17 Dec 2016

Africans and the African Union Face Turbulent Headwinds

Horace Campbell

Introduction: Three crossing points
In all countries of Africa, from Egypt to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and beyond there are stirrings of the people who want to assert themselves politically in the context of the global capitalist depression.  These stirrings have created massive political tensions and are nowhere more evident than at the seat of the African Union where the poor and oppressed of Ethiopia have demanded a new democratic dispensation that provides real resources to the majority of the people.  Despite the glowing figures of economic growth, averaging 10.8% per year in 2003/04 – 2014/15, exploited Ethiopians have taken to the streets and internationalized their protests at the recent Olympics in Rio. When marathon silver medalist Feyisa Lilesa crossed the finish line at the Rio Olympics, he crossed his arms above his head in an “X”, a sign of protest against the Ethiopian government’s treatment of his people, the Oromo. At state of emergency in Ethiopia confronts the African Union (AU) about its future in a society of contested politics.
The peoples of Africa are responding every day to the global capitalist crisis by stating that the goals of Agenda 2063 cannot be achieved with the crop of current leaders. Genocidal economic relations in the South Sudan, dictators for life, idle threats to withdraw en masse from the International Criminal Court (ICC), war as a business in the so called war against terror and the illicit capital flight from Africa preserved the interests of a class in Africa that opposed real African Unity. This is one of the top contradictions facing Africa at the crossroad between self-financing and illicit financial flows out of Africa. Leaders such as Jacob Zuma of South Africa have demonstrated 20 years after the end of apartheid that the structures of capitalism is beyond color. Hence the shooting of workers at the Marikana mine exposed the top leader of the ANC, Cyril Ramaphosa, who had functioned as a trade unionists during the anti-apartheid struggles. It is in South Africa where the scandals expose the levels of retrogression and stagnation of the political class in Africa.
In response to critical opposition to the stagnation at the AU Commission, the current leaders promised to ‘reform’ the African Union and to work harder to realize the aspirations of Agenda 2063. The goal of the ‘reform process’ is to transform the AU into a more effective and self-reliant institution. It will be the argument of this short intervention that the African Union is now facing turbulent headwinds.  The current efforts to appoint a new AU Commissioner has been caught in the cross winds of the impact of illicit capital outflows, the question of the reseating of Morocco in the AU and the challenges that Africa will face during a period of the ascendancy of the ideas of Donald Trump and Marie Le Pen. The conclusion will suggest that the Pan African movement will rise to the challenges posed by the current moment and the real push for reconstruction and transformation in Africa will accelerate in this period.
African Union and capital flight
Most of the countries of Africa are now deeply integrated into the international illicit economy that is embedded in looted minerals, bunkering of hydrocarbons, money laundering, illicit funds from fraudulent activities and nonpayment of taxes. Of any major country, Nigeria has probably had the highest percentage of its gross domestic product stolen— largely by corrupt officials—and deposited externally. Since the 1960s, up to $400 billion has been lost because of primitive accumulation, with $100 billion shifted out of the country. In October 2016, the government filed 15 separate suits against 15 oil companies at the Federal High Court in Lagos to recover billions of dollars that have been illegally siphoned from the country. As reported by Sahara News, “the Nigerian government used the consortium of experts for the intelligence-based tracking of the global movements of the country’s hydrocarbons, including crude oil and gas, with the main purpose of identifying the companies engaged in the practices that had led to missing revenues from crude oil and gas exports sales to different parts of the world.”
Future researchers on the state visit of President Buhari to Washington in July 2015 will be able to analyze the call from Buhari for assistance in identifying the more than US$150 billion that has been illegally taken from Nigeria and what Obama informed Buhari of where to look for the money. Such researchers will then be able to connect the travels of President Buhari to Kenya, London and Dubai in search of these funds and how these centers of money laundering rebuffed the Nigerian effort to recover stolen assets. The legal action that has now been taken in Nigeria followed the earlier fine against that of telecommunication firm MTN for nonpayment of taxes is one indication that at the highest political levels in Nigeria there is a commitment to curtail money laundering.  A study by UNCTAD found out that between 1996 and 2014, “under invoicing of oil exports from Nigeria to the United States was worth $69.8 billion, or 24.9% of all oil exports to the US.”
With the release of the Panama Papers in 2016 there is now more evidence of the volume of ‘illicit financial flows’ and the amount of wealth funneled out of Africa every year by capitalists. Reports in the media that the world’s super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy – were circulated in early 2016. In these reports, Nigeria, Cote D Ivorie and Angola were at the top of the list of African states with high net worth individuals holding hundreds of billions outside their country.
One major area of future research by progressive intellectuals will be to assess the linkages between political leaders and the opaque world of finance capital to unearth the infrastructures that have been put in place to ensure illicit financial flows from Africa. A good place to start will be to understand the role of finance in the current global struggles as outlined in the book by Michael Hudson, Finance as Warfare. Discussions on the nonpayment of dues to the AU by member states have been another example of the failure of intellectual and political leadership by progressive intellectuals inside and outside of Africa.
The fact that over 70% of the AU Commission is funded by imperialist states (called  donors ) is itself one indication of the infrastructure of capital flight. These ‘donors’ actually have the intelligence on how much money is being shipped abroad by African leaders, hence they seek to keep up the fiction of providing ‘aid’ to Africa. One good example of this duplicity was the case of the stolen funds from Zimbabwe. A few weeks after stepping down as Chair of the AU in January 2016, in an interview on March 3, 2016, President Mugabe made the announcement that US$15, billion had been stolen from Zimbabwe over the past 7 years under his watch. Yet, there has been very little exposure of how the Mugabe regime destroyed the economy while his cronies robbed the diamond mines and exported billions. In order to facilitate their export of capital they resorted to using the US dollar as the currency of the society while printing worthless bonds for the people to use as a medium of exchange in Zimbabwe.
Why didn’t Madame Zuma act on the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial flows out of Africa?
British corporations are the most experienced in the business of stealing and looting minerals from Africa. A recent report by the non-governmental organization, War on Want, documents how 101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) — most of them British — have mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries. They collectively control over $1 trillion worth of Africa’s most valuable resources.
The details that are presented in this report are the kind of facts that should be studied in every major university and policy think tank  that supports the need for change in Africa. While this author takes issue with their designation of Sub Saharan Africa, we have witnessed the downgrading of African universities so that NGO’s can produce facts on ‘conflict gold’ and ‘conflict diamonds’ but there is no serious research being carried out because the same ‘donors’ starve African researchers of real resources.
The recent information by UNCTAD on the misinvoicing of minerals in Africa has exposed the fact that the question of gold exports from South Africa involved the pure smuggling of gold,
“The most striking feature of the gold sector in South Africa is the huge discrepancy between the amounts recorded in that country’s official trade statistics and those reported in its trading partners’ records. According to South Africa’s data, the country’s cumulative gold exports were $34.5 billion from 2000 to 2014, whereas according to trading partner data for that period they were more than three times higher, at $116.2 billion. This is indicative of massive export underinvoicing.” In fact, the study reports, the physical volume of exports (using the data from SA’s partners) and export underinvoicing are in “perfect correlation”. “This suggests that export underinvoicing is not due to underreporting of the true value of gold exports, but rather to pure smuggling of gold out of the country. Total misinvoicing of gold exports to South Africa’s leading trading partners was $113.6 billion over the 15-year period.” At an average exchange rate of R9 per dollar, this corresponds to over R1 trillion.”
What is true of misinvoicining in South Africa is true for every conceivable commodity exported from Africa. One of the failures of Madame Zuma in her role as Chairperson was to fail to aggressively place the resources of the AU in the area of combatting illicit financial flows and following the recommendations of the Thabo Mbeki high level panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa. ”
Was it an accident that the press conference announcing the findings of this high level panel took place in Abuja where former President Mbeki announced that said African countries lose between $50 billion and $60 billion annually through illicit financial flow, IFF? “Monies for infrastructure and social amenities for the poor African population are being transferred to other countries via illicit financial flows,” said Mbeki at his report on the findings of the panel. This report by the High Level Panel reinforced the research that has been done over the years and reproduced by the UNECA to bring home the reality that Africa lose between $50billion and $60 billion annually through illicit financial flows. 
Capital flight and insecurity in Africa
There is competition between Britain, France, and the United States to decide on which country can produce the most corrupt officials in suborning African bureaucrats into the world of primitive accumulation of capital. The United States uses the institutions of the Washington Consensus (IMF and World Bank) and the US Africa Command for their corruption, the British seek to be sophisticated using their vast reservoir of ex colonial ideological apparatuses and hide behind  the mineral houses and London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) while the French are the most obscene in their corrupt and manipulative politics in Africa. Eva Joly has exposed the role of the French intelligence services and oil companies in those countries that are still dominated by France.
The scandalous relations between France and the puppets in many former colonies are well known and it is these puppets who compete to protect France in the corridors of the African Union. Before its name was changed, the French Elf state oil company, then, France’s largest enterprise with a turnover of 232.6 billion francs in 1996, had been robbed of over 2 billion francs—305 million euros—by its top executives, largely during the second seven-year term of ‘socialist’ president François Mitterrand (1988-1995).  Serious law schools need to get a hold of the judgement relating to the criminal activities of Elf. In their 1,045-page indictment and a further 44,000 pages of documents, the investigating magistrates described in detail “a large number of operations carried out on the margins of normal functioning of the group’s structures, and destined… to collect assets off the books”.
France has been able to establish the crudest criminal infrastructure in Africa. Up to today, even after the exposure of ELF the state deploy an extraordinary mixture of secret accounts, bribes, personal favors and political influence-buying that was not just tolerated, but officially sanctioned by successive French governments. During the trial of the most crude operators ten years ago, the company’s “Mr Africa”, André Tarallo, was jailed for four years and fined €2 informed the court in Paris that,
“annual cash transfers totalling about £10m were made to Omar Bongo, Gabon’s president, while other huge sums were paid to leaders in Angola, Cameroon and Congo-Brazzaville. The multi-million dollar payments were partly aimed at guaranteeing that it was Elf and not US or British firms that pumped the oil, but also to ensure the African leaders’ continued allegiance to France. In Gabon, Elf was a veritable state within a state. France accounts for three-quarters of foreign investment in Gabon, and Gabon sometimes provided 75% of Elf’s profits. In return for protection and sweeteners from Elf’s coffers, France used the state as a base for military and espionage activities in west Africa.”
As reported at the time of the trial, ELF had been set up as a  state enterprise by General de Gaulle in 1963 “to ensure France’s independence in oil and which lived, grew and prospered in a special and incestuous relationship with Africa” (Le Monde, November 12, 2003). As Loïk Le Floch-Prigent put it: “In 1962, [Pierre Guillaumat] convinced [General de Gaulle] to set up a parallel structure of real oil technicians. [By creating Elf alongside Total] the Gaullists wanted a real secular arm of the state in Africa…a sort of permanent ministry of oil…a sort of intelligence office in the oil-producing countries.”
Loïk Le Floch-Prigent, CEO of Elf from 1989 to 1993, received a jail sentence of five years and a fine of 375,000 euros. Alfred Sirven, former general affairs executive, also got five years and a 1 million euro fine. André Tarallo, 76, former number-two in the hierarchy and known as “Mr. Africa,” was given four years and a 2 million euro fine. Alain Gillon, former refinery executive, received a three-year jail sentence and a 2 million pound fine. However, their counterparts and underlings have intensified their work in Africa and France has been the most active within the ranks of her colonies and within the Peace and Security Council of the African Union.
The name of the company Elf Aquitaine International may have changed (now Total) but the continuity in practices of theft and bribery are so clear that these elements from France and the EU cannot afford real democratic change in African societies such as Gabon. Recent stolen elections in Gabon (that ensured the Bongo dynasty in power) brought out differences between different branches of the French intelligence and military. There was a clash between those who wanted Ali Bongo to go and those who wanted to reward Jean Ping for preventing the AU from acting in Libya in 2011.The corruption of the French capitalists has been well documented by Eva Joly and more needs to be done in relation to the role of France in financing and supporting insurgents in places such as Mali and Central African Republic and then turning around to the Security Council of the UN to lead the fight against terror in Mali and Central African Republic. The Peace and Security Council of the AU has permitted the European Union to set the agenda of what defines ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ in Africa. Both China and Russia as members of the Security Council of the United Nations have bene complicit in giving a pass to France for her activities in Africa. In the case of former President Sarkozy, he particularly worked hard to get the Chinese to be allies in their corrupt practices.
When the funds and minerals are fraudulently taken from African economies, then the foreign banks establish special desks to ensure that the illicit funds flow to offshore bank accounts. None of the reports on illicit flows out of Africa made the connections to the questions of militarism, insecurity, the so called war on terror and the role of international military operators, especially private military contractors. Cameroonian intellectuals who are researching on the expansion of Boko Haram beyond Nigeria are slowly documenting the duplicitous role of France in the enlargement of terror in Central and West Africa. Of course, these researchers cannot come out in the open because of the role of France in the Cameroons.
There has been talk of the reform of the African Union and the leadership of this reform process has been placed in the hands of President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. A visit to the largest gold refinery in the Gulf of Arabia will widen the discussion of reform in the AU to implicate the looting of resources from the DRC and to place the mandate of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union in the elaboration of real peace.  One of my former students was told by the head of the gold refinery that over 70 per cent of the gold for the refinery came out of the DRC through Rwanda and Uganda. None of the reports on illicit flows out of Africa made the connections to the questions of militarism, insecurity, the so called war on terror and the role of international military operators, especially private military contractors. How can Kagame lead a ‘reform process’ in the AU when his regime violates the basic human rights of members of the opposition to the point of killings on foreign soil?
Europe is afraid of the full unification of Africa
The question of the AU budget as discussed in the discussions about ‘reform’ had steered clear of the questions of capital flight and definitive benchmarks of the African Monetary Co-operation Programme (AMCP) of the Association of African Central Banks. Patriotic Pan African bankers who understood the full impact of external currency domination of Africa had been keen to develop the African Currency Unit as far back as 2002. At the 1963 meeting of the OAU, Kwame Nkrumah had admonished the African leaders that ‘Africa must unite or perish.’  For fifty years the Pan African project was pushed forward by the Lagos Plan of Action and the Abuja Treaty of 1991 establishing the African Economic Community. The former President of Libya had gone ahead with precise plans for the gold reserves of Libya to be used to anchor the African currency. After the NATO intervention in Libya it emerged that the primary motivation for the launch of the war was to halt the process of realizing the Pan African project of a common currency in Africa. Revelations from the correspondence between the Secretary of State of the United States, Hilary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France in March 2011 revealed that the plans for the NATO intervention were dictated by the following issues:
+ A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
+ Increase French influence in North Africa,
+ Improve his internal political situation in France,
+ Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
+ Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.
Many of the leaders who had retreated from supporting the African Monetary Cooperation Programme are being made aware of the real role of international finance as the more literate follow the rulings of the British court in relation to the resources of the Libyan Investment Authority that had been stolen by Goldman Sachs. The ruling of the High Court in London in favor of Goldman Sachs against the Libyan Investment Authority is only serving to increase the literacy of Africans on the workings of the international financial oligarchy.
What is now needed is to study this judgement and to discern how the outbreak of the warfare in Tripoli in 2014 was related directly to efforts by Goldman Sachs to destroy the Libyan Investment Authority.
Recently President Museveni gave notice that the African Union will be working more aggressively to end foreign domination in Libya. Museveni stated that,
“We recently had a meeting in Addis Ababa and told all and sundry that AU intends to rescue Libya and we also made it clear that future attacks on African soil without coordinating with AU are not acceptable, to put it mildly. Can Africa defend African soil?  Very much so.”
This kind of bravado statement of Yoweri Museveni after the AU High Level committee meeting on 8 November 2016 belied the reality that at least three members of the AU committee, Chad, Egypt and the Sudan are partners of NATO in the current destruction of Libya.

In the book, Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya, this author brought out the graphic historical lessons from the destruction of Libya and what lessons that will be learnt when comparing the invasion of Libya to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935. The Pan African movement of that period  worked with the anti-fascist forces and accelerated the end of colonial domination in Africa.
The election of a new Chairperson and the question of Morocco
Between 1935 and 1946 the global mobilization against fascism built new alliances internationally and quickened the pace of decolonization in all parts of the world. That anti-fascist internationalism deepened with mass resistance inside of Africa and linked the pan African movement to the Bandung process to cement the South Project. From that moment until now, the Pan African movement has been a central anchor of the South Project, that is the project of creating a new international economic order. Africans are being called upon to rebuild and strengthen this project with calls from the belly of empire to defend black lives.
The Black lives movement in the USA is now in the vanguard of a worldwide movement to validate black lives as leaders in all parts of the world devalue life and place emphasis on accumulation of wealth. The present generation of youths is being mobilized through new means of communication to realize the goals of real Pan African solidarity from Burkina Faso in West Africa to Bahia in Brazil.
European project shatters in the face of solidarity in the South
The question of the rejoining of the AU by the present Moroccan leadership forms the next major challenge for the future of the African Union.  Since 1984, the political leadership of Morocco had placed its aspirations on the future of the European project, but with the implosion of the European ideal as manifest with Brexit, the Moroccan leadership has decided to rejoin the African Union. In the process, the Moroccan leadership seeks to strengthen the neo-liberal pressures of global capital inside the AU to challenge the anti-colonial stance of the African Union on Western Sahara and all outstanding colonial territories (Puerto Rico, Cayenne, Martinique, Guadeloupe Mayotte, etc). In fact, while the AU has been explicit in its opposition to all forms of colonial rule, the United States has been adamant that African leaders and intellectuals should not support the discussion of Puerto Rico as a colony in the decolonization committee of the United Nations. France has also refused to accept the designation of colonial oppression for its so called ‘overseas departments.’ In the United Kingdom, from time to time NGO’s call for public disclosure on the role of British Overseas Territories in the world of global illicit capital flows, but the amounts are so staggering that the ruling elements provide support for NGO’s to ensure that the question of British colonialism is not in the public consciousness. Colonies such as Bermuda, Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos vie for supremacy in money laundering while some of the illicit funds go to London to bloat prices in the property market.
Progressive Africans have been tracking the economic diplomacy of Morocco in the rest of Africa. As one commentator outlined,
“Morocco is currently courting a number of African countries relentlessly, including Madagascar, Tanzania, Rwanda, and others. Morocco has signed 19 economic agreements with Rwanda and 22 with Tanzania—two countries that traditionally backed the Western Sahara’s quest for decolonization. Nigeria Morocco have signed a total of 21 bilateral agreements, a joint venture to construct a gas pipeline that will connect the two nations as well as some other African countries to Europe. It is easily transparent that the economic agreements with these countries imply ulterior motives for increasing Morocco’s leverage in its campaign to return to the AU and deal a blow to Western Sahara’s aspirations for self-determination. Morocco is waging a similar campaign internationally and in the halls of the U.S. congress by hiring expensive lobbyists and sleazy public relations firms.”
It is in the push by Morocco to play a leading role in the AU that is helping to define the future of the AU in world politics. The Moroccan bourgeoisie acts in concert with the most conservative Emirs in the Gulf of Arabia, Saudi Arabia, France and Israel. This push by the Moroccans is also caught up in the struggles for a new chairperson of the AU Commission.
It is the contention of this intervention that at this historical moment the ideas of the Moroccan leadership confront the aspirations of the Moroccan working peoples and thus the question to be posed is not whether Morocco will be part of the AU, but what kind of politics will emerge in Morocco out of the present stirrings of the oppressed citizens of Morocco. All across North Africa the political class remain terrified of new uprisings similar to that which toppled regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. The structural conditions that precipitated these rebellions are even worse today than they were in 2011. The death of a fishmonger in the northern town of Al-Hoceima who was crushed to death (inside a garbage truck as he tried to retrieve fish confiscated by police) exposed another reality of thousands of outraged Moroccans.  The present leadership of Morocco have a shortsighted understanding of world politics and have not yet grasped the seismic shift that has taken place since the imperial interventions in Libya and the war in Syria.
The turbulence in the revolutionary politics that had been initiated in the streets of Cairo and Tunis may seem to have subsided, but the youths of Africa are assessing the new forms of organizing for the next round so that the decisive blow against neo-liberalism in the next round of revolutionary struggles will sweep away militarists who seek to reverse the gains of popular rebellions. Western foundations understand the potential for revolution, hence the incessant conferences and studies on ‘good governance’ and ‘human rights; in Africa. The Left in Africa have a major task of defining the paths forward so that when the people move, they do not fall under the leadership of populists such as Julius Malema and the Economic Freedom Fighters of South Africa. The fact that this so called radical organization (the EFF) would throw in their lot with the Democratic Alliance (DA) is only one indication of how the soft liberals are waiting to benefit from the wave of current dissatisfaction. As in South Africa, so in Ethiopia where the opposition to the current regime has not articulated a clearly defined project to benefit the millions of workers and poor peasants in Ethiopia. The idea of self-determination for oppressed nationalities such as the struggles in Oromo or the Ogaden needs to be rescued from Stalinist concepts to link these struggles to the wider Pan African struggles within an integrated Africa beyond the Berlinist states.  Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin had espoused self-determination as an anti-imperialist measure necessary for world peace, but Stalin had distorted the concepts of the nation to reduce the appearance of the nation to the advent of capitalism. The African nations existed for hundreds of years before the nation appeared in Europe. Imperialism reduced proud African nations such as the Yoruba, Mossi, Baganda or Zulu to the category of ‘tribe’ and the left need new concepts rooted in Pan African internationalism to rise beyond the distortions of Stalin.
It is here where the concept of Agenda 2063 links up to the views of C. L. R James on the central role of black revolutionaries to world evolution. “Black peoples are at the center of world events and that the revolutionaries of the world need the Africans as much as Africans need them.”  In 1939 James had written that, the only place where Negroes did not revolt is in the pages of capitalist historians.” So it is today when the African Revolution is not understood by the left and cede the political space to the humanitarian imperialists and NGO do-gooders.
Reparations and African Descendants.
The third major contradiction for the AU will be how it confronts the growing threat of fascism. The election of Donald Trump in the United States and the rise of the ideas of Marie Le Pen in Europe has brought back the questions of racism and xenophobia to the center of world politics. Donald Trump campaigned on the slogan ‘Make America great again,’ and there was no doubt about the message to harness the residue of white supremacists’ views in the USA. Since the election, this faction of US capitalism is now reorganizing to ensure the super exploitation of all and to support the killers of black and brown youths. The liberal left has failed to grasp the depth of racism and it was their inability to work among the white working classes that elevated the likes of Stephen Bannon and Rush Limbaugh. Yet, there are sections of the peace movement that recognizes that reparations must be central to the recovery of the United States and the world. The recent apology by veterans at Standing Rock for centuries of crimes against Native Americans is an important step in deepening the kind of apology that is needed to African descendants and to the peoples of the South West and to all those who were harmed by the criminal expansion of capitalism. This wave of apology will deepen divisions in the US military as black and brown soldiers demand a military that no longer commits crimes overseas.
Repairing humanity from the scourge of racist and genocidal violence has been at the center of Pan African political activity since the days of enslavement. In the last years of the OAU the Reparations question had been high of the agenda with positive interactions between the Global African family in all parts of the planet. The present leaders of the AU who have been silent on the question of the black lives at home and abroad are now faced with a vibrant #Black lives matter social movement that is spreading in all parts of the globe. When Haiti attempted to join the AU in 2016, this African society was rebuffed by a leadership that does not understand the history of Pan Africanism and the centrality of Haiti in the History of Pan African Revolts. Leaders who understand the so called ‘diaspora’ only in terms of remittances are being exposed for their silence on what is happening to Africans on a day to day basis in the face of police killings. The demands for reparations and for respecting Black Lives in the era of Donald Trump will sharpen the contradictions between the EU brand of Pan African partnership and that which comes from ordinary Africans.
There is little reference at the official level of how Agenda 2063 would affect the more than two hundred and fifty million Africans of the Global African Family living outside the geographical boundaries of Africa. The resurgence of the crudest forms of racism has taken place in Brazil when the majority of the population now identify as African descendants. In Venezuela, the left has failed to provide a vigorous anti-racist program so that the white racists and the imperialists have filled this void with an intensified program to reverse the social democratic gains of the past fifteen years.
At the bidding of their ‘global partners’ that seek to set the tone for research and the agenda in Africa there is emphasis on the Sustainable Development Goals instead of deepening the understanding of reparations and reparative justice. Slowly, the EU-Pan African partnership is downplaying the aspirations of Agenda 2063 and in its place organizing meetings all over Africa on ‘good governance’ and ‘security sector reform ‘instead on the role of financial houses in money laundering.
On the whole, the present leaders had a different project from the producing classes who believed that the idea of Africa for the Africans at home and abroad should not be a slogan. African intellectuals are torn between these two visions of social and economic change, with a small minority carrying forward the Nkrumahist vision that had inspired the call for full unity. The political upheavals of the current currency wars and the wars on terror will have impacts on the entire process of African unity and one of the challenges for the progressive forces will be how to engage with the popular producing forces to seize on moments to push harder for a common currency and to make legal the idea of the free movement of the people of Africa.
When the AU Constitutive Act was being drafted, it was the conscious effort of the progressive Pan Africanists that the AU would be qualitatively different from the OAU. The Secretary General of the OAU had worked from a Secretariat. The AU has a Commissioner whose powers to intervene are clearly stated in the Constitutive Act. Current leaders such as Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame may grandstand on reforms and the capabilities of the African Union but the seriousness with which they will be taken will be determined by the levels of transparency and democratic participation in their societies.  Nonpayment of dues by member states of the AU is itself a statement about where their loyalties are. They have kept foreign banks alive while their people go without basic necessities. It is in Nigeria where there is the largest section of the African working class where one will have to grasp the joint struggles against capital flight and Boko Haram. Organized working class leaders in Nigeria face an uphill battle to define the contours against Nigerian capitalism when both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists seek to wreak havoc among the youths. Two Nigerian leaders were killed when they took assertive action against imperialism. The psychological warfare against Nigeria is most intense in order to detract from the calls to bring to justice the fraudulent leaders. Both Murtala Mohammed and Chief M.K.O Abiola were eliminated when they decided to stand up for Africa. The late Tajudeen Abdul Raheem had worked hard for the building of Pan African Unity and he had admonished the youth to organize.
Conclusion
This call for organizing is now clearer as the liberal ideas of the West has been shattered with the coming to power of the alt right in Europe and North America. In every part of Africa there are uprisings and rebellions.  Whether it is in the streets of the Sudan or Chad, the DRC or Zimbabwe, a new movement for change is sweeping Africa. The Wahabists and conservatives in the Gulf are harnessing this discontent and in places such as Somalia and Mali are financing alienated youth to create a new Jihadist criminal structure that hires youth in the name of fighting imperialism. The African left have their work cut out for them and the more farsighted understand that the present struggles must have a plan beyond elections. In places such as Kenya and Nigeria the creative energies of the youths are on display in creating new communication platforms but the organized political parties seek power without an awareness of the rise of neo-fascist forces internationally.
These neo fascist forces have made it clear that there will be no grey areas on the question of racism. It is this same racism that entreats the leadership of Europe and North America to seek the recovery of capitalism on the backs and bodies of the African at home and abroad. The current rebellions in Ethiopia and South Africa demand new engagement with new ideas about transcending neo-liberal capitalism. The same foundations that have supported the leaders in the DRC, Ethiopia, South Africa and the Sudan are busy organizing research meetings to ensure that the rebellions now underway does not really disrupt the looting of African resources.
Kenya remain the model for western foundations  of spending peanuts on studies on ‘democratic reforms’ while international capital support a Kenyan ruling class that divides the working peoples on the basis of religion and “tribe”. The corruption of the Kenyan military led to their catastrophic defeat in Somalia in January at the el Ade (comfort base). Somali insurgents fighting against external military presence in Somalia killed 180 Kenyans in January at a camp in el Ade in January 2016. Eleven months after the killings, the Kenyan military refuse to provide figures as to the numbers killed. Instead, the Kenyan military is promoting their book, Operation Linda Nchi: Kenya’s military experience in Somalia.
Faced with the fact that Kenyans want real information on the deaths in Somalia, the government of Kenya has refused to provide information as to how many were killed. Given the revolutionary potential of the Ethiopian and Kenyan workers and small farmers, the President of the USA has used his authority to enlarge the operations of the US Africa Command in Somalia. On November 27, President Obama acted to give the legal authority for the expanding war in Somalia using the U.S. Special Ops, AFRICOM, private contractors, and the CIA with the 9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Iraq.  US military personnel in Somalia can easily be redeployed to Ethiopia when the current revolutionary upheaval matures.
Member states of the African Union have been silent on this expansion of the war Somalia when for two decades it was stated in the corridors of power in Washington that it was the presence of US military personnel in Africa that acts as a magnet for misguided youths who are financed by the Wahabists.
At the time of submitting this article, the peoples of Africa were confronted with the clowning refusal of Gambian President Yahya Jammeh to accept the results of the elections of December 1, 2016 when he lost  to the leader of the combined opposition led by Adama Barrow. While the diplomatic dance of the AU and ECOWAS is underway, serious Africans need to engage with the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative that had been launched in 2007 by the United Nations Office on Drugs. Such engagement will shift the discussions on the question of where to get the resources to fund the work of the African Union. This will help to create a register of the illicit movement of funds. It is here where the progressive hackers need to provide the Left with the movement of monies in the illicit global economy.
The renewed confidence of Africans is emerging in the midst of an economic depression in Europe and at a moment when Africans are stating clearly that there must be new values for African unity, for healing ourselves and the world (Maathai 2010). Wangaari Maathai as a feminist and environmentalist in the Pan African Movement had brought the questions of environmental repair to the forefront of the discussions on Pan Africanism. This new brand of Pan Africanism that respects life, health, peace and environmental reconstruction is slowly asserting itself in all parts of the Pan African world. The AU will survive the turbulent headwinds. It is not clear whether most of the current leadership will survive. The three crosscurrents promise to blow many away.

A Radical, Questionable Move: Venezuela Withdraws Its 100 Bolivar Notes

Chris Gilbert

Caracas.
Venezuela’s government has made the radical decision to withdraw the heretofore largest bill from circulation. President Nicolás Maduro made this decision public on Sunday, December 11, indicating that the 100 bolivar note would cease to be valid in 72 hours, after which it could be delivered to the country’s Central Bank.
The alleged reason for this decision is to strike at mafias engaged in illegal money transactions on the border with Colombia. It is also claimed that an NGO, with ties to the U.S. Treasury, aimed to buy up all the circulating currency and thereby destabilize the government. These heterogenous claims – the first tinted with anti-Colombian sentiment – are most likely not the real or at least not the central reasons for this surprising move.
Most likely the main objective in the demonetization of the 100 bolivar bill is to dramatically reduce liquidity and hence stem inflation. That is why the step has not produced significant resistance in the banking sector. The economist Francisco Rodríguez, former executive of Bank of America, sees it as positive.
The problem of illegal money, as Prabhat Patnaik explains reflecting on a similar move by Indian prime minister Modi, is much more complicated than simple stockpiles of cash. Obviously, a radical step like this one, in India or in Venezuela, could constitute a momentary blow to those involved in illegal operations, but it will not affect the essence of their various rackets, which will recover in the short or medium term.
How should a leftist evaluate this recent step? Undoubtedly, it affects the common people in their daily transactions: paying bus fares, buying newspapers, or making purchases in small markets without access to credit-debit card lines. It also touches the informal merchants who represent an important part of the economy. In Venezuela, the informal economy always grows around Christmas, with booming sales of trinkets, holiday foods, and crafts.
In the last instance, one’s evaluation of the step will go hand in hand with how one judges Maduro’s decision to rigorously satisfy the needs of financial capital in the country by paying all key bills and debts on time. These policies have made the Venezuelan president the most recent, if most surprising, poster boy of the Financial Times. The current step, because it tends toward macroeconomic stabilization, is in line with this general attitude.
However, I believe that this overall line is a mistaken one. Global financial capital cannot easily be made into a conjunctural ally. It is rather an inseparable, unshakable secret sharer. The bloc that Maduro may have in mind, composed of global financial capital at one extreme, and public employees and the poor masses on the other, is an unrealistic and unstable one.
It is an unstable alliance precisely because, when push comes to shove, the financial sector, which is supremely agile and well organized, will leave the popular elements by the wayside when it opts for one of the many other possible political alliances that are open to it. Socialism, even as a long-term goal, must step out of the picture.
What is being constructed has the appearance of a chimera in which a belligerent and pro-socialist discourse combines with a silent sell out. The president and other leaders may not be aware of this; they may think that the satisfaction of the financial world’s imperatives is just a short term, necessary concession. But insofar as it leads to demobilization, apathy, and confusion in what were once the pro-socialist bases, it also hamstrings the popular force that could redirect the country on a progressive or socialist path.
Socialism needs socialists, just as anti-imperialism needs antiimperialists. The errors of statist and substitutionist practices, which tempt leaders as the paths of least resistance, are well-known lessons of history. It is not with a public, televised discourse that one constructs socialism but with an organic force diffused among millions of individuals. Here, this is called “popular power,” and it is precisely what is in danger of being lost.

America Goes Insane

Rob Urie

The charge of ‘fake news’ currently at the fore of American political chatter is held forward on its own and is tied to the related charge that the Russian government ‘hacked’ the recent presidential election. Both charges proceed from the oppositional premise that some functioning state of affairs, some normalcy, preceded these onslaughts. The follow-on premise is that this hallowed state of affairs was diminished by ‘external’ malevolent forces.
Functionally, the use of such oppositional reasoning serves to delimit the realm of related discourse. The term ‘fake news’ infers that there exists ‘real’ news. The charge of a hacked election infers that said election was otherwise free from untoward influence. In political terms the charge of illegitimacy infers, and is intended to confer, legitimacy upon the purveyors of ‘real’ news and those levying the charges of political interference.
Cui bono? In a broad political sense national Democrats need to explain how they lost an election to Donald Trump. After all, Mr. Trump was the Democrats’ choice to run against. Given their apparent incapacity for introspection, they need to explain it first and foremost to themselves. Secondarily, they need to explain it to their patrons on Wall Street, in executive suites and in the military establishment lest resources for perpetual advantage flow toward Republicans.
A central explanation for the rise of ‘alternative’ news has been the abject failure of traditional sources. Mainstream reporting on the run-up to George W. Bush’s war in Iraq was a watershed of sorts with gullible ‘reporters’ from the New York Times and the Washington Post dutifully passing on bogus stories of weapons of mass destruction in exchange for ‘access.’ Apparently unbeknownst to these storied cocktail party attenders is that a whole lot of American kids and a million plus Iraqis had their lives destroyed as a result.
The anti-democratic premise of controlling information through delegitimizing competing sources is that information is somehow unrelated to experience. To be clear, this is not the claim that all social explanation deserves equal credence. For instance, eight years of ‘economic recovery’ headlines have hardly erased the diminished facts by which many people are experiencing life. In addition to the Case and Deaton paper on declining life expectancies for White males, other research corroborates and broadens these findings.
The failure of traditional sources of state-sponsored news to keep control of the narrative ties directly to the failures of governance that just got national Democrats booted from office. Hare-brained bullshit must eventually tie to the lived experience of enough of the electorate to dominate social explanation. While an apparent mystery of the universe to the bubble-residing minions of establishment Washington and ‘billionaires’ row’ in Manhattan, human misery has been ascendant in the rest of the country for some years now.
With neoliberal tool Barack Obama set to provide ‘evidence’ of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, I mean Russian interference in the interminable recent election, the broader question of who, exactly, has conspired to turn the U.S. into a neo-impoverished, plutocrat-led, environmental catastrophe creating, auto-militarized, privatized, gangster-state, there is nary a mirror in front of national Democrats to be found. Donald Trump was a plutocratic ‘friend’ of national Democrats before he became the explicit version of their very-own crony-capitalism gone wild.
Upon learning that the excrementitious Donald Trump had won election Mr. Obama’s primary objective reportedly became to pass the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) to secure his ‘legacy.’ The ‘agreement’ could have been put forward sans the ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) provisions had the objective been other than to affect a crony-capitalist coup. Democrat consternation that Mr. Trump’s Cabinet is full of executives from dirty industries demonstrates their own inability to conceive the world in the level of abstraction of the Democrat leadership’s ‘trade’ agreements.
Reflexive recourse to Red-baiting is the natural home for national Democrats because it places them on the side of their donor base against the people they claim to represent. After four decades of siding with industrialists, Wall Street and the military establishment against the interests of the vast majority of Americans and citizens of the world these lost souls so despise the victims of their policies that they can only conceive of political pushback in terms of ‘foreign’ intervention.
The question of the moment is: who created the conditions that this new McCarthyism is being manufactured to draw attention away from? Before it was the Russians it was deplorable Americans, the biased national media and home grown ‘traitors’ whose tendencies to disseminate inconvenient truths were …, inconvenient. And assuming for a moment that these neo-McCarthyite tactics are successful, are these really the people that Democrat Party constituents intend to vote for in future elections?
Should this not have been considered by the clever folks trying to overturn the election results through the Electoral College, around half of those who voted were apparently well-enough swayed by devious  Russian propaganda to have actually voted for Mr. Trump. This is to suggest that calling these voters easily-duped stooges is roughly akin to calling them deplorable. And should the effort be successful, prepare yourselves for cocktail party interruptus. How well do stock prices respond to civil war again?
It is worth remembering that the original Cold War was as much a business enterprise as it was a battle of ideologies. The main beneficiaries were military industries and American industrialists who used the ‘communist threat’ to invade, subvert, manipulate and control other peoples and nations to gain wealth and power. The ultimate result was the creation of human misery on a previously only rarely imagined scale. By the 1970s the U.S. military was gratuitously carpet-bombing innocents in Laos and Cambodia because it had bombs to drop.
By early 2010 every economically-inclined public commenter I was in contact with was worried about the rise of a right-wing demagogue because of the Democrats’ feckless and servile attention to Wall Street during a time of mass need. Washington, led by national Democrats, fiddled while the nation burned. The political establishment, led by national Democrats, either didn’t see political blowback coming or didn’t care. And should this have been forgotten, Joe McCarthy was a corrupt thug who ultimately self-destructed, but not before destroying a lot of lives. That this is all that the American political establishment apparently has to offer in present circumstance is instructive.

Drowning The World In Oil

Michael T. Klare

Trump’s Carbon-Obsessed Energy Policy and the Planetary Nightmare to Come 
Scroll through Donald Trump’s campaign promises or listen to his speeches and you could easily conclude that his energy policy consists of little more than a wish list drawn up by the major fossil fuel companies: lift environmental restrictions on oil and natural gas extraction, build the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, open more federal lands to drilling, withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan, revive the coal mining industry, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.  In fact, many of his proposals have simply been lifted straight from the talking points of top energy industry officials and their lavishly financed allies in Congress.
If, however, you take a closer look at this morass of pro-carbon proposals, an obvious, if as yet unnoted, contradiction quickly becomes apparent. Were all Trump’s policies to be enacted — and the appointment of the climate-change denier and industry-friendly attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests the attempt will be made — not all segments of the energy industry will flourish.  Instead, many fossil fuel companies will be annihilated, thanks to the rock-bottom fuel prices produced by a colossal oversupply of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Indeed, stop thinking of Trump’s energy policy as primarily aimed at helping the fossil fuel companies (although some will surely benefit).  Think of it instead as a nostalgic compulsion aimed at restoring a long-vanished America in which coal plants, steel mills, and gas-guzzling automobiles were the designated indicators of progress, while concern over pollution — let alone climate change — was yet to be an issue.
If you want confirmation that such a devastating version of nostalgia makes up the heart and soul of Trump’s energy agenda, don’t focus on his specific proposals or any particular combination of them.  Look instead at his choice of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state and former Governor Rick Perry from oil-soaked Texas as his secretary of energy, not to mention the carbon-embracing fervor that ran through his campaign statements and positions.  According to his election campaign website, his top priority will be to “unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.”  In doing so, it affirmed, Trump would “open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands, eliminate [the] moratorium on coal leasing, and open shale energy deposits.”  In the process, any rule or regulation that stands in the way of exploiting these reserves will be obliterated.
If all of Trump’s proposals are enacted, U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will soar, wiping out the declines of recent years and significantly increasing the pace of global warming.  Given that other major GHG emitters, especially India and China, will feel less obliged to abide by their Paris commitments if the U.S. heads down that path, it’s almost certain that atmospheric warming will soar beyond the 2 degree Celsius rise over pre-industrial levels that scientists consider the maximum the planet can absorb without suffering catastrophic repercussions.  And if, as promised, Trump also repeals a whole raft of environmental regulations and essentially dismantles the Environmental Protection Agency, much of the progress made over recent years in improving our air and water quality will simply be wiped away, and the skies over our cities and suburbs will once again turn gray with smog and toxic pollutants of all sorts.
Eliminating All Constraints on Carbon Extraction
To fully appreciate the dark, essentially delusional nature of Trump’s energy nostalgia, let’s start by reviewing his proposals.  Aside from assorted tweets and one-liners, two speeches before energy groups represent the most elaborate expression of his views: the first was given on May 26th at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck, North Dakota, to groups largely focused on extracting oil from shale through hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the Bakken shale oil formation; the second on September 22nd addressed the Marcellus Shale Coalition in Pittsburgh, a group of Pennsylvania gas frackers.
At both events, Trump’s comments were designed to curry favor with this segment of the industry by promising the repeal of any regulations that stood in the way of accelerated drilling.  But that was just a start for the then-candidate.  He went on to lay out an “America-first energy plan” designed to eliminate virtually every impediment to the exploitation of oil, gas, and coal anywhere in the country or in its surrounding waters, ensuring America’s abiding status as the world’s leading producer of fossil fuels.
Much of this, Trump promised in Bismarck, would be set in motion in the first 100 days of his presidency.  Among other steps, he pledged to:
  • Cancel America’s commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs
  • Lift any existing moratoriums on energy production in federal areas
  • Ask TransCanada to renew its permit application to build the Keystone Pipeline
  • Revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies
  • Save the coal industry
The specifics of how all this might happen were not provided either by the candidate or, later, by his transition team.  Nevertheless, the main thrust of his approach couldn’t be clearer: abolish all regulations and presidential directives that stand in the way of unrestrained fossil fuel extraction, including commitments made by President Obama in December 2015 under the Paris Climate Agreement.  These would include, in particular, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, with its promise to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants, along with mandated improvements in automotive fuel efficiency standards, requiring major manufacturers to achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in all new cars by 2025.  As these constitute the heart of America’s “intended nationally determined contributions” to the 2015 accord, they will undoubtedly be early targets for a Trump presidency and will represent a functional withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, even if an actual withdrawal isn’t instantly possible.
Just how quickly Trump will move on such promises, and with what degree of success, cannot be foreseen.  However, because so many of the measures adopted by the Obama administration to address climate change were enacted as presidential directives or rules promulgated by the EPA — a strategy adopted to circumvent opposition from climate skeptics in the Republican-controlled House and Senate — Trump will be in a position to impose a number of his own priorities simply by issuing new executive orders nullifying Obama’s.  Some of his goals will, however, be far harder to achieve.  In particular, it will prove difficult indeed to “save” the coal industry if America’s electrical utilities retain their preference for cheap natural gas.
Ignoring Market Realities
This last point speaks to a major contradiction in the Trump energy plan. Seeking to boost the extraction of every carbon-based energy source inevitably spells doom for segments of the industry incapable of competing in the low-price environment of a supply-dominated Trumpian energy marketplace.
Take the competition between coal and natural gas in powering America’s electrical plants.  As a result of the widespread deployment of fracking technology in the nation’s prolific shale fields, the U.S. gas output has skyrocketed in recent years, jumping from 18.1 trillion cubic feet in 2005 to 27.1 trillion in 2015.  With so much additional gas on the market, prices have naturally declined — a boon for the electrical utility companies, which have converted many of their plants from coal to gas-combustion in order to benefit from the low prices.  More than anything else, this is responsible for the decline of coal use, with total consumption dropping by 10% in 2015 alone.
In his speech to the Marcellus Coalition, Trump promised to facilitate the expanded output of both fuels.  In particular, he pledged to eliminate federal regulations that, he claimed, “remain a major restriction to shale production.” (Presumably, this was a reference to Obama administration measures aimed at reducing the excessive leakage of methane, a major greenhouse gas, from fracking operations on federal lands.) At the same time, he vowed to “end the war on coal and the war on miners.”
As Trump imagines the situation, that “war on coal” is a White House-orchestrated drive to suppress its production and consumption through excessive regulation, especially the Clean Power Plan.  But while that plan, if ever fully put into operation, would result in the accelerated decommissioning of existing coal plants, the real war against coal is being conducted by the very frackers Trump seeks to unleash.  By encouraging the unrestrained production of natural gas, he will ensure continued low gas prices and so a depressed market for coal.
A similar contradiction lies at the heart of Trump’s approach to oil: rather than seeking to bolster core segments of the industry, he favors a supersaturated market approach that will end up hurting many domestic producers.  Right now, in fact, the single biggest impediment to oil company growth and profitability is the low price environment brought on by a global glut of crude — itself largely a consequence of the explosion of shale oil production in the United States.  With more petroleum entering the market all the time and insufficient world demand to soak it up, prices have remained at depressed levels for more than two years, severely affecting fracking operations as well.  Many U.S. frackers, including some in the Bakken formation, have found themselves forced to suspend operations or declare bankruptcy because each new barrel of fracked oil costs more to produce than it can be sold for.
Trump’s approach to this predicament — pump out as much oil as possible here and in Canada — is potentially disastrous, even in energy industry terms.  He has, for instance, threatened to open up yet more federal lands, onshore and off, for yet more oil drilling, including presumably areas previously protected on environmental grounds like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the seabeds off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  In addition, the construction of pipelines like the embattled one in North Dakota and other infrastructure needed to bring these added resources to market will clearly be approved and facilitated.
In theory, this drown-us-in-oil approach should help achieve a much-trumpeted energy “independence” for the United States, but under the circumstances, it will surely prove a calamity of the first order.  And such a fantasy version of a future energy market will only grow yet more tumultuous thanks to Trump’s urge to help ensure the survival of that particularly carbon-dirty form of oil production, Canada’s tar sands industry.
Not surprisingly, that industry, too, is under enormous pressure from low oil prices, as tar sands are far more costly to produce than conventional oil.  At the moment, adequate pipeline capacity is also lacking for the delivery of their thick, carbon-heavy crude to refineries on the American Gulf Coast where they can be processed into gasoline and other commercial products.  So here’s yet one more Trumpian irony to come: by favoring construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, Trump would throw yet another monkey wrench into his own planning.  Sending such a life preserver to the Canadian industry — allowing it to better compete with American crude — would be another strike against his own “America-first energy plan.”
Seeking the Underlying Rationale
In other words, Trump’s plan will undoubtedly prove to be an enigma wrapped in a conundrum inside a roiling set of contradictions.  Although it appears to offer boom times for every segment of the fossil fuel industry, only carbon as a whole will benefit, while many individual companies and sectors of the market will suffer.  What could possibly be the motivation for such a bizarre and planet-enflaming outcome?
To some degree, no doubt, it comes, at least in part, from the president-elect’s deep and abiding nostalgia for the fast-growing (and largely regulation-free) America of the 1950s.  When Trump was growing up, the United States was on an extraordinary expansionist drive and its output of basic goods, including oil, coal, and steel, was swelling by the day.  The country’s major industries were heavily unionized; the suburbs were booming; apartment buildings were going up all over the borough of Queens in New York City where Trump got his start; cars were rolling off the assembly lines in what was then anything but the “Rust Belt”; and refineries and coal plants were pouring out the massive amounts of energy needed to make it all happen.
Having grown up in the Bronx, just across Long Island Sound from Trump’s home borough, I can still remember the New York of that era: giant smokestacks belching out thick smoke on every horizon and highways jammed with cars adding to the miasma, but also to that sense of explosive growth.  Builders and automobile manufacturers didn’t have to seriously worry about regulations back then, and certainly not about environmental ones, which made life — for them — so much simpler.
It’s that carbon-drenched era to which Trump dreams of returning, even if it’s already clear enough that the only conceivable kind of dream that can ever come from his set of policies will be a nightmare of the first order, with temperatures exceeding all records, coastal cities regularly under water, our forests in flame and our farmlands turned to dust.
And don’t forget one other factor: Trump’s vindictiveness — in this case, not just toward his Democratic opponent in the recent election campaign but toward those who voted against him.  The Donald is well aware that most Americans who care about climate change and are in favor of a rapid transformation to a green energy America did not vote for him, including prominent figures in Hollywood and Silicon Valley who contributed lavishly to Hillary Clinton’s coffers on the promise that the country would be transformed into a “clean energy superpower.”
Given his well-known penchant for attacking anyone who frustrates his ambitions or speaks negatively of him, and his urge to punish greens by, among other things, obliterating every measure adopted by President Obama to speed the utilization of renewable energy, expect him to rip the EPA apart and do his best to shred any obstacles to fossil fuel exploitation.  If that means hastening the incineration of the planet, so be it. He either doesn’t care (since at 70 he won’t live to see it happen), truly doesn’t believe in the science, or doesn’t think it will hurt his company’s business interests over the next few decades.
One other factor has to be added into this witch’s brew: magical thinking.  Like so many leaders of recent times, he seems to equate mastery over oil in particular, and fossil fuels in general, with mastery over the world.  In this, he shares a common outlook with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, who wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on harnessing Russia’s oil and gas reserves in order to restore the country’s global power, and with ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, said to be Trump’s top choice for Secretary of State and a long-term business partner of the Putin regime.  For these and other politicians and tycoons — and, of course, we’re talking almost exclusively about men here — the possession of giant oil reserves is thought to bestow a kind of manly vigor.  Think of it as the national equivalent of Viagra.
Back in 2002, Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies put the matter succinctly: “Oil fuels more than automobiles and airplanes.  Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics… [It is] a determinant of well being, national security, and international power for those who possess [it] and the converse for those who do not.”
Trump seems to have fully absorbed this line of thinking.  “American energy dominance will be declared a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States,” he declared at the Williston forum in May.  “We will become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.”  He seems firmly convinced that the accelerated extraction of oil and other carbon-based fuels will “make America great again.”
This is delusional, but as president he will undoubtedly be able to make enough of his energy program happen to achieve both short term and long term energy mayhem. He won’t actually be able to reverse the global shift to renewable energy now under way or leverage increased American fossil fuel production to achieve significant foreign policy advantages.  What his efforts are, however, likely to ensure is the surrender of American technological leadership in green energy to countries like China and Germany, already racing ahead in the development of renewable systems.  And in the process, he will also guarantee that all of us are going to experience yet more extreme climate events.  He will never recreate the dreamy America of his memory or return us to the steamy economic cauldron of the post-World War II period, but he may succeed in restoring the smoggy skies and poisoned rivers that so characterized that era and, as an added bonus, bring planetary climate disaster in his wake.  His slogan should be: Make America Smoggy Again.

Starving Yemeni Children, Bloated US Weapons Makers

Medea Benjamin

While the world is transfixed on the epic tragedy unfolding in Syria, another tragedy—a hidden one—has been consuming the children of Yemen. Battered by the twin evils of war and hunger, every ten minutes a child in Yemen is now dying from malnutrition, diarrhea and respiratory-tract infections. A new UNICEF report shows over 400,000 Yemeni children suffering from severe acute malnutrition. Without immediate medical attention, these children will die. The situation is so dire that over half of the entire nation’s 25 million people lack sufficient food.
Why are so many of Yemen’s children going hungry and dying? Since 2014 Yemen has been wracked by a civil war, a war that has been exacerbated by outside intervention from Saudi Arabia.  In March 2015, the Saudi government became involved in the internal conflict in neighboring Yemen because it was worried that a more pro-Iran faction—the Houthis—would take over the government. Since then, with U.S. weapons and logistical support, the Saudis have been pounding Yemen. This 20-month-old Saudi bombing campaign has not only killed thousands of innocent Yemenis, but sparked a severe humanitarian crisis in the poorest country in the Middle East.
Yemen imports 90 percent of its food, and the war, including a Saudi naval blockade and bombing of the country’s main port, has made it difficult to import food and sufficient humanitarian supplies. The war has left millions of people unemployed and over two million displaced. These families don’t have income to buy food, while food prices have soared because of the shortages.
UN and private relief organizations have been mobilizing to respond to the crisis, but a staggering 18.8 million people need humanitarian assistance, and the situation is only getting worse. At the same time, the UN Refugee Agency has received less than half the funds it needs.
The nation’s health system is on the verge of collapse. Less than a third of the country’s population has access to medical care and only half of the health facilities are functional. Local health workers have not been paid their wages for months and aid agencies are struggling to bring in lifesaving supplies.  Diseases such as cholera and measles are spreading, taking a heavy toll on children.
The only way to end the humanitarian crisis is to end the conflict. That means pushing harder for a political solution and calling for an immediate ceasefire.
The Yemen crisis should also serve as a prime moment for the U.S. government to reconsider its alliance the Saudi regime. Ever since the founding of the kingdom in 1932, US administrations have allied themselves with a government that beheads non-violent dissidents, forces women to live under the dictates of male guardians, treats foreign workers like indentured servants, and spreads the intolerant Wahhabi version of Islam around the world. Today, Saudi Arabia is also a regime that funds Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria and Iraq, crushes democratic uprisings in neighboring countries like Bahrain, and is waging a catastrophic war in Yemen.
Despite the repressive nature of the Saudi regime, US governments have not only supported the Saudis on the diplomatic front but militarily. Under the Obama administration, this has translated into massive weapons sales of $115 billion. While Yemeni children are starving in large part because of Saudi bombings, US weapons makers, including General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, are making a killing on the sales.
Concerned over the high rate of civilian casualties caused by the Saudi bombings in Yemen, on December 12 the White House took the rare step of stopping a Raytheon sale of 16,000 guided munition kits valued at $350 million. This is a great step forward, but it represents only a small fraction of total US weapons sales to the Saudi regime. In fact, at the same time the White House announced it was blocking this $350 million sale, the State Department announced plans to sell 48 Chinook cargo helicopters and other equipment worth $3.51 billion.
The US military is also supporting the Saudis in a variety of other ways, including providing intelligence, weaponry and midair refueling, as well as sending U.S. warships to help enforce a blockade in the Gulf of Aden and southern Arabian Sea. The blockade was allegedly to prevent weapons shipments from Iran to the Houthis, but it also stopped humanitarian aid shipments to beleaguered Yemenis.
Moreover, while an executive order stopping a weapons deal is a positive move, a Trump administration might well restore all sales. That’s why it’s important for Congress to step forward and take a stand.
Congress has the right to stop any weapons sales authorized by the State Department but normally lets the deals go forward uncontested. Congress came close to stopping a Saudi purchase of cluster bombs, a particularly egregious weapon banned by the international community, with a vote of 204 for the ban and 216 against it. President Obama eventually called for a halt to the cluster bomb sales and soon thereafter, the only US company still producing cluster bombs, Textron, announced it would stop production.
In September 2016, the Senate, led by Senators Chris Murphy and Rand Paul, introduced a bill to stop a $1.15 billion sale of hundreds of U.S.-made tank structures, machine guns, grenade launchers and armored vehicle structures. Only 27 Senators voted in favor of the ban.
It’s clear why U.S. weaponsmakers want to keep selling weapons to the Saudi regime. For them, it is all about profits. But the US Congress should take a moral stance. Selling weapons to a repressive regime should never be allowed. And today, when these weapons are leading to the death of a Yemeni child every ten minutes, the sales are simply unconscionable. The time to stop them is now.

Mainstream Assumptions: The CIA, Presidential Elections, And The Russian Connection

Binoy Kampmark

Intent and causation are important features in the course of history.  The former envisages motive and hope, irrespective of outcome; the latter envisages consequence.  Often, these get muddled in the jumbled process of reasoning.  An intervention in the affairs of another state goes awry; a historical incident goes belly up with ferocious consequences.  Suddenly, in the aftermath, we are wise, we knew better, and we can categorise plans as venal and characters as wicked.
In a world of Clinton-Trump machinations, distinctions about intent and causation have fallen into a soup of conjecture. The stakes to win in November were so high for either candidate, mendacity and assumptions were bound to take centre stage.
From fake news to false modesty, from traditional deception to the exotica of dissimulation, it was a contest that furnished the US political landscape with greater punch and interest than anything offered since the infant days of the Republic.
Central to one allegation of the 2016 presidential election was that Russian hacking efforts, supposedly directed by Moscow’s intelligence managers, had a direct effect on the outcome of the election.  WikiLeaks had been roped into the cause, and was duly accused of being a Russian front, or an infatuate of Trump.
Trump has done his bit, as is his wont, to sink these propositions.  To begin with, he told Time that he did not believe them as credible.  “I don’t believe [Russia] interfered.”   Nor did he find CIA assessments in general that credible.  He specifically pointed out CIA incompetence, notably in its assessment of Iraq’s famed, and subsequently non-existent stockpile of weapons prior to the invasion of 2003.  “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”
Behind him is Trump’s national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn.  The CIA, according to Flynn in an interview with the New York Times in October 2015, “lost sight of who they actually work for.  They work for the American people. They don’t work for the president of the United States.”  In its declining utility, the organisation had become “a very political organisation”.
The intelligence cognoscenti were quick to wonder whether his presidency would be more than troubling for the 16 spying agencies he will have to cope with.  “Given his proclivity for revenge combined with his notorious thin skin,” claimed Paul Pillar, former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism centre, “this threatens to result in a lasting relationship of distrust and ill will between the president and the intelligence community.”
This, at best, is a claim of the disgruntled, but it is one that has attracted its adherents.  Linked to the causation argument is the notion that Russia’s Vladimir Putin envisaged the electoral outcome, backing a more sympathetic horse in a far from sympathetic race.
The impact of these claims has been furthered by unquestioning media outlets now termed, euphemistically, the mainstream.  These mainstreamers have been keeping a rather pedestrian line on matters, taking a few choice notes from various official sources to build an empire of speculation.
The Washington Post delved out one example last week, engaging in what Glenn Greenwald regarded as “classic American journalism of the worst sort”.  This entailed claims from “unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.”
With one step, possibly two removed from the official CIA report, we were left with the view that the agency had  “concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the US electoral system.”
This aptly perverse manoeuvre suggests that the very outlets keen to condemn fake news sites themselves become the incubators, and unquestioning disseminators, of unreliable material.
Within the intelligence community, the material on hacking – in so far as it pertains to goals – has also been questioned.  Not all have jumped onto the CIA assisted narrative that the Kremlin was dabbling in its own gambling variant of regime change.
According to the Office of the Director of National intelligence (ODNI), more is needed. Yes, there may well have been hacking, but the issue of a Moscow-directed drive to benefit Trump over Clinton in the presidential race would require more heft.
According to Reuters, which similarly adopted the Washington recipe in interviewing three unnamed American officials on Monday, albeit more sceptical ones, “ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can’t prove intent. Of course they can’t, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow.”  At the very least, such views add a sliver of needed context.
The CIA conclusion had a broader context to it, suggesting a pattern of hacking and penetration that was far from specific to Clinton.  In other words, it was, again in the words of one of the three officials, a “judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked.”  It was, to that end, “a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment.”
When all these factors are considered, Trump’s dismissiveness of the intelligence community, while seemingly flippant, makes that much more sense. Predictably, it has been done by the wave of the hand, a contemptuous move that we will come to see as normal in due course. The intelligence bunglers will be having to do much more to earn their keep.

Bangladesh: Rekindling The Spirit Of independence

Farooque Chowdhury

The Battle Cry: Independence is humanity’s yearning. Independence is humanity’s lifeline. Independence is bud for humanity’s blooming. Rangalal Bandyopadhyay, a poet from Bengal under British boot, affirmed the position with two questions: Shaadheenataa-heenataay ke baacheete chay …? Daashatta-sreenkhal balo ke pareebe pay …, is there anyone liking a life without independence? is there anyone willing to have a shackled life? (“Shaadheenataa-Sangeet”, Padmini Upakhayan, 1858) [FC welcomes suggestion on this translation.] These make independence humanity’s battle cry.
Independence is a political question on the bedrock of conflicting economic interests as the issue is within human society segmented by classes, fragments and factions of class(es), and by socio-economic parts yet to get developed as class. Role and capacity of classes related to the issue determine character of independence: real or pseudo, free from imperialist clutches or neo-colonial, forward looking or in appeasement with vestiges of decaying socio-economic forces. It was impossible, as for example, to attain full independence by the bourgeoisie in pre-1947 India because of its ties with imperialists. The transfer of power by the imperialist British Empire was organized in the shape of two states neo-colonial in character. The battle cry for full independence continued to reverberate across the concerned lands pregnant with aspirations of nationalities.
Pakistan, a neo-colonial state, being steered by an alliance of comprador-bureaucrat capital and traces of feudalism had no power to colonize East Bengal/Poorba Baanglaa, which was christened as East Pakistan by the Pakistan rulers. The Pakistan state, as a mere underling in the world imperialist system, was exploiting East Bengal, today’s independent Bangladesh. The imperialist capital was appropriating profit, and its orderlies were taking their share. Process to maximize profit made exploitation of East Bengal ruthless. Immaturity and incapacity of the orderlies further animalized the already bestial exploitation process. Rate of profit of the capital involved, and violent acts, measured on a scale, the state machine carried in East Bengal are two of the indicators for identifying the extent of brutish exploitation process. These sharpened related contradictions, which were identified by a part of political leadership, and ignored and not understood by another. The later group’s destiny was a pure failure, although the group failed to foresee its failure in waiting – a problem with blissful ignorance.
The group waiting to face its destiny of failure had to rely on a political process mechanical in appearance – unrestrained use of force in the shape of total curtailment of all rights tax payers and surplus value producers are allowed to live with for the sake of reproduction of capital in East Bengal/East Pakistan. It was retrenchment of free expression and free movement, and demolishing of peaceful way of living, safety, security and life of an entire population in an entire land, East Bengal; it was segregation and hate-politics, a form of indignity imposed; it was indiscriminate loot and arson at mass scale targeting ordinary tax payers, whose nod is needed to have legitimacy by rulers; it was killing at mass scale, which ultimately was organized as a genocide in the land; it was an organized act to impose dishonor and indignity on an entire people of East Bengal, today’s Bangladesh. It was a show of stupid arrogance. And, it was part of a process of failure.
The failure was of the concerned capital steering the politics, which had no capacity to resort to any process other than the imposition of the process of suppression and repression of the people in East Bengal. The failure was in imposing capital’s will on the people of the land – the Baangaalees. The capital failed to find out or devise mechanism and arrangement for non-use of violent force, for resorting to peaceful means, for winning over the already trampled and throttled down people. The capital’s capacity was up to that level – a historical incapacity. This historical limit in capacity and the extent of failure was embodied in the persons, especially the military officers with limited or no-knowledge about calculus of politics, which is different from logarithms used in warfare, in game with guns.
There was imperialist capital in the alluvial land – East Bengal. There was the exigency to secure that capital as the people had already got radicalized to many extents. Imperialism had its global strategy, which covered the land also. Therefore, imperialism firmly stood by its sentinels of interest in the entire act of using brute force, a tactical act, for the purpose of imposing capital’s will, a strategic necessity, on the Baangaalees – the people in Bangladesh. An unbridgeable gap emerged as a tactical act was being imposed to fulfill a strategic necessity. Moreover, imperialism assessed that a sharp strike would demobilize the “coward” Baangaalees, which was totally a wrong assessment built on archaic imperialist propaganda.
But, the people in the plains inundated by annual floods, the people living on the shores of the magnificent Ganga-Paddaa (also spelled Padma), on the mighty Meghnaa (also spelled Meghna), on the meandering Brahmaputra-Jamoonaa (also Jamuna) defied the dictates of the lords of the day. Resistance grew organically in the face of the powerful war machine unleashed against the peace-loving people. The resistance was an act of defiance. It was also politics. It was politics by the people with the intent of handling a few contradictions, it was politics of resistance. In front of rolling tanks on city streets, in front of charging guns, the resistance seemed pebbles at first sight.
But, the pebbles were part of the rock named dignity, the rock named defiance. Those were the pebbles of people’s politics, which the powerful ignore most of the time. There in rustic communities, in urban hovels, in middle class neighborhoods, sense of dignity kindled up as the common persons in millions rose in resistance, as they found the lifeline in their yearning for independence, as they stood up with arms to defend honor of all the people.
The question of dignity and honor is not of a few hundred thousand. That was the question of dignity and honor of all the people as dignity and honor is not determined by mathematical number, not by number of mothers and sisters, as dignity and honor of a single mother or a single sister is the dignity and honor of all the people. Killing of a single child is an act of dishonor. Killing of a single toiler is an act of dishonor. The rationale is: Life can’t be killed, can’t be dishonored, can’t be disgraced, can’t be pushed into a state of indignity; life isn’t an object to demolish wantonly or in a motivated method; citizens’ lives are not that cheap that can be trampled by boot of ruler. The common people felt in the way. Their sense of dignity and honor was not waiting to get kindled till a huge number arrives. Rather, the act of inflicting dishonor, not dependent upon number, by the tormentors emboldened the sense of dignity among the people.
The reality enlivened the battle cry: Independence. The reality that emerged was: assault on rights and life. Rights and life are connected to the question of dignity. Dignity is knifed out whenever any right and life of citizens are curtailed. There’s no dignified life with any curtailment of any right flowing out of the fountain of humanity. The people in Bangladesh took that stand in 1971 that defends life, rights, and, as a whole, dignity.
Their stand grew more glorified and dignified as imperialism was opposing them; and a stand that makes imperialism assess opposed is equal to standing in defense of world humanity as imperialism is opposed to humanity.
Dignity: The spirit of independence that gained momentum in Bangladesh in the blood-soaked year of 1971 was the question of dignity as (1) a people pinioned is void of dignity; (2) a nation pushed to the ground by occupiers’ boots is void of dignity; (3) an exploitation-ridden, poverty-tormented life is void of dignity; (4) a life submerged in ignorance and backwardness, and without the light of knowledge is void of dignity; (5) a life languishing with diseases, and slumbering in slums is void of dignity; (6) a life void of democracy is void of dignity as democracy creates sphere for participation to take decisions centering life of people; (7) a life haunted by fear and insecurity is void of dignity. Bengal’s Tagore sang: Mookta karo voy, get rid of fear. A life, a people is not crowned with dignity while fear of ruler, fear of state machine and torture, fear of dishonor and indignity, fear of hunger, unemployment, begging pity, uncertainty, losing face, segregation and exclusion overwhelm life and the people. The people in Bangladesh stood against these fears in 1971, the historical period of initiating the splendid War for Liberation. It was the period the people defied plots hatched by imperialism.
The people handled existing contradictions in their own way. There were contradictions within the neo-colonial state and the society, and with imperialism. The people had to resort to the force of arms as hostile forces armed to the teeth was demolishing people’s self-evident rights for a dignified life, as the people found no alternative in self-defense. It was a development in the contradictions existing at that historical time.
A few of the contradictions were settled while a few remained unsettled. That was the reality, material foundation, on which the spirit – dignity – dwelled. As the contradictions were being handled by the people to some extent leadership by class and the leading politics of the class in the endeavor was there with big questions, a few of which are puzzling while the rest are amazing. Seemingly baffling equations emerged in the realm of class leadership beginning from tiny villages to hot theater of geopolitics.
A calculus:  With a perspective different from 1971, rekindling the spirit of independence (RSI) requires assessment of class forces, alignments and alliances these have made/entered into, historical capacities and limitations these bear. The dominating capital, its internal and external relations, its role and limitations are also to be assessed. Democracy and role of imperialism are two other fundamental issues to be examined.
There’s no scope even at miniscule level to ignore the question of imperialism while planning or pondering with RSI as imperialist capital allows none to have senses of self-respect, dignity and honor, to have sovereignty, to have politics, institutions/organizations, tools capable of determining and shaping self-destiny, to have appropriate form of democracy. To imperialist capital, its interest is the only and best interest, its definition is the only and correct definition, it’s the only moral judge with its decadent morality, its logic and rationality are the only yardstick, it’s the single mirror to reflect, it’s the only power to own the single grinding stone to reshape everything on this Earth, it’s the only master with dignity.
All social, economic, political moves require leadership of class. Capacity of the class determines success or failure of any of the moves. Which class shall lead the task of the RSI is a fundamental question as RSI is a political issue, as it’s connected to economic interests, and there are similar other basic issues related to the question. Decadent part(s) of a society/class(es) is/are incapable of carrying out a forward looking task. These also decline (incapable also) to carry forward any economic task that come into conflict with its interest but are necessary for materializing the RSI as RSI is not merely an issue connected solely to emotion. A few of the tasks are in direct conflict with imperialist capital, and class(es) with economic ties to imperialist interest shall not carry on the tasks. It’s, rather, an economic and political issue capable of inspiring and mobilizing an entire people; and all economic and political issues are in coherence with a certain group of class interests while are in conflict with others. Issues capable of inspiring and mobilizing an entire people are in conflict with economic interests that thrive and prosper on appropriating and disenfranchising people, and hurting/harming/undercutting their interests. This fact of coherence-conflict is one of the factors determining the RSI process.
Rest of the RSI issue – ideological/educational/cultural/social, etc. – will be determined by the class, its related contents, and the contradictions these generate. A forward-looking class with the capacity to move forward and its allies can make an onward move with the task of materializing the RSI. Forward-looking all political programs turn into a mere paronomasia, and float on thin air of emotion in absence of the moves by the class, and political-economic interests leas away from people profit from the emotion, and utilize the emotion to boost legitimacy.
[The article was originally published in New Age, Dhaka it its Victory Day Special issue on December 16, 2016 celebrating victory of the Bangladesh War for Liberation in 1971, the day the occupying Pakistan army surrendered.]