5 Feb 2021

Taking on the Punishment Profiteers

Rebekah Entralgo


The stock of private prison giants like GEO Group and CoreCivic plummeted recently after President Joe Biden signed an executive order phasing out the use of federal private prisons.

The move was celebrated by criminal justice advocates as a small but necessary step towards reining in corporations profiteering from incarceration. To fully address these punishment profiteers, however, the Biden administration will need to take aim at every tendril of the private prison industry.

The most profitable of these tendrils is the mass incarceration of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Biden’s order doesn’t cover these immigration detention facilities, which are far more prevalent than regular private prisons.

People detained in federal private prisons make up just 9 percent of the entire federal prison population. Meanwhile, over 70 percent of people detained in ICE detention centers are held in privately operated facilities. This is precisely why CoreCivic shrugged off Biden’s order, saying in a statement that the “announcement was no surprise.”

The Trump administration incarcerated immigrants and asylum seekers in greater numbers and for longer than ever before, creating a boom for the industry over the last four years. In April 2017, GEO Group won a $110 million contract to build the first ICE detention center of the Trump administration. By 2019, there were over 50,000 people detained in over 200 immigration detention centers across the country.

This explosion of privately operated immigration detention centers has had an abhorrent, tangible human cost. Nearly every horror story that has emerged from ICE detention over the last decade has occurred at a facility operated by a private prison company.

The non-consensual hysterectomies of Black and Latinx immigrant women occurred at a detention center in Georgia operated by LaSalle Corrections.

The use of pepper spray and physical force against Black immigrants to coerce them into signing their own deportation papers occurred at a CoreCivic detention center in Mississippi.

Karnes County Correctional Center, a family detention center in Texas with a history of abuse against immigrant children and their parents, is operated by GEO Group.

Abuses are inherent within any system, private or otherwise, that cages humans. But privately operated prisons seem to allow for egregious violations without any public accountability.

CEOs and shareholders have been lining their pockets with cash generated from this abuse. CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger took home $5.3 million in compensation in 2019, an increase of 30 percent over the year before. GEO Group CEO George Zoley was paid roughly $5.6 million in 2019.

In part these paydays come from warehousing immigrants while cutting corners on safety, hygiene, and health care. But these CEOs also exploit the labor of the very people they incarcerate.

In California, immigrants who were detained at prisons owned by GEO Group are suing the company for forced labor and wage theft. One of the class-action lawsuits alleges that detainees at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center were paid $1 a day for their labor, which includes cleaning the facility and working in the kitchen. A similar lawsuit was filed against CoreCivic.

These companies don’t just make their money from prisons. After major banks like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo cut ties with the industry, prison companies diversified into re-entry services like halfway houses’ and ankle monitors, a form of what advocates call “e-carceration.”

Biden’s recent order is a welcome first step toward reining in abuses like these, but the carve-out for immigration facilities still leaves enormous potential for harm. If we are to fully eliminate profiteering off human suffering, the cash incentives in all jails and prisons must be addressed.

The Dark Money and Dirty Politics of Brexit

Thomas Klikauer & Norman Simms


When an investigative journalist asked a British voter in the British town of Sunderland, “Which way will you vote?” the man replied, “I want Brexit.” When asked why, the man said, “Turkey would soon join.” He then talked about how millions of Turkish workers could soon be coming to the UK in search of jobs. In reality, of course, Turkish EU membership is no more than a very distant possibility and that millions of Turkish workers might arrive in the UK legally is pure propaganda. When asked where he had heard about all this? “Facebook,” the man replied. And with this, my dead readers, the murky story of Brexit’s dark money and dirty politics begins.

In Sunderland, a whopping 60% voted to leave the EU in 2016. Many UK voters that year were made to believe that they would take back poltical control from a seemingly monstrous EU, thus rescuing their beloved British homeland from the clutches of a gigantic bureaucracy across the Channel – a monster that simply does not exist. Overall, there maybe four elements that gave Brexit the upper hand:

1. ultra-conservative tabloids favouring Brexit;

2. a well-crafted Internet campaign by the pro-Brexit camp;

3. conservative and, above all, nationalistic Tory politicians; and finally

4. plenty of dark money.

Dark money is a rather new term, an insidious neologism, meaning funds that come from unknown sources but are highly influential in politics. Dark money supposedly gives the cadre of the super-rich and their many surrogates the means to shape politics. In the USA, the Koch Brothers’ “Toxic Empire” remains the most suspected source of dark money manipulating UK politics. Until the death of David Koch, his mysterious empire had spent more than $1.5 billion on Republican political causes.

Dark money also goes hand in hand with right-wing dirty politics and digital disinformation. It signifies a paradigm shift in political communication. Via Facebook and adjacent echo-chambers, political prejudices, xenophobia, chauvinism, nationalism, racism, antisemitism, etc. are confirmed and reinforced daily. Right-wing populists like the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, are swept into office knowing that repeated lying is no barrier to the highest office. Donald J. Trump, the former president of the USA, and many other right-wing populists who circle around him, would agree.

By the time of Brexit, for the first time in UK history, more money was spent on digital communication than on any other form of political advertising. This resulted in an invisible pro-Brexit media blitz. Britain’s right-wing nationalistic and pro-Brexit tabloids barely could keep up with it. Right-wing tabloids do not need dark money but dark money fueled the pro-Brexit campaign in 2016 and Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” election in 2019. British tabloids are extremely powerful. In 2019, just three companies – the Daily Mail and General Trust, Reach and Murdoch’s News UK – controlled 83% of the British newspaper market. Only the secretive state of North Korea comes close to such numbers!

Crucially, in his early career, Boris Johnson – or BoJo, as his friends call him – featured as a tabloid reporter. He was not much more than story inventor. As such, he was sent to Brussels as a leading Eurosceptic and came back to the UK to peddle his lies. BoJo, the reporter is best known for the Italian condom invention, a story he simply manufactured out of thin air. Yet it fit right into his, the conservative party’s and the tabloid’s right-wing stance directed against government intervention, whether it comes from the UK government or the EU’s faceless bureaucrats. The break-away-from–the EU campaign, however, needed money. Lots and lots of money. Among the many dark and not so dark organizations setup to support Brexit, the “Vote Leave” organization had, at some point, more money than they could legally spend. Yet spend they did. And that’s how dark money fueled Brexit.

Another Brexit organization called “BeLeave” received (from “somewhere”) an astonishing £675,000, almost a million US dollars. The cap on spending in a UK constituency is £15,000 or $20,000. In other words, BeLeave collected – by British standards – an outrageous amount of cash for its pro-Brexit campaign. From unknown or unstated sources.

When “Vote Leave” was fined £61,000 ($83,000) for breaking the law, the fine was barely a tenth of the money “Vote Leave” had been given. In other words, the fine was no fine at all. One of the most prominent backers of Brexit and organizers of dark money is (the aptly named) Aaron Banks. He was fined £1,800 ($2,500). Banks is estimated to own between $100 and $250 million. One can imagine how shaken he was by a $2,500 fine. His dark money, we presume, went to “Vote Leave.”

Since about six in ten voters in the UK use social media, it paid handsomely for “Vote Leave” to spend 98% of its money on digital advertising. Internet advertising allowed Brexiteers to target those who are known as persuadables, i.e., middle-aged to older people in a particular and often rural and with no university degree. Brexiteers rightly thought that these potential voters were highly susceptible to political ads such as those claiming that millions of Muslims would soon arrive in the UK, a propagandistic falsehood that was broadcast during the final hours of the Brexit campaign.

Simultaneously, the conservative minister Penny Mordaunt told the BBC that Britain could not veto Turkey’s membership of the EU. This was patently not true. The fake news came despite the fact that Turkey’s membership plan has been on ice for many years, if not decades. Something so petty as the truth did not stop Brexiteers like Banks from spreading fear. At the same time, African diamond mining Banks registered donations of at least £8.4 million ($11.5 million) to various anti-EU causes. Banks is a man with pockets deep enough to run an entire political campaign – and in the case of Brexit, he almost did.

Once a reporter asked Banks about his mis- and disinformation campaign on Brexit. Banks snapped back, “It isn’t meant to be informative. It’s propaganda.” With that, BoJo’s Brexiteers ran an astonishingly nasty campaign appealing to voters’ vilest instincts. The Brexit team had access to a great amount of voter data. For its misuse of such sources, “Leave.EU” was fined £120,000 ($165,000) in February 2019 , three years after it had won the Brexit fight in 2016. It was, as George Bush once said,

“we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do”.

As for Brexit, Brexiteers had acted, they had indeed created a reality. And while academics, intellectuals, journalists and commentators. studied the reality of the 2016 Brexit Referendum of 2016 which Brexiteers won by a slim margin of just 1.89%, the pro-Brexit team acted again, creating yet another new reality. It created the “Get Brexit Done” myth that came with BoJo’s election in 2020. This new reality was one you can study too, as Bush would say. Bush would continue by saying, that’s how things will sort out itself. Brexiteers became history’s actors! “And you, all of you, will be left to study what we do.”

Later Britain’s watchdog also fined “Leave.EU” another £70,000 ($96,000) for a range of other offences. On appeal, however, the fine was reduced to the Mickey Mouse sum of £4,000 ($5,500). The watchdog, too, would be called a traitor and enemy of the people, a classical line of ultra-nationalistic demagogues.

Perhaps the key to all this might not even be dark money and fines that came years too late and are way too small to make any impact. The key is propaganda. When truth and disinformation, lies, and deceptions become so hard to disaggregate, many voters will decide to believe nothing at all. That is the precise moment when propaganda triumphs. Once truth is eliminated, politics becomes reduced to a partisan battle in which anything goes. Dirty politics reigns.

The ultra-nationalistic North-Irish and Eurosceptic Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) chipped into Brexit with the ability to spend up to £700,000 ($960,000) on the Leave EU campaign. Beyond that, a stealthy organization called the “Constitutional Research Council” (CRC) had £435,000 ($600,000) for the Brexit cause.

Dark money flowed generously into the coffers of the Brexit campaign. Just two days before the Brexit referendum, the CRC donated a further £334,993 ($460,000) to the DUP which, by that time, was not much more than a front organization, and that allowed the Leave.EU squadron to exceed any legally prescribed spending limits. Not much later, the DUP supported Britain’s Conservative government. In return, it would get £1bn of concessions, mainly for infrastructure and health spending in one of Western Europe’s poorest regions. Overall, it is pretty safe to say that dark money is a cancer in our political system.

But as the late night commercials say, Wait there is more. It got even better for Brexit when the pugnacious tycoon James Goldsmith put £20 million ($27,5 million) of his own fortune into Eurosceptic politics. His press secretary, no other than Priti Patel, who would later become infamous for a string of scandals. Scandal-prone Patel links up rather nicely to a top contender when it come to scandals inside Britain’s right-wing politics: BoJo’ propaganda ace, Dominic Cummings.

These guys were on the side of still another powerful, stealthy but hardcore anti-EU outfit that is deceptively labeled “European Research Group” (ERG). The ERC quickly became a Brexit sect. Members of the ERG even demanded that British universities list academics who were teaching about Brexit, a move the East German Secret Police, the Stasi would support. Worse, ERG’s henchmen were able to spend £340,000 ($470,000) of taxpayers’ money on anti-EU activates between 2010 and 2018. In short, taxpayer funding was crucial to the ERG’s pro-Brexit success. What else? Dark money also came in via StandUp4Brexit.

Overall, the success of the ERG demonstrates how a fringe and well-disciplined lobbying outfit can pull British politics into a right-wing direction. Anonymous private funding (dark money) enabled the ERG to push their anti-EU agenda very effectively.

Almost self-evidently, when it comes to dark money and dirty politics, right-wing think tanks are never far away. Many of these so-called think tanks are no more than corporate funded lobbying organizations with the double function of influence-peddling and propagandizing or, better yet, public relations (PR) as it is called nowadays. Of course, there are the usual suspects like the Heritage Foundation, as well as the Koch’s Atlantic Bridge. pushing a right-wing anti-EU agenda. Dark money comes from the likes of the Kochs (environmental vandalism), Philip Morris (100 million smoking deaths in the 20th century), ExxonMobile (environmental vandalism again), and the now bankrupt National Rifle Association (NRA)–another link to direct killing.

Much of this came with a hefty dose of ultra-nationalism if not imperialism. It was spiced up – or “sexed up”, as the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would say – with romantic hallucinations about Britain’s imperial-colonialist past. This was euphemistically re-framed as “Global Britain.” In this ideology, post-Brexit Britain is riding towards wealth and power. However, the immediate reality of post-Brexit Britain looked rather different.

Undeterred facts or reality, UK’s right-wing clings on to the CANZUK delusion of an alliance between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The idée fixe of an Empire 2.0 was based on the UK’s Secretary of State for International Trade. Liam Fox’s phantasy of signing forty trade deals “the second after Brexit”, as he put it. As with so many pro-Brexit lies and deceptions, this too never actually happened. Instead, the Brexit referendum and the “Get Brexit Done!” campaign were well-financed con-jobs that, in the end, delivered no more than a 1.89% majority for Brexit in the 2016 referendum.

Worse, BoJo still lives in a private league with corporate financiers who stand to profit handsomely from Brexit. The prime minister’s own sister, Rachel, agreed. Meanwhile BoJo’s father applied for French citizenship days after his son had pushed Brexit through. The rich and powerful get international passports – the poor get Brexit.

Yet, BoJo’s Brexit was supported by British businessmen, like vacuum cleaner tycoon and Leave.EU backer Sir James Dyson, who no longer produces his machines in the UK. Nationalistic Brexit was also strongly supported by the US citizen Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing tabloids.

For the more nationalistically-oriented faction of British capital, Brexit was a golden opportunity to shred EU regulations. Based on the neoliberal ideology of de-regulation which, in reality, means pro-business regulation, they financed Brexit openly and through dark money. In their ideologically shaped world, things like “PlanA+ Creating a Prosperous Post-Brexit UK” meant vacuuming up wealth from the middle-class to the super-rich. Meanwhile, broadcasting the ideology of trickle down economics smoke-screened what is actually being done.

To tilt the UK even more towards the right-wing, the Grand Old Dame of the BBC herself wasn’t immune. Academics who analyzed BBC news and current affairs output found that in 2009, when Labour was in power, left-and right-wing think tanks appeared on the national broadcaster in almost equal measure. By 2015 – one year before the Brexit vote in 2016 – conservative think tanks were twice as likely to be called upon. This is how propaganda works.

Worse, in 2015, the right-wing Murdoch tabloid Telegraph featured a pro-Brexit vision called “Change or Go” on its front page four times in a single week. With dark money, right-wing politicians, Internet echo-chambers of the “Digital Gangsters” as Geoghegan calls them in his book Democracy For Sale, right-wing think tanks as well as right-wing tabloids, the Brexit referendum’s 1.89% success looks rather small. Yet, it was enough to push Britain out of the EU.

David Cameron who was Britain’s prime minister who initially called for the referendum and was shocked by the results, once said, “We know how it works,” implying that dark money and influence peddling, as well as corporate lobbying, “wield tremendous power over UK politics.” Indeed, many inside Britain’ right-wing know all to well how it works. Dark money, right-wing front organizations, and shady Internet outfits like Cambridge Analytica play an increasingly controlling role in politics. Their money, support from tabloids, and free access to Facebook, among other things. can multiply the lies told by BoJo.

Recall that BoJo’s career started with a lie about King Edward II, a fib that cost him his job at the Times. Perhaps as a positive tick on BoJo’s CV, along with his canon of anti-EU lies – such as the alternate fact of Italian condoms – continued for years. All of this led to the big lies he painted on his pro-Brexit bus. In Boris Johnson’s latest incident, he was caught out lying to the Queen when proroguing Parliament in late 2019. Not a good show in class-ridden Britain where the lower classes remain loyal to Her Majesty.

Beyond all that, right-wing politics is aided by the UK’s archaic electoral system. In 2019, under the first-past-the-post counting system, Britain’s Conservatives won 56.2% of Commons seats with just 43.6% of the vote. A shift of just 51,000 voters across forty seats would probably have wiped out Boris Johnson’s “stonking” majority entirely. It would have made BoJo’s “Get Brexit Done!”, engineered during the winter of 2020/2021, impossible.

In other words, the Brexit referendum came with a 1.89% majority (2016) and the Get Brexit Done! (2020/2021) when the UK actually left the EU squeezed through with no more than 51,000 votes. Two rather microscopic wins for which the entire UK will have to pay a bitter price in coming years.

Overall, Brexit shows how dark money and right-wing dirty politics can – on the basis of two very slim electoral margins – shape Britain for years to come. Long before the faithful Brexit referendum, in a fight between right-wing politicians, eager to win parliamentary elections meant to serve the people, played the nationalistic, xenophobic and often racist card. Right-wing tabloids, being corporations themselves, supported the neoliberal ideology of de-regulation via Brexit. In addition, a targeted Facebook campaign of dirty politics followed. In this way, all the forces of greed and fear poured in dark money to finance the entire setup of dirty politics that gave the nation what it most certainly did not need or want: Brexit.

China’s Sea of Conflict

Conn Hallinan


President Joseph Biden Jr’s.administration faces a host of difficult problems, but in foreign policy its thornist will be its relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). How it handles issues of trade, security and human rights will either allow both countries to hammer out a working relationship or pull the US into an expensive–and unwinnable–cold war that will shelve existential threats like climate change and nuclear war.

The stakes could not be higher and Washington may be off on the wrong foot.

The first hurdle will be the toxic atmosphere created by the Trump administration. By targeting the Chinese Communist Party as the US’s major worldwide enemy, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo essentially called for regime change, which in diplomatic terms means a fight to the death. But while Trump exacerbated tensions between Washington and Beijing, many of the disputes go back more than 70 years. Recognizing that history will be essential if the parties are to reach some kind of detente.

This will not be easy. Polls in the two countries show a growing antagonism in both people’s views of one another and an increase of nationalism that may be difficult to control. Most Chinese think the US is determined to isolate their country, surround it with hostile allies, and prevent it from becoming a world power. Many Americans think China is an authoritarian bully that has robbed them of well-paying industrial jobs. There is a certain amount of truth in both viewpoints. The trick will be how to negotiate a way through some genuine differences.

A good place to start is to walk a mile in the other country’s shoes.

For most of human history, China was the world’s leading economy. But starting with the first Opium War in 1839, British, French, Japanese, German and American colonial powers fought five major and many minor wars with China, seizing ports and imposing trade agreements. The Chinese have never forgotten those dark years, and any diplomatic approach that doesn’t take that history into account is likely to fail.

The most difficult–and dangerous– friction point is the South China Sea, a 1.4 million square mile body of water that borders South China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Borneo, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines. Besides being a major trade route, it is rich in natural resources.

Based on its imperial past, China claims ownership of much of the sea and, starting in 2014, began building military bases on island chains and reefs that dot the region. For countries that border the sea, those claims and bases threaten offshore resources and pose a potential security threat. Besides the locals, the Americans have been the dominant power in the region since the end of World War II and have no intention of relinquishing their hold.

While the South China Sea is international waters, it makes up a good deal of China’s southern border, and it has been a gateway for invaders in the past. The Chinese have never threatened to interdict trade in the region–a self-defeating action in any case, since much of the traffic is Chinese goods–but they are concerned about security.

They should be.

The US has five major military bases in the Philippines, 40 bases in Japan and Korea, and its 7th Fleet–based in Yokosuka, Japan–is Washington’s largest naval force. The US has also pulled together an alliance of Australia, Japan, and India–the “Quad”–that coordinates joint actions. These include the yearly Malabar war games that model interdicting China’s sea-bourne energy supplies by closing off the Malacca Straits between Malaysia and Indonesian island of Sumatra.

US military strategy in the area, titled “Air Sea Battle,” aims to control China’s south coast, decapitate the country’s leadership, and take out its nuclear missile force. China’s counter move has been to seize islands and reefs to keep US submarines and surface craft at arm’s length, a strategy called “Area Denial.” It has also been mostly illegal. A 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration found China’s claims on the South China Sea have no merit. But to Beijing the sea is a vulnerable border. Think for a moment about how Washington would react if China held naval war games off Yokosuka, San Diego or in the Gulf of Mexico. One person’s international waters are another’s home turf.

‘The tensions in the South China sea go back to the Chinese civil war between the communists and nationalists, in which the Americans backed the losing side. When the defeated nationalists retreated to Taiwan in 1949, the US guaranteed the island’s defense, recognized Taiwan as China, and blocked the PRC from UN membership.

After US President Nixon’s trip to China in 1972, the two countries worked out some agreements on Taiwan. Washington would accept that Taiwan was part of China, but Beijing would refrain from using force to reunite the island with the mainland. The Americans also agreed not to have formal relations with Taipei or supply Taiwan with “significant” military weapons.

Over the years, however, those agreements have frayed, particularly during the administration of Bill Clinton.

In 1996 tensions between Taiwan and the mainland led to some saber rattling by Beijing, but the PRC did not have the capacity to invade the island, and all the parties involved knew that. But Clinton was trying to divert attention from his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and a foreign crisis fit the bill, so the US sent an aircraft carrier battle group through the Taiwan Straits. While the Straits are international waters, it was still a provocative move and one that convinced the PRC that it had to modernize its military if it was to defend its coasts.

There is a certain irony here. While the Americans claim that the modernization of the Chinese navy poses a threat, it was US actions in the Taiwan Straits crisis that frightened the PRC into a crash program to construct that modern navy and adopt the strategy of Area Denial. So, did we nurse the pinion to impel the steel?

Trump has certainly exacerbated the tensions. The US now routinely sends warships through the Taiwan Straits, dispatched high level cabinet members to Taipei, and recently sold the island 66 high performance F-16s fighter bombers.

In Beijing’s eyes all these actions violate the agreements regarding Taiwan and, in practice, abrogate China’s claim on the breakaway province.

It is a dangerous moment. The Chinese are convinced the US intends to surround them with its military and the Quad Alliance, although the former may not be up to the job, and the latter is a good deal shakier than it looks. While India has drawn closer to the Americans, China is its major trading partner and New Delhi is not about to go to war over Taiwan. Australia’s economy is also closely tied to China, as is Japan’s. Having trade relations between countries doesn’t preclude them going to war, but it is a deterrent. As for the US military: virtually all war games over Taiwan suggests the most likely outcome would be an American defeat.

Such a war, of course, would be catastrophic, deeply wounding the world’s two major economies and could even lead to the unthinkable– a nuclear exchange. Since China and the US cannot “defeat” one another in any sense of that word, it seems a good idea to stand back and figure out what to do about the South China Sea and Taiwan.

The PRC has no legal claim to vast portions of the South China Sea, but it has legitimate security concerns. And judging from Biden’s choices for Secretary of State and National Security Advisor–Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, respectively–it has reason for those concerns. Both have been hawkish on China, and Sullivan believes that Beijing is “pursuing global dominance.”

There is no evidence for this. China is modernizing its military, but spends about one third of what the US spends. Unlike the US, it is not building an alliance system–in general, China considers allies an encumbrance–and while it has an unpleasant authoritarian government, its actions are directed at areas Beijing has always considered part of historical China. The PRC has no designs on spreading its model to the rest of the world. Unlike the US- Soviet Cold War, the differences are not ideological, but are those that arise when two different capitalist systems compete for markets.

China doesn’t want to rule the world, but it does want to be the dominant power in its region, and it wants to sell a lot of stuff, from electric cars to solar panels. That poses no military threat to the US, unless Washington chooses to challenge China in its home waters, something Americans neither want nor can afford.

There are a number of moves both countries should make.

First, both countries should dial down the rhetoric and de-escalate their military deployment. Just as the US has the right to security in its home waters, so does China. Beijing, in turn, should give up its claims in the South China Sea and disarm the bases it has illegally established. Both of those moves would help create the atmosphere for a regional diplomatic solution to the overlapping claims of countries in the region.

The cost of not doing this is quite unthinkable. At a time when massive resources are needed to combat global warming, countries are larding their military budgets and threatening one another over islands and reefs that will soon be open sea if climate change does not become the world’s focus.

How ExxonMobil Uses Divide and Rule to Get Its Way in South America

Vijay Prashad


Tensions rise between neighboring Guyana and Venezuela over a piece of land that has been disputed since at least 1835. Both Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali and Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro have exchanged sharp words about the status of the Essequibo region, which both countries claim. Since 1990, the two countries have pursued their claims through a United Nations “good offices” process; as recently as 2013, President Maduro and Guyana’s then-President Donald Ramotar said that the discussions over Essequibo were “going well” under this UN framework.

Everything changed in 2015, and since then the tensions between the two countries have flared up. Matters became so grave that the UN transferred the dispute mechanism from its “good offices” to the International Court of Justice, which ruled in December 2020 that it has jurisdiction over the case.

It’s All About Oil

Things changed in 2015 because of oil.

ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies (newly merged in 1998), signed an agreement with the government of Guyana in 1999 to develop the Stabroek block, which is off the coast of the disputed Essequibo region. Over the course of the following decade, despite the dispute, ExxonMobil began to prospect in the area. It is important to recall that in 2007, the Venezuelan government ejected ExxonMobil from Venezuela’s Orinoco Basin oil fields because the U.S. multinational corporation refused to comply with the new Venezuelan laws. ExxonMobil turned its attention toward Guyana and—in particular—to the disputed Essequibo region. As a consequence of the aggressive prospecting of oil companies (ExxonMobil, but also the Canadian firm CGX), Guyana faced renewed border disputes not only with Venezuela but also with Suriname, Guyana’s neighbor to the east.

In 2015, ExxonMobil announced that it had found 295 feet of “high-quality oil-bearing sandstone reservoirs”; this is one of the largest oil finds in recent years. A close reading of the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) between Guyana’s government led by then-President David Granger and ExxonMobil should shock any sensitive person. ExxonMobil was given 75 percent of the oil revenue toward cost recovery, with the rest shared 50-50 with Guyana; the oil company, in turn, is exempt from any taxes. Article 32 (“Stability of Agreement”) says that the government “shall not amend, modify, rescind, terminate, declare invalid or unenforceable, require renegotiation of, compel replacement or substitution, or otherwise seek to avoid, alter, or limit this Agreement” without the consent of ExxonMobil. This agreement traps all future Guyanese governments in an inexcusable deal that has been made on disputed waters.

Having studied the contract, Dr. Jan Mangal—a former presidential adviser to President Granger and a consultant for the Danish company NTD Offshore—said that this deal was one of the worst that he had ever seen. Guyana, Mangal argued, is being “re-colonized,” by which he meant that the deal would “make a few local business people and politicians rich from oil so they will work for the exploiters and so they will not work for their country folk.” Even the International Monetary Fund weighed in with a report that said Guyana signed a very bad deal with ExxonMobil; the terms of the contract, the IMF wrote in a report for the Guyanese government, “are relatively favorable to investors by international standards” with royalty rates for Guyana “well below of what is observed internationally.”

Divide and Rule

When the Romans went out to conquer the Mediterranean world, they did so by the policy of divide et impera, divide the adversaries and then rule over them. The operations of ExxonMobil, with the help of the U.S. government, clearly show them egging on the conflict between Guyana and Venezuela over the Essequibo region so that ExxonMobil benefits in the chaos.

There is mischief in this conflict. After Venezuela declared its independence in 1811, the British colonizers in what they called British Guiana wanted to ensure that their stronghold would not be weakened. In 1835, Robert Hermann Schomburgk surveyed the edges of the British territory and drew a line that claimed the Essequibo and Orinoco river basins for his imperial masters; Venezuela disputed the so-called “Schomburgk Line” in 1840. When gold was discovered in the Cuyuni basin, plainly in Venezuelan territory, the line was shifted to claim that entire region. An arbitration treaty signed in the United States was bathed in controversy, with Venezuela rejecting it (according to Betty Jane Kissler in her 1972 study on the Venezuela-Guyana boundary dispute: 1899-1966). U.S. President Grover Cleveland watched these developments and then noted that the Schomburgk Line had been “largely extended in some mysterious way” and is treated as “so infallible, and so sacred” that they will not accept anything other than full annexation; “The trader,” wrote President Cleveland of the British motivation, “is again in evidence.”

The trader returned to the story with ExxonMobil.

Guyana’s government used money from ExxonMobil “to meet the estimated cost in 2018 of presenting Guyana/Venezuela controversy at the International Court of Justice including payment of legal fees.” In mid-2020, the Guyanese paper Kaieteur News’ senior reporter Kiana Wilburg broke the story that the World Bank had paid $1.2 million to Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm long associated with ExxonMobil, to revise Guyana’s petroleum laws. Wilburg’s report quoted the former presidential adviser Dr. Jan Mangal, who said that the government was “letting the very companies we need to regulate dictate the country’s business. This is a recipe for failure. And as you can see, we are failing.”

Before attention could be brought to the sweetheart deal given to ExxonMobil, and the opportunity for ExxonMobil’s lawyers to write Guyana’s laws, then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in Guyana in September 2020. He was on a three-day tour of Venezuela’s neighbors—Guyana, Brazil, and Colombia—to accelerate the U.S. hybrid war against Venezuela. It was an odd situation. The CIA had overthrown Guyana’s democratically elected government of President Cheddi Jagan in 1964. More than half a century later, the U.S. was trying to use Guyana as an instrument of regime change against Venezuela. That is why the Guyana Human Rights Association asked President Ali to “avoid any recklessness.” Pompeo’s quid pro quo on the table was that if Guyana joined the crusade against Venezuela and tightened its embrace of ExxonMobil, then the U.S. would support its claims to Essequibo.

A columnist for Kaieteur News wrote a sharp commentary after Pompeo left the country. “Here we are, caught in the middle, between Exxon and Venezuela and we have nothing to show for it. We Guyanese don’t even know the full details regarding oil deals conducted on our behalf, by our political leaders with Exxon… We talk about oil and the man comes and talks about terrorism and drugs and the sea—the things that matter to America. He protects his own, delivers to his own,” the columnist wrote. “Once again, Guyanese got nothing.”

The conflict on the Guyanese-Venezuelan border heats up. ExxonMobil sits on the sidelines, smiling. The distraction suits the oil giants. They make their money whether there is peace or war.

Rural vs Urban Population in India

Prem Verma


The Farmers’ Protest Movement has brought into sharp focus that India consists of two countries. One is the mighty sprawling urban India where all of us fortunate live spoilt by consumerism and wanting more and more at the cost of others. The other is the weak scattered rural population who are waiting still since 1947 independence to survive poverty, hunger, malnutrition, unemployment and basic education and health facilities. In 73 years of independence the rural population has been denied even the ultimate basic necessity of clean drinking water – why bother for more.

For the first time the rural population has risen against the insensitive Government in the form of village farmers protesting the one-sided Farm Laws and telling the rulers to mind their own business. The farmers are declaring that we toil and till the land with our sweat and thus feed the vast population of this country and the least you can do is to step telling us that the Farm Laws are for my benefit. Don’t call us Khalistanis or terrorists because if we stop farming you will not survive. You have no tears for the more than 3,00,000 farmers that have committed suicide over the years and more than 130 farmers have died during this recent ongoing protest but you shed a lot of tears for the earning fall of your dear Corporates or for sliding GDP.

Our Father of the Nation warned us in 1948 with these prophetic words :

“Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?’

Merely placing flowers in Rajghat on his birthday and martyrdom day was not Mahatma’s message. He was Mahatma for and of the poor and deprived.

We are ready to lower taxes and give tax breaks to the urban population and the rich community but not increased subsidies to the toiling farmers. Compare this with other countries who promote farming not kill it.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY

TO Agriculture sector 2019

 

EconomiesSubsidy US$
China185.9 Billion
E,U,101.3 Billion
U.S.A.48.9 Billion
Japan37.6 Billion
Indonesia29.4 Billion
Korea20.8 Billion
India11.0 Billion

Source : Tradevistas

The Migrant crisis during this Corona Virus and continuous lockdown has shown us the underbelly of our pseudo-development model. Globalisation and so-called liberalization has benefitted a few at the top and the vast majority at the bottom of the pile have waited patiently for the promised trickle-down effect which never came in the last thirty years. Vast technological progress has not resulted in equitable distribution of wealth; rather it has converted a human being into a number to be manipulated, shadowed and controlled by a heartless technology. This globalization has reduced the vast majority as a statistical entity whose only purpose in life is to serve the fortunate and powerful few. This is slavery of the worst kind since the slave is brain-washed to feel that he is serving a noble purpose.

It would be pertinent to remember in these turbulent times what Mahatma Gandhi had suggested in the 1940’s for making the rural India as the centerpiece of planning and growth.

“I am convinced that if India is to attain true freedom and through India the world also, then sooner or later the fact must be recognized that people will have to live in villages, not in towns, in huts, not in palaces.

My idea of Village Swaraj is that it is a complete Republic, independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants, and yet interdependent for many others in which dependence is a necessity. Thus every village’s first concern will be to grow its own food crops and cotton for its cloth. It should have a reserve for its cattle, recreation and playground for adults and children. Then if more land is available, it will grow useful money crops. The village will maintain a village theatre, school and public hall. It will have its own waterworks ensuring clean water supply. This can be done through controlled wells or tanks. Education will be compulsory up to the final basic course. As far as possible every activity will be conducted on the co-operative basis.

No one under it should suffer for want of food and clothing. We should be ashamed of resting or having a square meal so long as there is one able-bodied man or woman without work or food.”

The wide gulf existing between the urban and rural population even after 73 years of independence proves that we are more concerned for our city population than our simple living uneducated rural human beings. It explains how quick we are ready to spend crores over new Parliament building, bullet train, smart cities, modernizing airports, etc. but would rather not divert any budgetary support to build schools, hospitals, provide drinking water and electricity to villages in India. Much has been made of village electrification in India proclaiming that almost all Indian villages have been electrified. Of course electric poles may have been erected and wires stretched but there is no current flowing through them.

The disparity between urban and rural development has been sharply focused by Mr. Avay Shukla in a revealing article entitled ‘The Day Bharat came calling on India’ as given below –

S. No.ItemUrbanRural
1.Wealth Growth102 billionaires

330,000 high net worth individuals

200 million hungry

40% children malnutrition

Over 3,00,000 suicides due to debt

2.Expenditure on smart cities200,000CroresNIL
3.Doctors and hospital beds80%20%
4.During Pandemic100 billionaires increased their wealth by 400 billion dollars120 million, mainly migrants, lost jobs
5.Per capita incomeRs. 98435Rs. 40924
6.Monthly household expenditureRs. 2630Rs. 1430
7.Population55%45%


Through the decentralization of power and the investment emphasis on the rural sector, we can invert the existing pyramid so that the poor, deprived and neglected become the prime concern of ours and real development indices relate to the well-being of this section of society. It is of no consequence if the rich get richer; it is important that the bottom is offered a life of purpose and happiness. The equality and equity will not then remain merely a slogan.

Rural India is crying for help and the Farmers’ Agitation is a result of this neglect. The test of real leadership is that it hears these complaints and acts according to the will of the population which it is supposed to represent. The silence from this Government is deafening.