neighboring Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, and subsequent repression and killings of the opposition, this severe threat is directed against workers and youth in Nicaragua.

While Ortega’s administration has in fact sabotaged the opposition’s electoral coalition prior to the November elections, US imperialism has no qualms about supporting authoritarian and dynastic regimes. Underlying the broader anti-Ortega campaign is the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” coming into direct conflict with Ortega’s military and economic ties with Russia and China, including the 50 tanks recently bought from Russia and the plans to build a $50 billion interoceanic canal by a Chinese firm.

“Daniel (Ortega) is trying to do a favor to Sánchez and Funes, but it will have a cost, because the perception will be there that he is a fugitive from justice,” claims Aguirre Sacasa, a former right-wing foreign minister, who calls the decision “bad business.” While the US government and corporate media continue to exploit this “cost”, the Sandinistas and FMLN are using their corrupt unity as a lever to seek a better deal with US capitalism. Aguirre has praised Ortega’s “political astuteness” and his efforts to improve “the perception of the business climate in our country,” but has warned that his provocative attitude towards the US “will ruin what has been built in this important aspect.”

In El Salvador, the FMLN leader Medardo González announced that the party’s leadership will meet with representatives of the US embassy to discuss the party’s concerns over “disrespectful encroachment” by US authorities in corruption cases.

With poverty and public debt on the rise, and the closing of channels of political and economic support from Venezuela and other “left turn” governments in South America, the bourgeois nationalist FMLN in El Salvador and FSLN in Nicaragua will continue to defend their own privileges by moving toward greater repression and austerity in the interests of US imperialism and their local oligarchies.

Polish and British governments exploit attacks on Polish immigrants

Clara Weiss

A number of xenophobic attacks on the large Polish immigrant community in the UK following the Brexit referendum are being exploited by both the Polish and British ruling class to strengthen their alliance, amid deepening divisions within the European Union (EU) and growing tensions with Germany.

There are 850,000 Poles working and living with their families in the UK, making Polish in many cities the second language after English. Britain is home to the second largest Polish émigré community in Europe after Germany, where an estimated 2 million people from Poland are living and working.

The overwhelming majority have emigrated since the beginning of capitalist restoration in 1989 and particularly Poland’s entry into the EU in 2004. While Polish workers are on average paid less than their British counterparts, their average salary of €1,800 monthly in the UK is still twice as much as that in Poland.

There has been an increase in attacks on Polish workers in the UK in the wake of the Brexit referendum by right-wing elements encouraged by the whipping up of xenophobia and nationalism by all factions of the ruling elite and the media.

The most publicized case is also the most obscure: British police are investigating the killing of 40-year old Arkadiusz Jóźwik in Harlow, a town in Essex by a group of youth. Although it remains unclear whether the killing had anything to do with Jóźwik’s nationality, it has received much media coverage in Poland and the Polish ambassador in London, Arkady Rzegocki, attended Jóźwik’s funeral.

The campaign of the Polish press and politicians of the ruling right-wing Law and Justice Party (PiS) is not only hypocritical, coming as it does from outlets and politicians who are routinely whipping up racism and nationalism in Poland. It also stands in no relation to the actual number of cases (15 to 16 since the Brexit) that were reported by the Polish embassy.

What is involved for the Polish bourgeoisie is not a defence of Polish workers, let alone a struggle against racism. Rather, the Polish bourgeoisie is using the issue as a pawn in negotiations with Britain over Brexit and the future of bilateral relations which, in face of the crisis in the EU and resurgent German militarism, are assuming ever greater importance for both countries.

During British Prime Minister Theresa May’s first visit in Warsaw in late July, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło stressed that Britain was and remains a “strategic ally,” but that the key issue in negotiations over exiting the EU would be “the free movement of people.” She insisted that Polish workers would have to remain in the UK.

The PiS government is horrified by the prospect of a closure of EU borders to Polish workers. Above all it fears an explosion of social tensions in Poland. The restoration of capitalism was accompanied by the destruction of a massive 3.2 million jobs in 1989-2003. With €11,100, the GDP per capita in Poland is less than half that of the EU average (€27,400) and more than three times below that in neighbouring Germany, where it is €37,100.

This situation has prompted millions of workers to seek employment abroad. Out of a working-age population of about 25 million, around 2.5 million Poles have taken the opportunity to work in other EU countries since 2004. According to data by the Bank Polski from 2015, Polish workers working in other EU countries have transferred €43 billion back to their families in Poland from 2004 to 2013. These payments play an important role for many working class and middle class families in a country where 9 out of 38 million people live beneath or near the official poverty line.

Moreover, without the mass emigration of Polish workers the unemployment rate would rise significantly. Unemployment has hovered around 10 percent for about a decade now. Among youth under 25, every fourth is unemployed.

The new British Conservative government under May has shown itself eager to improve relations with the Polish government. During her first visit in late July, May emphasized that the Brexit vote should lead to a deepening, not a loosening, of bilateral relations. Foreign Minister Boris Johnson too stressed that he wanted the bilateral relations to become “from good to great” in his recent visit to Warsaw in early September where he talked with foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski.

Aware of the concerns of the Polish bourgeoisie over the return of Polish immigrants, Johnson, a notorious racist who spearheaded the anti-immigrant campaign for the Leave camp, hypocritically claimed in Warsaw said that there was “no room for xenophobia” in London and that Polish workers were “welcome” in Britain. Both May and Johnson have been careful, however, to not issue any guarantees about the legal status of Polish citizens in the UK after the Brexit.

Poland and Britain already maintain close economic ties. Poland is Britain’s second largest trading partner and the largest market in Central Europe for British companies like Tesco. Over 900 small businesses, with up to nine employees, are operating in Poland. The community of immigrant workers from Poland and other Eastern European countries represents an important pool of cheap labour for British businesses. Poland and Britain also closely collaborate within the framework of NATO, where they are spearheading the war preparations against Russia in Europe.

The PiS-government, shocked by the Brexit referendum, is now trying to use the negotiations over Brexit to push for its vision of the EU and weaken the political position of Germany. The British government in turn is trying to establish closer bilateral relations with the Pis-government, regarding it as a possible ally in negotiating favourable conditions for the Brexit. The fate of the Polish immigrant workers in the UK is merely a pawn in these manoeuvres.

A central concern for May, who is heading a cabinet bitterly divided over Brexit, has been to seek to negotiate the exit conditions with all 27 EU members individually and asked for secret negotiations—a proposal that was rejected by Brussels and Berlin.

The PiS-government is critical of Berlin’s proposal of a military union which it fears would weaken NATO and strengthen the German hegemony in Europe. Jarosław Kaczyński, the head of PiS and most influential figure behind its government, has come forward arguing for a closer economic union and more political independence for the EU member states.

Moreover, there has been a bitter clash between the PiS government and the Polish President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. Tusk is a member of the opposition party Civic Platform (PO) and has openly supported the protest movement against the PiS-government earlier this year, which was headed by political forces arguing for closer collaboration with Germany .

Following the vote for a Brexit, Kaczyński said that Tusk was “directly responsible” for the outcome of the referendum because he had put excessively harsh conditions on the table for Britain in previous negotiations. Kaczyński called upon Tusk to “disappear” from the political scene. At the recent summit in Bratislava, Tusk was pushing, in apparent agreement with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for a quick Brexit, and the toughest possible conditions for Britain.

Philippine president calls for US special forces to leave Mindanao

Joseph Santolan

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, in a speech before newly sworn-in government officials on September 12, called for US special forces to leave the southern island of Mindanao. The next day, in an address to the Philippine Air Force, he said the Philippines would no longer stage joint patrols with the United States in the South China Sea.

Duterte also declared he was looking to secure arms from China and Russia, saying he would send Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana to these countries to see what they had to offer.

The statements mark a further souring of ties between Manila and Washington under the new president. The US State Department responded by saying it had received no formal notice from the Philippines regarding its special forces in Mindanao and thus would not pull the troops out.

Duterte’s cabinet promptly went into damage control. Presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella stated that Duterte was concerned with the risks that American forces faced. The president’s statements were not “policies set in stone” but were “layered” and “could be interpreted in several ways.”

Defense Secretary Lorenzana told the House Appropriations Committee the next day that American troops would not leave Mindanao, saying: “We still need them there because they have the surveillance capability that our armed forces don’t have.”

Duterte is an exceptionally volatile figure and many of his public statements are greeted with public questions regarding his seriousness. His policy pronouncements, including those regarding Washington, are invariably delivered in the midst of lengthy, off-the-cuff, profanity-laden public speeches. Monday’s speech was an example. He spoke extemporaneously for 30 minutes, wandering in a stream of consciousness manner from topic to topic.

Unlike his press secretary, Duterte expressed no concern for the safety of American special forces operatives. “The Americans are real hypocrites,” he stated. “They know we have a real problem with drugs.” He defended his campaign to kill “tens of thousands” of drug suspects and pointed to the violence of the 1899-1902 American conquest of the Philippines to justify his own crimes.

Duterte then stated: “For as long as we stay with America we will never have peace. This is why the special forces have to go. There are lots of whites in Mindanao. They have to go. Even if you’re a black, or a white, but as long as you’re an American you have to go.”

In the same speech, the president accused the Chinese—using the racial slur “mga intsik”—of being responsible for the drug trade in the Philippines. He said his rivals were trying to impeach him. He told the assembled audience that social ills were the product of politicians “not having the balls to carry out the death penalty.”

Duterte stated that anyone who has used drugs for over a year “cannot be rehabilitated. The only solution is to kill them, grind them up, and feed them to the animals.”

Duterte delivers numerous such lengthy speeches every week. His most common audience is the military, to whom he delivers similar unprepared addresses two or three times a week.

The one consistent theme of all of Duterte’s speeches is his commitment to the violent suppression of the population in the name of his war on drugs. The official death toll of those killed by police and vigilantes since he took office on July 1 is now over 3,500. More people have been murdered in the first two and half months of the Duterte government than during the entirety of the martial law dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos from 1972 to 1981.

Last week, Duterte declared an open-ended state of national emergency in response to a “state of lawlessness.” He called upon the military “to run the country.” His administration has clarified that the state of emergency authorizes warrantless arrests. Senator Richard Gordon recently put forward a bill authorizing the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which forbids detention without trial.

Duterte is, in his extemporaneous articulation of policy, looking to cultivate an audience for his fascistic policies. He routinely resorts to nationalist appeals, including publicly denouncing “Americans.” He said on Monday: “I do not like the Americans. It’s simply a matter of principle for me.”

According to the Philippine Department of Defense, there are only 107 US special forces in question in Mindanao. The issue of their presence has become, for Washington, a secondary matter. First stationed in 2002, the US regarded these troops as necessary to re-establish a foothold in the Philippines after the closure in 1992 of its major facilities—the Subic Bay naval base and Clark Airfield. Now, however, the chief US focus is the war drive against China in the South China Sea.

What Duterte’s pronouncements increasingly call into doubt, however, is Manila’s commitment to the renewed basing of US forces in the country under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which was signed under Duterte’s predecessor, Benigno Aquino. The termination of this agreement is something Washington will not tolerate.

Duterte has repeatedly said he intends to honor the EDCA treaty obligations, but his volatile nationalist posturing calls these statements into question.

Greg Poling of the influential US think-tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told the Wall Street Journal: “There are two camps in Washington—one that thinks Duterte is about to push the alliance off a cliff and there is nothing US policy makers can do about it, and one that continues to argue that the alliance is just too important to both countries and so a way forward must be found. But that latter group is losing the argument day by day as Duterte continues this anti-American rhetoric.”

Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay arrives in Washington tonight to meet with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and speak before the CSIS. Doubtless he will attempt to patch things up in the wake of Duterte’s latest statements. It is noteworthy, however, that he is not scheduled to meet with Secretary of State John Kerry.

Defense Secretary Lorenzana is scheduled to be meeting US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in Hawaii before the end of the month.

Poling’s remarks make clear that a growing section of US policy makers sees Duterte “pushing the alliance off a cliff.” The “alliance” is the long-established ties between a former colonial master and its colony. The Philippines has, for over a century, served as Washington’s stepping-stone to the Asia Pacific.

As Washington ratchets up its drive to subordinate China by military means to US economic and political dominance, it will not tolerate the loss of this stepping-stone. There has not been a single political transition during the last hundred years in the Philippines in which Washington did not play a direct role. If Duterte’s nationalist posturing continues and relations further sour, his term in office may prove to be short one.

European Commission President Juncker calls for state-build up and war

Johannes Stern

Two days before the post-Brexit summit in Bratislava on Friday , European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker delivered his annual State of the European Union speech. Speaking before the European Parliament, he warned that the European Union is facing “an existential crisis” and made clear that the European ruling elite has nothing to offer to the European working class besides austerity, nationalism, police state build-up and war.

“I am not going to stand here today and tell you that everything is now fine. It is not,” he said. “I have witnessed several decades of EU integration, but never before have I seen such little common ground between our member states. So few areas where they agree to work together […]. Our European Union is, at least in part, in an existential crisis.”

Juncker acknowledged that the historical crisis of the EU is reproducing the same national divisions and political break-down that plunged the continent into two world wars in the twentieth century. “Never before have I seen national governments so weakened by the forces of populism and paralyzed by the risk of defeat in the next elections,” he warned.

“ The next twelve months are decisive if we want to reunite our Union,” Juncker added. He was “therefore proposing a positive agenda of concrete European actions for the next twelve months.”

In reality, there is no “positive agenda.” Juncker all but admitted that the EU's policies have deprived a whole generation of a better future. “I cannot and will not accept that the millennials, Generation Y, might be the first generation in 70 years to be poorer than their parents”. Coming from a man who has overseen years of deep austerity that have slashed wages and living standards in Greece and across Europe, this is utter cynicism.

In an attempt to cover up the class character of the EU and channel rising anger among European workers in a nationalistic anti-American direction, Juncker claimed: “Europe is not the Wild West, but a social market economy. In Europe, consumers are protected against cartels and abuses by powerful companies. This goes for giants like Apple too.”

Who is Juncker kidding? Those who are protected in capitalist Europe—as in capitalist America—are the superrich and the banks! After years of deregulation and austerity, European workers face in the final analysis the same devastating conditions as their class brothers and sisters in the US. When Juncker criticizes Apple, which like most big companies is involved in large-scale tax evasion, this has nothing to do with protecting European workers. Rather, it points to the increasing tensions as the EU seeks to assert its interests more independently of, and even against, the United States.

“ Europe can no longer afford to piggy-back on the military might of others, or let France alone defend its honour in Mali,” Juncker said, all but calling for a major European military escalation in ongoing wars in Africa and the Middle East.

Juncker also pledged a major military build-up: “For European defence to be strong, the European defence industry needs to innovate,” he said. “That is why we will propose before the end of the year a European Defence Fund, to turbo-boost research and innovation.”

Juncker confirmed longstanding EU plans, revived by defense ministers Ursula von der Leyen of Germany and Jean-Yves Le Drian of France in the lead-up to the summit, to transform the EU into a de facto military and police state.

“ Europe needs to toughen up”, Juncker stated. “Nowhere is this truer than in our defence policy. The Lisbon Treaty enables those Member States who wish, to pool their defence capabilities in the form of a permanent structured cooperation. I think the time to make use of this possibility is now.”

Juncker called for “a European Strategy for Syria” and for Federica Mogherini, the EU's High Commissioner for Foreign Policy, “to become our European Foreign Minister, via whom all diplomatic services, of big and small countries alike, pool their forces to achieve leverage in international negotiations.”

This plan alone speaks volumes about the EU's reactionary strategy. Mogherini has been leading the EU's push for a common European military and foreign policy after the UK's vote to withdraw from the EU. At the first EU summit without British participation, at the end of June, she presented a paper titled “Global Strategy for European Foreign and Security Policy.” At its center stood the goal that the EU must become an aggressive military power capable of waging war independently from the United States.

Europe “must be better equipped, trained and organised to contribute decisively to such collective efforts, as well as to act autonomously if and when necessary,” this document demands. The paper calls for a massive rearmament program and makes clear that there is virtually no geographical limit to the potential reach of an EU military force. Brussels reserves the right to intervene not only in the war-torn regions in North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but anywhere in the world.

The stated interests of the EU include “ensuring open and protected ocean and sea routes critical for trade and access to natural resources.” To this end, “the EU will contribute to global maritime security, building on its experience in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, and exploring possibilities in the Gulf of Guinea, the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca.”

The drive to prevent the break-up of the EU by preparing for global wars is pushed above all by Berlin. Germany's recently published “White Paper 2016 on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr” explicitly welcomes “the European Union’s new global foreign and security policy strategy,” stating that it will “make a significant contribution to strengthening the EU’s capacity to act in the domain of foreign and security policy.”

“From the very beginning, Germany has played an active role in supporting the development of this new strategy,” Berlin's official foreign policy doctrine boasts.

The current Franco-German plans, such as the creation of a unified EU military headquarters, were also spelled out first in Berlin's white paper. In the medium term, a “permanent civil-military operational headquarters” is required, it states, with a “civil-military planning and command and control capability”. Only thus could the “political weight of the countries of Europe” be maintained in the long term, along with the “security interests of the EU,” given “geopolitical shifts and global demographic developments.”

The push especially by the German ruling class to organize Europe militarily after Brexit to defend its geostrategic and economic interests on a world scale is only increasing the tensions between the European powers and the danger of another major war between the imperialist powers.

Britain’s Admiral Lord West was quoted I the British tabloid the Sun last week: “Because of Brexit, I think Europe is very flaky, I think it is unfortunate that we didn’t stay in, because they actually need our military expertise. I can see bits of Europe breaking up and when Europe gets into a mess, twice in the past we’ve had to go in there and clear it up with immense loss of blood and lives.”

McGill University – MasterCard Foundation Scholarships for African Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: The deadline for your application for admission to McGill University is December 10, 2016, and all supporting documents must be received by January 10, 2017. |
Offered annually? Yes for the next 10 years

Eligible Field of Study: Development related courses – contact the University for Specific Details

About Scholarship: McGill University and The MasterCard Foundation are pleased to offer The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program at McGill University for the 2016-2017 academic year. This prestigious scholarship recognizes students who are residents and citizens of Sub-Saharan African countries (including French-speaking students), who come from the most challenged socioeconomic backgrounds and who show outstanding academic and leadership abilities.

Thanks to a $27 million financial commitment from The MasterCard Foundation over the next decade, the Program will provide academically talented, economically disadvantaged young people from Africa with access to quality university education.McGill will welcome 91 Scholars from Africa over the next ten years, some of whom will be coming from French-speaking countries.

In addition to financial support, Scholars are provided with a comprehensive support network that includes an array of mentoring and support services to ensure each student’s academic success, community service engagement and transition to socially relevant employment opportunities, when they return to Africa at the conclusion of their studies.

Offered Since: 2013

Type: Undergraduate scholarships for African students

Eligibility:

• You must qualify academically for admission to McGill University. Please note that admission is competitive.
• You must be a first-time applicant to university (transfer applicants are not eligible).
• You must be a resident and citizen of a Sub-Saharan African country. French-speaking applicants are welcome.
• You must have an exceptional record of service and activity in your school and/or community.
• You must have the potential for meaningful future service to your community as a leader engaged in dynamic local and global social change.
• Your financial status must be in the lowest two quintiles of your country.

Selection Criteria:

Admission to McGill University

• Academic achievement and potential – academic admissibility is determined based on the applicant’s academic record.

Acceptance to The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program

• You must demonstrate an exceptional record of service and leadership in your school and/or your community. This may include organizing youth programs, assuming leadership roles in school activities, participating in clubs and teams, taking on responsibilities at home, advocacy and/or volunteering in your community.
• You must be committed to returning to Africa after graduation to continue to give back to your community and country.
• You must be from a low-income background. Your financial status will be verified.

To be considered for The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program at McGill University, you must demonstrate academic potential, exceptional records of service and activity in your schools and communities and/or the potential for meaningful community service through engagement as leaders in dynamic local and global social change efforts.

Number of Scholarships: Over the next ten years, McGill will welcome 67 MasterCard Foundation Scholars at the undergraduate level and another 24 at the Master’s level, for a total of 91.

Value of Scholarship: The MasterCard Foundation Scholars at McGill will receive a holistic set of financial, social, and academic supports throughout their education and during their post-graduate transitions.

Duration of Scholarship: four years duration of the undergraduate degree

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries

To be taken at (country): McGill University Canada

How to Apply

• To apply for The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program, you must submit an online application for admission to McGill University.
• Because applicants to The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program do not have to pay the $102.20 application fee, you must follow a special application procedure. You will find detailed instructions on this special procedure, and complete information about applying to McGill as a MasterCard Foundation Scholar, from link below

For more information on how to apply for the The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program at McGill visit Scholarship webpage

Sponsors: MasterCard Foundation