NATO prepares for “warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors”

Andre Damon

At the conclusion of this week’s NATO summit in Madrid, Spain, the members of NATO, including most European states as well as the United States and Canada, adopted a strategy document outlining plans to militarize the European continent, massively escalate the war with Russia, and prepare for war with China.

The NATO Summit in Madrid. (Jonathan Ernst/Pool Photo via AP)

The document pledges to “deliver the full range of forces” needed “for high-intensity, multi-domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors.”

An excerpt from the strategy document

In a sea change from the last strategy document, first published in 2010, the new NATO strategy document proclaims that “the Euro-Atlantic area is not at peace”—all but declaring that the alliance is at war. This is despite the fact that none of the members of the NATO alliance have declared any war within the “Euro-Atlantic area.”

The document declares that “The Euro-Atlantic area is not at peace.”

The strategic framework document openly adopts the language of power politics, better known by its German name, Machtpolitik. It references the word “interests” seven times, declaring that both China and Russia challenge the “Alliance’s interests.”

The previous NATO strategic framework, published in 2010, used the word “interests” only once, in pledging to “enhance the political consultations and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests.”

While the 2010 document named Russia a “partner,” this year's strategic framework proclaims Russia a “threat” and China a “challenge.” The new NATO strategy document explicitly justifies these designations by declaring that these countries “challenge our interests.”

It declares that “The PRC [People’s Republic of China] seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence.”

The document asserts that China’s economic development (expressed as “control”) conflicts with the “interests” of NATO members.

In order to preserve their “interests,” the allies pledge to “significantly strengthen deterrence and defense.”

Critically, the document asserts that the series of actions that triggered the war in Ukraine have been a success, declaring “NATO’s enlargement has been a historic success.” The Kremlin justified its invasion of Ukraine by claiming that Ukraine’s efforts to join NATO and the deployment of nuclear weapons on Russia’s border constituted a threat to its national security.

The NATO document doubles down on the expansion of the military alliance, declaring, “We reaffirm our Open Door policy. … Our door remains open to all European democracies that share the values of our Alliance.” It adds, “Decisions on membership are taken by NATO Allies and no third party has a say in this process.”

The war now raging in Ukraine is the largest in Europe since the Second World War, and has already killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. In describing the expansion of NATO as having been a success, the alliance effectively declares that these deaths, and many more to come, are acceptable costs for protecting the interests of the alliance’s members.

In response to the challenges to the alliance’s “interests,” the NATO members have pledged a program of militarization that will affect all aspects of society. It declares, “In an environment of strategic competition, we will enhance our global awareness and reach to deter, defend, contest and deny across all domains and directions, in line with our 360-degree approach.”

The document further states, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance,” and the alliance pledges to “ensure a substantial and persistent presence on land, at sea, and in the air, including through strengthened integrated air and missile defense.” The document adds that “NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and the contributions of Allies concerned.”

The achievement of the goals set out in the document requires a massive expansion of the troops, munitions, and supply chains necessary for war fighting. “We will deter and defend forward with robust in-place, multi-domain, combat-ready forces, enhanced command and control arrangements, prepositioned ammunition and equipment and improved capacity and infrastructure to rapidly reinforce any Ally, including at short or no notice.”

The NATO strategy document does not acknowledge or recognize any competing priorities for military resources. The words “hunger,” “poverty” and “unemployment” do not appear, nor is there any reference to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed tens of millions worldwide and 1 million in the United States alone.

The comments of US president Joe Biden were fully consistent with the tone of this document.

At a post-summit press conference, Biden boasted: “We provided Ukraine with nearly $7 billion in security assistance since I took office. In the next few days, we intend to announce more than $800 million more, including a new advanced Western air defense system for Ukraine, more artillery and ammunition, counter-battery radars, additional ammunition for the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system we’ve already given Ukraine and more HIMARS coming from other countries as well.”

He added that the total commitment of the US allies included “nearly 140,000 anti-tank systems, more than 600 tanks, nearly 500 artillery systems, more than 600,000 rounds of artillery ammunition, as well as advanced multiple launch rocket systems, anti-ship systems, and air defense systems.”

Yet when asked about the costs to the American public of the war, Biden did not indicate that this was even taken into consideration.

At the press conference, Biden was asked by a reporter, “G7 leaders this week pledged to support Ukraine, quote, ‘for as long as it takes.’ And I’m wondering if you would explain what that means to the American people—‘for as long as it takes.’ Does it mean indefinite support from the United States for Ukraine? Or will there come a time when you have to say to President Zelenskyy that the United States cannot support his country any longer?”

Biden replied, “We are going to support Ukraine as long as it takes.”

Another reporter asked about the “high price of gasoline in the United States and around the world … How long is it fair to expect American drivers and drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war?”

Biden reiterated, “As long as it takes.”

Biden: Gas prices will be high for “As long as it takes.”

Biden’s declaration is effectively an unlimited pledge of social resources for the war effort. Having gutted COVID-19 funding, meaning that uninsured workers will be forced to pay out of pocket for vaccines and COVID-19 hospitalization, the American ruling class is pressing ahead with funneling vast social resources into the war effort.

The plans outlined in the latest NATO strategy document will have incalculable consequences, not only for the war itself, but also in the endless diversion of social resources to military spending, which will be coupled with the slashing of spending for health care and pensions, and reductions in workers’ wages.

Europe’s Uneasy Unity on the War in Ukraine

Mel Gurtov

Welcoming the leaders of Finland and Sweden to Washington on May 19, President Biden said that “what makes NATO strong isn’t just our enormous military capacity, but our commitment to each other, to its values. NATO is an alliance of choice, not coercion.” NATO is indeed a growing alliance; once Finland and Sweden are officially members, the alliance will count 32 countries. As Vladimir Putin has discovered, making war on Ukraine has strengthened rather than weakened both NATO and the 27-member European Union (EU). But will that unity last?

Some European leaders have struck a cautionary note. Poland’s prime minister, for instance, said recently: “Putin is counting on the fatigue of the West. He knows that he has much more time because democracies are less patient than autocracies,” repeating what Xi Jinping said to Biden shortly after Biden took office. There’s something to that warning, because despite appearances and concrete cooperation, the alliance is not entirely of one mind on at least three issues: energy, food, and the way forward on Ukraine.

Ending Energy Dependence on Russia

Europe’s reliance on Russia for energy has been a dilemma anticipated for some time. The European Union imported nearly 100 billion euros ($110 billion) worth of Russian energy last year. Russia supplies about 40 percent of the bloc’s imports of natural gas, about 27 percent of its imported oil, and about 46 percent of its coal. How to shrink that dependence is causing deep anxiety in European capitals.

Sanctioning Russian oil and gas is clearly not a popular subject in NATO and the EU. Energy is obviously central to all economies, and a willingness to sacrifice on economic growth varies considerably among alliance members. People think China is the wild card when it comes to keeping Russia afloat, but Turkey and Hungary are better candidates. The EU reached a watered-down agreement on Russian oil imports at the end of May that exempts one pipeline that goes through Hungary from sanctions, reflecting Victor Orbán’s refusal to support a total ban on Russian oil imports by the end of 2022. Orbán points to Hungary’s dependence on Russia for energy in general, including nuclear power, but in fact he is a Putin admirer, demonstrated not just by his repressive politics but also by his refusal to allow weapons to be shipped from Hungary to Ukraine. Still, led by Germany and Poland, the EU by year’s end will have eliminated all but about 10 percent of Russian oil imports.

EU solidarity is also being tested when it comes to Russian gas exports. Germany, dependent on Russia for about 55 percent of its gas imports, may fall into recession if Russia cuts its exports entirely. Moscow has just cut those exports in half. Vulnerability to Russia is nearly as high elsewhere in Europe, raising anxieties about an energy crisis when winter comes—probably just as Putin hopes will happen. Several countries—Finland, Netherlands, Poland, and Bulgaria—have refused to pay Russia in rubles and have already had their gas cut off by Gazprom. And Serbia, which has not joined in sanctions against Russia and is seeking to join the EU, shocked the alliance by concluding a three-year gas deal with Gazprom just as the oil embargo was agreed upon. That act raises a question: Why should Ukraine’s application for EU membership be delayed when countries like Serbia and Hungary impede common action?

Food Warfare

Food supplies present a second difficult problem for the alliance, and for the world. Russia and Ukraine supply about a third of the world’s wheat, but Russia has blockaded the Black Sea to prevent Ukraine from exporting grain. Zelensky is pleading with the UN and Europe to get Russia to release a huge stock of Ukrainian wheat and other farm products—22 million tons, he says. Putin’s food warfare, which now includes apparently targeted attacks on Ukraine grain terminals and railway lines, is unlikely to change. The strategy, evidently intended to force a relaxation of sanctions on Russia, threatens the global food chain, which is already stressed by climate change and rising fuel, fertilizer, and shipping costs. Climate change has brought prolonged drought and mega-heat to food-deficit regions such as East Africa and the Indian subcontinent. The World Food Program reports that 89 million people are now considered “acutely food insecure” in East Africa alone, particularly in Somalia, where widespread starvation is imminent. Putin, of course, blames the West for the food crisis in the same way that he blames NATO for the war.

On May 19, the CEO of the agricultural analytical company Gro Intelligence, Sarah Menker, testified before the UN Security Council that the world has only 10 weeks of stored wheat reserves left in warehouses. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization published one estimate that 49 million people are at risk of famine in coming months, and 750,000 people face starvation right now. Putin, in a major speech in St. Petersburg on June 17, disclaimed any responsibility for the food shortages and denied blockading Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, saying: “They [the Ukrainians] can clear the mines and resume food exports. We will ensure the safe navigation of civilian vessels. No problem.” He pledged a major increase in Russian food exports to the neediest regions.

Turkey, which is playing both sides in the war—providing drones to Ukraine but refusing to sanction Russia and holding Finland’s and Sweden’s applications to join NATO hostage to their protection so far of anti-Erdogan Kurds—is in talks with Putin to allow Turkish vessels to exit the Black Sea with Ukraine grain. If Putin doesn’t follow through on his promise of safe navigation, some observers are favoring a military effort to break the Russian blockade in the Black Sea. Ukraine does not have the weapons to deter the Russia fleet, and aside from Denmark, which has promised to provide Ukraine with a Harpoon coastal missile battery, NATO has not moved on the idea. James Stavridis, a former NATO commanding general, has proposed a NATO- or US-led convoy to free the Ukraine ships. But he admits that such a mission would be high-risk and very unlikely to received NATO’s or the US’s endorsement.

Ending the War

Bringing this war to an end is surely the most challenging issue for the alliance. Various parties—the French, the UN, the Turks, the Hungarians—have taken a crack at urging Putin to engage with Zelensky, to no avail. Once a stalemate occurs on the battlefield, Zelensky will have difficult choices, especially about surrendering territory, and within NATO those choices will have their separate supporters. Ending or softening sanctions on Russia, redeploying military units, creating a durable ceasefire, reopening sea lanes, compensating Ukraine for its enormous losses—these will all have to be ingredients, not necessarily for a negotiated settlement (since not all wars end in agreement) but for the carnage simply to stop. It doesn’t help to have President Emmanuel Macron of France declare: “We must not humiliate Russia so that the day the fighting stops, we can build a way out through diplomatic channels.” The Germans seem to agree. That position doesn’t sit well with the Ukrainians, who are being humiliated every day, but if Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz keep pushing their position, Putin will have the edge in dictating terms of the peace.

Providing for Ukraine’s future security will surely lead to intense debate. So long as Putin is in power, expect a very hard line that will challenge NATO and the EU to maintain a common front—and avoid having to answer to the charge of selling out Ukraine, as Macron’s comment could well be interpreted. Germany’s stance is also problematic. In a blistering critique of Scholz, a French writer argues that Germany has failed to deliver heavy weapons promised to Ukraine and has done little “to steer the European Union to a united response” against Russia militarily.

But by far the most difficult task is finding what will make Putin stop trying to destroy and ultimately absorb Ukraine. If some close observers are right, nothing short of recognizing Russia’s security interests throughout Europe will bring his war to a halt. As Tatyana Stanovona with the Carnegie Institute writes, those interests go beyond eliminating Ukraine’s independence:

“Russia may be locked in a battle with Ukraine, but geopolitically, it sees itself as waging war against the West on Ukrainian territory. In the Kremlin, Ukraine is seen as an anti-Russian weapon in Western hands—and destroying it will not automatically lead to Russia’s victory in this anti-Western geopolitical game. For Putin, this war is not between Russia and Ukraine—and Ukrainian leadership is not an independent actor but a Western tool that must be neutralized.”

That view accords with another, by the Yale historian Timothy Snyder, who argues that Russia can never be satisfied merely with Ukraine’s destruction. As a fascist state, Snyder argues, Putin’s Russia sees itself as a great power with a global mission, its enemy is America, and coexistence with it can only be temporary.

In that case, the war in Ukraine will be a test of East-West strength that can only end either in the replacement of the Putin regime, the Balkanization of Ukraine that will enable Putin to claim victory, or an even more destructive conflict that will engulf the rest of eastern Europe and possibly involve use of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Putin plays for time, perhaps believing (as the Polish prime minister said) that the longer the war drags on, the less united his opponents will be. He may be right.

The Seven Deadly Sins: Alive & Well in the U.S. of A

David Rosen

Photograph Source: Hieronymus Bosch’s The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things – Public Domain

What was the last sin you committed?

The Bible describes “sin” as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).

In the year 590, Pope Gregory the Great specified the seven deadly sins:

• pride – an excessive belief in one’s own abilities;
• envy – excessive jealousy for others’ traits, status or abilities;
• anger – excessive fury or wrath;
• gluttony — an excessive desire to consume more than that which one requires;
• greed – an excessive desire for material wealth or gain, no matter the consequences;
• sloth – excessive self-indulgence, laziness, a refusal to accept work discipline; and
• lust – an excessive craving for the sexual pleasures of the body.

Traditionally, the seven deadly sins were divided into distinct categories:

• Spiritual sins – pride, envy and anger.
• Corporal Sins – gluttony, greed, sloth and lust.

It should be noted, in some accounts “gluttony” is not identified as a sin. In Prov 6:16-19, the sins include “haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” 

Each impulse persists into the postmodern world, defining key aspects of 21^st century life.

In 2008, the Vatican revised the list of post-modern sins to now include the following: (1) genetic modification, (2) human experimentation, (3) polluting the environment, (4) social injustice, (5) causing poverty, (6) financial gluttony and (7) taking drugs.

***

The notion of sin, the forbidden, has been an aspect of American social control since the nation’s founding four centuries ago. How it has morphed over time reveals how society has changed.

According to one source, “the sin of pride is the sin of sins. It was this sin, we’re told, which transformed Lucifer, an anointed cherub of God, the very “seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty,” into Satan, the devil, the father of lies, the one for whom Hell itself was created.  We’re warned to guard our hearts against pride lest we too “fall into the same condemnation as the devil.”

It then notes:

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) wrote, “‘Pride is the commencement of all sin’ because it was this which overthrew the devil, from whom arose the origin of sin; and afterwards, when his malice and envy pursued man, who was yet standing in his uprightness, it subverted him in the same way in which he himself fell. For the serpent, in fact, only sought for the door of pride whereby to enter when he said, ‘Ye shall be as gods.'”

Another source brings pride up to the 21^st century noting: “Oddly, its bedfellow is self-hatred. Pride and self-hatred are two sides of the same coin.”

St. Thomas Aquinas defines envy as sorrow for another’s good (ST, II-II, 36,1): “…we grieve over a man’s good in so far as his good surpasses ours…because to do so is to grieve over what ought to make us rejoice, [namely] over our neighbor’s good.”

A Vanity Fair writer acknowledged how envy has become a very 21^st century indulgence:

Unrequitable envy is no fun at all, but there’s always the flip side: inducing envy in others. This is a pastime for everyone, and one of the main uses of social media. Ordinary people once flaunted their lives in mass holiday mailings. With Facebook and Instagram these holiday letters can be posted every few minutes. 

With regard to the sin of anger, one source reminds us, “Anger is an emotion that has been present since the beginning of humanity. The Bible reveals that the first human ever born (Cain) became so angry at God and his brother (Abel) that he killed his brother (Genesis 4:4-8).” It adds: “Anger has been with people from the start.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, “Anger as a deadly sin is ‘a disorderly outburst of emotion connected with the inordinate desire for revenge.’ . . . It is likely to be accompanied by surliness of heart, by malice aforethought, and above all by the determination to take vengeance.”

Writing in Psychology Today, Steven Stosny, Ph.D., links anger to entitlement. As reported, “Today people feel entitled not just to the pursuit of happiness, not even just to happiness, but to feeling good most of the time. If they don’t feel good most of the time, someone or something must be to blame.”

Saint Paul, in The Epistle to the Philippians (3:19) condemned gluttony among those who ate greedily and in excess. It was regarded as a sin that could trigger others. However, as has been reported, “it could be either a mortal or venial sin, depending on the severity of intent and the context in which the sin was committed. The pleasures of the stomach were also associated with the pleasures of the loins, namely the sin of lust, which inflames the senses and causes physical upset leading to licentious behaviour. Hence, Christian morality strongly condemned “those whose god is their belly.”

In the 20^th century, gluttony was secularized and labeled in the Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) a binge-eating disorder and an estimated 8.5 million Americans suffer the condition.

Thomas Aquinas defined greed as “a sin directly against one’s neighbor, since one man cannot over-abound in external riches, without another man lacking them… it is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, inasmuch as man contemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things.” (2, 118, ad 1)

However, in Oliver Stone’s 1987 movie, Wall Street, the character Gordon Gekko (played by Michael Douglas) captured the word’s post-modern ethos when he proclaimed, “Greed is good.”

Proverbs 19:15 notes, “Slothfulness casts into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer hunger.” A more recent observer notes, “It’s sinful because God designated people to work. … it’s how people provide and care for their family, help their neighbor and community ….”

Another source claims “slothfulness means laziness, sluggishness, or indolence which is the avoidance of activity or exertion. The slothful person is one who not only doesn’t want to work but is one who avoids it as well. This person may even go out of their way to avoid doing work.”

And then there is the sin of lust. The New World was besieged by numerous sex scandals during the first 75 years of Puritan settlement. The Puritan minister, Samuel Willard (1640-1707), once observed, “… in nothing doth the raging power of original sin more discover itself … than in the ungoverned exorbitancy of fleshly lust.” Two offenses were most upsetting: bestiality involving young men and sexual witchcraft among older women. Among Puritans, as John Murrin points out, “Bestiality discredited men in the way that witchcraft discredited women.”

Lust is especially revealing, signifying not only the autoerotic sexual pleasures experienced with oneself as a physical, natural being, but the erotic relations with another(s), whether real or imaginary.  One imaginary expression of lust is pornography that’s become a multi-billion business, gaining widespread popularity in the (ostensibly) Christian, conservative Bible Belt.

Bromleigh McCleneghan, an associate pastor at Union Church, Hinsdale, IL, is the author of Why Chastity Isn’t the Only Option – And Other Things the Bible Says About Sex. Reflecting on contemporary sin, he warns, “When talking about lust and fidelity in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters that mind/body duality, suggesting that you don’t actually have to commit adultery to sin against your partner.”

***

We’ve come a long way since the British settlers first colonized the New World and the belief in “sins” was stamped upon the conscious of a people.

The old “spiritual sins” of pride, envy and anger have been integrated into daily life, with pride morphing into self-hatred, envy into virtual existence and anger subsumed into notions of entitlement.

Similarly, the “corporal sins” of gluttony, greed and sloth have transformed into the post-modern forms of self-indulgence if not, as exaggerations, psychological disorders.

And then there is lust. A host of sexual prohibitions, including masturbation, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality and interracial sex, are no longer considered sins by civil authorities, most moralists and a significant proportion of the public.

Prostitution has become a discreet business activity, regulated in a few rural counties in Nevada, decriminalized in a growing number of cities and – compared to times of old — relatively free from moralistic and police harassment. Today, the limits to acceptable sex are based on consent among adults or among similarly aged adolescents over 16 or 18 years. Strong prohibitions, both legal and ethical, seek to halt nonconsensual sexual acts like rape, pedophilia, incest and bestiality.

However, for the early Puritans and other colonists, both sin and satin were threats to personal and public life. Today, among some religious moralists sin and satin persists in one’s gender identity, in non-heterosexual relations and in the books one reads (or permit children to read). We can be grateful that, after four centuries, people are no longer executed for consorting with the devil.

The United States Extends Its Military Reach Into Zambia

Vijay Prashad

africom

On April 26, 2022, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) announced that they had set up an office in the U.S. Embassy in Lusaka, Zambia. According to AFRICOM Brigadier General Peter Bailey, Deputy Director for Strategy, Engagement and Programs, the Office of Security Cooperation would be based in the U.S. Embassy building. Social media in Zambia buzzed with rumors about the creation of a U.S. military base in the country. Defense Minister Ambrose Lufuma released a statement to say that “Zambia has no intention whatsoever of establishing or hosting any military bases on Zambian soil.” “Over our dead bodies” will the United States have a military base in Zambia, said Dr. Fred M’membe, the president of the Socialist Party of Zambia.

Brigadier General Bailey of AFRICOM had met with Zambia’s President Hakainde Hichilema during his visit to Lusaka. Hichilema’s government faces serious economic challenges despite the fact that Zambia has one of the richest resources of raw materials in the world. When Zambia’s total public debt grew to nearly $27 billion (with an external debt of approximately $14.5 billion), it returned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in December 2021 for financial assistance, resulting in an IMF-induced spiral of debt.

Two months after Hichilema met with the AFRICOM team, he hosted IMF Deputy Managing Director Antoinette M. Sayeh in June, who thanked President Hichilema for his commitment to the IMF “reform plans.” These plans include a general austerity package that will not only cause the Zambian population to be in the grip of poverty but will also prevent the Zambian government from exercising its sovereignty.

Puppet Regime

Dr. M’membe, president of the Socialist Party, has emerged as a major voice against the United States military presence in his country. Defense Minister Lufuma’s claim that the United States is not building a base in Zambia elicits a chuckle from M’membe. “I think there is an element of ignorance on his part,” M’membe told me. “This is sheer naivety. He [Lufuma] does not understand that practically there is no difference between a U.S. military base and an AFRICOM office. It’s just a matter of semantics to conceal their real intentions.”

The real intentions, M’membe told me, are for the United States to use Zambia’s location “to monitor, to control, and to quickly reach the other countries in the region.” Zambia and its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he said, “possess not less than 70 percent of the world’s cobalt reserves. There are huge copper reserves and other minerals needed for modern technologies [in both these countries].” Partly, M’membe said, “this is what has heightened interest in Zambia.” Zambia is operating as a “puppet regime,” M’membe said, a government that is de jure independent but de facto “completely dependent on an outside power and subject to its orders,” M’membe added, while referring to the U.S. interference in the functioning of the Zambian government. Despite his campaign promises in 2021, President Hichilema has followed the same IMF-dependent policies as his unpopular predecessor Edgar Lungu. However, in terms of a U.S. base, even Lungu had resisted the U.S. pressure to allow this kind of office to come up on Zambian soil.

After news broke out about the establishment of the office, former Zambian Permanent Representative to the African Union, Emmanuel Mwamba, rushed to see Hichilema and caution him not to make this deal. Ambassador Mwamba said that other former presidents of Zambia—Lungu (2015-2021), Michael Sata (2011-2014), Rupiah Banda (2008-2011) and Levy Mwanawasa (2002-2008)—had also refused to allow AFRICOM to enter the country since its creation in 2007.

Is This a Base or an Office?

Zambia’s Defense Minister Lufuma argues that the “office” set up in Lusaka is to assist the Zambian forces in the United Nations Multidimensional Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). Since 2014, the United States has provided around 136 million kwacha ($8 million) to assist the Zambian military. Lufuma said that this office will merely continue that work. In fact, Zambia is not even one of the top five troop contributing countries to MINUSCA (these include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Egypt, Pakistan and Rwanda). Lufuma’s reason, therefore, seems like a fig leaf.

Neither Zambia nor the United States military has made public the agreement signed in April. The failure to release the text has led to a great deal of speculation, which is natural. Meanwhile, in Ghana, where a defense cooperation agreement was signed between the two countries in May 2018, the United States had initially said that it was merely creating a warehouse and an office for its military, which then turned out to mean that the United States military was taking charge of one of the three airport terminals at Accra airport and has since used it as its base of operations in West Africa. “From the experience of Ghana, we know what it is,” M’membe told me, while speaking about the American plan to make an office in the U.S. Embassy in Zambia. “It is not [very] different from a base. It will slowly but surely grow into a full-scale base.”

From the first whiff that the United States might create an AFRICOM base on the continent, opposition grew swiftly. It was led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki and his Defense Minister at that time, Mosiuoa Lekota, both of whom lobbied the African Union and the Southern African Development Community to reject any U.S. base on the continent. Over the past five years, however, the appetite for full-scale rejection of bases has withered despite an African Union resolution against allowing the establishment of such bases in 2016. The U.S. military has 29 known military bases in 15 of the African countries.

Not only have 15 African countries ignored their own regional body’s advice when it comes to allowing foreign countries to establish military bases there, but the African Union (AU) has itself allowed the United States to create a military attaché’s office inside the AU building in Addis Ababa. “The AU that resisted AFRICOM in 2007,” M’membe told me, “is not the AU of today.”

The unanswered questions about Trump’s January 6 coup

Patrick Martin

The two hours of testimony Tuesday by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson provided an indelible picture, from an inside source, of the effort by Donald Trump to stage a political coup on January 6, 2021, stop the congressional certification of his election defeat, and remain in office as a fascist dictator-president.

Along with top aides like his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trump expected that after he addressed a rally outside the White House and told the crowd of supporters, including hundreds of armed fascists, to march on the Capitol, he would accompany them, place himself at the head of the mob, enter the House chambers where the counting of electoral votes was underway and seize control.

Vice President Mike Pence and the assembled legislators would be given two choices: Either ratify Trump’s overturning of the 2020 election results and his remaining in power, or be killed. As Trump said, hearing the “Hang Mike Pence” chants from his supporters, “He deserves it.” 

There is little doubt what the congressional Democrats would have done. They would have capitulated, seeking some face-saving operation like a referral of the “disputed” election to a vote by the House of Representatives, conducted according to the procedure of one vote for each entire state delegation, thereby guaranteeing Trump’s victory.

Afterwards, the Democrats and the corporate media would have portrayed the outcome as being in accordance with the Constitution, and any legal challenge would be rejected by Trump’s stooges on the Supreme Court.

That the coup failed owes not at all to opposition from the Democratic Party, and certainly not to Democratic President-elect Joe Biden, who was appealing for the would-be dictator to go on national television and call off his own coup.

The U.S. Capitol under siege by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021. (By Tyler Merbler from USA - DSC09363-2, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=98724532)

It seems clear, however, that large sections of the military-intelligence apparatus were watching and waiting, aware of the coup plot but not joining in until it became clearer who would prevail. Trump’s failure to reach the Capitol—under circumstances that remain to be clarified—deprived the mob of on-the-spot leadership and led to its energy being dissipated until police reinforcements arrived, after long delays, to clear the building.

There are vital questions posed by the latest revelations, and all of the information brought forward by the six televised hearings held so far by the House Select Committee on the January 6 attack.

Who were Trump’s accomplices and co-conspirators?

An action as far-reaching as a coup d’etat in the United States could not be the work of an individual, even a president. Trump required dozens, if not hundreds and thousands of co-conspirators, willing to break the law and trample on the Constitution. Hutchinson’s testimony identified Meadows, Giuliani and seven Republican representatives as inquiring about or actively seeking presidential pardons for their actions on January 6, a clear indication of consciousness of guilt. But there must be many more.

What was the role of the military-intelligence apparatus?

No coup can succeed without the active support or passive consent of the armed forces. For more than three hours, the Pentagon delayed approval of the dispatch of National Guard troops to defend the Capitol. No credible explanation has been given for this delay. Neither acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller nor any high-ranking uniformed officer has given public testimony about their actions on January 6. What were they doing? Who were they in contact with? What discussions were held?

What was Trump doing in the Oval Office as the attack unfolded?

According to Hutchinson, chief of staff Meadows told her several times during those hours that Trump wanted to be alone in his office. Who was he calling, and what did they discuss? He was certainly speaking to members of Congress who were inside the besieged Capitol. What did they discuss? Was he in direct contact with elements in the crowd who had attacked the building? Was he in contact with leaders of the military-intelligence apparatus? What did they discuss?

Why was the Capitol so lightly defended, and who ordered the stand-down?

The threats of violence on January 6 were not made in secret but widely publicized on the internet and even in the corporate media. There had been previous incidents of violence, including dress-rehearsal attacks on state capitols and the fascist plot to kidnap and kill Michigan’s Democratic governor. Yet the Capitol Police were under no extraordinary alert, and there was no preemptive mobilization of the police and military, as there certainly would have been if Trump had won the election and there were threats of a left-wing protest against the certification of his victory.

What was the Democratic Party doing before the attack? 

It was clear to the Democrats what Trump’s intentions were. He had made no secret of his defiance of the election results, and Biden had said, months before the election, that Trump’s possible rejection of an election defeat was his greatest concern. But after the election, Biden and the Democrats spread complacency, suggesting that there was no substance to Trump’s refusal to concede, only his psychological inability to admit defeat. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the top official in Congress, took no action to fortify the Capitol before the certification vote, which Trump was publicly targeting for attack.

What was Biden doing on January 6?

As president-elect, Biden began to receive national security briefings from November 30 on (after an initial delay due to Trump’s refusal to concede defeat). Biden was privy to all the information available to the intelligence apparatus about the threatened violence on January 6, which could not have come as a surprise to him. Yet he said nothing for hours. Why not? Why didn’t he go on television as soon as the dimensions of the attack became apparent and denounce it? Was he in contact with the military-intelligence leadership and, like them, biding his time? Why, when he finally did speak out publicly, was it in the form of an appeal to Trump rather than to the American people?

The comments of House Select Committee members after the hearing and the press coverage which ensued combine to bury these vital political questions, reducing everything to the small change of Trump’s personal conduct—Did he grab the wheel of his protective vehicle, or attack his Secret Service bodyguard, or smash his dinner plate against the wall?

The leading press voices trivialize the hearing, with the Washington Post editorializing, “Jan. 6 testimony shows that Donald Trump is unhinged. Voters must listen.” And the New York Times, which did not even write an editorial publishing a news analysis, headlined, “A President Untethered: In the final, frenzied days of his administration, Donald J. Trump’s behavior turned increasingly volatile as he smashed dishware and lunged at his own Secret Service agent.”

At most, the commentary revolves around whether Trump can be or will be criminally indicted for his actions or about the impact of these revelations on the upcoming midterm elections.

Neither the media nor the Democrats care to discuss what the consequences would have been if Trump’s coup had been successful. What would America have looked like on January 7, 2021? Or on January 20, 2021, with the “peaceful transition of power” forestalled? Or today?

The revelations about January 6 cannot, however, be put back in the bottle. The majority of Americans now believe, according to most polling, that Trump should be indicted and prosecuted for his actions. The Socialist Equality Party fully embraces that sentiment.

The Democratic Party is fearful that in the event of a trial of Trump, there would be evidence coming out of the vast extent of the conspiracy, including large sections of the Republican Party, those whom Biden declares to be his “colleagues” and “friends.” That is why the investigation into January 6 has been dragged out over nearly 18 months, with the most explosive revelations delayed until now. Even the latest exposure seems due to the desire to weaken Trump and his political faction in the November elections, not to alert the American people to the mounting danger to their democratic rights.

But in every capital around the world, capitalist governments understand very well that the United States, the most powerful and heavily armed country in the world, came within minutes of a successful coup, which was forestalled only by bad luck and incompetence on the part of the coup plotters—and that the coup plotters are all at liberty to try again.

Ecuador shaken by anti-government protests, mass strikes over inflation

Dominic Gustavo

Extreme social inequality exacerbated by spiraling inflation, especially food and gas prices, triggered a social explosion in Ecuador. The South American nation of 17.6 million people has been brought to a standstill by mass strikes and demonstrations, plunging the right-wing government of President Guillermo Lasso into crisis. 

Protests began on June 13, when the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) group—the largest of the organizations purporting to represent the country’s 1.1 million indigenous people—called for a national strike, issuing a list of 10 demands including: a reduction in the price of gas and diesel; implementation of price controls on agricultural products; social aid for more than 4 million families; a renegotiation of private debts; a moratorium on the expansion of mining and oil operations on indigenous lands; and a greater allocation of resources towards education and public health. 

The Guardian quoted an indigenous woman from Samanga named Sonia Guamangate who gave a sense of the protesters grievances: “The prices have risen in the city but what we get paid for our agricultural products remain the same… Sometimes they are paying as little as $5 or $6 for a quintal [100kg] of potatoes. That’s a year’s work for some of us.” She added, “They call us ignorant Indians. We are not ignorant; we supply the food for the city.”

Tens of thousands of indigenous farmers and rural laborers descended from the Andes slopes and the Amazonian regions, setting up roadblocks throughout the country and marching in provincial cities before converging on the capital. They were joined in the cities by workers and students, who have also faced economic destitution due to inflation. As one worker, mechanical engineer Miguel Terán, told the Guardian: “There is a clamour among the people, especially those who don’t have a job… It’s very difficult to live when all the prices have risen so much. The fuel prices have gone up, so all the basic products have gone up.”

Since June 21, Quito has been effectively paralyzed by protesters blocking off several key roads near the city center where they engaged in a standoff with police, punctuated by violent clashes.

Other parts of the country were similarly shut down and enveloped by deadly unrest. In Puyo, in Pastaza province, indigenous protesters bearing firearms and ancestral spears engaged in street fighting with soldiers and police, in the process setting fire to the police station and patrol cars. At least six protesters have been killed and hundreds wounded in the brutal state crackdown, which has seen unarmed protesters beaten, shot and gassed by heavily armed militarized police. 

The mass protests have effectively paralyzed the Ecuadorian economy, with oil production having fallen by more than half as a result of road blockades, vandalism and the takeover of oil wells, according to the energy ministry which stated, 'In 14 days of demonstrations, the Ecuadorian state has stopped receiving around $120 million.' The ministry warned Sunday that oil production could grind to a complete halt, “because it has not been possible to transport the supplies and diesel necessary to maintain operations.' Ecuador produced about 520,000 barrels of oil per day before the protests. It should be noted however that the transportation unions have refused to go out on strike, limiting the economic impact of the road blockages. Regardless, the supply disruptions have been immense. 

Lasso initially declared a state of emergency over “grave internal commotions” in six provinces and claimed in televised remarks on June 24 that the leader of CONAIE—Leonidas Iza—was attempting to overthrow the government, saying “It is proven that the true intention of the violent (people) is to generate a coup and that is why we call on the international community to warn of this attempt to destabilize democracy in Ecuador ... Mr. Iza can no longer control the situation. The violence perpetrated by infiltrated criminals has gotten out of hand.”

Just a day later however, Lasso abruptly ceded to the demands of indigenous groups to lift the state of emergency, and the National Assembly announced that it would form a commission to facilitate negotiations with indigenous leaders to bring an end to the protests.

Meanwhile the opposition Union for Hope party—aligned with former president Rafael Correa—had called for the impeachment of Lasso, but fell 12 short of the 92 votes required for the legislature to remove the president from office. Tuesday’s impeachment vote in the National Assembly, however, hardly represents an end to Ecuador’s crisis of bourgeois rule.

Oscillating between limited concessions and police state repression, Lasso seized upon the death of a member of the military in clashes with protesters on Tuesday as the pretext for breaking off talks with leaders of indigenous organizations, including CONAIE. This was accompanied by savage attacks by security forces on Quito’s impoverished San Miguel del Comun neighborhood and against a protest at the University of Cuenca in the country’s south.

In an effort to defuse popular anger, Lasso had earlier pledged on Sunday that he would cut gasoline and diesel prices by 10 cents a gallon, in addition to previously announced fertilizer subsidies and debt forgiveness measures.

These are the actions of a regime in desperate crisis, while also reflecting divisions within the Ecuadorian bourgeoisie over how best to control an increasingly restive population. Sections of the oligarchy are losing confidence in the Lasso government’s ability to manage the situation. But whatever Lasso’s fate, the roots of the current crisis are deep, and cannot be solved on the basis of parliamentary maneuvers.

Lasso, a multimillionaire ex-banker, was elected in April 2021 on the basis of the failure of the governments of Rafael Correa and his successor, Lenin Moreno—part of the pseudo-left “Pink Tide” that swept Latin America—to follow through on promises of social reform, instead lurching sharply to the right. 

Though elected on the basis of right-wing populist promises to create jobs and raise living standards, Lasso’s neo-liberal market policies, which were dictated by the IMF, have entailed sharp cuts in social spending, tax cuts for capitalist investors, the lifting of restrictions on mining and oil drilling, and the surrender of key sections of Ecuador’s economy to imperialist capital.

These policies have resulted in a bonanza for foreign investors and the country’s venal ruling elite, on the one hand. On the other, the IMF austerity measures—combined with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation—have plunged masses of workers and the rural poor into absolute destitution.

According to a report by the NGO CARE, 2022 saw levels of poverty explode in the already deeply unequal nation, with 35 percent of the population living on less than two dollars a day, and 40 percent of households facing food insecurity. Some 8 percent of children will likely be forced to abandon their studies to work, much of it unpaid care work. 

Ecuador has been ravaged by COVID-19, having recorded nearly a million cases and almost 36,000 deaths, almost certainly an undercount. The economic ramifications of the pandemic caused unemployment to skyrocket, and even today just 33.2 percent of Ecuadorians are formally employed, with 22.1 percent classified as underemployed, according to Ecuador’s national labor statistics. 

Such levels of inequality and poverty have inevitably produced extreme social dislocation. Rates of violent crime, which had been declining for years, exploded in 2021, fueled by gang violence and the growth of drug trafficking operations. Deadly riots in the country’s overcrowded prisons—the last was in May, with 44 dead—have become more common, and have provoked outrage among the population, with distraught relatives blaming the government. Since February 2021, nearly 400 inmates have been killed in six separate massacres. 

To all of this must be added the devastating effect of the spiraling inflation, produced by the instability of the world financial markets and the disruption of international supply chains provoked by the US-NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. 

The social explosion in Ecuador must be seen in this broader context. Similar conditions prevail throughout Latin America, which was already the region with the highest debt in the world and riven by the most extreme social inequality. Whatever the immediate outcome of this struggle, it will happen again, and on a larger scale.

The fear gripping the bourgeoisie was expressed in May of last year by outgoing Colombian President Ivan Duque. As his security forces were gunning down protesters, he warned that the pandemic would be the trigger for “great social unrest” that would soon grip other nations in the region.